A question and a problem.

The problem is that Todd Young lives in Bloomington.

The question is whether Walorski lives in the new IN-02.  I hope not.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:06:59 PM UTC

Considering

he did not live in the 9th when he first considered running last time I doubt he would have trouble moving again. And Jackie would live in this new map, I'm pretty sure at least.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:46:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the posting the map

Probably a bit of an overkill with IN1 & IN2.  I would probably just do a St Joe, Elkhart and Kosciusko based seat with all of Lake, Porter and laPorte counties in either CD1 or CD4.  I think CD2 outlined as I said plus assorted rural counties will be solid enough GOP.  I understand the desire to pile on but for three or four percent I would rather see compact lines but that's just me.

I like the southern arrangement quite well.  Where Todd Young lives can be sorted out and splitting Bloomington is a good plan.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:35:35 PM UTC

Well Done

To be honest, I thought your first map was a little silly -- but this one is probably exactly what we're going to get (or at least what I would do if I were a Republican in charge of the process.

Things changed for the GOP in terms of redistircting when they took over the two southern Indiana seats -- no longer needing to pick one or both of them off, now they're on defense.  You come up with the same soluntion that I've thought about -- move Bloomington to a district with the cherry-red south Indy 'burbs.  In terms of creating a D vote sink in central Marion County (i.e. what we have now), and the surrounding suburbs, there are countless different formations one could come up with -- and you propose as valid a one as any other.

And no Demcocrat is going to win the new IN-02 like this.  Unfortunatly, that may mean saying hello to Congresswoman Wacky Jacky.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:37:17 PM UTC

But does Jacky live in the new IN-02?

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:40:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure

I thought she lived in Elkhart, but I looked up her old campaign website,and it had a Mishawaka P.O (which is next to South Bend in St Joe County).

Either way, her old House district is like 90% in the 2nd district as this diary drew it, and it would not take much alteration at all for her to be put into it.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:55:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Donnelly/Visclosky

Doesn't Visclosky have some corruption/integrity issues?  If so, that could be a winnable primary for Donnelly.

I doubt it will happen though--I would guess that Donnelly probably just runs for Senate (if Lugar retires/seems likely to get primaried) or for Governor.

---

by: ajwagner @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 18:28:58 PM UTC

Absolutely

While he has not been blatant "Hand in the cookie jar" caught, there are more than a few whiffs of corruption around Visclosky.  For now it hasn't really hurt him, in part because politics in the Region are as corrupt as anywhere in the country, and public expectations on ethics there are really, really low.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 18:37:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Out of the districts likely to go Republican

in the state, do you think any of them are bound to be even remotely competitive? Or are they likely to be made so friendly to the Republican candidate running that it doesn't matter?

Call me a pie in the sky optimist, but I don't like to write off any district. Some are obviously more worthy of our attention than others, but since Obama will probably contest the state and since it's possible that we will have a competitive senate race, I don't see why we can't work to defeat someone that has a steady if very small base. Take Dan Burton, for instance. His challengers in 2006, a very good year for Democrats, and in 2010, a very bad year for Democrats, each received about 60,000 votes. In 2004, his challenger received almost 83,000 votes, while in 2008, his challenger received more than 123,000. Burton obviously won both times, but his vote totals only increased by about 20,000 from 2006 to 2010 and by about 6,000 from 2004 to 2008.

In 2008, according to Open Secrets, his challenger, Mary Etta Ruley, raised all of $16,195 but, once again, received about 40,000 more votes. Perhaps that was the Obama campaign, or perhaps that was the year, or some combination of both. But regardless, there's clear some room to grow. Perhaps there's not enough room, considering the Republican bent of the district--it's R+17 right now, after all--but with a candidate that seemed to barely have a presence, there was some growth. I wonder what could happen if Indiana Democrats found someone who was a good fit for the district--a moderate if not conservative Democrat--who actually managed to raise a little money and ran a vigorous campaign AND then actually backed this candidate up by either spending on him or her specifically, by spending on this area in a presidential race, or by spending on the area in a senate--or all three. No, it wouldn't be easy, and perhaps, once I looked into it more, it would be impossible, but there's no reason why we shouldn't look to take advantage of opportunity, as small as it may be, where we can.  

"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. @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:16:47 PM UTC

I'd say his new 8th

and 2nd are still more competitive than he thinks they are.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:20:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's it?

"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. @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately yes.

---

by: jwaalk @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:52:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't people like

Melissa Dean give us some hope in this regard? I'm not saying that the stars will always align, but if some of the possible key ingredients for success, like a presidential campaign will be there, why not try? At the very least, let's find good candidates and them promote them.  

"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. @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:56:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you

Are way too bullish about the 2nd and 8th districts. The 8th is essentially the same district as it is now, at a PVI of R+8. Unless them Dems recruit the perfect candidate and a huge wave builds they are not retaking the seat. And the 2nd is probably out of reach as well, there are no Democratic areas in the district. College students and Hispanic voters in South Bend are now eaten up by the 1st. Sorry, but they are out of reach

19, gay male, IL-7, MN 4 (college), Dem

---

by: knickelbein5 @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 20:30:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm probably too bullish on the entire country.

It's always better to have more Democrats or at least have the possibility of more Democrats. I realize that we just aren't going to win some districts under any circumstances during any year, but I'm tired of fighting the same battles over the same areas. We should, for any number of reasons, but specifically to build up the party and/or find new leaders, work to expand the map as much as possible.

Now, some of these districts are probably out of reach, even in a great year. Maybe all of them are. But we won't know until we try. Like I said before, while I wouldn't want to divert key resources away much more favorable races, we should capitalize wherever we can. We clearly aren't doing that now.

I'm trying to find out more about some of these districts, but for a quick example, take Indiana-06, Mike Pence's district. It's probably a better example than Burton's district, since it's got a R+10 PVI, which is very strong but not nearly as strong as Burton's R+17.

In 2008, Pence won the district with 63.95 percent of the vote, but Obama came fairly close, winning 46 or 47 percent, compared to the 35 percent Kerry received in the state. Yet, Barry Welsh, Pence's opponent in 2008, only received 33.38 percent of the vote, barely better than 31 percent Melina Fox received in 2004. There was certainly a big switch in the favorables for our party from 2004 to 2008 and Obama actually contesting the state was bound to make a difference. But unless I am missing something, it doesn't look like the Democrats took either congressional race seriously. Fox raised about $50,000, while Welsh raised about half(!) of that, according to Open Secrets. It's obviously unrealistic to expect him to match Pence dollar for dollar right out of the gate, and since he wouldn't be a key candidate, he might not receive much of anything from the DCCC, if anything at all. But couldn't the Democrats have done anything to help him out? He had a Daily Kos page and attended at least one rally with Obama, but that was late in the game. If just 10,000 of Obama's campaign contributors had given him $20 a piece, he'd have $200,000, so perhaps Obama could have highlighted his campaign in some significant way in order to pump up his fundraising.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I'm not suggesting this can work in every district, but there are certainly some red districts in states that Obama is likely to contest that could be good test cases for such a strategy. And if Obama is going to be a $1 billion candidate, then 2012 is probably the time to do it.


"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. @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 22:25:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the Debate

Isn't about whether to run candidates in these districts, of course we should run candidates in these districts. The question is whether a Democratic candidate has a good chance of winning, and I would argue that aside from the 2 Democratic districts in this proposed map, no Democrat will win in any of these new districts. Money raised doesn't necessarily translate to votes, just ask Tommy Sowers in MO 08.

19, gay male, IL-7, MN 4 (college), Dem

---

by: knickelbein5 @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:55:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's more a question

of whether or not there's a coalition that can be put together and whether the resources can be devoted to a race. Some districts will just never elect a person from one party, but we aren't talking about targeting those. We're talking about, or at least I am talking about, targeting maybe as little as ten or maybe as many as 30 additional districts where we have the pieces, such as a retiring incumbent and a presidential and/or senate race also happening, largely in place.

Money would certainly be essential, but it's definitely not everything. Still, it won't always be as plentiful as it will be in 2012, so we should use it to our advantage while we can.  

"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. @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:55:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama and Mike Pence

Just to follow through a little with what I was saying before, the link below tells me that there were 464,904 voters in the district. Yet, only 282,142 people voted in the House race, a difference of 182,492, including those who voted for the Libertarian, for a turnout rate of 60.68 percent. Pence received 180,608 votes compared to Welsh's 94,265 votes, a usually huge victory.

How might have Welsh overtaken Pence? Well, let's assume that, for whatever reason, turnout went up to 70 percent. That would bring 325,433 voters out, or 43,291 more. Let's say that 65 percent of these additional voters went to Welsh, giving him an additional 28,139 votes for a total of 122,404. That would bring him up to 37.61 percent of the vote. So no, he's not really close. But assume that Pence either didn't get an additional 15,152 votes, or rather did but lost that many votes from previous voters. Let's say that, instead of getting an additional 15,152 voters, he wouldn't get those, and would in fact lose 10,000 more. Welsh would then be up to 137,556 votes, or 42.29 percent.

That's a huge jump, yes, but if Pence went down 10,000 votes, that's about a six or seven percent drop--not exactly huge. If Pence saw a full ten percent drop, he'd have been down about 18,249 votes, to 164,243 total. We already gave Welsh all of the 43,291 additional votes from increased turnout, but let's give him ten percent of Pence's voters, the full 18,249. That would bring him up to 155,805 votes, or 47.87 percent. The difference separating the two would then be 8,348. An additional 10,000 voters, just to give Welsh a buffer, would bring him up to 50.94 percent.

So, in this scenario, Welsh would have gone from 94,265 votes to 165,805, or 71,540 more votes. That's almost an 80 percent increase. Sounds incredible, right? No, impossible? Absolutely, positively, out of the question? Well, maybe not. For starters, out of that 71,540 votes, 18,249 of them, about 26 percent of that came from Pence's total. Maybe some will claim that's an unrealistic total, but again, that's only shaving ten percent from what Pence would otherwise have had, so I don't think so. That leaves the other 53,291 votes. Out of that number, 43,291 would come from increased turnout from that already existing voter pool. Maybe that sounds like a lot, but it represents going from 60.68 to 70 percent. That would a pretty big increase, but entirely doable. Now, what about those extra 10,000 votes? Well, we could always find new voters and register them. If we found 20,000 new voters and registered them, we'd increase the voting pool by about four percent. That sounds doable. And if we could have a mediocre success rate of just 50 percent, we'd have our additional 10,000 voters.

Perhaps this just won't work, because there aren't enough voters, registered or unregistered, that would really consider voting for a Democrat. But I think Obama's percentage completely undermined that claim. Maybe it's different for legislative races in this district, but at the very least, they aren't so reflexively Republican that they won't ever vote for a Democrat. That, at least, gives us a chance. We'd need a good candidate and the right resources to get over the hump, but the template is there.

http://www.in.gov/sos/election...

"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. @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:47:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd disagree about your 8th

The current version is essentially a Democratic gerrymander. Any district that keeps Evansville and Terre Haute is going to competitive for Democrats in a neutral-ish environment, if they put up a legitimate challenger.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:18:53 PM UTC

At R+8???

Really??? That doesn't sound competitive to me.

19, gay male, IL-7, MN 4 (college), Dem

---

by: knickelbein5 @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:58:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, it was won by a Democrat fairly recently, no?

"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. @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:48:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

IN-08 was won big, too

Ellsworth got 61.1% in 2006 against a flawed incumbent and 64.7% against a weak challenger in 2008. Granted, both were strong D wave years and Ellsworth was a great candidate, but the dude easily cleared 60% both years. The votes are there to win it, obviously.

Everyone should remember that up until 2010, a number of Democrats were holding districts that were up to R+20 (Chet Edwards in TX-17). Even today, we've still got Matheson in a R+15 and Boren in R+14. Cook PVI is only a rough measurement, and popular local candidates can easily overperform presidential numbers...in some cases, WAY overperform.

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

---

by: arealmlc @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 05:20:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very well said.

I'll be the first to admit that we are likely to end up with some Democrats that I and others complain about fairly frequently. But at the same time, while there's always a chance that we get another Matheson, we could get a Perriello. And regardless, this person will be a Democrat, and even if he votes with us 30 percent of the time instead of five percent, it'll be worth it.

As I indicated in another thread, if there's going to be a presidential campaign and/or a senate campaign in the state, every House district should be up for grabs, especially if the incumbent is retiring or not running for some other reason. We won't win in all of these districts. Perhaps we won't win in half of them. But we could win in some of them, and if we picked off an extra five districts that were otherwise deeply red, we are helping ourselves in countless ways.  

"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. @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 13:32:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps the State House Democrats

could use redistricting as a bargaining chip to get a fairer map. I hope that's on the table.

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 @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 20:18:40 PM UTC