Google Ads


Site Stats

Redistricting 2011: Oklahoma & Wisconsin

by: Nathaniel90

Tue May 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM EDT


This is now Episode 12 of my seemingly never-ending redistricting series. (In reality, it has a definite end -- after this diary, there are only 9 states I'm planning to address: California, Washington, New Mexico, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and Tennessee. The other 15 states are either at-large states, or are unlikely to see substantive boundary changes.)

Today comes Oklahoma and Wisconsin. I struggled with whether to include Oklahoma at all, since my Oklahoma effort is barely different from the current map. But given the fluid partisan dynamics in Sooner State politics, and the potential issue over how to handle the "conservative Democratic" 2nd District, I thought it might be worth a look. On the other hand, I drew two maps for Wisconsin based on the highly changeable atmosphere in that state's 2010 elections.

Previous efforts:
Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas
Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada
Diary 3: Iowa and Ohio
Diary 4: Georgia and New Jersey
Diary 5: Florida and Louisiana
Diary 6: Pennsylvania and Utah
Diary 7: Illinois and South Carolina
Diary 8: Indiana, Missouri, and Oregon
Diary 9: Alabama, Arizona, and Kentucky
Diary 10: Colorado and Minnesota
Diary 11: Mississippi and New York

Hark, to the extended text!

Nathaniel90 :: Redistricting 2011: Oklahoma & Wisconsin
Oklahoma

In a few short years, the legislature has gone from an eye-poppingly enduring history of Democratic reign as of 2004 to full GOP takeover by 2008. The governor's mansion will be open in 2010 as popular Democratic Gov. Brad Henry is term-limited. Fortunately, the Democrats have two strong candidates to retain that office, but Republicans are still even odds at worst for a pickup. So what would GOP control of redistricting mean in 2011? There is only one Democrat in the delegation, the rebellious Dan Boren of the rural (and Native American-heavy) 2nd District. But my gamble is that, even with Republican control, district lines will only be adjusted, and no real effort will be made to dismantle Boren's territory.

I can't say my confidence in this prediction is exceedingly high, but look at the signs: even though Tom Coburn won this heavily evangelical, highly socially conservative district for the Republicans as recently as the late 1990s, the GOP has made no effort to target the seat, even when it was open in 2004 (their sacrificial lamb back then lost to Boren 66-34%, and Boren's two reelections have both topped 70%). Considering Boren racks up urban New England-like Democratic margins in a district that broke 2-to-1 for McCain, and that Oklahoma redistricting has historically revolved around the preservation of culturally cohesive regions, it would seem a dangerous overreach for the GOP to aim its fire at Boren at the risk of softening up less conservative turf around Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Other than completely breaking the traditional boundaries around Eastern Oklahoma, how would they crack his constituency, anyway? And how much worse would it be for Boren to compete for votes in Tulsa than to compete for them in Little Dixie?

So that's my gamble. And as a result, the differences between this map and the current one are scarcely visible:

Photobucket

There's not much to even describe here, except that the Oklahoma City-based 5th is contracting in area as the two most rural districts (especially the 3rd) expand.

Wisconsin

As in neighboring Minnesota, circumstances of state politics pushed me to draw two possible maps for America's Dairyland. The Democrats currently enjoy a redistricting monopoly here, but a tenuous one, with a narrow 52-47 edge in the Assembly, 18-15 in the Senate, and a controversial governor in Jim Doyle. Given the high possibility/probability that any one of these pillars of state power could flip to the Republicans in 2010 (the most likely loss being the governor's mansion, Doyle's approval rating hovering in the 30s), it seemed logical to draw a bipartisan compromise map to accompany a hypothetical Democratic gerrymander. Since it would be an incredible feat for the GOP to pick up all three levers in one election cycle, I thought it unnecessary to draw a Republican gerrymander map.

Democratic gerrymander first: this map creates two or three solid Democratic seats, just one solid Republican seat, and as many as five swing seats, all of which would have voted for Obama. Most importantly, it concentrates GOP areas in the 5th and pits two veteran Republican incumbents, Tom Petri of Fond du Lac and Jim Sensenbrenner of Menomonee Falls, against each other. Petri's 6th is then opened up for Democratic poaching, as is Paul Ryan's 1st south of Milwaukee. It's possible Petri could move north and run for the 6th, but when he retired, this iteration would be a prime pickup opportunity. Meanwhile, all five Democratic incumbents are kept about as solid as they were (Kagen gets a very slight boost, though none are pointedly shored up). In toto, a good year under this map might produce a 7-1 Democratic majority; an average year would result in 6-2, and a bad year might retain the standing 5-3 edge, either with the status quo remaining, or with Kagen's seat traded for Ryan's.

Photobucket

District 1 - Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) -- with all of Kenosha and Racine Counties along with 36% of Milwaukee County, Ryan would face his first truly difficult race in 2012 under these lines (though many think he'll bail for a gubernatorial try in 2010), and as an open seat this district would be likely to elect a moderate suburban Democrat.

District 2 - Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison) -- made only slightly less Democratic to help Dems in the 1st and 3rd.

District 3 - Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) -- still somewhat Dem-leaning, as before. The three Dem seats in small town Wisconsin (Kind, Kagen, and Obey) are all only modest Obama districts, but seem to be a bit stronger for their incumbents.

District 4 - Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) -- the other 64% of Milwaukee, plus 24% of GOP-friendly Waukesha County; a strong urban Rust Belt Democratic seat.

District 5 - Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) vs. Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac) -- geography would seem to favor former Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Petri might choose to move north in this scenario, but muddying the waters was clearly my goal. This packs Republican votes as well as can be expected anywhere in Wisconsin.

District 6 (open) -- without Petri, this would be a fairly good shot to elect a Democrat, with Obama having performed somewhere in the neighborhood of 51-53%. But much like the current 6th, if Petri ran, it would be on loan to the GOP until his retirement.

District 7 - Dave Obey (D-Wausau) -- as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Obey obviously has nothing to worry about, though Democrats have long noted the fairly marginal nature of the 7th. When he does retire, this will still probably be a somewhat Dem-leaning/Obama-friendly rural seat, but a slam dunk? No.

District 8 - Steve Kagen (D-Appleton) -- I only had minimal room to strengthen his district, since most rural Wisconsin counties are competitively balanced, but made the necessary trades to up his chances a bit.

Now the bipartisan compromise map: this adhered to clean, simple, aesthetic district lines and made superficial efforts to help incumbents without going out of its way to do so. The reason I didn't make an aggressive "incumbent protection" map is that the current lines are fairly incumbent-friendly, especially as Democratic strength has increased in the once-Republican 8th. So my primary goal for this scenario was pretty boundaries, with a dash of Petri, Ryan, and Kagen protection thrown in (for Petri, I had no concerns about his ability to be reelected, but rather about the GOP's chances of holding the open seat). Needless to say, I'd rather see the Democrats retain control, but at least this map appeases my "good government" instincts.

Photobucket

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wisconsin is prime for a good gerrymander
Democratic strength has exploded in that once tossup state.  Your first map gives them only one solid district without really compromising any of our others, even in case of retirements.

Compare that to the overreach that was the 2002 PA GOP gerrymander, in which they weakened significant numbers of districts under the assumption they were still 20th century hardcore Republican suburban districts.

I'm hopeful Doyle is re-elected, so far I don't see any potential candidates that I'm worried about.

As for Oklahoma, that's actually an interesting one long-term.  Obama made noticeable improvements in the OK City-based 5th district, even performing better than Gore.  In fact it was the only district in the entire state that he cracked 40%.  In the Tulsa-based 5th district, he also held up pretty well, almost matching Gore's numbers.

While the 2nd district may be the safe one for us at the moment, down the road if we get stronger candidates (winning the mayoral races in OK City and Tulsa would be a good start) we can start winning some others.

If they do try to screw with Boren's district, hopefully they slip up and make OK-05 just a tad more Democratic...


More could be done with Oklahoma
I agree no strong effort would or could be made to remove Boren. But I suspect Oklahoma Republicans will move the boundaries about a little more than you have.

Boren's district is moving sharp right. It went from 47-52 for Gore to 34-66 for Obama. OK-5 is going the other way, although not as fast.

If I was thinking ahead for the next decade, I'd be cracking Oklahoma City. Give some of it to OK-3, as Frank Lucas' district is as safe as they come. Run OK-5 up towards the Kansas border and Tulsa to make up for it and you've made sure that Fallin's replacement is never threatened by a conservative Dem who has managed to hang around in the state legislature long enough to want to have a go.


Nice
Which is to say, bleech. Cracking Oklahoma City would do it.  So would just giving OK-5 some of Lucas's territory. As for Tulsa, exchange some urban parts for Lucas's territory too.  Contracting it or the 1st is the last thing the GOP wants to do.  Population-wise, they may have to, but I suspect every effort will be made to do as Englishlefty suggests.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
Tulsa's not as good for us, is it?
We more or less held steady there, whilst numbers ticked up noticeably in OC.

That's not to say they won't try to split Tulsa too (they could use Iowa Republicans' talk about urban-rural districts from last redistricting cycle,) just to say that even in 2020 I doubt OK-1 will be vulnerable. Even OK-5 will be at best at the conservative end of swingy.


[ Parent ]
Not as good, no
But, like OK-05, the problem with OK-01 is that it's metro. Tulsa's suburbs could possibly be some of the scariest evangelical social conservative fundie areas in the nation, but downtown's not bad.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry but, I don't think either Wisconsin map is realistic
I think, regardless of who is in the redistricting process (full dems, split, or even a republican trifecta), we're unlikely to see significant change from the current map. You have to remember that Gore and Kerry both barely carried the state, we just recaptured the legislature, and Tommy Thompson was a popular former governor who, if Wisconsin Republicans were smart enough, would begin running candidates more like him rather than Mark Green.

First, I see it unlikely in either scenario, and especially under the bipartisan compromise, for Paul Ryan (WI-01) to be removed from Janesville, as it's his home residency. Secondly, I would think it would be more likely to see the 1st district to include the rest of Rock county (which includes Beloit), and instead taking out some crimson-red Waukesha County from this district; that would probably up this district's performance a couple of points.

Tom Petri is pretty much an institution in the state; getting rid of him would be close to impossible, and you have to remember that his district, despite giving Obama a plurality, is the 2nd most Republican district in the state; It seems in the best interests for statewide Democrats to focus on Ryan and protecting Kagen for the future, who afterall, still has the 3rd most (historically) Republican district in the state. And I think that the most likely way of accomplishing this would be to dip more into Winnebago county, including outlying Appleton areas not in the district and Neenah, while taking away some of the more GOP-leaning rural counties. It's uncertain if Kind (WI-03) or Obey (WI-07) really need additional protection, but if we really required it, it would probably come from Adams in Petri's and Sauk/Green in Baldwin's.

Baldwin is pretty much safe, as Madison and the surrounding area both grow and become more Democratic, and as such we could give her either even rural counties (Bush/Obama districts) from Petri's district or Exurban counties from Sessenbrenner.

Personally, I see the best route being: target Ryan, protect Kagen, keep our remaining districts safer, and make two permanent GOP seats based out of the Fox River Valley (Petri) and the Milwaukee suburbs (Sensenbrenner).

If we really have a bipartisan compromise, or even a Republican Gerrymander, I would honestly not be surprised if we did not see almost a complete replication of the current lines adjusted for population; Janesville has to stay in the 1st during these scenarios, almost automatically IMO nullifying the map you created.

But, good work anyways with Oklahoma, and I hope we can agree to disagree with the Wisconsin map.


Major oops on Ryan
I didn't realize Janesville was in Rock County; just assumed it was Kenosha or Racine. It was certainly not my intention to remove Janesville from the 1st. In any case, I like your idea for softening up the 1st by adding the rest of Rock County.  

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

[ Parent ]
Given that Baldwin might get ambitious
And try to move up the ladder if Sen. Kohl decides this is his last term (Kind might try too, but I'd be rooting for her), is there any way she could either help Kind or weaken Paul by dumping some counties to the west (Sauk or western Dane) and taking in the non-lakefront part of Racine and Kenosha from Paul, or giving him Rock County.  She would probably hold the new 2nd until then, and her replacement only needs to be liberal not top-ten (and keeping urban Dane in would do that).

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
Major oops on 5th and 6th
In your analysis of the Democrat gerrymandered district map you said that senario would pit Tom Petri against Jim Sensenbrenner when in fact it would not.  The map you drew you has Fond du Lac County, where Petri lives, still in the 6th District and you have Waukausha County (at least Menomoniee Falls), where Sensenbrenner lives, in the 5th District.

Just thought you would be interesed to know that.


[ Parent ]
You're right!
Geez, this humble pie tastes crummy. ;)

Not to worry; that's a mere Paint error...my number-crunching includes Fond du Lac County in District 5, so the stats all add up.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.


[ Parent ]
Age
David Obey will be 72 on election day 2010.  Tom Petri will be 70.  Jim Sensenbrenner will be only 67 but he's loaded with inherited money.  Each of the three is unlikely to last out the full ten years.

Redistric ting needs to account for the fact and be done with an eye on open seats in those three districts.


[ Parent ]
Sensenbrenner's district
and pretty much even the most horrendous of gerrymander of putting its parts into different districts would be close to impossible to win for a Democrat. Suburban/Exurban Milwaukaee, particularly West and Northward, is the heartland and base of the Wisconsin GOP. We should draw and keep this district as safely and as solidly GOP as possible.

Obey's is hard to deal with, because other than a few friendly counties in Petri's district, the only place to expand is either Kagen's or Kind's district, and Kagen is pretty much off the table since he needs to be protected. In a neutral year, i'd say that Democrats would be odds-on favorite for this swing district, but in a pro-GOP year, this would be potential target for loss. Petri's district is difficult for a few reasons: A. the Fox River valley, especially the Fond Du Lac region, seems to be one of the faster growing parts of the state, and B. that region, with Fond Du Lac in particular, is also the 2nd most GOP region in the state.

I personally believe it would be wiser to consolidate this district for Petri (who, by Republican standards, is sane, and cannot lose barring being caught with a dead girl or a live boy). Sure, Obama won this district by a few thousand votes, but that doesn't mean the district isn't locally more Republican. We should not overextend ourselves like Georgia Democrats did in '92, and instead draw a plan with 2 safe GOPers, 2 safe Democrats and 4 dem-leaning/swing districts who we would hope would be able to knock off Paul Ryan in a good environment, and hold their seats in a bad environment (which I believe is possible). Let's not allow for the WI Democratic party to make the same mistakes as the Georgia Democrats or the Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan/Illinois GOP.


[ Parent ]
I can't disagree more
We should draw the most aggressive gerrymander possible.  I would draw one district that takes in all the hard core Repub areas in the Milwaukee suburbs, etc, and make the other 7 Democratic.

I'll take the risk that these aggressive gerrymanders with come back and bite us eventually.  By that time the Repubs will have moderated or died, so if they eventually pick up seats, it won't be as bad as the Repubs here today.

Incumbents hold seats in general.  We have a much better chance of holding a seat that we do of picking one up


[ Parent ]
You should really do a map
I'd love to see 7-1 WI, 7-0 MN, 12-2 MI, etc.  

You can definitely do 7-1 MN though.  I've done that on my redistricting I can finally finish up that finals and crap is over.  It's pretty easy to do actually.


[ Parent ]
When I've got some time
I will do Michigan.  I think the districts will look like spaghetti, though, using touch point continuity all over the place and connecting Livingston County to John Conyers and Carolyn Kilkpatrick's inner city Detroit areas, etc.

[ Parent ]
Again, 12-2 is just not possible
you go for 12-2 and you'll end up 5-9 or worse.  There are three "bastions" Republican strength in Michigan: Ottawa, Alegan, Suburban Kent; Suburban Detroit (mostly north and west Oakland plus Livingston); and about 10 counties stretching from Grand Traverse to Midland.  You couldn't successfully split these three areas enough to achieve 12-2. Youd be endangering Levin, Peters, Stupak, and maybe Schauer as well.  Inspired in part by your comments, I've drawn up a 11-3 map, although I'm not sure that even that would hold up. The districts are ugly (especially my western Michigan district) but there is not touch point or snaking tentacles.  I havent got time to diary it now, but I'll have it done by this weekend (Friday maybe)

16, Male, MI-01

[ Parent ]
I would touch point
with a thin line Conyers and Kilkpatrick to Livingston Co for example.

I would touchpoint  Central Michigan to Kent/Allegan/Ottawa, and add the counties on the border of Indiana for the two Repub districts.  

I would not overly protect incumbents either, for example, Peters and Schauer do not need further protection.  They can and will hold their districts as long as they need to.

My goal is a 12-2 map in 2012 when we likely have an Obama landslide.  I would rely on incumbency to ensure that the Dems hold on to those districts in the future.  It is much easier to hold a district than it is to pick it up in the first place.

In order to get the maximum, you have to use enhanced redistricting techniques such as touchpoint contiguity and spaghetti thin lines, and tentacles.


[ Parent ]
there is no way that you could get
ottawa, allegan, suburban kent, van buren, midland, grand traverse, newaygo, missaukee, osceola, clinton, barry, ionia, montcalm, berrien, cass, hillsdale, wexford, and branch counties all in one district, which is what you would need to do for a 2 republican delegation.  The population of that proposed district would be well over one million people.  And just Peters and Schauer only won in a very pro democrat year. Schauer only managed about 49% so i dont know why you think that he and peters dont need protection.

16, Male, MI-01

[ Parent ]
I don't need to get them
into one district.  I'll get them into 2.  
I will pair the good parts of Kent and Muskegon Co into one district, along with Lake County and perhaps a good portion of some counties on the Lake Mich border for one possible Dem district.  The other one will be MI-6 removed of some of the worst Repub areas anchored by Kalamazoo.
I'd put Allegan, Ottawa, the worst Kent suburbs, and touchpoint with some of the worst areas on the Indiana border in MI-6.  The other Repub district would be one anchored in Central Michigan.  Whatever bad territory is left can go to Bart Stupak.

Candice Miller's district is the one I am targeting for elimination, and splitting into several pieces, some of which will be headed for the 3 Detroit districts, the rest will be absorbed by Levin and Kildee's district.  

McCotter will be drawn into Detroit, he's gone.  Remove Livingston from MI-8, Rogers is gone.    

Schauer and Peters don't need protection, because they are incumbents.  They are going to have to win in the same district again in 2010, after which they should be in good shape.  Obama won both of these districts in 2008, and he'll probably win them by bigger margins in 2012.


[ Parent ]
Over-reach
Now, I'm all for Max-Dem maps, but I think 11-3 is almost certainly the best we can get, with 10-4 being most likely as a reasonable ceiling (for now, at least).  For goodness sakes, we sitting on a 7R delegation.  The districts of McCotter, Upton, Rogers, and, maybe, Camp, are targetable.  The problem is that many don't border Democratic areas.  Camp is the example here.  He could take some marginal southern counties from Stupak, but I think they might be more Republican than what he has.  Rogers can't give up Lansing to the south.  The only other main choices are west into Hoekstra's Dutch country or south to Ehlers in Grand Rapids.  (Oh wait! Maybe, a thin line of Saginaw could be drawn in unless that would drop the 5th below any population threshold).  Upton could steal some of Schauer's western counties (maybe?  Is that Schauer's base?  What's the district break-up in terms of county politics?).  Rogers can take a little of the 5th--that's easy and Kildee won't mind (unless, again, it's unviable as a smaller district).  McCotter's easy to bash too--either parts of Dingell's Detroit-adjacent territory or, possibly better, Ann Arbor (I'd love to see an Ann-Arbor based district again, but that won't be happening anytime soon.  I'm excited for Menhen's 11-3 map.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
7-1 MN is pretty easy, you are right
because you just put all of exurban Minneapolis in the one Repub seat.  (Note that I didn't say that 8-0 is doable, it is quite hard).

7-0 can be done if we assume that Collin Peterson will stick around, and give him more Repub territory.

Nathaniel showed a possible 7-1 WI map, a few changed can be made to make it better, but the backbone is there.


[ Parent ]
I agree to disagree
I just feel Wisconsin is way too evenly split to even attempt an extremely ambitious gerrymander like 7-1. Minnesota is a little different, as currently MN-07 is Republican at the presidential lvl, but Peterson has a tight hold over it, but no redistricting effort IMO should ruin incumbents' chances of reelection or hurt open seat retention. Sorry, I do not want bad Karma and be left with a 2-6 delegation in Wisconsin in 2018 from overambitious gerrymandering. Just look to what happened to Mike Fitzpatrick, Curt Weldon, George Gekas, Phil English and Melissa Hart. All out of the job. Let's use history as a lesson to remedy our potential mistakes.

[ Parent ]
This is a gross misanalysis
Just look to what happened to Mike Fitzpatrick, Curt Weldon, George Gekas, Phil English and Melissa Hart. All out of the job. Let's use history as a lesson to remedy our potential mistakes.

These Repubs in PA (where I live) went down because of a realignment, not because of gerrymandering spreading them out too thin.  Had we not had a realignment, these incumbents would have won easily.  

The other thing is I'm very much against strengthening incumbents who hold already winnable districts.  Incumbents already have enough damn advantages, and if they can't hold seats which Obama won, then they deserve to go.  Incumbent protection, IMO, encourages corruption by putting incumbents in a position where they are safe and can count on reelection, and spurs voter disillusionment.  The one exception is for incumbents in very hostile districts (i.e. ones that McCain won).

I would put protecting incumbents as a priority far below removing Repubs.


[ Parent ]
They owe their losses to both factors
Beware the art of the dummymander.  

[ Parent ]
I don't agree
Hart and English's districts were strengthened in the gerrymander.  Weldon and Sherwood went down because of scandal.  And the Repubs did nothing regarding Fitzpatrick's district, but there wasn't all they could do (except maybe get rid of the Philly precincts, but those were relatively hospitable areas of NE Philly for Repubs.)

The Repub Pennsylvania gerrymander was a great success IMO.  The only reason why it doesn't look that way was because of realignment.


[ Parent ]
The 18th, 13th, and 6th
Probably deprived them of 2-3 seats.

[ Parent ]
The only one it might have cost them
was Tim Holden's district.  No scandal and realignment, Weldon doesn't lose.  
There's little in the 13th that would have strengthened Fitzpatrick.  In 2002, that district was potentially competitive, by 2008, realignment had made that district safe D.

And even if you are right that 6/13/18 cost them two seats, 6 and 18 was a gain of two for the Repubs as it is.

I again conclude that the Repub gerrymander in Pennsylvania was highly successful.  It was realignment and scandal that gave those seats to the Dems.  A non gerrymandered map would have probably have resulted in about the same composition of the House seats.


[ Parent ]
It's impossible to prove or disprove either way
I'm not disagreeing that that wouldn't have lost seats but my suggestion is that they overreached and spread their margins too thin. They could have drawn a map that was less "responsive" to changes in the seats-votes curve.

[ Parent ]
Yes and no
You're generally right about Mike Fitzpatrick; while they could have made him slightly stronger, it was a reasonable bet at the time to think that Bucks county would elect a Repub, and they ended up doing so until Fitzy (who, of any repub rep in the state, was the most sane/moderate). They screwed up majorly with Holden, losing a sitting incumbent of their own. They would have lost Weldon anyways, Sestak was already pulling even or ahead before the scandal of his daughter came along - it was well evident that he was way too conservative and unresponsive, and a rusty campaigner to win a Gore/Kerry district that Repubs thought he could hold. They aimed for PA-13 as well, and drew a monstrous district in PA-06, which, including PA-15 and PA-18, we still may get competitive races and more Dems in the Penn delegation in the next cycle as a result. They aimed for a 14-5 delegation split (1 in Pitt, 2 in Philly, Murtha, and Kanjy), they now have 7-12, and may be reduced to as little as 4-19. I would say it's pretty much agreed by most political analysts that Repubs backfired their Gerrymander and they're the ones holding the bag.

But, while we're on the subject of Pennsylvania, I think it is imperative for Dems that we find highly viable challengers for the 3 districts aforementioned (PA-06, no Lois "Crotch" Murphys or that unknown guy, PA-15 and PA-18). Our targets are narrowing, and these districts are ripe for kicking the Repubs out of the Northeast (minus the Alabama)


[ Parent ]
What they should have done
was to put Holden in a district with Kanjorski rather than with Gekas, and used that district to sap up all the Democratic areas in the NE area including Dem areas of Bethlehem and  Allentown.  They should also have drawn the Lancaster and York district into the Philly area sapping up the hardest core Dem areas in the suburbs.  Then I would have drawn the PA-9 to take in all the Dem areas in Harrisburg.

If I was to draw the map for the Repubs in 2002, I would have been even more ruthless than they were.


[ Parent ]
Normally I'd agree
But Nathaniel's map, Rock County snafu excepted, is a really good one.  I don't think we should concede the Fox Valley at all, but I do think eliminating Ryan, making Petri a toss-up/slight-lean-R, and creating a Solid R district for Sensenbrenner is the best we could do.  It's unfortunate we can't draw Petri a hardcore R district and make Sensenbrenner the uncomfortable one.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
I think Wisconsin could be made even better
why not crack Fond du lac and Sheboygan counties and put the hard core Repub areas in the 5th and the Dem areas in the 6th?  

Also there may be many open seats in 2012, Paul Ryan, Tammy Baldwin, and Ron Kind may all run for the Senate, and it is possible that Petri or Sensenbrenner may retire.


aw, now see, I thought you'd like this one
because it may just under the right circumstances produce a 7-1 Dem delegation.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

[ Parent ]
I do like it
although I would put every Repub precinct in the area in that blood red 5th district.  I'd try to drive Obama's performance in that district to 35-37%.

[ Parent ]
Petri would probably just move
and run in the open 5th.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

Damn Wisconsin has an impressive delegation
On the Republican side you have two 20+ year incumbents who would undoubtedly serve high up on committees if we were to lose control of Congress and a frustratingly bright young leader who has better statewide potential than almost any other Republican Congressman in a blue state.

On the Democratic side you have an openly gay progressive leader with Baldwin, the effing Appropriations chair, another good statewide candidate (Kind) and a black women representing only a 33 percent black district.

That's a pretty incredible delegation D or R control of Congress.  


I want to end Paul Ryan's career ASAP
The district that Nathaniel drew would do that IMO.  It will probably force him into a Senate race, which he would have a decent chance in a decent year, but not in a 2012 Obama landslide.


[ Parent ]
Yep
He needs to be targeted pronto!  

[ Parent ]
Im thinking the Obama wave
will do that all for us.  That is obviously making a lot of assumptions but he knows what he needs to do and how to keep popular doing it.  He'll carry the state hugely, blah blah blah, we've said it before.

[ Parent ]
ryn'a running statewide eventually


Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
I want him to run statewide in 2012
into the teeth of an Obama landslide.  I don't think he could beat even Tammy Baldwin into that headwind.

[ Parent ]

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

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox