4-district Iowa

I hope this redistricting ends Tom Latham's career... it would be nicer for Steve King to go but I doubt he can lose a primary that's a race to the right.  

---

by: brittain33 @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 17:37:41 PM UTC

agree

which is why Latham will almost certainly run in the new IA-03. Even though Latham has more money and GOP establishment support than Steve King, I would expect King to win a primary pitting the two against each other.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:11:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for moving this map to a new thread.

I think its an interesting map and suggested that it was not as favorable as the democrats would like.  For those who did not see my points on the other thread here they are.

1. CD1 in which Braley won by 49-48 in 2010 is kept intact. He keeps every county in his seat.  So can you competitive? So the question is does the addition of these 10 rural  counties help him?  In 2010 Braley lost every rural county but one and now he gets 10 rural counties that went strong for Latham and Brandstad.  I suspect given his narrow 2010 win Braley would have loved to have been given Linn or Cedar or Muscatine county rather then these 10 counties.  These ten counties are the heart of the corn belt in Iowa.  McCain did poorly in the corn belt as he was against tax breaks for Ethanol.  In 2010 the corn belt went strong against democrats as prices have dropped.  Braley, under this map, gets the worst area he could get and keep his old seat intact.

2. How about Boswell?  He gets Latham and Story county under this map.  A proven vote getter, money raiser, a guy who will unite the GOP party.  Boswell has faced weak GOP foes with party unity problems who have been so so money raisers.  Latham is top tier foe.  In addition Dallas and Warren counties are counties Latham has won by big margins in the past.  Dallas county is fast growing and has been a GOP strongehold.  Marion county has been strong for GOP as well.  Boswell was fairly weak in the other three smallish rural counties so he gets no huge breaks there.  If you have to put Latham and Boswell in a fair fight seat this is about the best combination of counties the GOP could hope for.  

3. As a side note CD2 remains in tact, Loebsack won 51% in 2010.  He picks up a slew of rural counties that were won by either Latham or Zaun in 2010.  His seat is noticeably more rural and less democratic.  For a candidate who won 51% in 2010 he did not gain a single reliably D county.  So this map does not do the democrats any favors.  In fact the incumbents will take a tums after seeing this map.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 18:19:31 PM UTC

not all rural counties are the same

Looking at the new counties added to IA-01 in this configuration, I see Winneshiek County, home of Decorah and the Luther College campus, which has been trending Democratic for some time. Lots of people living off the grid, eating organic food, etc. Winneshiek was one of only 10 Iowa counties to vote yes on retaining the three Supreme Court justices who were on the ballot in 2010. (Iowans in the other 89 counties voted to oust the judges.)

Another one added to the district is Floyd County, which was one of only nine counties Chet Culver carried in the IA-Gov race. Republicans did win the Iowa House seat that contains Floyd County, but I wouldn't call this a heavily Republican area.

Cerro Gordo County, containing Mason City, has the most people of the new counties added to IA-01. It isn't a huge Democratic stronghold but does have pretty good Democratic performance. It went for Kerry in 2004 (pdf), for Culver in 2006 (pdf) and for Obama in 2008 (pdf). Culver only lost the county by about 100 votes in 2010 (pdf) despite getting beaten pretty badly statewide.

Chickasaw County is small and rural but traditionally has decent Democratic performance too--went for Kerry, Obama and Culver the first time, and Culver didn't lose it by much this time.

Latham sits on Approps, keeps his head down and has carried all those far NE Iowa counties for the last several elections. But if given a choice between Braley and a generic Republican, I think Braley has a good chance in a bunch of the new counties added to IA-01 on this map.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:54:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's ironic

is that Boswell was seen as the weakest Dem in Iowa, but he ended up winning by a bigger margin than the other two.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 18:22:43 PM UTC

Sorry about that OT topic

rdelbov's comment about how close it was for Braley got me thinking about it.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 18:50:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Braley's foe

turned out to be a pretty tough cookie while Boswell's guy had a past.  Zaun, Boswell's foe, had been arrested and charged with a domestic violence situation.  I can't recall all the details but Iowa is midwest nice.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 19:05:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Braley's opponent

was a total non-entity who sat back and watched the American Future Fund spend $1.4 million making the case against Braley.

Republicans should have nominated a stronger candidate--they might have picked off Braley last year.

Looking ahead, Braley should benefit substantially from higher presidential-year turnout. Democratic turnout was pretty weak in 2010 in his key counties, while Republican turnout in Iowa was off the charts.

On the downside for Braley, now that everyone sees he was vulnerable he may draw a stronger opponent, and I wouldn't be surprised if the American Future Fund spends another $1 million against him. The guy who runs the AFF, Nick Ryan, knows the district well. Not only did he grow up there, he used to work for Jim Nussle (Braley's predecessor in IA-01).

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:33:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for your local insight

if I read you right a more formiable foe might have beat Braley

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:52:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe so

Most people didn't think Braley was vulnerable until the late summer. He drew a bunch of "some dudes" in a primary, that was all. The AFF started spending big money against him in August. He didn't have campaign staff on the ground in the district until September and could easily have been caught flat-footed.

On the other hand, if he'd faced a top-tier opponent he might have done more fundraising and campaigning during the first eight months of 2010.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:56:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

to give you an idea

You can't get much more say-nothing generic than Ben Lange's first tv commercial or his closing spot. The American Future Fund basically did all the hard work for him.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:04:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Loebsack's margin

was a tiny bit more than Boswell's, but Loebsack's district was D+7, while Boswell's was D+1. Loebsack faced the best opponent and was late to recognize he was in trouble. Boswell knew he was vulnerable, and his campaign prepared early to execute the "win ugly" strategy effectively.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:35:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

kind of like Arkansas

2 rural districts along the Mississippi River
1 centered around the capital city
1 in the most Republican part of the state

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 18:32:39 PM UTC

I like it better than Goobergunch's IA map

from that thread. But he was trying to minimize population variance between the CD's (and managed to get within an amazing .03%).

---

by: homerun @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 23:24:04 PM UTC

from the Iowa Code

Link:

Code section 42.4(1) requires that a congressional redistricting plan contain districts which have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population for a congressional district in the plan. Specifically, the Code provides that the deviation percentage variance for any congressional district in a redistricting plan shall not exceed 1 percent unless necessary to comply with constitutional requirements as provided in Article III, section 37, of the Iowa Constitution.36 Article III, section 37, of the Iowa Constitution provides that counties shall not be split between more than one congressional district and that a congressional district containing more than one county shall not be entirely separated by a county belonging to a different congressional district. Important to note, however, is that the Code provides that if a redistricting plan is challenged in court based upon an excessive population variance among districts, the General Assembly has the burden of justifying any deviation percentage variance in excess of 1 percent for any district in the plan.3

In 2001 the first map proposed by the Legislative Services Agency had a slightly-larger population variance than the second map (which was accepted). The first map was more compact, however. The code doesn't require them to propose the map with the smallest possible population variance.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:59:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

again

Yor way is very close to my way for redistring Iowa. They are some difference because I do it with the old numbers, but very few.

I think it is the right way. If you find a balance between the urban areas, and if you find to keep in the same district every metropolitan area, you would have a map very, very close to this.

Maybe you would have Grundy county in your purple (IA-01), Jones county in your green (IA-02) and Madison and Guthrie counties in your blue (IA-03) with few more chance for balance the map.

Since I do a map very close to this, I obviously think it is a good way for redistricting Iowa.

---

by: abgin @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 00:57:05 AM UTC

the map is very logical

and compact. I tend to agree with Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08, who has predicted that Republicans would object to a map with a huge IA-04 taking up most of western Iowa. They would raise objections similar to the talking points used in 2011 regarding the current IA-05 (too large and too rural).

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:39:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was my objection in an earlier post

that discussed the 2001 map.  District 5 is very large and only has one medium sized city.  Of course putting Ames in CD5 would have the effect of putting Latham and King in the same seat for a second redistricting cycle.  

There has been districts that nearly traversed the southern border of Iowa.  I think the GOP would like to see a seat across the Northern border of Iowa.  

Either way I think SS's map gives them a better then decent shot at 2-2.  I would not count on a massive D turnout in 2012.  Its early to tell but the farm economy was hurting in 2010 and that hurt the democrats.  I don't see a brisk recovery on the farm in 2011 or 2012.  

The Farm belt has a long history of rebellion against the powers that be in DC.  Right now everytime the price of corn goes down or tractor fuel costs more its the fault of whoever is in power in DC.

I guess we will see pretty quickly.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:59:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no matter what the map is

Latham's presence gives the Republicans a decent shot at 2-2. Latham is going to have almost unlimited resources because he is on the Approps Committee, hoarded his cash from the last cycle and is one of Boehner's best friends. The NRCC will play heavily in whatever district Latham runs in. In fact, some people around here (including me) believe that the NRCC hung Brad Zaun out to dry because Latham was already thinking about running in IA-03 for 2012 and didn't want to have a primary against someone with a Polk County base.

Latham's never alienated no-party voters, and I think he is trying to moderate his image a little bit going into the next cycle.

I agree with you that Democratic turnout in Iowa isn't going to break records in 2012. But Republican turnout here was simply astounding in 2010. Relatively speaking, Iowa Democrats have almost nowhere to go but up.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:09:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

desMD

great points.  I ask that question alot here.  What will 2012 turnout & vote mix look like?  

I think that's a two part answer.  2010 saw higher turnout in Iowa then in 2006.  There was a certainly more of a GOP blend of voters in 2010 then in 2006. I might add that in 2010 GOP party  primary turnout, nationwide, exceeded democratic primary turnout for the 1st time since 1930. Yes that held up in Nov 2010.

The second part of the 2010 story was the shift amount indie voters.  Independent voters said no to DC democrats.  Yes there was exceptions over all the indie vote shifted from 2008 to 2010.  That why you saw states where obama won big the democrats lost big like in MI, WI, Iowa and elsewhere.  It was a two prong shift.

Yes turnout was higher in 2008 then in 2004 and the voter blend was better for D's but the key was the indie shift.  If you have the same blend of voters in 2012 as in 2008 but the indies shift back what will that electorate look like?  I might that indications still look like a deflated D base and an inspired R base.  So I can't tell what 2012 will look like for certain.  The Higher voter turnout in 2012 could help democrats but if its still highly centered in the West coast/North East or urban centers and college towns how will that impact say a state like Iowa?  

I don't know.  That story has not been written yet.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:36:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't know that indie shift

was the biggest factor in Iowa. The statewide statistical report (pdf file) shows that the total number of Iowans who cast ballots in the midterm (1,121,175) was just under 53 percent of all registered Iowa voters. However, GOP turnout was nearly 69 percent (of 646,396 registered Republicans, 445,829 voted), while Democratic turnout was only 56.5 percent (of 698,227 registered Democrats, 394,252 voted).

No-party voters have a plurality in Iowa but turned out at a much lower for the midterm (which was also the case in 2006). Out of 773,282 no-party registrants, just 281,546 (36.5 percent) voted in the 2010 election.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:57:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the stats

and you could be right.  I do note on exit polls for Iowa for 2008 & 2010 the shift there was a shift to indies.

Obama won indies in 2008 by 56-41 while Branstad won indies 51-41.  Its hard to know how the indies voted down in congressional races but apparently that trend in Iowa held up.  

By self identified party ID in 2010 CNN exits had the electorate in Iowa +4R while in 2008 it was +1D.  So that's a pretty significant shift.  You are certainly right there. As I said its a combination of factors.  The blend of party voters and shift in indies

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 13:09:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

district along the northern border.

I think you are probably right about the GOP wanting a district along the northern border (though it would probably have to take in parts of the western border as well) The heavily republican counties in the northwest would very probably outweigh the slightly democratic counties in the north central region and the democratic counties in the northeast.

---

by: Johannes @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:45:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree

Especially since Latham has represented those north-central and northeast counties for some time. He routinely carries Cerro Gordo (Mason City area) and Webster (Fort Dodge) for instance, even though those counties often tilt to Democrats.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 15:43:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, they want not it because the new population data give hive a bad prospect

With little changes, what I wish to confirm when David add the final data, the rating of the districts what I have is

IA-01 D+5
IA-02 D+6
IA-03 D+1

Still a little better than when I make public the map.

But at same time this configuration is very solid against the republican objection.

If they want to make the future IA-04 less republican and less rural they need to include Store county and they would go to a King-Latham primary.

In a map like this:

IA-03 (purple) would be 52.27% Obama, that mean only R+1, and would be Latham-free.

And the new IA-04 (red), with King and Latham, would be something like R+6 (I don not the exact calculus).

It would be not as bad. The republicans have a decent headhache in Iowa.

---

by: abgin @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:36:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

IA-01 would be D+5 and IA-02 D+6

---

by: abgin @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:39:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Latham could move into that IA-03

and win it easily.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:58:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

mmm

As worst case seems not a big improvement for the republicans, and Latham need to move. The district is very close to a EVEN rating and have only three counties from the current IA-04. It is a lot more Boswell territory, but surely you know about the chance of everyone better than me. I would be not as pessimistic.

Still, if you feel not not safe then you (as democrats from IA) need to find some strong objections against it. Like I tell this would be a worst case map.

---

by: abgin @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 04:34:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

changes

---

by: abgin @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 00:58:46 AM UTC