Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 5/18

by: Crisitunity

Mon May 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM EDT


• NY-Sen-B: Steve Israel might have backed down from a primary challenge to appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, thanks to last Friday's iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove moment from Barack Obama... but fellow Rep. Carolyn Maloney isn't cowed. "I respect the choices that every member makes about their future. Steve Israel's decision to not run for the U.S. Senate was his choice to make, but it doesn't affect my decision-making process," says Maloney. She has reportedly told colleagues of her plans to run, but nothing is official yet.

• KY-Sen: Mitch McConnell was tap-dancing like crazy when Chris Wallace asked him point blank on Fox News Sunday whether or not he endorsed Jim Bunning for re-election, restating endless variations on the theme that the race is unfolding and it's not clear who the players are yet.

• CT-Sen: Another random primary challenger to Chris Dodd has surfaced: Merrick Alpert, a former Air Force officer, aide to Al Gore, and software company executive. Although his online statement about his candidacy attacked Dodd's "corporate campaign contributors," Merrick's previous track record in the leadership of Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century (or DL21C for short), a group for centrist pro-business young Democrats, suggests he may be running to Dodd's right.

• WV-Sen: Best wishes to 91-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, who was hospitalized over the weekend as a "precautionary measure" after he developed a fever from a minor infection.

• NY-Gov: Tom Golisano, wealthy gadfly who lost three gubernatorial runs on the Independence Party line, will not be running in 2010, despite some speculation he might run for the GOP nod this time. He's changing his legal residence from New York to Florida, saying he wants to avoid New York's high taxes.

• ID-Gov: Weirdo conservative Rex Rammell, who spend a lot his own money to run as an Independent in last year's Idaho Senate race because of his disdain for Jim Risch (and ultimately had little impact on the race), has caught the political bug and been casting about for a new race. After considering primarying Rep. Mike Simpson in ID-02, he's now planning to run in the 2010 Governor's race. He seems to think current Gov. Butch Otter will retire after only one term (although he freely admits, "I could be totally wrong").

• Redistricting: Roll Call has an interesting piece detailing organizational steps the Democrats are undertaking for the 2010-12 redistricting process. Apparently many felt caught flat-footed for the 2000 round of redistricting, and are wisely revving up years in advance this time.
Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 5/18
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
SSP Daily Digest: 5/18 | 120 comments
Kentucky
This may be reading way too much into it, but I take McCaonnell's evasions to mean that Bunning is still in the race or at least leaning that way.  When Grayson came out with the explatory committee, I thought it meant Bunning planned to get out.  But, if that were the case, then McConnell would just say nice things about Bunning.  His evasions feel like he's still trying to push him out.  
another thing
I spoke to Congressman Rodney Alexander over the weekend and he said that Charlie Melancon told him he wasn't running for senate, not that we didn't already know this but rumors were still running and the DSCC is still trying to convince him to give up a cozy house seat for a risky statewide race.

Alexander actually surprised me by telling me State Senator Eric LaFleur was going to run for Senate according to his sources.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

A good friend of mine works in a polling firm.
Last night he told me they did a poll for the DSCC and for Melancon.  He said Vitter's numbers were surprisingly high.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com
[ Parent ]
its a shame, but
even the slimy hypocrite that Vitter is, and how conservative he is, Louisiana voters are going to happily vote for him, if only to send a message to the stupid liberal Democrats and Obama.

On another note, I've been discovering more and more north Louisiana, white, evangelical voters who voted for Obama but against Mary Landrieu. Every where actually, and I've yet to find someone who voted for her but against Obama, even though there must be a whole lot more of those people. A lotta people really really hate the Landrieu's.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
I just don't believe this
I've been discovering more and more north Louisiana, white, evangelical voters who voted for Obama but against Mary Landrieu.

About 6% of white evangelical voters in LA voted for Obama.  Many of them are lying about voting for Obama to attack Landrieu.

[ Parent ]
No, these are people I know very well
I'm finding a lot of it.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Simple math
If you just run the numbers, the universe of whites who voted for Obama and John Kennedy is extremely small.  
[ Parent ]
yes, i just found
it odd I know so many of them.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
How many have you found?
Can you quantify the number, if possible?  I'm surprised too that there are many who voted for Obama and then voted against Landrieu.

Do you think besides the "I hate the Landrieu name" crowd, there may also be a group that was just voting against the incumbent party in power?  I'm just trying to figure out this mindset, and I don't know if that played in it at all.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
well, mostly very religious
and conservative people, fed up with Bush but hate landrieu, the exact number? somewhere between 6-7 people, including two couples involved with my Grandparents church.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I bet these same people you talk about voting for Obama and against Landrieu
are likely candidates to vote for the Republican in the 2012 election.  Do you agree?

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
not likely.


Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Sadly
I believe it.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
Rodney Alexander is a scumbag
of the highest order.  A true piece of shit.  
[ Parent ]
Funny
He says the nicest things about you! :)

I really don't see anybody beating Vitter but I still think it worthy of at least trying. Beyond the big 5 and a possible special election in Texas there isn't much left in terms of offense and Dems really need to spread the GOP as thinly as possible. Unless of course the other side start raising more...

[ Parent ]
Did you not forget what Alexander did in 2004?
He is a piece of shit scumbag.
[ Parent ]
I was being snarky
But yes that was rather poor form.
[ Parent ]
its not like he votes all
that differently as a Republican or that his switch at all affected the balance of power. Congressman Alexander is a very nice guy, and I appreciate how quiet he is, he's not one of the loud and obnoxious Republicans like Westmoreland, or Price, of Bachmann who disgrace the office.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Radically changed
Rodney Alexander had a Progressive Punch score of around 40 when he switched parties.  That's pretty much identical to Walt Minnick at the extreme edge of the Democrats but higher than any Republican.  Since the switch, his career score sunk like a stone to it current 21.  Rodney got here by scoring 5s (his score for the present session is 5.97).  Going from a 40 to a 5 overnight is hardly voting the same.

An equivalent would probably be Specter voting as a somewhat liberal Democrat with a score of 93 or 94.  People currently expect a score in the 60 to 70 range from Specter, a 94 would be a very pleasant surprise.

Republicans got somebody to the right of their median not somebody at their extreme left.  

[ Parent ]
Glad to see Maloney hanging in there
I don't expect her to cave in to any Obama pressure.  Why Obama is meddling in this race is beyond me.  Let him meddle in his home state race if he feels the need to meddle.
I wouldn't feel comfortable about a primary
until we are completely certain Rudy is out. If someone is going to force Gillibrand to burn tons of cash, she'd better be looking at a token GOP opponent should she win the primary. Obama made the right move, IMO.  
[ Parent ]
Rudy is said to be rumored to be interested
in the Governor's race, not the Senate race. Pataki is the only thing they got. Let Carolyn Maloney run. She'll get spanked, simple as that.  Gillibrand has moved very adeptly to the Senate seat and has represented the state's interests well in her votes so far. She's charismatic, a strong fundraiser, a rising star in Democratic circles, Maloney's run is far more about her own ambitions and the upstate, downstate divide, even though Gillibrand is the only upstate New Yorker holding a statewide office.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I would be against a primary in NY
even if the Repubs put up no opposition.  Because it wastes 40 million that could go to other races to primary a senator (Gillibrand) who almost always votes with us.

A primary to Specter may make sense, a primary to Gillibrand by some extreme purists is just dumb.

[ Parent ]
He is "meddling"
Because he would rather the party and its donors not waste millions in NY when that money could be better spent winning several Republican held seats in other states. You might not agree with it but the rationale is clear.
[ Parent ]
Why you keep pumping your purity crap is beyond me

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't mind so much if there was clear water there
But Maloney isn't as liberal as some believe and Gillibrand wasn't really that conservative even before she changed a few positions to fit her enlarged constituency. In the current economic environment I can't see guns being enough of an issue to mount a successful primary.
[ Parent ]
Hey now, it's not all about "purity" for all of us.
Personally, I think each race should be decided by voters in a primary, not by party bosses.  Primaries are good things and if we get to the point where we're avoiding practicing democracy then the Democratic party has lost its way far sooner than it should have.  Bottom line, let anyone who wants to run do so and let the people of New York decide.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com
[ Parent ]
Ive come to grown in that sentiment
Primaries are primaries, nobody earns a seat except by the process and a primary is certainly part of the process.  
[ Parent ]
It is another kind of purity
process arguments are a "luxury issue" as Bill Clinton called it, and a luxury we do not have right now given the danger that the Repub Party poses to the country today.
[ Parent ]
It is a luxury we do have
The universe of seats in which Republicans can mount effective challenges in excludes more or less anything above D+5, barring corruption or other special circumstances.

And New York is way above D+5, there's no threatening Republican candidate for Senate and most of the money in the NY race is likely to be corporate cash that won't stop them giving elsewhere.

I'd probably vote for Gillibrand, but there is a right to a primary and there's no point whinging about it. If there's dissent, it needs to be aired. The refusal of Republicans to do that (because the CfG doesn't represent dissent, it represents already dominant trends) is what gave Ron Paul his opening in 2008. And the Democratic party is much more pluralistic, so a revolt like that would have much more chance of being successful somewhere and causing mayhem.

[ Parent ]
Why you keep your Gillibrand brown nosing crap is beyond me

[ Parent ]
Because she is a good Democrat
and I want to elect more Democrats rather than wasting it on a useless and expensive bogus primary.
[ Parent ]
Useless
Who says its "useless"?  You say it, but that doesn't make it so.  Maloney is a far better representative of New York Democrats than Blue Dog Kirsten.  Anyone fooled by her election year conversion, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Using money as an excuse to foreclose a primary, and thereby insulate someone who wasn't even elected to the seat from challenge, is totally bogus.

[ Parent ]
Senator Gillibrand is a liberal
not a Blue Dog.  Period.  I look at her Senate record not her House one.  She's got my support.

She is of course a politician.  But so is everyone else.  I hope Obama pushes everyone else out of this race.

[ Parent ]
Texas Attorney General
BOR says State Sen. Royce West of Dallas is taking a look at the race. West got elected as a standing member of the DNC in 2008 and is a big deal in African American, urban democratic politics.

West joins Fmr. Travis County AG Ronnie Earl in the rumored phase. Currently Lawyer and incompetent campaigner Barbara Radnofski is in.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

NC-Sen
CNN reports that the DSCC is looking at Shuler, Etheridge, Moore and Dalton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

Ack, ack, ack, ack
Might as well go for a state senator at this point.  Worked against Dole.
[ Parent ]
nah,
more or Elaine Marshall would be good candidates, McIntyre, though he's conservative, would be a great candidate.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
lets hope
that democrats do a better job with redistricting. I'm not in favor or doing to Republicans what they did to us, but at least making it rational. There is no way that states that have gone for Gore/Kerry/Obama should have more Republicans than Democrats (Pennsylvania, Michigan are the two that came to mind, at least BEFORE Democrats killed in the 2006 midterms)  
I'm in favor of doing whatever it takes
to remove as many Repubs out as possible.  My hope is that if Dems have complete control in these states, the delegations should look like this:
CA: 40-13
IL: 14-4 or 15-3
MI: 12-2
MN: 7-0 or 7-1
WI: 7-1

Use enhanced redistricting techniques to make that happen.

[ Parent ]
your minesota and Wisconsin
maps are unrealistic and impossible, far, far, over reaching. in Wisconsin you couldn't do it and it wouldn't be safe, Democrats would fall flat on their face and lose a bunch of seats in a bad environment, like in Georgia after 1992.

A few people in Minnesota politics already pointed out your ideas their are unreasonable as well.

Your Michigan Map has me almost laughing and wondering where you intend to get the votes?  Michigan is a state Democrats are already almost maxed out on at the moment.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Michigan is maxed out?
Dems have only taken 2 seats this decade in a republican drawn map. It's an 8-7 Delegation. If MI is losing 1 seat I think 10-4 is possible.

12-2 is ridiculous though.

14-5 seems reasonable in Illinois under a real redistricting effort though.

7-0 is ridiculous in MN and WI though, you are right there. Those could be 6-1 or 5-2

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
5-2 more like it
6-1 would really be pushing it.

As far as Michigan goes I said, 'Maxed out at the moment" people should not use Obama's numbers as the low bar here and district accordingly, and you also have to take into account popular inucmbnets, etc. I think that a well drawn 10-4 map is possible though, I'm going to start working on it today though it would have no gurantees.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Dem Incumbents tend to hold seats
unless they are in really bad ones.  If we get them into office, they will usually hold them.  There is absolutely no reason to shore up incumbents like Schauer and Peters.  In fact, I'd have no problem in making their seats less Democratic in order to eliminate some Repubs currently in office.

Given how popular the Repubs are in Michigan, Obama's numbers are really the low bar.

[ Parent ]
correction
in the last few, favorable cycles they have tended to hold seats.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Count the number of incumbent Democrats
since 1994 who have lost in districts that Obama won.  

I'm willing to bet that it is fewer than 10, if not fewer than 5.

[ Parent ]
unfair
It is completely unfair to compare these, as they are apples to oranges. After the 94 elections, all Democrats had left for the most part were Democratic leaning districts. They lost horribly that year, so saying that less than ten of them would have lost isn't saying that much. What we SHOULD be asking is if the political winds changes just 5% points or so, how many of our incumbents are we going to lose in 2010, or to remain on topic, in the cycles following redistriting.
[ Parent ]
Obama won Michigan by 16%
I think drawing a 12-2 map is doable.

You stick Muskegeon and Grand Rapids in one district, and Ottawa Co and the rest of the 2nd in one Repub one.  The other Repub district takes everything bad in Northern Mich with all the bad areas on the Indiana/Ohio border using touch point contiguity.  That should produce two more districts in Western Michigan.

Eliminate Candice Miller's district, and split it several ways.  Draw McCotter into Detroit.  Weaken both Levin and Kildee, both of them have too many Democrats.  Split Livingston Co into several districts.  For Conyers/Dingell/Kilkpatrick, add the most Repub areas in the Detroit suburbs to their districts.  Make Conyers and Kilkpatrick's districts exactly 50% black.

Redraw Mike Rogers district by removing Livingston Co and adding areas in Flint and Pontiac.  That should take care of him.

[ Parent ]
so basically,
you're saying that Obama's win, after McCain gave the whole state the finger, is a good bellweather mark for redistricting? That's laughable.

You're spreading everything out way too thin and that's what Republicans tried to do and feel flat on their faces. Also, strongly decreasing the black vote in Conyers and Kilpatrick's districts would possible violate the VRA by taking away the rights of black voters, SCOTUS already overruled the Texas gerrymander of TX-23, which took the hispanic vote from 63% to 50%, on the same grounds.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
The Repub gerrymander worked
2006 and 2008 are sea changes, and was the beginning of a realignment.

Had we not had the realignment, the Repub gerrymanders would have held for the entire decade.

I want the most aggressive gerrymander in every state.  I'm not interested in shoring up Democratic incumbents (like Peters and Schauer) who already have a district that Obama won.  If you can't hold onto districts like that, then you don't belong in Congress.

[ Parent ]
its idiotic
to think that making a bunch of districts marginally Democratic is going to make them vote Democratic. In addition Democrats might not have complete control of the gerrymandering in Michigan.

You are so rabidly partisan that you willfully support undermining Democracy itself. A state like Michigan, which is about 60-40 Democratic-Republican and you are suggesting a map which gives Republicans 14.2% of the seats. 28.4% would be pushing it enough. You really need to take a step back sometimes and question your beliefs and your single-minded devotion to a brand even on issues that you don't fully know all the details on, (this is just in general), otherwise you're no better than many of the people on Red State.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
The right number of seats that the Repubs
should get is zero.  That's how many they deserve.  If I could ensure that they would get nothing, I would in a heartbeat.  They are pure garbage.

I am rabidly partisan, and I make absolutely no apologies for that.  None whatsoever.  The Repubs are a danger to this country, and the less power they have, the less damage to the country and world.

In many ways, I admire the methods of Karl Rove and Tom Delay.  I would like to see the Democrats use their methods tenfold, because that would reduce the power of the Repubs, which would be good for the country.  Period.


[ Parent ]
well, I will never
abuse political power to oppress the minority and subvert Democracy, that would be a greater danger to America than Republican policies and the precedent it sets is terrible. I didn't like it when Republicans used divisive Rovian tactics on Democrats, and gerrymandered everything to the extreme and I, because I'm not a hypocrite, will not do the same.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I guess you would rather
have a right-wing Repub dictatorship than compromise your little precious "principles".
[ Parent ]
Goodness
Without principles-- one of which is fair, representative democracy-- what's the point? It's not about just winning for the sake of winning, it's about presenting to the American people a vision and convincing them to let you implement that vision.

You're describing an attitude that I expect from Republicans-- win and crush the opposition at all costs. And what happened? They lost. Why the hell would you want to emulate losers?

We win when we stand up for the ideals of fairness and democracy. We don't need to be bullies, we just have to not be stupid.

[ Parent ]
Your tone is not acceptable here
If you can't disagree with someone without mocking or denigrating their beliefs, then walk away. And as we've told you before, it's long past time to move on from this pet topic of yours.
[ Parent ]
Wow. Textbook ad hominem arguing
Ad hominem
replying to an argument ..  by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument ...

[ Parent ]
And this wasn't an ad hominem
personal attack on me?

You are so rabidly partisan that you willfully support undermining Democracy itself. A state like Michigan, which is about 60-40 Democratic-Republican and you are suggesting a map which gives Republicans 14.2% of the seats. 28.4% would be pushing it enough. You really need to take a step back sometimes and question your beliefs and your single-minded devotion to a brand even on issues that you don't fully know all the details on, (this is just in general), otherwise you're no better than many of the people on Red State.

[ Parent ]
Good point! Great justification!
Please keep making more attacks on other users!
In fact, the more the better! That's exactly what SSP needs more of!
[ Parent ]
Exactly
The proper response to an alleged ad hominem is not a further ad hominem.
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous
So the hell what if a state's delegation doesn't match it's vote spread.  Should we give back our delegation majorities in West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee?  Should we give back seats in states in which we have either all the seats (ie. Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico) or have a disprortionate number thereof (ie. New York, Washington, Oregon, etc.)? Absolutely not.  To whatever extent we can sustain it, I say we use redistricting to our advantage.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Yeah should Nebraska be forced to make Democrats a seat?
Obama won a congressional district there yet our candidate was too lame to win on his coattails but I don't think that gives us the right to call foul and cry our way to court if we can't figure out a way to win that seat.  
[ Parent ]
I agree entirely
EXCEPT... That seas of change... well... change. Today the Democrats are in power, and are popular. But 8 years is not a long time, but it is a lifetime in politics. The GOP was dominant in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, or at least dominant enough to control the process. But if we spread our numbers too thin, we might very well find ourselves in the position of Pennsylvanian Republicans who pushes their districts to the breaking point. Had the winds of change not pushed to the Democrats favor, we would still have a minority in the Pennsylvania's delegation, and should the winds change again, we might easily find ourselves back in the position.

This is like a game. If you push yourself too far, you lose if things change and stop going your way, if you don't push hard/far enough, you lose... YOu have to find a good balance to ensure the maximum amount of seats with the maximum amount of incumbent protection.

[ Parent ]
I'll take that chance
2012 will likely be a massive Obama and Democratic landslide, with the Repubs at their lowest point.  If there is any opportunity to deliver a death blow to the Repub Party, 2012 is it.  That's the one chance we have to gerrymander the hell out of states we control and pick up a whole bunch of seats.  And then use them to push through our agenda big time when the country is behind us.

These years are like 1933-1938, and we won't get another opportunity again.  Even if the Repubs win back many of these seats later in the 2010s, they won't be able to undo the Democratic agenda.

And the Repubs were very successful in MI and PA, they would have held those seats easily without the realignment wave in 2006 and 2008.  They weren't stupid at all to gerrymander the states.  

[ Parent ]
12-2? That would be nice.
I don't see anything better than a 9-5 or possibly a 10-4 split in the near future.  I hope you are right and I am wrong.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
It's going to take guts
and pissing off both Repubs and entrenched Dems who want to strengthen their own districts.
[ Parent ]
I agree
The districts will be re-drawn and they should help us out in 2012.  We should gain a seat or two no matter what in 2012.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
But 12-2?
I'm not sold on that at all.  If there was a GOP tide in the next 10 years, we could be staring at a 7-7 split, too, if not worse.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
The latter is a possible downside
but a chance that I'm well, more than willing to take.
[ Parent ]
I can appreciate that
And I respect your ideas.  Contrary to what other people may think, it's good to ponder these scenarios.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
Michigan could split 10-4 with the current districts
McCotter is very beatable and Rogers' district is ours if he leaves it for whatever reason (although he'll be difficult to take out.)

That being said, I don't see it getting much better than that.  A redistricting effort should really focus on three goals.

1) shoring up Mark Shauer (sp.) in the 7th, which will be easy by taking some Dems from Dingle.  Keep in mind this is a Republican district we only won b/c of the boneheaded, self-destructive Club for Growth,

2) Making the 8th and 11th marginally more Democratic, which should pick them off.  This won't be too difficult either.  The way to do it in the 8th isn't by taking out Livingston County, since there's really nowhere to put it without making the 7th more Republican (and would cut Rogers out of his district, which is pretty dirty.)  No, the thing to do would be to cut out Clinton County, almost as Republican, and give it to Ehlers in the 3rd.  In the 11th, just take a few more dems from Dingle in the 15th. It'll only take a half-dozen precincts.

3) Maybe make Fred Upton's district a little more Democratic and hope he leaves.  

Keep in mind Michigan will lose a district, which makes the analysis more interesting and difficult.  I look forward to what you come up with, ArkDem.  

[ Parent ]
I should've added
and "if possible" to point #3.
[ Parent ]
Well
I find #1 pointless.  Schauer should be able to keep his Obama-leaning district as it is.  I find no reason to shore him up, and it should be the last priority.

Michigan today is 8-7, so my 12-2 plan has already eliminated a district, which is MI-10, Candice Miller's district.

MI-8 becomes an unwinnable district for Rogers if Livingston Co is removed. I would split Livingston several ways, partially to the central MI Repub district, the rest to the hardest core Dem districts (use touch point contiguity to put it in Conyers and Kilkpatrick's district.)

and would cut Rogers out of his district, which is pretty dirty.

I find this kind of thinking to be wrong, as it is well deserved for a worthless Repub like Rogers.  Cut him out, I have no problems with that.  The Repubs have done it to us many times.

Ehlers district would become Muskegeon and Kent counties, removing the hardest core Repub suburbs from Kent County.  Ehlers would probably retire (he is ancient) and a democrat would pick up the open seat.

As far as Upton's district, this one is the toughest if Upton doesn't retire.  The best I can do is to remove Allegan and the worst of the Kalamazoo suburbs and add some areas in rural Northern Michigan  

[ Parent ]
Minnesota
Unless you draw a very crazy map that would never meet the requirements of state law there is no way you can draw a 7-0 map in Minnesota and a 6-1 map is highly unlikely.

Minnesota law requires that the splitting of counties and cities be kept to a minnimum. Of course some splitting is unavoidable but you will not see the highly gerymandered districts you do in other states.

BTW a bill that creates a non partison re-districting board in Minnesota has passed the state Senate and is awaiting action in the House. The session has to end by midnight tonight so I am not sure if the House will get to the bill.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
I would support the use
of enhanced redistricting techniques, for example, touch point contiguity.

Also, I would refuse to shore up Collin Peterson.  We'll likely lose that district when he retires, so I'd give him additional Repub exurban territory.

Eliminate Bachmann by splitting her seat several ways, giving the worst of the district (Wright, Benton, etc) to Ellison.  Give the worst of Anoka, Washington Co to McCollum, and the less bad areas to Oberstar.  

Then redraw the 2nd and 3rd into the inner Minneapolis suburbs and St. Paul, while some of the exurbs in the 2nd go to Peterson.

There's your potential 7-0 map.

Don't forget, we came close to a 7-1 Democratic delegation this year, both Paulsen and Bachmann were in tough races.

[ Parent ]
it was 50-49?
we're not likely to lose the district. Heck, you'd be making all the districts in the state that conservative for your plan.

I think a 6-2 map is very likely and it wouldn't be at risk for collapsing.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Probably illegal
Touch point contiquity would probably be in illegal in Minnesota because state law requires districts be compact.

Also I don't see how you could draw a map putting Wright, Benton or Carver counties (Rep strongholds) in a district anchored by Minneapolis.  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
Here's my district
The district for Ellison would be as follows: Sherburne, Wright, Benton, the Hennepin County cities of Dayton, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center, and almost all of Minneapolis.  Bachmann would probably choose to run here.

This district gave Obama a 65-34 edge in 2008.  It gave Franken a 53-33-14 edge.  Ellison would probably be a slight favorite in this district over Bachmann in a normal year, and a huge favorite running with Obama's coattails.

I could make the district even less Dem by adding more exurban territory and removing Minneapolis.

And I didn't even use touch point contiguity

[ Parent ]
I mean removing parts of Minneapolis

[ Parent ]
Wisconsin is two Rep seats for sure in 2012
Cramming Ryan, Sensenbrenner and Petri into two districts could be done, but no way on Earth can enough people be crammed into Sensenbrenner's district to make only one Rep seat... Petri would win up to a D+5 or so seat.

If both Ryan and Petri leave the House, and Sensenbrenner's seat is made as deep red as possible, yes, we could win all the seats but one, but not while either stays in Congress.

[ Parent ]
Ryan can be easily eliminated
Remove Waukesha Co and add portions of Milwaukee, Ryan is gone (heck he would probably run for the Senate anyway).

You are probably right about WI-6, but what we can do is to make that district a bit more hostile for him, recruit an attractive candidate to push him to retirement.  

I would make WI-5 deep red, and would use touch point contiguity to attach the worst areas of what is now WI-1, WI-5, and WI-6 to give him a blood red district.

OTOH, it is possible that Sensenbrenner may retire, if that is so, then you put Petri's home in the blood red district and try to push him to run there.

If both Petri and Sensenbrenner retire, could we push for 8-0?  Probably not, but if the stars align (a likely Obama and Democratic landslide), it may be possible to make WI-5 and WI-6 lean enough to allow Dems to win them both, but that is a huge huge risk and would probably result in us losing both.

[ Parent ]
If Petri would be in the blood red district
that would be great since he would be wildly to the left of the midpoint of such a district.  that's the best case WI scenario, all Dems but one moderate Rep.

Still, I don't think there is a chance of beating Ryan or Petri even with gerrymandering, without putting the Milwaukke district or Kagen in trouble.  Moving the 6th border even five miles north would make Kagen lose.

[ Parent ]
Now that I think of it
I suppose that five mile thing applied to Kagen2006.  The mill towns could go to the 6th now and he likely would still win, but still it's better to keep them in the 8th if Petri intends to serve till he's 80.
[ Parent ]
Kagen is now the incumbent
he will win handily in 2010 and 2012 now I think.

[ Parent ]
2010 yes, but 2012 is a problem
Kagen's issue is his very strongest area is lterally at the very southern border of his district.  If his lines went five miles north, and thus also 25 miles west, he'd be in a much harder district.

That southern line of his district is critical.

[ Parent ]
Ryan
will probably run for the open senate seat in 2012 however, giving Democrats a great shot at his seat. Wisconsin would have to maintain at least two seats and I disagree with strange and elaborate gerrymanders using touch point continuity and spaghetti patterns.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
We have a new name for it
enhanced redistricting techniques.
[ Parent ]
Amen friend.
Democrats can be just as corrupt as Republicans.  Accountability measures need to be in place to protect the right to vote and the right to a fair election from all parties.

That said, I don't know much about Ryan or his district.  Care to clue me in?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
It is not corruption to
use enhanced redistricting techniques.  
[ Parent ]
no but unchecked
and unchallenged power breeds corruption, that's the point we're trying to make.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
South Africa
is a perfect example of this.  The ANC is unstoppable when it comes politically with them getting 66% of the vote in the last election and the next highest vote total was 16%.  Because of one party rule, the ANC is completely fucked with corruption up and down the board.  I dont have examples but from what I heard when I was there, he's had plenty of people killed for political reasons.  It's a slippery slope, you get power and try to maintain by strong arming and soon enough, you have a House full of  Tom Delay's using despicable tactics to get shit passed.

Securing one party rule and ensuring as little competition from the opposing party as possible is a one way ticket to corruption.  Not that I was politically aware but wasn't that one of the main charges against the Dems in 1994?  People dont have a reason to hate Democrats now and we clearly have the better policy positions for the country so creating some massive majority in the House through gerrymandering the hell out of the country is great short term but long term, Americans will start to get curious about what else is out there when all they hear is the Democratic message.

[ Parent ]
Well that would eventually fail
if the Democrats had one party rule (and I think they will for a while) and got corrupt (which they eventually will) they will be bounced out on their ass by a moderate opposition party (hopefully a new Party, this wingnut Repub Party should die.)

But the "opposition" party today is a bunch of crazies, and until they completely moderate and retool, or die (and get replaced by something else), they should have as little power as possible.  The ideal amount of power for today's Repub Party is zero.  They offer the country nothing positive.

[ Parent ]
Progressive legislation
Much of the progressive legislation passed in the last century came from four congresses: those elected in 1932,1934,1936 and 1964.  IIRC, Democrats had at least 295 House votes (and over 300 for the FDR glory years).

Those were overwhelmingly productive rather than corrupt years.  I'd take another six year streak like that right now.  In fact, Jimmy Carter had a similar margin for his first two years and accomplished little.

A lot of that had to do with the diverse nature of the Democratic Party.  The Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs make it neccessary to have a big majority to really get things done beyond mending Republican mistakes.

Moderate gains are reasonable.  For most of this decade Michigan Republicans enjoyed a 9-6 edge from a mildly Democratic state.  A 9-5 or 10-4 Democratic margin is certainly possible for the next decade.  Similarly, adding one seat in Wisconsin (Ryan's) or Minnesota also seems doable.  Pushing beyond that may make things difficult.

[ Parent ]
Progressive legislation
Much of the progressive legislation passed in the last century came from four congresses: those elected in 1932,1934,1936 and 1964.  IIRC, Democrats had at least 295 House votes (and over 300 for the FDR glory years).

Those were overwhelmingly productive rather than corrupt years.  I'd take another six year streak like that right now.  In fact, Jimmy Carter had a similar margin for his first two years and accomplished little.

A lot of that had to do with the diverse nature of the Democratic Party.  The Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs make it neccessary to have a big majority to really get things done beyond mending Republican mistakes.

Moderate gains are reasonable.  For most of this decade Michigan Republicans enjoyed a 9-6 edge from a mildly Democratic state.  A 9-5 or 10-4 Democratic margin is certainly possible for the next decade.  Similarly, adding one seat in Wisconsin (Ryan's) or Minnesota also seems doable.  Pushing beyond that may make things difficult.

[ Parent ]
If you truly oppose corruption
you would oppose incumbent protection in redistricting.  The biggest reason for corruption is the huge advantages that incumbents have in election races, and that they are never threatened for reelection.

My philosophy is clear, incumbent protection is the last priority for me unless McCain carried your district.

[ Parent ]
fairly swingish
conservative leaning but voted for Obama. I really think it could be altered to be fairly Democratic leaning, leaving it a great opportunity in 2012 when Ryan runs for Senate, in Kohl's widely assumed open seat, likely against Ron Kind, the match up that's been presumed since around 2000 or so.

That and Obama's coattails make it an appealing option in WI and really the best opportunity for a pick up in the state. But, aside from that anything else would be pushing it.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Isn't Kind something of a Bush Dog?
We could do much better in Wisconsin IMO.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com
[ Parent ]
I generally agree
Although you do have to remember that we almost lost Wisconsin in 2000 & 2004. I think a lot of Democrats there are a lot like Kind. I'd love to see Tammy Baldwin in that seat, but that might be a bit too much.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
This was obviously supposed to be in response to ARDem


22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
Response to Nico
The thing that bothers me most about Kind is his support for free trade deals.  It's odd to me that when Democrats like him seek to moderate they seem to think that pushing a corporate agenda is the answer-I just don't get it.  That said, Wisconsin is a midwestern state where great Democrats have gotten elected and it has a progressive bent.  Tammy Baldwin might not be that much of stretch, but that's still more than three years off so who knows who'll be running.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com
[ Parent ]
Along the coast
it's the blue cities of racine and Kenosha.  Inland is red.  North of Racine/Kenosha is blue Milwaukee.  If the district went further up the coast it would be Democratic, if it does not, it's really a coin flip without Ryan.
[ Parent ]
as is your Illinois map too
Obama's coattails aren't an accurate bellweather, even though many of the Chicago burbs are going dem. In California I think Democrats can try to safely get rid of 5 incumbents.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
As far as I know
Obama will be on the ballot in 2012.  Great opportunity to eliminate some Repubs from Congress.

Eliminate Peter Roskam's seat.  Draw Kirk into Chicago, he's gone.  Biggert will probably retire, and her seat becomes an open seat.  Downstate, combine Johnson and Shimkus, and draw another Dem seat down there.

[ Parent ]
probably not
and their no need to eliminate Roskam, he's the one I'd move closer into Chicago and with Kirk I would shift around some territory between him and Schakowsky.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
40-13 in California
That would be phenomenal - do you have an idea of how that could happen?

I'm kind of afraid that the Assembly and Senate Democrats will pussy out again and put in another incumbent protection map. Proposition 11 is going to throw a huge monkey wrench into the process for state legislature districts, though.

[ Parent ]
40-13 is possible.
Considering we have eight Obama-Repubican districts, most of which border very Democratic areas. If the Dems are ambitious, then Lungren (CA-03), Dreier (CA-26), Calvert (CA-44), and Bilbray (CA-50) will definitely be in big trouble, and probably also Gallegly (CA-24), McKeon (CA-25), Bono Mack (CA-45), and Campbell (CA-48).

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
And the 2002 incumbent protection was necessary.
The D's had a lot of vulnerable incumbents, mostly freshmen, a very unpopular governor, and the Gary Condit scandal didn't help either. So unless we see 2000-style gains in 2010, it is unlikely we will get another incumbent-protection map.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Vulnerable?
No way.  There was one vulnerable seat in 2000.  2000 was the time to gerrymander, when gaining a seat.  With no change, an incumbent protection plan is what we'll get... with the exception of probably Calvert's district, and Gallegly if he retires.
[ Parent ]
I absolutely hate incumbent protection
incumbents have enough damn advantages as it is already.  Incumbent protection of what are already safe or leaning districts only protects the worst people in Congress.  

It is one thing to shore up an incumbent in a hostile district (say Travis Childers in MS-1).  It is another thing to shore up someone in a marginal or leaning district (like Mark Schauer or Gary Peters in MI-7 and MI-9) or what should be a safe one (John Murtha).

[ Parent ]
Actually
there were several Dems who had won close races in 2000, namely Ellen Tauscher, Cal Dooley, Lois Capps, Jane Harman, and Susan Davis plus a couple of freshmen that won GOP-held seats, Mike Honda and Adam Schiff. Had we tried being more aggressive in 2002, a year where Republicans were on the upswing and Gray Davis was not exactly Mr. Popularity, we'd probably have faced a backlash like Republicans in Pennsylvania and to an extent Florida, Michigan, and Ohio faced for spreading their voters too thin. We'd probably have a close to 50-50 delegation like we did in the 90s, though the state as a whole has become more Democratic in the 2000s than it was in the 90s.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Read the stats
None of those races was close, except davis beating an incumbent.  Tauscher won by 8.5 points.  That's not "close" in any sense.

2002 was a disaster because we were not just not aggressive, we were absolute pansies.

And we were for the sole reason that California's Democratic party is full of hacks who love safe seats.  Take one Dem voter from one and they will squal like a pig... except for someone like Tauscher who feared too many Dems would make her vulnerable to a primary challenge.

When one seat was added, California Dems acted like pantywaists.  With no seats added or lost, it will be much worse this time.  there are no Dem members of Congress who would happily give up 10% of his/her Democratic vote to give to a neighboring marginal district.

[ Parent ]
8.5%
True it isn't "close" close, but considering 2000 was a great year for Dems in California following the great election year of 1998, 8.5% is not all that great and is still close enough that Tauscher could have been vulnerable in a less friendly Democratic year (2002 and 2004 come to mind). Keep in mind that her district was actually held by a Republican in 1992 and 1994, which were not so great years for Dems in California then. If her district had similar numbers in 2002 as in the 90s, she could very well have been wiped out, along with some of the other Dems in shaky districts.

Here are the registration and presidential numbers in districts that were considered "vulnerable" in 2000. I was definitely shocked at how strong Republicans were in these districts until the 2000s.

Registration numbers: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...

2000 Presidential numbers: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...

CA-10 (Tauscher): DEM 41.74%, GOP 40.14% (Gore won 51.3-44.8%)
**The neighboring CA-11 had a slightly wider 45.13-42.53% Dem advantage, yet a Republican incumbent

CA-22 (Capps): GOP 39.44%, DEM 39.16% (Bush won 48.8-44.6%)
**The neighboring CA-23 had a Dem advantage, 40.68%-39.86%, yet a Republican incumbent

CA-27 (Schiff): DEM 43.94%, GOP 37.36% (Gore won 53.4-41.4%)
CA-36 (Harman): DEM 40.87%, GOP 39.13% (Gore won 50.7-44.3%)
CA-49 (Davis): DEM 39.13%, GOP 36.09% (Gore won 52.6-41.5%)

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

[ Parent ]
not really, I don't know why
you say that. I think State Democrats can boldly challenge 5 REpublicans in much more Democratic seats without putting any Democrats at risk.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Of course the COULD and should
but the point is that they won't.

It doesn't look like it will happen, but what we desperately need is for California to gain or lose a seat, otherwise the hacks will protect their butts again.

[ Parent ]
I hope Emanuel
who is the closest thing we have to a Delay or Rove on our side, twists the arms of Democrats in California to draw a map getting rid of 6 Repubs.
[ Parent ]
CT and IL
CT was 3-2 Republican until the 2006 election and is now 5-0 Democratic.  

IL was 10-9 Republican after the 2002 election and is now 12-7 Democratic.  Melissa Bean picked up a seat in 2004.  Bill Foster picked up a special election for Denny Hastert' seat in early 2008 and Debbie Halvorson won a seat in the 2008 general election.

[ Parent ]
Redistricting article
At the end they give the example of Texas, I'm assuming Texas is going to be their number one target, state house.

Who can tell us how likely of doing that?  Plenty of seats are up right?  Give us a rundown por favor.

Texas
All of the House seats are up for election every two years.  Currently, Republicans hold a 76-74 edge.  I have no idea about handicapping any specific races in 2010 or how likely it is that we'll finish the necessary +2 to takeover.
[ Parent ]
Texas House
It's a 74-76 split, so two seats and I think I know what the top two targets are.

HD-105 - Irving - Linda Harper-Brown. HB held on my 19 votes against a name on the ballot in 2008. Straight ticket voting almost got rid of her. She's known for being against the brown people which have been moving into Irving.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/m...

HD-144 - Pasadena - Ken Legler. Legler is on his first term and won the open seat by about 900 votes. Influx of minorities and urban sprawl is causing this district to become a "swing" district. The Dem candidate in 2008 was Joel Redmond and was the son of one of the giant Baptist churches in the area, and there are a lot in this area. He was similar to Heath Schuler policy wise, which is what is needed to win this district.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/m...

Others? We might try to retake some of the seats lost in 2008; specifically Hunter's seat in HD-32. Other Dallas seats such as 108 or 114 COULD flip. HD-55 in Bell county was close as an open seat in 2008, if the 2008 candidate (a former Chet Edwards staffer) were to run again, it could have legs. If the Denton county party gets their act in gear and  decides to take a lot of staff and resources from Tarrant or Dallas counties, something could happen in HD-64 or HD-65.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Get well
Senator Byrd!  

"Cuz Senator Byrd Said So!"
SSP Daily Digest: 5/18 | 120 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox