FRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

---

by: James L. @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:19:43 AM UTC

I guess not...

;-)

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:35:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So who do we have...

To run to succeed Bredesen? Are we hopeless here?

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:37:56 AM UTC

Not entirely

Congressman Lincoln Davis announced we was running. Problem with this is it may be a pain in the ass to keep his seat. His seat isn't exactly safe Dem territory.

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:50:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He'll only run

if Harold Ford doesn't.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:02:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You serious?

Could of sworn he was already announced. That will be bad because if Ford runs and win the nomination he'll lose. Simply because as the last statewide race he ran proved that TN voters buy into racial politics.

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:08:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Psst!

Harold!  Phil!  Lincoln!  Call me!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:21:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could Lincoln win?

He should only give up that 64%-34% McCain House seat if he is certain that he will win the governors race.  Tennessee just keeps getting tougher and tougher for Democrats to win statewide.  

---

by: OliverDannon @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:38:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite frankly

It's a no-win situation for Lincoln.  He won with just 59% this year despite it being a very good year for Democrats nationally and Republicans not really making much of a run at him.  Republicans will probably target his district in 2010, and his district is almost certain to be altered by redistricting -- even if Republicans aren't in complete control of the redistricting process, population shifts mean that his district will probably have to take in more suburban Nashville territory.  So he has little to lose by running for governor.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 05:16:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do You Think It's Possible.....

....that Ford might go down better as a gubernatorial candidate than a Senate candidate?  Or that he'll be better received as a known statewide entity as he runs for a second major office?  That's what happened with Claire McCaskill....and for all intents and purposes Bruce Lunsford as well.  I'm not entirely convinced Ford would be a sure loser.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:18:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Against the right Republican

Maybe.  Against a nutter like Marsha Blackburn, Ford would have a good shot.  Against somebody from the Lamar Alexander mold, he'll probably lose.  Keep in mind that Bob Corker was a pretty mediocre candidate and Ford still lost, albeit narrowly.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 05:23:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Federal legislative vs statewide executive.

In other states, in other cases, there has certainly been a difference.  There are many states that will elect the off-party to statewide executive office, often to counterbalance an overwhelmingly one-party legislature, that would never send the off-party to control a US Senate seat.  So conceptually, there is precedent.  States from Massachusetts to Oklahoma have proved this.

That said, I'd guess it's somewhat easier to elect a black man to a legislative than to an executive office in the South.  Having Harold Ford represent you is a little different than having Harold Ford govern you, in some people's minds, I'd guess.

In short, I think Jim Cooper would find it easier to win governor than Senator, but I'm not sure that Harold Ford would find it any easier.  Which sucks, but there it is.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:13:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He did

announce he was running and said he expected Ford would not run.

---

by: publius2481 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 17:13:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not officially

But he's strongly hinted at it and will almost certainly run.  It's worth a shot.  We really need to hold he Governorship.  Republican in TN already took one chamber this year.  They could definately take the other chamber in 2010.  We need the Governorship to ensure fair redistricting in 2012.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:55:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They had the Senate, and took the House in 2008

but only control the House 50-49.  The thing about Tennessee is that like North Carolina, the governor has no veto over redistricting.  I think it might actually be better if we worked on taking back the state House and then we can preserve the current status-quo in redistricting.  

---

by: OliverDannon @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:57:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you want to take back the state House

Then I don't think ceding an open seat Governor's race is a good idea.

---

by: James L. @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dont disagree

But dont we have someone who wont require us to lose a House seat?  

---

by: OliverDannon @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:09:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ahh yes

Now that I think about it you're probably right.  I believe the TN Governor was a republican prior to 2002 and Dems still drew the map.  Guess there is no veto.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:16:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TN Gov does have a veto

IIRC, Sundquist let the redistricting plan pass into law without his signature.  I can't remember exactly why.  I do know that at that point (2001-02) Sundquist was highly unpopular, and he was trying to pass an income tax, which he knew would need Democratic votes to pass.  He wasn't about to go pissing off a bunch of Democratic legislators to veto their redistricting plan.

But, yes, the Tennessee governor does have the power to veto the redistricting map.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 05:19:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both of you are sort of right

The governor can veto the plan, but the legislature can override his veto with a simple majority vote in both houses.

---

by: publius2481 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 17:15:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Might Be Right.....

Republicans could conceivably snuff out three Democratic seats in Tennessee with a clever redistricting plan.  

---

by: Mark @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:19:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else have a feeling gerrymandering is going to be taken to the extreme in most states where one party will have full control over it next redistricting? I can see the Dems really working in states like IL and CA (when we lose the Gov seat next year) and the GOP likewise in their states. I had been worried about NY, figuring we would lose the NY Senate to the Dems soon, but looks like theres not much else we can lose there now! Except when King runs and loses the US Senate race.


A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:19:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Almost certainly Kyle

I'm all for independent redistricting, but since most states still don't have it both parties have to do what they can to draw a favorable map.  

The thing is, far more key states in 2012 are headed towards split control of redistricting, unlike 2002 where republicans controlled nearly all the key states.  That makes me believe we're going to see a wash redistricting wise.

If I had to make an early guess, I'd say these are the states that one party will control the process entirely in:

Rep Control - TX, FL, GA, UT, SC, OR, ID, IN
Dem Control - CA, NY, NV, CO, NM, MN, IL, NC, HI, AR, WI, MD, NH, ME, MA, WV

Obviously many of those Dem controlled states won't effect redistricting much if any.  Like I said, even with hyper-partisan gerrymandering the net effect is likely a wash.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:44:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

redistricting

I guess there's room for improvement in NC and MN.  But now I'm starting to feel like a dirty partisan...

Also, if Minnick survives through 2010, what could the GOP do in 2012 with ID-01?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 17:05:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't NC just below the cutoff for another seat?

If they did get a 14th seat it could probably be made into a leans Dem seat similar to Brad Miller's district.

Outside of that it will probably be a stretch getting better than an 8-5 split in a 13 seat map without getting into voting rights violations.  Of course that's not to say we can't make some of the marginal to conservative dem districts more favorable.

In Idaho I think repubs would leave it alone.  Right now both of Idaho's seats have the same R+19 lean.  Any adjustment to one district would hurt them in the other.  Anotherwords altering ID-01 into an R+22 seat probably means ID-02 becomes R+15 or 16.  Thankfully Idaho won't get a 3rd seat until 2022.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 18:34:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I forgot that NC was already 8-5

I was probably thinking Michigan and Minnesota or something.

As for Idaho, by 2022, we might actually have a chance at more than one seat--or for that matter, the political landscape might be totally different from what it is now.

But making an R+15 district--that should be pretty darn safe anyway.  I mean, PVIs of 15 and higher are pretty...oh wait.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:19:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just don't see much change

Even if Minnick holds on, which I doubt, they'll probably leave it alone.  The two districts are drawn pretty straightforward as is and they'll beat him eventually.

As for the landscape of Idaho changing in the next dozen years or so, don't count on it.  It's one of the few states where the democraphics are not going our way.  Most of that growth is a combination of conservatives moving there and high birth rate among the Mormons who make up a big chunk of the southern part of the state.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:19:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait, really?

Conservatives are moving to Idaho?

Wait, people move to Idaho?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:28:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, okay,

My apologies for offending Idahoans.

But seriously, I thought it was wealthy urbanites and suburbanites who are the net influx into the sparsely-populated mountain states.

And I thought Idaho also had Democrats settling in it early on, like with Montana (based on what I read when I asked why it was so much more D-friendly than Idaho or Wyoming).  Why is it so Republican now, but not Montana?  How much of that is because of the Mormons?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:30:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Minnesota we can gain

If Minnesota loses a seat, which is more likely than not, it is likely Bachmann who will be gone.

Michigan hinges on 2010.  We now have a solid state house majority, so we're guaranteed at least split control.  I think we need about 4 state senate pickups in 2010, which is definately possible given all senate seats are up for re-election that year.  If we take the state senate and hold the Governorship we'lll control Michigan.  Given the state now has an 8-7 Dem majority delegation we can probably make the lost district a repub one and target 2-3 more repubs in 2012 if we control the process.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:23:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A possibility

Since Davis' district has no real population center, his district could be the easiest to redraw. I'm really not sure the GOOPers can redraw Bart Gordon's and John Tanner's districts without imperiling their own. Cooper and Cohen are safe, as both Nashville and Memphis are strongly blue.

---

by: corran horn @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:12:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something else to consider

I'm not sure what good it will do us in TN should we lose the governorship and fail to regain one of the legislative chambers, but this will be the first round of redistricting in which we Dems will be helming the Justice Dept in 50 years. We've all seen what the efforts of Republican Justice depts have done: Bush 41's oversaw the creation of maps in GA and FL that ended up crippling Dems in those states ever since, and W's greenlit the dummymanders in PA, OH, and MI and, of course, the infamous Delaymander.

---

by: corran horn @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:31:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are

ways to redraw Gordon's to elect a Republican, but doing so would make the 4th more Democratic. My guess is that Republicans will redraw the 4th making it a Republican leaning seat, possibly swapping Republican areas in the 6th with Democratic areas in the 4th, and adding the Northern half of Williamson county to the 4th.  

---

by: publius2481 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 17:21:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a hunch

the GOP will just stick Gordon and Cooper in the same district by combining Gordon's base in Murfreesboro with most of Nashville, leaving out the high-income areas like Belle Meade and Forest Hills.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 17:25:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure if that is possible

Given the population growth in Middle Tennessee, in order to combine them into one district, you would almost have to create two Democratic districts to combine the two, or create a strongly Democratic 4th, so I do not think that makes sense. I think it would be more likely they put Williamson and parts of Davidson into Gordon's district and weaken the 4th by adding areas from the 2nd and 3rd, but that would risk making those two districts possible Democratic pickups.

---

by: publius2481 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:53:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

TN Gov does have veto power over redistricting maps

at least according to this information from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

Tennessee
5. Redistricting Requirements
a) Initial Responsibility for Drawing Congressional Districts: Legislature
b) Initial Responsibility for Drawing Legislative Districts: Legislature
c) Legislative Committee Responsible for Redistricting: Not yet established
d) Use Apportionment Board or Commission? No
e) Gubernatorial Veto Power over Congressional Plan? Yes
f) Gubernatorial Veto Power over Legislative Plan? Yes

http://www.senate.mn/departmen...

---

by: DCal @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:51:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, but

according to my Almanac of Political Science, the governor's veto could be overridden by majority vote. Looks like we'll need both the governorship AND one of the chambers.

---

by: corran horn @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:25:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are there any other states with this rule?

It seems strange to allow a veto override by majority vote.  If this applied to all legislation, the Governor would have no power whatsoever.

---

by: DCal @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:40:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey:

D.A. Bill Gibbons of Memphis is a Republican? But isn't Memphis a largely Dem city?

---

by: jpsrosa @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:47:01 AM UTC

Yes

Memphis is a heavily Dem city.  But Bill Gibbons is the D.A. for all of Shelby County, which includes some very deep-red Republican suburban areas.

Memphis has enough population to outvote the suburbs, but it's possible for a Republican to win local office by winning heavy margins in the suburbs and picking up a few votes in the wealthy parts of Memphis.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 05:11:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]