Thanks for posting-interesting map

I think something very close to this will be done.  As I read and see it the only incumbent who loses just a bit is Hinchley.  He might holler about Ithaca. In a strange way Slaughter might not be happy to lose Niagara county.  She has tended local interests there for ten years.  Hinchley should like this district so who knows?

The GOP improves or stays about the same in their seats and the democrats do the same. In theory that is what I see happening.  

I have come around to the idea of attaching Syracuse to NY23.  I still think that hinders the ambitions of local democrats but someone's ox has to be gored?  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 15:42:08 PM UTC

Hinchey loses...

one point off his PVI, which in most circumstances won't matter (it's damn hard for a Republican to take a D+5 seat after all).  Slaughter loses 5 points off her PVI, which doesn't make a lick-split of difference.  All other Democrats and all Republicans are unchanged or improved.  

I could have swapped Icatha between the two districts, I probably could have had a PVI of roughly D+7 for both.  However, doing so would have probably hurt the surrounding Republican seats of NY-22 and NY-20 a bit too much, potentially making one or both competitive for Democrats.  

One concern I have with NY-23 is Bill Owens might be vulnerable to a primary challenge from someone from Syracuse with this map.  Maybe a comeback from Dan Maffei?  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:20:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While Owens' current district

is partially in the Syracuse media market, I'd guess Stephanie Miner (current Mayor) could beat Owens in a primary.

Despite voting for HCR and the public option, Owens had to tack considerably right to survive in '10, and that might not work so well in a Syracuse-centered district.

---

by: tietack @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:44:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very Nice

and quite similar to what I'd have drawn.

One thing that gives me a little pause is Buerkle primarying Hanna. Hanna represents more of the territory and should not have trouble holding a R+5 seat, but Buerkle's base in Wayne County is still there. And Buerkle could beat him in a primary and lose the general to a conservative Dem like Arcuri.

I can't think of a better solution to that, though, so I think Buerkle is going to have to be dealt with via carrots rather than sticks - maybe the offer of a US Attorney job if she steps down and a Republican wins the presidency.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:07:24 PM UTC

I agree that Buerkle could beat Hanna in a primary

I'm not sure how much more conservative she will wind up being than him though. Both will have more conservative records than Sherry Boehlert or Jim Walsh, the last Republicans to hold those seats, but I don't think Hanna is significantly more moderate than Buerkle.

Hanna does impress me more as a general election candidate though, so Republicans would probably root for him in the primary and Dems would root for Buerkle.

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

---

by: MassGOP @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:14:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Would Democrats Ever Agree To This?

I can see why Republicans would like this map.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:36:14 PM UTC

I was thinking the same thing

Republicans may be able to get some compromise, but not this much.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:39:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

No way do I let a GOP wave year get locked in like this.

I see one natural Republican district consisting of areas between Buffalo and Rochester; one consisting of the Southern Tier and other parts of Central NY; and perhaps another strung together from some pieces (Greene County, Schoharie County, parts of Montgomery and Saratoga) of the eastern portion of Upstate.  

If I'm not conceding a Staten Island and/or Long Island seat for the GOP I might agree to a fourth reddish seat upstate.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:58:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That might leave you at the mercy of the courts

The Republlicans in the Senate can clog up redistricting and force it to the courts if the Democrats try to weaken too many of the upstate Republicans. Obviously cutting out Buerkle is a starting point, but the Senate may not want to sacrifice too many more. They would probably be willing to accept 50/50 seats for Hanna, Gibson and Hayworth, and similar seats for Grimm, Lee, Reed, and King to what they have now. If Democrats insist on drawing a bluer map than that, the whole thing will probably go to court and from there anything could happen.

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

---

by: MassGOP @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:10:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

courts

If I'm a Dem I would take my chances with the court before I would agree to this map. Upstate NY currently has 6 R+X districts that total up to R+19 and 5 D+X districts that add up to D+34. Collectively the whole area is D+1 to D+2 and it would be a mistake for the Dems to lock in 5 red seats.

In general I can see the Dems agreeing to status quo maps in places with split control, because under the status quo they held the House in 2006 and 2008. But there is a huge difference between status quo and incumbent protection, and it's crazy to agree to incumbent protection as a general rule when you're down 50 seats.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:27:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Status Quo wouldnt really work

You gotta cut up 2 districts and feed them to others somewhere. With the population loss upstate, a status quo map would be quite hard to come up with.

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 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:34:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again...

Let's say that, as you say, upstate is around D+1 - D+2

Under this map, the Democrats have 6.5 upstate seats (counting the part of Westchester not mapped) and the Republicans have 5.  This reflects the actual split of the people upstate pretty well.  And it is much better than the 4.5D - 8R minority the Democrats had upstate in 2000.  

Looking at it another way.  The average PVI of the Democratic-held seats is D+8.  The average PVI of the Republican ones is R+7.  So there is little difference between the two.  

As someone on the left, this isn't the map I would want for purposes of national politics.  But it is imminently fair.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:39:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok

Maybe upstate NY should go 6-5 D in an average or slightly below average year, but if the Dems want a realistic chance to retake the House they need to maximize the number of competitive districts, not the number of safe districts. Because their voters are more concentrated than Republicans and because they have total control over fewer states, they start from a disadvantage. Conversely if I'm the Reeps, I would jump all over that map. They don't need 242 House seats, just 218. A chance to lock in Hayworth, Gibson, and Hanna in areas that have been trending blue makes it that much easier.

I wasn't counting Lowey's district as upstate. If you do that the 6 blue districts have a total of D+43 which makes the whole area D+2. I would not expect 5 of its 11 districts to be safe R.


41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:10:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're not doing the math right.

The way I did these numbers, I added together the McCain and Obama numbers for all Democratic districts, and all Republican districts, and then divided by six and five respectively.  

If you just add together the PVI's listed in the diary, you come to D+47 and R+34.  Divide the former by six, and the latter by five, and you again come out to D+8, R+7.

Eliminating Lowey's seat doesn't change the average PVI for the Democrats.  

But I think you're looking at the PVI of the existing seats, not the ones I drew.  The problem is that upstate has been shrinking, not only in relative terms to Downstate, but in absolute terms.  Most counties are still growing somewhat in the Hudson region, but outside of this area there were only six counties that showed population growth.  The growth was pretty even on the county level (for example, Erie county shrank about as much as the surrounding Republican-leaning areas), but I'm not sure how that affected upstate urban areas in particular.  

Also, remember the existing map was in some ways a Republican gerrymander.  It set up a few heavily-Democratic vote sinks, like Louise Slaughter's district, and a whole bunch a Republican could hold initially, like NY-27.  Standpat would be better, but Democrats, if current trends upstate continue, should flip one or two of the upstate seats by the end of the decade anyway.  

As to your other point - I wasn't posting what I thought should happen, I was posting what I thought would happen.  The Democrats just aren't going to go to the mat for this.  There has been a tradition of bipartisanship in the state, to the point that Democratic state House and Republican state Senate have for years agreed to just let each body draw their own maps.  The Republicans have power in the State senate, like it or not, and they're going to have a say in shoring up their incumbents.  Feel grateful they'll be willing to sacrifice one of their own.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:52:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

existing

I was indeed looking at the existing districts, not the new ones.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 20:17:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh?

This is a fair, bipartisan map.  It eliminates one Republican, and one Democrat.  It also shores up all Republican incumbents.  Yes, it shuts them out from winning any of the other six upstate districts.

Are you really arguing that the Republicans, only narrowly holding the state Senate, are going to insist on two Democrats being eliminated?  Or that they'd prefer keeping many upstate seats swingy, giving them the possibility to pick up 1-2 more, but also the risk of losing 4 vulnerable freshmen?  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:56:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry incomplete...

I was going to say - Yes, it shuts them out from winning the six D upstate seats, but given the long-term trends of upstate, all of them but NY-23 are probably out of their reach anyway.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 16:59:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops, I misread you.

As to why the Democrats would agree to this, I'd say because it's a bipartisan, incumbent protection map - essentially status quo.  Democrats retain a slight advantage upstate, and their seats are just as safe as the Republican ones.  It's also a lot better than the 2000 map, where the Republicans had upstate by a 8 to 4 margin (or 8-5, depending on what you call Elliot Engel.

And, of course, logistically speaking, the State Senate will have veto power, so I can't see them agreeing to eliminating two Republicans.  The alternative, to make more swingy seats, could help the Democrats, but it could also hurt them - remember that Representatives usually have a big say in how their seats turn out.  Bill Owens and Brian Higgens at least will want safer seats.  

I don't know much about the redistricting process in the state.  Perhaps more favorable lines to Democratic chances could be drawn by the court, but I can't see the Democrats going to the mat for this.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:09:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd Fight.

Why? I'm just trying to imagine a halfway plausible scenario that's worse for Democrats than this map and the only one I can think of would involve carving up Syracuse into pieces.  

I can't seeing myself agreeing to something that makes five seats I had until just now all harder (and yes, this diary doesn't cover Staten Island, but it's part of the equation) to win back if I'm in the position I'm in.

Higgins is getting a safe district anyway his district has to grow and Lee and Reed aren't going to want to lose any of their current GOP-friendly turf. Other than that, with the exception of Owens and two of the Long Island districts (about which little can be done, by either side) all the Democrats had insanely Democratic districts anyway.

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:24:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand the passion of

those who think why should the democrats let the GOP lock in its gains. Your map is about what the democrats and GOP will settle on.   They want Cuomo to veto any congressional map and let the courts do it. Here are some points to ponder

1. The GOP at 2 seats as in 27-2 is almost certainly some sort of high water mark for the democrats.  Skilled map makers here are convinced there are 4 GOPs so 27-2 or 25-2 was some sort of freakish result

2. The Democrats concerns are NY1-NY22 & NY23.  A court could easily add GOP area to NY1.  NY23 is represented at the state senate level by all republicans.  Its got a GOP registration majority.  Owen got less then 50% in 2010 and there is alot of GOP area that can be attached to it. Hinchley's 2010 could be a fluke but there is a lot GOP area around it to.  

3. The other key point for settling is what is not on this map.  The NY city & suburbs are mostly D but what congressman will be cut out?  I think democrats will want to protect Crowley and maybe Ackerman or Engel.  We might have to see a seat from Yonkers to Battery park to cut Engel out but what gets chopped up in the city is important to people in DC & Albany.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:34:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Asking for 25-2

Oh, sure, 27-2 is a high water mark and there are probably few people who would deny that at this point..though some of us may have tried to before. (I was thinking more about the trends when drawing the 27-1 thing I drew, less about the status quo as of 2010.) I don't think even the hardball advocates here are calling for a 25-2, so I think to some extent you're debating a strawman.  

So what's the low water mark? (There's Long Island but that isn't really the issue here; it's pretty hard to move the 1st or 2nd much in either direction.) I don't think it's much lower than where we are now, so to lock things in this much is a losing bet as far as I am concerned.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:55:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did jump the gun there a bit and imply that was your view

and that would be an incorrect one. You just do not like this deal.  Here's the gist of the map above.

1. The GOP loses a seat to offset the D seat lost in the city.

2. The GOP improves his seats while the democrats improve NY23.

So the GOP keeps his seat fairly intact while the D's only get one seat improved.  As noted there are offmap benefits to the D that I believe cannot be seperated from the NY upstate map but lets just forget that for a second.

Here's the alternatives in  play.

1. The GOP loses a seat but does not get to improve its position in surviving seats.  The Democrats also do not get to improve positions in NY23 or maintain position in NY22. Standpat map for all and GOP loses a seat.

2. The GOP loses a seat and democrats improve NY23 and do not lose ground in NY22. Plus the GOP does not improve his position in NY24, NY19 or NY20.

I think there is a chance that alternative #1 could be reached.  A chance.  Its basically the current % in upstate and GOP loses a seat.  You could draw that map.  

There is zero % chance alternative two is reached.  Why would the GOP agree to take the loss upstate then protect NY23 and not protect any marginal incumbents.  You might as well take your chances in court.  

So I can you not being happy but the alternatives are limited and unknown

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:46:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Giving Away The Store

Well, I'd still actually expect the Republicans to improve their position in one of NY-19 or NY-20. Plus the (not covered by this diary) 3rd and 13th, in addition to a solid central/southern NY district from pieces of districts held by Democrats after 2006 and 2008. (The one upstate district that stayed Republican throughout would largely stay the same.) That's not quite nothing.

But this map would now have 7 Republicans in it (unless we're seriously diluting the 3rd or 13th) and I don't see how anything short of a GOP gerrymander and a GOP wave year gets them any more than that, so I see little reason not to take my chances in court.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:05:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A completely fair

compromise, IMO, would be as follows.

1. Let each party decide which incumbent goes in NY.
2. keep the % partisans the same or nearly  the same in upstate, NY13 and NY suburbs.  No one gains or loses except in seats in Queens or Bronx or city districts.  Upstate stays the same.  Obviousily you might have to allow for a small% change here or there as  its hard to keep exact 2004 & 2008 % where you are adding so much population. You get my point.  Everything stays the same.

Here's the problem with that.  The GOP would say lets eliminate Buerkle.  How do you eliminate her seat and not improve Owen or hurt Hanna?  So maybe a one for one deal is arranged.  Okay the D's improve Owens and the GOP can improve one seat.  The D's improve CD1 and they GOP can do one seat. Tit for Tat.  At the most the D's need to only improve CD1, CD22 & CD23.  So the GOP & Dems each lose a seat and then can only improve their position in three seats each.  

That's it for me.  I have listed all the compromises I can think of.  I would love to hear anyone's ideas on other ways to be fair in upstate NY.  

I do admit, however, that there is a certain logic to spinnning the wheel in state court for the democrats.  They will probably not be worse maybe better.  The NY delegation, on both sides of the party, are very well connected in Albany.  They will get a deal done and Cuomo will not likely rock the boat on a bipartisan compromise that passes with overwhelming support.  I might add that in 2001 the last congressional redistricting bill was signed very late-very late.  Don't expect to see stuff in 2011 from NY

The

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:28:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW

If I were drawing the map from the position of the Democrats holding the trifecta, I think I'd keep three Republicans upstate (essentially my NY-26, NY-25, and one district based in the Leather-stocking region).  If you have several upstate districts dip into Westchester, it's not hard to get rid of the other two.  I'd keep one Republican district in New York, and one in Long Island, for a 22-5 map.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:48:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Leather-stocking region"?

---

by: emilysdad @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:59:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Historical name for the region around Utica...

N/T

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I would be in the state legislature as a democrat

I never would vote for a map with more than R+5 for the republican districts.

Obviously this level give to the republicans a lot of safe seats, when currently many of them have not safe seats.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 01:53:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty good map

I'd take this map in a second, especially if it was part of a deal to get Pete King's ugly mug off the television by redistricting Long Island differently.

25, Male, CT-01 (home), Perth-Wellington riding (sometimes)

---

by: WalterSobchak @ Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 05:02:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY Law

I'm not familiar with any provision of New York Law that requires towns/cities not to be split. In fact, the current maps (congress, state senate, state assembly) all contain multitudes of unnecessary splitting of localities.

---

by: hudi11 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:55:48 PM UTC

They Exist Re: Leg. Borders

IIRC, you can't split towns in legislative districts unless you have no choice (most frequently comes up in the case of Long Island's mega-towns which tend to be too big not to be split.) They don't apply to CDs.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:59:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My understanding is...

Towns cannot be split outside of Long Island.  Cities can be split.  However, I decided not to split any cities, both because it helps retain communities of interest, and splitting Buffalo or Rochester only really helps if you're trying to do a Democratic Gerrymander.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:50:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know this is 5 days late

But no, there are no restrictions on splitting towns in a Congressional map. In my mostly-upstate district, it occurs in the Town (not city) of Poughkeepsie, as well as the Towns of Schodack and Cherry Valley. The district below mine splits the Towns of Poughkeepsie, Wallkill and Haverstraw.

29, Male, Dem, NY-20  

---

by: BK in the HV @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 01:22:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good job on Hayworth and Gibson.

I had a hard time making them more Republican when I tried my own map even without perhaps making them more snaky and twisty. However in the end given the ugliness it forces all across the board I just don't think Hayworth could (or should) be saved.  What is required to make that district anything more than a swing district turns the process into a farce with the contortions it forces not just in that district but others as well.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

---

by: Taget @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:31:03 PM UTC

Question

If the Dems push and get another Dem seat upstate, who gets the cut: Hanna, Gibson, or someone else?

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:56:46 PM UTC

The Idea

I was thinking more of a situation where Gibson and Hanna fight over whatever doesn't get put into the North Country, Syracuse, or Albany districts and is too far east or north to end up with Reed. Perhaps you could get Wayne County in there too, although that would mean having to keep the arm the Hinchey district has that goes to Ithaca and I was hoping to get rid of that because it looks silly and because most of the Hudson Valley and Catskill areas are Democratic enough to make the arm somewhat unnecesssary now.  (I don't know where either Hanna or Gibson are from exactly.)

The more Democratic parts of Gibson's current district would go to Owens.    

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 21:02:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

more competitive districts

4 safe Dems: Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Westchester/Rockland
2 safe GOP: the 2 western rural districts
5 competitive: all other upstate districts

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:14:56 PM UTC

looks good

That looks like something a court might draw. If I'm the Dems I would take it over the map in the original post.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With demographic trends

I'd believe that Ds would be solid in all 5 "competitive" upstate districts by '20.

---

by: tietack @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 19:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can we be sure that Upstate will trend more Democratic?

If you're also a proponent of the "Hispanic and minority growth will be a huge boon for Democrats" school of thought, doesn't Upstate NY have below-average levels of minority growth? Even if no-one changes their votes there, it can trend more Republican simply by standing still against a Democratic-swinging country.

---

by: Nichlemn @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:03:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, it's not actually clear that it ever trended Democratic in the first place

See the Presidential numbers. It's been about R+2 to D+2 for decades. What about at the Congressional level, you say? The pattern appears a bit stronger there, but not substantially so.  

---

by: Nichlemn @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:13:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's going both ways

the East seems to be getting more liberal due to influx from New England and NYC, while everything west of I-81 seems to be unambiguously shifting to the right.

The massive congressional swing, I think, had more to do with a lot of longtime R incumbents retiring simultaneously - and at the worst possible time, than anything else. Of the 3 incumbents that lost, 2 of them were pretty seriously flawed Reps that would have lost districts of that PVI in any state that year, while Sue Kelly can probably be chalked up as an ordinary casualty of the wave election (and more parochially due to an unexpected shift in KJ voting patterns).

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:22:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reasonable points, but

as I think user shamlet is implying, eastern upstate NY is a bastion of Rockefeller Republicanism -- thus a situation where the party has left them.

So it's not demographics in the usual "more immigration" sense, but in the sense of where the R party is and isn't growing -- meaning that Rockefeller Republicans are evolving into Ds.

---

by: tietack @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:44:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My NYS Upstate

Four strong Democrats (W-R, Capital, Syracuse, Rochester) and one strong Republican (Finger Lakes).  The rest are competitive.

---

by: akosmowski @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 20:47:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well...

Just to show that I'm not being an unrealistic partisan dreamer, I can't imagine the Republicans agreeing to this. (Or the Democrats for that matter.)

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 04:40:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One Issue here

is splitting Utica from Rome. I don't think anybody - legislature or court - would do that; they're more or less a coherent metro area. Maybe put Tompkins in with Syracuse and the rest of Oneida in the brown district; that would make the Blue Leans-Likely D and the Brown Leans-Likely R. Otherwise it looks pretty good.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 01:55:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you can

It turns out Oswego+Onondaga+Cortland+Tompkins almost fits perfectly into a district, and it's safe Dem (D+6). The other district, with all of Oneida County, is almost-safe Republican (R+4).

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 05:08:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is what my upstate looks like

if I drawing it from a Democratic perspective:

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 20:33:04 PM UTC

Wow

That is one hell of a gerrymander - fantastic work. And hey, they look perfectly compact to me...

24, male, Democrat, VA-06 (currently in Italy), went to school in VA-05

---

by: GeoffreyVS @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 00:21:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did an upstate map

 Awhile ago. It was pretty gerrymandered too: http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 14:28:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very Good

There are quite a few Democrats that might want to be shored up, Owens, Bishop, Higgins, Hinchey, McCarthy, so a bipartisan gerrymander is quite likely in my opinion.
For Democrats, locking the GOP at 7 in NY with no chance to go higher, until the presumably control the trifecta by '20, or before with a mid-decade redistricting, is very good

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8

---

by: MosheM @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 22:43:22 PM UTC

Not Me

I only agree to an upstate map with this many protected upstate Republicans if one of the downstate Republicans goes away. Otherwise I deadlock the process and take my chances in the courts.

You can't do much about Bishop either way. I would guess one of Crowley, Ackerman, or McCarthy is going to end up without a chair when the music stops, which takes care of that seat. Hinchey doesn't really need shoring up. Higgins is going to get shored up regardless; his district has to get significantly bigger, and neither Reed nor Lee are going to want any of their red territory taken away from them, and neither of them is going to want any of the City of Buffalo. So that leaves Owens. I don't lock in an all-time GOP wave year just for him.

Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time that Democrats were way too eager to cave, but it would be another example.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 02:27:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's really key

is that Democrats absolutely, positively, not agree to a deal on the state senate.

Of course, there will be pressure to do so from the Assembly, but there are so many reasons not to. And in any case, I am 95% sure that they can fix whatever they don't like for 2014.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 02:32:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

^this. we've got to get control of the NY state senate back

so there's at least the possibility of being able to do a mid-decade redistricting. And undo whatever incumbent protection House map that emerges this year*...
Whether or not they'd actually ever have the balls to do that in the future is another issue...

(just reminiscing; I wonder if the NY Repubs would flee to the next state like the TX Dem legislatures did back during the DeLaymander days)

---

by: homerun @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 23:32:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I concur with your downstate analysis

Every map I make ends up pushing McCarthy and Ackerman together.  A lot look at Upstate and try the fringes.  I push two freshman Republican representatives, Gibson and Hayworth, into one district that is leans Democrat (55%).  That same percentage is for Lee's district too.

---

by: akosmowski @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:13:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If a New York compromise map

gets done the primary push behind will come from the current congressional delegation.  Numerous congressman have close relationships and alliances with state legislators.  Congressman have been one of the key fundraising forces in New York legislative elections.

I made my prediction so I don't want to beat a dead horse but watch the congressional delegation. Yes the minority seats are safe under VRA but there is a huge amount of leeway of how those seats end up.  Rangel's seat is underpopulated and I suspect he prefer a move South as opposed to a move West or North.  A lot of powerful congressman and woman may not want to leave where they seats end up to the a whim of a judge.

So watch the congressman like Crowley and Rangel plus King and Slaughter.  Weiner has powerful friends in the house while certain hispanic legislators are key in the closely divided senate.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:37:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still just don't see it.

Let's say you're right, and the Democrats want to have a map closer to standpat.  Where could they move votes from?  I'm taking it as a given that no Democratic incumbent here would want to take one for the team.  

NY-27 - Went from D+4 to D+10 on my map.  Does not need to be so Democratic.  No matter how you cut it though, Western New York is still going to contain two of the most right-wing districts in the state, plus Louise Slaughter's district, which is currently a Democratic vote sink (and is much less of one on my map).  So while you could move those Dems out, they really don't do any favors anywhere else.  

NY-24 - Could lose Icatha and the Democratic-leaning regions and still be a safe seat for Slaughter.  

NY-23 - Bill Owens needs all the Democrats he can get, although I guess you could give him a PVI of D+4 or D+5 and he'd be pretty safe

NY-21 - PVI unchanged  

NY-19 - Actually lost a point

NY-17 - PVI unchanged

I think you could without much fuss turn NY-22 into a competitive district by pulling Icatha into it.  You could also I suppose move around townships in Westchester and Orange, and end up making NY-18 much better in terms of PVI.  But that's about it, unless you really do want to risk the seats of incumbent Democrats.  And given the amount of power sitting congressmen have in the process, you'd have to be naive to think they'd allow it.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 04:11:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ack, that's Westchester and Rockland...

I dunno why I confuse those two counties so much.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 04:15:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ugh.

I don't think anyone seriously disputes the two western-ish GOP seats, one for stuff between Buffalo and Rochester and one for the Southern Tier east towards Binghamton. That's not what's really irritating about this map for Democrats. I wouldn't really want to give them any others, but circumstances being what they are, there's probably a third one further east to be made of Greene and Schoharie and the Leatherstocking area for Hanna and Gibson to fight over.

But to sign away another seat, and then give Hayworth a free pass in a Hudson Valley seat, in addition to the two downstate seats? At this point you gotta ask how much better would Republicans do than that if they got to draw the maps alone.

I'm not necessarily saying it won't happen, but I am saying that it's political malpractice and a decent indicator of why Democrats lose so often in situations where they really ought to win.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 04:35:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the Republicans were drawing...

They could have done much better than 20D, 7R.  

1.  You could certainly expand Louise Slaughter's seat to encompass all of Buffalo, and make three solidly Republican districts in Western New York.  -1D, +1R

2.  You could eliminate Bill Owens seat, splitting the Democratic areas in the north between two districts.  -1D

3.  I think it's also possible to eliminate Hinchey's district if the Republicans really wanted to be aggressive.  Probably this would involve putting Icatha and Binghamton into separate upstate districts, and putting the heavily-Democratic areas along the Hudson into an Albany-based district.  -1D

4.  It's very, very easy to draw a second McCain district in NYC (south Brooklyn) if you don't pay attention to PVI and are just looking at creating as many VRA districts as possible.  So the Republicans could have two seats down here -1D, +1R

5.  Although It would be hard for us to shore up the Democrats on Long Island, it would be comparably easy for the Republicans to shift some Republican voters into Tim Bishop's district.  -1D, +1R

Since two upstate Democratic districts were eliminated, not just flipped, NYC Democrats would expand up into Westchester and maybe even points further north.  

Thus, I think the best Republicans could do would be 16D, 11R.  Which is a lot, lot worse than this map.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 14:31:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Extreme Dummymander

I suppose you've split up Syracuse. And probbably done some really creative things in the Hudson Valley. (Not to mention that most of what you wrote above are things that a court-drawn map, BTW, is really unlikely to do.)

Who gets Tompkins County? Or the rest of Buffalo (Lackawanna or Cheektowaga or the bluer parts of Hamburg and Amherst) or Rochester (Brighton or most of Henrietta and such) or Niagara Falls? It's not like any of the resulting "Republican" districts are West Texas and they can can just eat blue zones at will and not fret them.

As for the South Brooklyn thing, the more Republicans you pack in there, the fewer there are to finish the Staten Island seat.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 18:32:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't done a full map...

Because I really don't care enough about the matter to put the time into a dedicated Republican gerrymander.  I'm only interested at looking at plausible maps or good fantasy maps for Democrats.

That said, I have looked at bits of it.  

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that you can turn one Western NY district into a 70% Obama seat, and end up with three districts which are fairly safe for Republicans.  I ended up with a 51%-48% McCain district, a 50%-48% McCain, and a 50%-49% one.  The first one is D+17, all the other ones are around R+5.  Remember that even some pretty Democratic suburbs like Amherst are already in Republican hands.

As to NYC, you can easily draw two compact districts in this region.  The last time I tried, my "Staten Island Plus" district was around 51% McCain, and the south Brooklyn district was 53% McCain.  Mind you, this is one area PVI might not be the best model for voting - a lot of the McCain voters in South Brooklyn are Hasidim, and I'm unsure if they vote as Republican downticket.  

But I agree that the further elimination of two Democratic seats might be a bridge too far, given NY-20 and NY-22 are at or close to the limits.  I'd have to take a look

My point was to refute you're claim that I drew a Republican gerrymander.  I don't think, given the political culture of the state, a strong gerrymander in either direction would stand a snowball's chance in hell.  But they could easily wipe out at least four democratic seats, as opposed to the loss of one seat on my bipartisan map.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 21:23:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PA 2001 has been called a dummymander

map because while it got the job done in 2002 & 2004, except for PA17, it was a failure in 2006/2008.  A Map to be a success has to last the whole ten years.  You can think 2010 was a fluke in NY but Hinchley, Bishop & Owen just barely held on.  Hinchley lost Broome county by a wide margin and he supposely secure in that county.  Look at State senate results in upstate and Long Island for GOP.  Yes the State senate is a brutal gerrymander for the GOP but wide swaths of upstate NY elected republicans to the state senate.  There is no doubt you can divide up NY21 and turn NY19/NY20 into very marginal seats.  That's a process you can do, however, when you control redistricting.

I see house incumbents pushing for a map that is very close to 6D-5R upstate. That's still my best guess.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 14:54:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One correction

PA-13, as odd as it sounds, was originally drawn with a Republican in mind.  Joe Hoeffel won the seat in 1998, but before that it was a traditionally Republican seat for all but two years going back to 1953.  The redistricting, however, only ate around 3% off vote total in 2002.  So the PA dummymander was a failure there too.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 15:23:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is true

If you play with Pennsylvania in Dave's app, you realize that the right antenna of PA-6 isn't grabbing Republican turf as I had always believed, it's grabbing Democratic turf that would otherwise be in PA-13.  Of course, PA-6 miraculously survived the dummymander, but it shows how ambitious they were in 2002.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 15:56:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look at Santorum numbers in 2000

and you can see why the GOP drew that lines in Philly area.  I believe in 2000 he won most if not of the Philly suburbs even as Bush43 flamed out.  

The Philly part of CD13 had been represented by a GOP congressionman in the 1980's.  There was certainly a hope that an out and out liberal like Schwartz would have trouble holding the seat.

Political crystal balls are imprecise and I always caution  folks here about 2012 or 2014 or beyond.  Drawing seats on 2008 numbers might not work out as you think.  Politicans whose jobs and livelihoods are the line tend to be more cautious then folks here.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 18:27:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Schwartz is a moderate (New Democrat)

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 19:08:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I buy that

but I was more referring to her as being seen as less electable then Bob Borski.  He was the congressman from Philly that can merged in with Schwartz.  

I think a bit more of PHILLY is in CD13 then Montco.  

I might add that the numbers the GOP was basing maps on in 2001 proved to be wrong.  The past is not always a perfect view into the future.  Always a good thing to remember in redistricting.

That remark might remind people of the picture in the travel agency in the "Truman Movie".  I am always telling people to avoid redistricting crashes.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 21:56:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The idea with the 13th

was to have Borski beat Hoeffel (the suburban candidate) in a bloody primary, leaving a pro-choice Republican (i.e., Melissa Brown) from the suburbs to win the seat. Borski withdrew instead.

As it stands, the Philadelphia part of the district remains more Democratic, and Schwartz still gets bigger margins from it. She's a really good fit.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 22:00:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think

Schwartz is certainly a lifer in that seat.  There was a little noise in 2010 about it but she got 56%.  I think if anything the seat will be stronger for her 2012.

I don't see her as a target.

I might add on a side note she was a big loser in 2010 in another way.  Due to democratic losses she had to give up her prime spot on Ways & Means committee.  She got a low ranking spot on foreign affairs.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 22:25:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my New York "compromise"

1. Cuomo gives a job, say, a judgeship, to a GOP state Senator from a blue district.
2. Democrats win the special election.
3. Democrats ram through Abgin's map.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 00:43:42 AM UTC

lol :)) It would be a great new :)

Looking to the redistricting in other states, sincerely, I hope someone think about your first point.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 01:50:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]