This just screams dummymander

But the concept is quite interesting, I will give you that much.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

---

by: OGGoldy @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:51:10 AM UTC

It might be a dummymander in the future

If the Hispanic population grows and/or Hispanic voting rates go up. But both of these districts have PVI's of R+4/5. That generally should be pretty safe, though not completely. If you wanted to be safer, you could go for one district that leans slightly R and one that is safe R.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:01:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a dummymander

Put yourself in the GOP's perspective. The status quo is one seat where they're slightly favored, one where they're underdogs, and one they have little shot at. So that's an expected seat share of about 1.0 (say 70% in NM-2, 25% in NM-1 and 5% in NM-3) They could draw one safe R district and concede the other two (also expected seats 1.0). Or they could do this plan, where they probably have a 60-65% shot of holding each of the two seats. (expected seat share of 1.2-1.3 seats). Obviously, this is the best choice.

Dummymander doesn't mean "there's some chance we could lose these seats later." It means "we've overreached so much that our expected seat share is actually lower than if we went for fewer safe seats."  

---

by: txuriurdin @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 19:30:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with that analysis

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 20:23:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Dummymander" gets thrown around a lot

Interesting to see someone propose a formal definition. Seems like a good one, too.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:45:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I definitely agree with this

Also, what can seem like a dummymander in retrospect could often have been the best possible plan at the time. Someone on here once said that the only differences between a dummymander and an effective gerrymander are time and luck. If 2012 or some later election were to be a Democratic wave year, then a map like the one I posted might be looked at as a dummymander. But, as you showed, it may have been the best possible thing at the time.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:53:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This one may be a dummymander, but

even if you could draw a solid 2R-1D map in NM, it wouldn't happen.  Dems still hold the State Legislature.

But thanks for this map.  I like "what if" scenarios.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:10:08 AM UTC

Thanks for the map

I suspect we will see a standpat map in NM.

I don't see enough of a reason for either party to try for more then standpat and no one has much reason to go to court.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:23:18 AM UTC

A standpat map?

Or an incumbent protection map? The latter seems more likely, strengthening all three incumbents.

---

by: emilysdad @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:25:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's easier said than done

There's no obvious way to change the map to protect all three without coming up with some pretty absurd changes (as the only real threat to Heinrich is the heavily Republican northeastern part of Albuquerque and the only real threat to Pearce is Las Cruces, neither of which can be removed without some very convoluted gerrymandering, something which I doubt the legislature or Susana Martinez will even bother trying out).

I think the status quo will largely be maintained for New Mexico.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 07:34:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think standpat

The current map gives the right democrat a chance to win the one GOP seat.  2008 showed that plus the right GOP candidate can come close in the urban seat especially in an open seat situation.

The GOP will not settle for 2D-1R and the democrats have hopes??

So standpat is my best guess.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 13:12:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can definitely incumbent-protect to a degree

Pearce's seat is only 50% McCain and you can get him into the mid-50s by moving him "counter-clockwise:" losing the northern counties on the Arizona side of his district, and moving further north on the east side, climbing the Texas border. I don't know where the Indian reservations are though, and if this would split any of them up.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:00:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incumbent protection plans

are a hot topic around here.  If the GOP could add 4 or 5 % to their top 60 marginal seats, like NM2, they would probably take that deal right now.  That being said that deal is not on the table as redistricting is played out state by state.  

As has been discussed in other states the GOP are probably reluctant to lock in 2D-1R in NM because it looks like the democrats would be locking in at nearly high tide.  

As you noted the GOP could easily improve CD2 and likewise the democrats could certainly improve their status in CD1.

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:18:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This map also

puts two Democratic incumbents into the same district.

---

by: emilysdad @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:24:10 AM UTC

You are a sick, twisted individual

That, of course, is meant as a compliment, as it really does take some audacity to put a map like this up. You even split Albuquerque, have you no shame?! :P

Seriously though, it's an interesting concept, but I doubt the GOP would really try to split Albuquerque the way you have (as far as I can tell, Albuquerque is in all three districts, there's absolutely no justification for doing so, as Albuquerque proper is small enough that it only needs a single district).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 07:29:59 AM UTC

New Mexico may be a good example of

game theory.  The Democrats are the only party with a possible chance for all three seats in NM.  The 2010 elections, IMO, proved that.  They could try to weaken the GOP seat at the expense of Lujan's (which has a good bit of votes to spare) while keeping the urban seat about the same.  

The GOP has almost  the opposite goal which  keeping Pierce's seat seat the same while weakening the D's hold the urban seat.

The legislators & governor cannot reconcile these two goals so a standpat plan is the most likely outcome.  Yet does either party refuse this deal and go to a judge.  The last judge did standpat so that seems the likeliest outcome so why not settle?  Yet  what is the judge splits the baby.  Keeps the Lujan seat safe D but makes the other two seats tossups?  That might freak everyone out!!!  So I think standpat is the most likely outcome in NM and we will see it without a court fight.

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 20:56:32 PM UTC

Eh, I doubt anyone thinks that a judge would try to make two toss-up seats

Any scenario that deviates much from the current partisanship of the current map would have to involve splitting Albuquerque in such a way that makes it comical. The Republicans can't weaken Pearce too much, he's too conservative to survive in an Obama district.

The map will stay close to the status quo mostly because there isn't a reasonable way to make any significant changes.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 21:44:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you

that its an unlikely scenerio.  I don't usually do odds but I think standpat is 90% likely if the judge does it.

To make Pierce's seat a tossup you would need to add McKinley in to it  and that's unlikely.

You could see some unpleasant swaps as the 3rd district part of Bernandillo is GOP while Sandoval county's part of 1st leans D.  That swap would hurt Heinrich and who wants that?

I think its let make a time in NM

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 22:21:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just FYI, here is what a Democratic map of NM would look like

NM-01 and NM-03 are 60/39 Obama/McCain, and NM-02 is 49/49.
NM-01: 43%W, 46%H
NM-02: 38%W, 17%N, 42%H
NM-03: 44%W, 5%N, 47%H
So interesting that NM-02 is the least white of all these districts and yet also the most Republican. A 49/49 district would still have a slight GOP lean, but it would be very competitive for a more conservative Democrat like Harry Teague.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:50:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even more gerrymandered...

If you want an even more gerrymandered New Mexico you could look at something like this. NM-2 and NM-3 are republican enough that under usual conditions they should be safely Republican.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The districts are:
NM-01 (Blue)
27% W, 19% N, 50% H
76%O-22%M

NM-02 (Green)
57% W, 2% N, 35% H
48%O-51%M

NM-03 (Purple)
50% W, 6% N, 40% H
48%O-51%M  

---

by: Alizarin @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:21:31 AM UTC

Two stunning maps

That democratic map is pretty compact.  Would they do that?

The democrats stumbled onto 3D in the Obama year with two open seats.  Something tells me they rack and pack them for 2D but I guess we will not know until 2020?

Here's my point to ponder 43 white is still likely majority in GE elections.  Not sure about primaries but as we saw in 2008 two hispanic candidates let Heinrich slip in.  I am sure we would see NM1 & NM3 made very solid hispanic seats.  

I am sure of that and as noted we unlikely know until 2022.

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:37:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A NM bipartisan gerrymander

Designed to shore up all 3 incumbents.  I can't imagine the Republicans objecting to this plan.  Valencia county south of Albuquerque is the only county split.

(image is cut off at the bottom, that's all NM-3)

NM1: 60/39 Obama, 43%W, 46%H - this is basically Albuquerque
NM2: 64/35 Obama, 39%H, 37%W, 20%Native - Santa Fe and the Navajo/Pueblo territory
NM3: 53/45 McCain, 50%H, 44%W - Some areas best described as "west Texas", and relatively moderate cities in the south of the state

---

by: powera @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 04:30:48 AM UTC

its very tempting for the GOP

to take this map. As I said its state by state but if the GOP could shore up all of its 242 incumbents it would take that deal right now.

So if CO is agreeded at 4R-3D and MN is 4R-4D then the GOP will jump at 2D-1R in NM.

I still think standpat is most likely in NM but a protect all incumbents could happen.  I don't discount that possiablity.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 13:02:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]