Why these seats? Why not others?

Some explanation would be helpful.

---

by: tietack @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 00:48:18 AM UTC

CA24

CA24 is not on your list.  I expect that it will withdraw completly into Ventura County, losing the heavily R areas it now has in Santa Barbara County.  Unfortunatley, those same areas, plus some areas of Santa Barbara Couny now in CA22, will go into CA23, making it a lean or likely D instead of safe D.  Remember CA now has a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which will pay a lot more attention to county boundaries.


Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 01:58:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what's so hard

about non partisan redistricting.  What do you start? Do you move East-West or North South or South to North or West to East?

Confused by the question?  Don't be but its the fundamental question in Calfornia redistricting.  

Take the district you mentioned. Okay here's Ventura county-lets start redistricting California from there.  Ventura county can have one seat plus 105K or so people leftover.  Do you start the district on the west side and then give the 105K leftover people to LA?  Or do you start on the East side and give the 105K leftover folks to a Santa Barbara district?  Its a nonpartisan board but these decisions have political effects?  

Say you start in N California in Del Norte County do you need South or East?  Do you have a pure Northern district or Coastal?  If you go South what happens at Mendocino county?  Do you go East to Lake county or straight South to Sonoma?  

Starting in the South is no easier.  San Diego county looks like its good for 4 seats plus 200K will be leftover.  Is that attached to Orange county or Imperial or to Riverside?  

If you give that 200K to Orange county then you have the same problem.  Orange county has enough for 4 districts plus about 200K leftover.  

To my mind there is no clear answers to these questions.  You can have nice neat lines but you still have to cross some county lines and what direction the lines go will be very important.  

Lets say if you consider SF to be the center of the universe in CA.  Start there.  SF has enough for one seat plus 140K or so leftover.  Do you attach those leftover people to Marin county or San Mateo?  Remember whatever you do have a ripple effect through the area and maybe the state.  

My mind is wonderding and its off the subject but CA is like the crazy aunt in the room of redistricting.  No one talks about it.  

I personally like to see every county that is large enough to contain a congressional seat to have one completely in its borders.  So if the county has 800K it should have a seat completely within it.  Don't split that county 400K and 400K.  LA county has 14 seats or so and gives a bit to another seat.  Don't give LA 12 seats plus parts of 5 others.  

Okay Happy New Year

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:18:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA

There are some starts that seem to be more likely than not.

San Francisco would be a good start, working down the peninsula and around the Bay.  Then there is a residue, which would be unclear as to whether to go up the Sacramento valley with CD10 or someof the residue to supply CA11 with what it needs, CA11 being San Joaquin county.

Another start is Marin County.  Here there are 2 options.  A} Make Marin county, the north coast counties and some of Sonoma County for CD01.  B] The other option is to just expand the existing CD06[Marin County] into Sonoma County to make up the population.

Then, of course, the next step in Northern Cal for A] CD01 is to combine the balance of Sonoma County with Napa and into Solano, or B] The existing CD01, further into Solano County.

CD02, northern Sacramento Valley, has to expand a bit, since it has lost population into the coast districts

Sacrament County has 2 districts, CD05 and CD03, CD03 pulling back completely into Sacramento county. That takes care of most of the county.

Mountain and counties north and east of Sacramento county- the Existing CD04

CD18, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD22
CD18, 19, 20 still in the San Joaquin Valley, pulling out of the Bay area and pulling out of the midcoast counties.

If a VRA Hispanic district is required, construct on the existing lines. If no Hispanic district, Stanislaus and Merced would be CD18, with some left over for CD19.  CD19 would be, as now, the eastern foothill counties from Sacramento to Fresno.  Fresno City CD20. CD21, Tulare county with some of Fresno, Kings, Kern, maybe some desert area.  CD22 Bakersfield and rural areas of Kern.

Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz would be one central coast district, CD17, as at present.  leftover population in San Benito or Santa Cruz county to the Bay Area.

San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara would make up the 2nd coastal district, acquiring some population from Ventura county or north into Monterey County, [Monterey CD17, remember, has some leftover population]  

Ventura county would have enough population to constitute a district CD24, with leftover for CD23 to the north, or LA to the south.

Los Angeles county.  CD25 to withdraw completely into the northern Los Angeles county.  Tho Daves Tool does not show it, there should be enough population there to have a CD to its own.  It is the one district in the County where there has been substantial, if not exponential growth.

CD26-CD39.  Los Angeles, mostly configured as present, but expanded to evict CD46 completely out of LA County, and, in fact, possibley CD37 going into Orange county.  CD26 would lose its weird configuration to become Democratic.

Orange County.  CD46,48. Orange county. Possibley evicting those districts from the Inland Empire who now have tentacles there.

San Diego.  4 coastal districts, CD50-53.  2D and 2R, but this is speculation since there would be substantial differential population increase in the various areas.  The desert [eastern portion] combined with Imperial county with the eastern part of Riverside. CD45.

Riverside west:  withdraws out of Orange county.  44 and 42/

San Bernardino: 41, 42, 43, with a general movement west for existing district,


Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 19:37:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep

Redistricting throws a lot of these in the air. At least one of those Illinois Republicans will be without a good district to run in (as will one of the upstate NY Republicans, probably Buerkle), while people like Joe Heck and Renee Ellmers are certain to be protected.  

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.

---

by: Nathaniel90 @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 19:33:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Latham will be a target in IA-03

in my opinion. He won't stay in the new IA-04 to fight it out with Steve King in the GOP primary, even if Story County (Ames) is drawn into IA-04, which I doubt will happen. Story County probably will be in the new IA-03, centered in Polk County, and Latham will fight for that seat. I believe his chances of winning are better if Dallas County is included in the district, but a lot depends on who the Democratic candidate will be. Leonard Boswell isn't making any noises about retiring, but Christie Vilsack (former first lady) may run anyway.

Latham keeps his head down, brings some money to his district and avoids making the news. It's not going to be easy for anyone to run against him.

If Iowa is a contested state in the presidential campaign, I think that's probably bad for Latham--Polk County would be a priority for the Obama campaign GOTV.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 01:09:32 AM UTC

Very interesting to know desmoinesdem

As I think T Latham will be one of very few republican incumbents running in EVEN or D+ seat, he is so high in my list of targets for 2012.

I hope the democrats from Iowa can find the best here.

---

by: abgin @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:11:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

His seat is already PVI EVEN

But he's very popular and thus wins by large margins. I don't think he'll be that appealing a target.  

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:14:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but he's never represented Polk County

and Polk County has a D advantage in voter registration, and will be the population center of the new IA-03. I'm not saying it will be easy to beat Latham--a lot depends on the shape of the new district--but he should be a target at least.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 05:07:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would include this new seat as part of the defensive strategy.

Like you tell the new district will be based in Des Moines and the Polk County. This is an advantage for the democratic side.

It will be not easy but I'm sure the democrats will fight hard for this seat, and they can begin to fight without wait to analize the result of the redistricting process.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:07:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh,

First, a lot of these weren't doable in 2008 and won't be doable in 2012. Seriously, we're not going to win AK-AL even if Don Young gets caught in bed with a dead girl AND a live boy. If Berkowitz couldn't do it with the political wind at his back and all polling showing him romping, nobody will. Same goes for CA-04, despite Charlie Brown being an excellent candidate and McClintock being a downstate carpetbagger. And so on.

Secondly, there's redistricting. With the GOP controlling trifectas (or at least duopolies) in most of the key states losing seats, a lot of these districts won't look anything like they did this decade. NV-03 and IA-04 spring readily to mind. Dina Titus is likely to have a Dem-leaning district all her own in 2012, while NV-03 will become fairly solid R.

And there are the incumbents on this list that represent safe R districts that we would probably have no hope of cracking even if we did have D trifectas everywhere. OH-03? NY-03? NJ-04? Pure fantasy. Those incumbents are popular and haven't faced serious opposition in almost their entire careers, and their districts are likely to become more Republican, not less.

Then there are the Blue Dog districts that we only held in a fluke in the first place. NY-13 springs readily to mind - McMahon was supposed to win in 2010, and wouldn't have won in 2008 absent a total Staten Island GOP fail. CO-04 was only ours because of Musgrave - CO-03 is much more doable in a neutral/D year, yet absent from your list.

And finally, the D-leaning/swing districts that you omitted. Why is Arkansas, where the Dem bottom just fell out for good, a better prospect than MI-01?

I could go on, but I think I've overstated my point already.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 01:26:58 AM UTC

I probably wouldn't

argue with you about most of them, but assuming the districts in question don't change so dramatically as to make them unrecognizable, I wouldn't be so quick to write off some of them that are in states where Obama is likely to do very well even if he ends up losing.

I guess you could say that the Democrats should try to expand the map at both the presidential and congressional level. I'm not saying we should pump money into districts where the Democrat rarely cracks 30 percent, let alone 40 percent, but if it looks like it might be doable in 2012 and/or it's been doable in the past, we should try to take the seat. That probably wouldn't include whatever district King ends up in but might include McClintock.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:12:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would absolutely be prepared

to target and/or defend every seat in California. It'll be a whole new world there.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:41:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

lol...

oh mental image of Aladdin/Jasmine flying over CA on a magic carpet...

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:45:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

:-/

I'm sure I haven't seen that movie since its first VHS release. And now you have that song in my head.

GAH!

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:56:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't seen it since I was little

but my friends always sing that song at karaoke.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 08:03:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"my friends always sing that song at karaoke"

Get new friends.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:14:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would love to see a post

on the 14 people on the CA redistricting commission.  There are a diverse set of people from what I can gather.  

I think any spectulation-and I have done it myself-as to what congressional lines will look like is just guessing.  

I see two prime questions that must be answered as they start to draw the lines.

1. How many county lines will be split and what will be their standards.

2. Creation of minority/majority seats.  CA is 41% white per the last census data with 6.6% AA--12% Asian--37% Hispanic.  Will the new lines reflect this reality?  The current ones don't.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 15:06:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

County lines will be split accordingly

Population distribution will dictate that and the minimum splits will be implemented.

California doesn't have to focus much on minority-majority districts, as those districts can be drawn without much effort and very compact in Los Angeles County. CA-20 will be the main concern.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 16:29:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It depends on the politics of redistricting.

And in most cases, that means the GOP has a major advantage going into drawing the map in most cases, regardless of how well Obama does. The obvious exception is Illinois, but there's only so much that Dems can do there even if they draw a perfect Dem gerrymander and Obama inspires 2008-level turnout. At minimum, they can knock out two or three GOP seats, possibly four, five or six in a really good year - but that'll be more than made up for by the number of Dems that lose everywhere else. Except Louisiana.

Not sure about McClintock. We're talking about one of the most Republican regions of California, and since they have to draw the districts in a nonpartisan manner now per state law, they're likely to just draw an incumbent protection map. Even if they didn't, there's not a lot that you can do with CA-04 because it covers a heavily GOP area in the corner of the state.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:45:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just how

many seats do you think the Democrats might be screwed out of due to redistricting? My impression is that between California, Illinois, and maybe Texas, plus a few seats here and there based on minority growth or other demographic and geographic trends, we are basically even, so redistricting isn't likely to put us any deeper into the hole. It's basically as if those seats that are likely lost for a few cycles in states like Tennessee or Arkansas are being reborn in other states.

I don't mean to seem unduly optimistic. I realize that we aren't exactly underrepresented in most places like the Republicans were in New York in the last two or four years. I just think that if look hard enough, you can find five or maybe ten possibilities beyond what we have now. And that's pretty considerable when you consider we only need 25 seats to regain the majority.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 08:13:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have no idea what many of these seats

will look like politically in two years. A good chunk of them might not exist in anything resembling their current form.

That makes planning difficult, but it's reality.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 01:39:10 AM UTC

Thanks for posting this list

Its not far about what the DCCC is thinking.  They put a similar list out.  No one on this list or the DCCC's list are surprised to be on it.  Freshman or those in marginal seats are easy picks.

Naturally with Freshman not even sworn in handicapping 2012 is hard to do.  Lets check back in a year and we might get a clearer picture.  Here are the three unknows.

1. Redistricting.  Some of these folks might not have a place to run in 2012 or may find themselves in save seats.

2. Fundraising--Its a benchmark and it signal to others "stay out of this race because I will spend you under the table".  

3. What type of congressman will the freshman on your list be?  Will they connect with people in the district?Will they focus a lot of attention on meeting people at home?Will they make a good impression? Will they be polarizing?  You have Cory Gardner on your list.  Ms. Mulgrave was a prime example of someone who did not click with her seat.  A prime question to ask about all these congressman is whether they will click with folks back home.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 01:53:08 AM UTC

Don Young may retire.

The only reson why he's stayed in this long is to help pay for the costs of defending himself from ethics charges.  Now that they're dropped and with fellow pork-wrangler Murkowski staying on, he can retire in comfort.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:14:06 AM UTC

Let's just hope

Joe Miller isn't his replacement.

---

by: emilysdad @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 06:05:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have the distinct feeling that if Joe Miller ran today...

And he ran against, say, Mayor Scott McAdams, he would garner about 34% of the vote (again).

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 06:20:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

heh

Miller would be lucky to get 34% of the vote against K-Fed.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 00:08:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't worry.

He's not viable anymore.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:49:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was kind of surprised that there are no seats in VA on your list

The Republicans have an 8-3 majority there right now, which is hugely unbalanced for one of the most purple states in the country. There is a good chance that VA-02 could flip back, possibly VA-05 in a Periello v. Hurt rematch. Then there are a couple more seats that are not likely to turn blue, but are possibly competitive, like VA-01, VA-10, VA-04 (although my guess is that Petersburg will be dumped into VA-03 in redistricting which will make it a lot less blue), or even VA-07 (Cantor was the only R incumbent in VA not to crack 60% this year).

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:26:32 AM UTC

Virginia will have an incumbent protection map

There's a Dem Senate but GOP House with a GOP Governor. Connolly, Hurt, Rigell, and Wolf will all benefit from incumbent protection.

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.

---

by: Nathaniel90 @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 19:27:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An energized base

If the Democratic base gets energized a net gain of 30 seats isn't out of the question.  Which seats, however, will depend on how each state is redistricted and it seems premature to list specific seats.  Texas may be good for up to 4 for the Dems depending on how much or little the GOP gets away with.  

---

by: TXMichael @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 06:52:15 AM UTC

what is going to energize the Dem base?

The economy will at best be limping along, with unemployment almost certainly above 8 percent and more likely 9-10 percent. We won't be making history by electing the first black president. Unless Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin, I don't see why our base would be energized.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 19:53:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's why I said "If"

That's why I said "If the Democratic base gets energized" I didn't say they would be.

---

by: TXMichael @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 23:44:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends what you mean by "energized"

And the "base". No, the netroots are not the base. They will always bitch and moan. The employment situation is a hell of a lot more important with regard to the wider electorate than it is with the base. Besides, disaffection with the president is largely a myth. The base is plenty happy with Obama (latest Gallup says 91% of liberal Dems approve of his job performance) and will be keen to make history by re-electing the first black president.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 00:05:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely

In any case, has a Presidential election ever been won by the netroots, or their predecessor, the white college crowd? At best, they're just part of the coalition.

In general, the netroots does not include African Americans or Hispanics.

For that reason, I don't think '08 qualifies.

If the netroots sit on their hands, African Americans, liberals in general, and Hispanics will still turn out for President Obama in '12.

If the netroots sit on their hands, I'm not convinced that it would make a difference in any of the 50 states (though I suppose a case could be made for 1 state if WI were to swing R in '12).

---

by: tietack @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 00:23:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

if unemployment is 10 percent

in the summer/fall of 2012, the netroots will be the least of Barack Obama's problems.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:25:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's more

about the trend than an exact number.

What is your definition of "limping along"?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 06:23:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even the most pessimistic economists

predict the unemployment rate will be FAR below 10% by then.
. If we have 10% employment in 2012, it will be because of some catastrophe of epic proportions that would have already done Obama in.  

---

by: DNick @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 09:39:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't I say that?

On the flip if it does get better the base can be furious and he will win anyway.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 16:51:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're using mistaken assumptions w/r/t/ employment

See my reply to your comment here http://www.swingstateproject.c...

If you have a source for your numbers, I'd appreciate it. But I think your numbers don't add up.  

---

by: tietack @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 18:29:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

also

the unemployment rate is much higher than the national average among various subgroups that are part of the Democratic base (youth, AA, Latino, voters in large cities).

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who, oddly enough

give Democratic Congress and Obama the highest marks.  

---

by: DNick @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 09:30:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct, I get tired of certain liberals who don't understand their own party's voters......

People of color overwhelmingly support President Obama and will show up en masse.  And sheer demographic shift will continue the linear movement toward an increasingly nonwhite electorate, probably in the very-high-20s this time compared to the 26% the exit poll claimed in 2008.

And all polling shows Democrats and liberals are firm in supporting Obama, not shaken at all.  Things like the stimulus, health care reform, Wall Street reform, and DADT repeal have been enough to keep them in the fold.

I also tire of the absolute assumption that we'll still be mired in recession much the same as now come summer/fall 2012.

There's not going to be any problem with our turnout in 2012.  It's going to be as good as last time, perhaps better.  Even now he wins all the trial heat polls against named Republicans.

Our problem IF we have one will be swing voters.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 03:00:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is going to energize the Dem base?

A good possibility is overreaching and grandstanding by the GOP House.  Over the next two years they'll remind voters why they were voted out of power in the first place.

Plus, any Presidential year gets 60% plus turnout.  It's hard to believe the extra 20% won't be much more Democratic than the 41% that showed up in 2010.

---

by: LanceS @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 13:29:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's wait for the redistricting

process to finish, and then wait for the 2012 election season to start, so that we can have a good measure of the political climate for that year.

---

by: thematt523 @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 19:58:49 PM UTC

A little early to be predicting anything

However, there are definitely a few seats Dems should be targeting.

NH-01/02 - The White House is personally encouraging Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter to give it another run in 2012. I can't see either district changing too much.

MN-08 - Chip Cravaack is not long for this district, which is anchored in Duluth.

NV-04 - I'm sure Joe Heck will be protected at the cost of NV-04 having a Democratic lean. Hopefully they'll draw the district to include Dina Titus.

MD-01 - 7-1 gerrymander, dawg.

I think California and Illinois will provide us with quite a few seats, given the incumbent protection nature of both maps which could easily become undone, in the Democrats' favor. I also think Texas is a good opportunity (surprisingly), with two new Hispanic-majority districts and possibly winning back TX-27.

A 30 seat pick-up is completely doable if the economy improves and Obama's campaign is doing well. With any luck we can win back the House, hold the Senate, and get rid of the filibuster so we can have two functional Democratic years.  

---

by: sephtanner @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 22:29:25 PM UTC

There's the optimism!

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 22:44:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forget 7-1 in MD

8-0 FTW. Honestly an 8-0 gerrymander could be done while making the map look even better than it does now.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 23:28:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope

there won't be any backlash if they do such a thing.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:31:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What could such a backlash

consist of? I'm not sure I understand the fear.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 07:48:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess a movement

towards nonpartisan redistricting.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 08:18:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's possible

I don't think that would be a terrible result, though. With non-partisan redistricting, how many seats are the Republicans likely to get in Maryland?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 08:25:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sort of a paper tiger threat.

The GOP would get no more than 2 overall from nonpartisan redistricting, although that's just an educated guess.

But yeah, I think they ought to draw an 8-0 map so long as it doesn't produce a sick Florida-style map.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 08:30:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's pretty easy to draw a relatively clean 8-0 map.

You just draw MD-01 into PGco or Baltimore, giving it an even PVI (I prefer Baltimore, personally, as it has white liberal areas and you don't need to eat up black voters that need to be in VRA districts), then you draw MD-06 into MontCo, and you cancel out the other Republican counties with the Democratic strongholds.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 08:49:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is a very interesting post

It will be some seats where the democratic incumbents can need help after be more endangered cause of the redistricting process, and surely we will have some open seat. Of course the democrats need to fight this seats. I would include the likely merge of the current IA-03 and IA-04 in the defensive strategy.

This would be my list of seats for attack since now (of course since a point open to the things what the redistricting can change):

0 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN DISAPPEAR

OH-?? ? (disappear)
NJ-03? J Runyan (disappear)
LA-?? ? (disappear)
NY-25 A Buerkle (disappear)
NY-13 M Grimm (disappear)
IL-19 J Shimkus (R) (disappear)
This, taking IL-19 J Shimkus (R) like a generic republican seat what can disappear in Illinois (all are in risk). I think the work and the effort for defeat A Buerkle, J Runyan and M Grimm must be done in this front. This would not give democratic gains, but here would not have democratic loses.

1 NEW SEATS WITH D+/EVEN RATING (obviously open)

01 FL-27 (new) Take it as a generic name. I think one of the two new seats after the redistricting in Florida can be democratic, and maybe the new seat help making R+ the current FL-22, then the new seat would be in the area of Miami.
02 WA-10 (new) The new seat in Washington can be D+ too. Time of find someone for the seat still before the design of the seat.
03 NV-04 (new) The same than for WA-10.

2 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN BE D+/EVEN AFTER IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE REDISTRICTING

04 MD-01 A Harris (R)
05 MD-06 R Bartlett (R)
06 AR-02 T Giffin (R)
07 IL-15 T Johnson (R)
08 IL-18 A Schock (R)
09 IL-16 D Manzullo (R)
10 IL-08 J Walsh (R)
11 IL-11 A Kinzinger (R)
12 IL-13 J Biggert (R)
13 IL-14 R Hultgren (R)
14 IL-06 P Roskam (R)
15 CO-03 S Tipton (R)
16 IL-17 R Schilling (R)
17 IL-10 R Dold (R)

3 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN CONTINUE AS D+/EVEN WITH LOW CHANGES IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

18 NH-02 C Bass
19 NH-01 F Guinta

4 REPUBLICAN LIKELY R+ SEATS WITH WEAK INCUMBENTS

I think the republicans can be able to give R+ seats to the rest of their current incumbents. The redistricting process will give a decent number of R+low seats. Group to watch. Better wait until the redistricting.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:45:10 AM UTC

It is a very interesting post

It will be some seats where the democratic incumbents can need help after be more endangered cause of the redistricting process, and surely we will have some open seat. Of course the democrats need to fight this seats. I would include the likely merge of the current IA-03 and IA-04 in the defensive strategy.

This would be my list of seats for attack since now (of course since a point open to the things what the redistricting can change):

0 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN DISAPPEAR

OH-?? ? (disappear)
NJ-03? J Runyan (disappear)
LA-?? ? (disappear)
NY-25 A Buerkle (disappear)
NY-13 M Grimm (disappear)
IL-19 J Shimkus (R) (disappear)
This, taking IL-19 J Shimkus (R) like a generic republican seat what can disappear in Illinois (all are in risk). I think the work and the effort for defeat A Buerkle, J Runyan and M Grimm must be done in this front. This would not give democratic gains, but here would not have democratic loses.

1 NEW SEATS WITH D+/EVEN RATING (obviously open)

01 FL-27 (new) Take it as a generic name. I think one of the two new seats after the redistricting in Florida can be democratic, and maybe the new seat help making R+ the current FL-22, then the new seat would be in the area of Miami.
02 WA-10 (new) The new seat in Washington can be D+ too. Time of find someone for the seat still before the design of the seat.
03 NV-04 (new) The same than for WA-10.

2 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN BE D+/EVEN AFTER IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE REDISTRICTING

04 MD-01 A Harris (R)
05 MD-06 R Bartlett (R)
06 AR-02 T Giffin (R)
07 IL-15 T Johnson (R)
08 IL-18 A Schock (R)
09 IL-16 D Manzullo (R)
10 IL-08 J Walsh (R)
11 IL-11 A Kinzinger (R)
12 IL-13 J Biggert (R)
13 IL-14 R Hultgren (R)
14 IL-06 P Roskam (R)
15 CO-03 S Tipton (R)
16 IL-17 R Schilling (R)
17 IL-10 R Dold (R)

3 REPUBLICAN SEATS WHAT CAN CONTINUE AS D+/EVEN WITH LOW CHANGES IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

18 NH-02 C Bass
19 NH-01 F Guinta

4 REPUBLICAN LIKELY R+ SEATS WITH WEAK INCUMBENTS

I think the republicans can be able to give R+ seats to the rest of their current incumbents. The redistricting process will give a decent number of R+low seats. Group to watch. Better wait until the redistricting.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:45:11 AM UTC

Two factors, this^ and ....

This has been hinted at in other comments, and yes, the district obviously matters, but it's hard to know how it all shakes out until redistricting is more firm. So....the other way to think about these people is as that ... people. Candidates. Politicians. Vote-getters.

The thing that's going to hurt Republicans is that they've got a lot of potentially vulnerable freshmen who also happen to be either right-wing wackjobs or outright idiots. We need to think about whether certain candidates are likely to overperform or underperform their new district's PVI. Also factored in should be how much of their current district they are likely to retain...which...someone named that factor, right? I can't find the post at the moment, but there is a good post about redistricting that talks about the percentage of new vs. old voters and calls it, like...T factor, or something....gah, I never should've outsourced my memory to Google.

Anyway, if a candidate overperforms, it's advantageous to keep the areas they currently represent. If a candidate underperforms, they might actually want new voters who aren't as familiar with what a nutjob/idiot they are. The high number of freshmen makes that a bit tough to determine, but it's highly likely some will become the new Marilyn Musgraves and some will become the new Mary Bono Macks. They can't all remain generic Rs forever, though.

I'd think some of these people will likely underperform: Ben Quayle (dumber than dad), Andy Harris (no one liked him before) and Bob Dold (more conservative than suburbanites think). And then there's the politicians who will likely always underperform: Ohio's Jean Schmidt springs to mind. But then there's the overperformers like Mack & Latham who, if they get enough of their previous districts in their new ones, could hold on against a very tough PVI. (though the upper limit seems to be D+5ish)

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 04:25:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point about some districts is to wait until see.

Like you tell it is important to see who would underperform and who can overperform the PVI rating.

For some states or seats begin movements before the redistricting process end can be dangerous some times because can have influence in the new district. If some republican appear very endangered before the redistricting end, this incumbent can have some help and the republicans can give a little better rating to his/her new district.

For other states, like New Hampshire, better attack hard both seats since the first day because the republicans will find protect both.

For Illinois or Maryland all what wish to run should appear strong before the redistricting because I think the credible democratic challengers can have some help in these states. For AR-02, if some strong democratic candidate appear finding a challenge he can have some benefits too.

This would be my point.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 19:48:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a partial list of GOP seats that

will likely see some improvement in republican % after redistricting.

NY 13
NY 19
NY 20
NY24
PA6
PA7
PA8
PA11
PA15
GA8
NC2
TN4
TN8
OH1
OH2
OH16
OH6
OH15
OH18
IN8
IN9
WI7
WI8
MN3
MN8
CO4
NM2
NV3
WA3
WA8

I am guessing NY25 gets chopped up but as a price to secure NY22 & NY23 some GOP seats are secured. In PA -OH IN WI NC TN GA I believe the republicans will firm up all of these marginal seats.  They more republican then before.  How much more is an open story.  

I believe legislative or commission plans will improve GOP chances in WA3-WA8-NV3-NM2-CO4.  Just my guesses.

As to MN3 & MN8.  Its clear MN3 will give up some area to MN5 and whatever it gains will be more republican then its district.  MN7 is really unpopulated-MN8 is about right.  I think MN7 will take some of MN8's area and then suburban area will be added.  That's a guess on my part but MN8 will certainly shift a bit as its unlikely to be the only CD not to change some?  You could see a plan where the other 7 seats move around and CD8 is locked in place.  I just don't see as its two neighbors CD7 & CD6 are the district most under populated and the most overpopulated in MN.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 20:08:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree in many things of your list

My difference would be New York. I think the republicans in the state senate will have higher pressure here. I think NY-13 can be in risk. It is not easy give more republican rating to their current seats because we come from previous old republican gerrymander maps, still corrected not.

Still, after some improvement for some republican incumbents, we will see some vulnerable seats here.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 21:07:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh I forget

I would accept not improvements for the republicans in NM-02.

---

by: abgin @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 21:09:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could be it right

about NY13 as the nearest GOP area is in Nassau county!!!

Lets just agree that NY13 willbe  about the same.  Staten Island gained about 50K  or 10% during the last decade which was just about the fastest growing county in NY state.  

It may only need to gain 20K which surely will not impact the district very much.

Its a pure guess on WA3-WA8.

I think WA3- WA4- WA5 will shrink in an eastward direction which will make all the seats more republican.  WA3 will lose Thurston county part which will be a big help.  

WA8 needs to shrink and it can lose the heavily republican Pierce part (maybe) or inner King count suburbs that lean democratic.  Losing the King county suburbs would play into the idea of a new district in King County.  

One scenerio for WA is that WA9 collapses South into Thurston & Lewis county.  WA8 gets more of the conservative part of Pierce while WA6 gives up part of Kitsap county.  WA1 takes balance of Kitsap-keeps Snobomish but leaves King County.  Then a New North King county seat is created which leans D.

WA is another state that I would love to see some maps on.  Its a wildcard state

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 22:21:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my feeling about Washington is the next

I think you are rigth when you tell the republican seats would go to the east. I would include WA-08 too.

While the republicans can have a incumbent protection in WA-03 and WA-08, the democrats can have the same for WA-02, and can have the new WA-10 as a new D+ district.

I feel they are not reasons for think the commission will protect J Herrera (WA-03) before D Reichert (WA-08). WA-08 can take easily some rural areas from WA-02. Then, I think both seats, WA-08 and WA-03 can end with R+low rating. Surely still competitive.

I would not be surprised if S DelBene gets as the frontrunner in the new WA-10.

---

by: abgin @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 01:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did a thumb nail

sketch of WA3-WA4-WA5.  #5 could give some people up to #4 and then #4 to #3 would have to divest itself of its part of Thurston plus Lewis county to be equal.  The only way not to help Herrera in WA3 is to keep attaching Thurston county to it.  

I can see attaching Lewis county to WA8.  Then that  1/2 of Thurston to WA9.  That could push WA9 out of King County with a little fiddling.  Adam Smith is from Pierce county so that works out.  WA1 would pulls out of some of North King county.  WA8 gives up some of North King county.  

The WA10 becomes a blanket around WA7-A wrap out district of inner suburbs while WA8 becomes more Exurbs from King to Pierce to Lewis.  

Re WA3--Any move East helps Hererra.  I am not familar with geography of WA state.  The  western boundary of the 4th district  has been nearly unbroken in congressional redistricting since the 1960s.  That line seems to divide Western Washington from Eastern Washington.  I see WA8 going south but not East-ditto for WA2.

The one wild card in WA is how one county is on both sides of Puget sound.  Plus several counties are Islands that can go to either side of the Sound.  There are two counties that straddle the Sound.  How you arrange this area will be crucial as to where the new seat is.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 03:46:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]