They're in full lemming mode over at blue virginia!

Apparently pretty looking districts are more important than healthcare, education, reproductive rights etc....

http://www.bluevirginia.us/dia...

25, Democrat, male, Currently living and voting in PA-2, originally form OK-1

---

by: okiedem @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 17:51:06 PM UTC

Sigh

Good to see our own Johnny Longtorso speaking up over there, but really, Johnny, come back to your friends who never met a gerrymander they couldn't love. :)

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 17:57:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm pretty outnumbered there

I haven't bothered with any more responses, since it seems pointless.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:10:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've met plenty of gerrymanders I can't love

The biggest one is called Texas.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:57:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not even going to click on that

I am a "good government" type of guy through and through, but redistricting is where I draw the line am overly educated and know that lines are just lines.  In many cases, the uglier map is the one most representative of the state as a whole.  The current MN map, what a gerrymandered piece of garbage drawn by the courts no less.  I'm looking at you MN-6, St. Cloud to Woodbury?  Give me a break.

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have to do it if they do it

In a perfect world, we could draw "fair" districts, and the Republicans would draw 'fair" districts.

In the real world, we need to draw the most ruthless gerrymander humanly possible in the extremely limited places we have control of.  

---

by: Hypertag @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:52:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Watkins' "fair" map

splits up several Democrats' seats and weakens others. Apparently "communities of interest" only apply when it's a Republican incumbent. I don't really know what Chantilly has in common with outer Loudoun, or Blacksburg with Rockbridge County. I count seven Dems that would either be DOA or in serious danger under that map: George Barker, Chuck Colgan, Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Edd Houck, John Miller, and Ralph Northam. The Charlottesville seat would have no incumbent, and would be a Dem pickup. So, that's about a net -6 seats for the Dems under this "fair" plan.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:53:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spoiled?

Not to sound like Geno Auriemma, but I wonder if they're not a little spoiled up there?

Coming from a state where we haven't had a statewide Democrat since 1998; where Democrats have had no state level office since 2002 when we finally lost the State House and Speakership; and where Republicans did a mid-decade redistricting, I'm all for the Howell proposal that looks to solidify a Democratic majority.

In Virginia, since 98' they lost the General Assembly, but managed to elect 2 Govs, 1 Lt. Gov, and regain the State Senate.

We came close to a takeover of the State House after 2008, only to have the Republicans get a super-majority after 2010.

In lieu of a non-partisan redistricting commission, I'll take a map that favors my party.

---

by: TXObserver @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 20:03:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And

And 2 U.S. Senators.

---

by: TXObserver @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 20:42:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The comments over there

Are really weird to me. I don't understand the objections to this deal at all. There are some goo-goo concerns about splitting communities... man, do people really ever notice the effects of that? (Obviously excepting the lower likelihood of minorities getting elected when minority communities are split.) And if your community is of a meaningful size, wouldn't it be better to have two legislators representing you instead of one?

Then there are claims that this is actually a bad map that will endanger Democrats. Well, I dunno - are we supposed to think that Dems in the state Senate are stupid or misguided? I'm sure they paid plenty of money for the best gerrymander they felt was sustainable. There don't seem to be any good arguments that the map has tipped over into a dummymander. I'd be pretty surprised if any other materially different maps would actually protect Democrats better.

And even if somehow Dems did lose control of the Senate with this map... wouldn't it be more likely that we'd regain control in the future with a Dem-friendly gerrymander than with some other map? I'm just really baffled by this whole thing.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:39:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think what it amounts to

is that many liberals find it impossible to take their own side in a fight.  

---

by: andgarden @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 23:48:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well I live here as an activist and don't understand these complaints any better than you......

I'm just as baffled as you are.

The only thing I can piece together from this is that these people are being very parochial in their concerns, and in denial that not all their local druthers can be fully harmonized with the need to keep the state Senate in Democratic hands.

People like Johnny Longtorso and Not John Mosby are doing a brilliant job at explaining why the proposed map is good and other ideas are bad.  I want to believe they're making headway in convincing the liberal Virginia blogosphere that this is what's best.

I think what makes it harder for people to buy into the map is that Ben Tribbett at NLS has earned, mostly rightly, a reputation as an A-list number-cruncher when it comes to Virginia's political geography and voting behavior.  He knows the precincts and districts and badly wants to shoot down this map.  But he's not always right, and he's not making any kind of persuasive argument in defense of his position in this case.  Ben himself wants to run for state Senate in what under this proposal would be my(!) district, SD-31.  He's an Arlington-based guy and if he has to campaign in McLean and Great Falls and even Loudoun, that makes it harder for him to get out of a primary.  So he has a personal stake in seeing this map killed.  That doesn't mean he hasn't sincerely convinced himself that this is a bad map, but like I said he's not made his case.  But he carries a lot of weight as a number-cruncher in the Virginia blogosphere, so it's hard for people to reject his point of view on this type of issue.

It helps that people like Johnny and Not John Mosby are knowledgeable and studious enough to figure out and explain well why Ben is wrong.  But they don't have their own blogs to use as bullhorns and build the reputations that Ben has.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:28:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gave up

Lowell can be maddeningly dismissive at times, and it's obvious the majority sides with him.

NLS used to be the #1 numbers and electoral analysis guy in Virginia, but in the past few years his blog has become 99% gossip and "scandal" (usually involving one of the many politicians he has a grudge against), and 1% relevant content. I can't say I trust his analysis anymore.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:40:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it's too many activists

think they understand politics but they actually only understand policy.  I did an off-campus program my junior year still in the Twin Cities with a consortium program with other colleges.  They were all extremely hardcore activists and put me to shame to thinking I did enough to care.  One day we decide to explore what are our strengths and weaknesses, with the options being things like organizing, protesting, consumer choices, civil disobedience, couple others, and then political activism.  I am the only one who stands under that sign for strengths when over half my class stands under it for weakness.

DFL endorsement process, ::sigh::  People complain Dayton bankrolled his own campaign and beat MAK with ads.  Well, have a normal primary so all the donors don't withhold until we have an official nominee because of not wanting to cross the DFL endorsee.

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 02:56:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And thanks so much for putting this together

This is way easier to understand than the DLE website!

25, Democrat, male, Currently living and voting in PA-2, originally form OK-1

---

by: okiedem @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 17:52:00 PM UTC

Awesome post

If I didn't have to write a cover letter for a job app due today, I'd spend an hour on this thing.

One question, what's the overall Dem/Rep projection for each map?

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 18:46:50 PM UTC

That's all I'm really interested in

---

by: jwaalk @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 19:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's kind of hard to say

since there are a lot of variables at work.

For the Democratic plan, the best-case scenario is 24 seats (Dems hold all their current seats, and pick up the Richmond and Virginia Beach seats). More likely it will probably be somewhere between 21 and 23 seats. Phil Puckett, Roscoe Reynolds, and Edd Houck are still in vulnerable districts, while the new Richmond seat should go to the Dems.

For the Republican plan, it would be a bloodbath. I'd say the Democrats would end up with around 16 or 17 seats.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 20:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP plan

You're referring to Watkins' plan?  I still can't comprehend why NLS would prefer it.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently he wants to run for the State Senate

He lives in Arlington, so I guess he doesn't think he could win in a district that stretches out to Loudoun.

Quite frankly, I don't think he could win, period. The last time a blogger ran for the legislature here, he came in fourth in a 5-way primary. And NLS is an incredibly abrasive figure. I doubt he'd win many friends outside of his fellow bloggers.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:07:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL!

Seriously? He's said that? Your characterization is probably about as charitable as one can be. That's an absurd hope.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:28:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Charitable is right, a Democrat doesn't win in Virginia by...

...trashing Tim Kaine, Gerry Connolly, and Dave Marsden.  These are perfectly well-liked people who have never lost elections, but Ben trashes them as much as any Repubulican could.

That doesn't even mention his less intentional backstabs, like 2 years ago when right before the election he gave an "award" for best attack web site to Republican challenger Barbara Comstock to my Democratic Delegate, Margi Vanderhye.  I'm as obsessive a junkie as there is, and even I had never heard of Comstock's web site attacking Margi on taxes.  So Ben really handed Comstock free online publicity on the state's most widely-read ostensibly partisan blog.

If Ben had any chance of getting out of a primary, it would be in a very divided field.  Even then I'm not convinced he wouldn't be in barely-registering territory.  If he did survive a primary, I'd be scared shitless we'd lose what should be a safe D seat to the GOP.

And get this, Ben's not the only NoVA blogger contemplating a run this year.  Brian Schoenaman, a GOP blogger, is running for Delegate challenging incumbent Dem David Bulova--the son of Fairfax County Board Chair Sharon Bulova.  David Bulova is in a Democratic district that will be status quo under the proposed map, so no real risk there.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:35:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just looked at the winning student plans for the state senate

They are awful.  The competition plan violates communities of interest (whatever that means) left and right.  The commission plan would make it almost impossible to win a majority.

My guesstimate for Democratic seats under both plans would be:
8 Northern VA
5 VRA districts
1-3 others in NOVA and Hampton Roads

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:22:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, now that I've looked at the House numbers

I'm going to do a little analysis. Overall, it's going to be pretty brutal for Democrats in the House of Delegates over the next decade.

The Democrats currently have 39 seats in the House. Three of them have had their districts removed (Bud Phillips in the 2nd, Ward Armstrong in the 10th, and Paula Miller in the 87th). In addition, Al Pollard in the 99th is retiring, which is pretty much a guaranteed Republican pickup.

That puts the Democrats at 35 seats. 28 of those seats are safe, because any district that voted for Deeds is almost assuredly going to elect a Democrat. (Overall, the Republicans left NoVa Dems alone, preferring to go after Democrats in Hampton Roads and SWVA, while attempting to shore up the seats they picked up in 2009.) In addition, the 12th went from 58% Deeds to 49% Deeds, but the reason for that drop is Deeds' home territory was removed from the district; I would count it as safe, as it's based in Blacksburg. So that's 29 seats.

This leaves 6 Democrats in >51% McDonnell districts. The 37th and 41st are in Fairfax and both gave Deeds 47%, so I would count them as pretty secure. The 100th is based on the Eastern Shore, and the incumbent there, Lynwood Lewis, has enough personal popularity to survive there fairly easily (and his district was slightly improved with new precincts in Norfolk).

That gives the Democrats a pretty solid base of 32 seats. The remaining three districts are trouble: Robin Abbott in the 93rd saw her district shrink from 47% Deeds to 43%. Everyone else is writing her off as done for; I think she can still win, but it would be tough. The other two districts, however, are much trickier. Both the Isle of Wight-based 64th and extreme southwestern 4th are gone the second the incumbents retire, and a strong challenger could unseat the incumbents.

As for offense... It doesn't look good. Obviously Dems have to go after all the NoVa seats, because that's where they do best. Tom Rust in the 86th remains the most vulnerable Republican, though he saw his district go from 49% to 47% Deeds. The 34th, 42nd, and 67th districts are also ones that should be contested, though again, the numbers have been massaged to get an extra point or two of Republican performance. Of the three new seats in NoVa, the 2nd and 87th would be good targets; they clock in at 41% and 42% Deeds, respectively. They'd be tough to win, but not impossible. Beyond that, there might be outside shots at the 13th, 21st, and 31st. So the Democrats are probably locked into somewhere between 32-40 seats for the next ten years, unless they start to do better again in the more rural parts of the state. Pretty sad, but what can you do?

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:36:59 AM UTC

Look at it this way

There's almost no chance that the Republicans drew a 2/3 McCain majority (likewise Kilgore 2005). So the votes have to be there for Some Democratic majority on this map. It just might be tricky.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:16:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vaugely related

I'm not sure I understood why you didn't like the idea of NY Dems making the same deal as the VA Republicans. My feeling is that if Skelos were to offer that, we'd obviously keep the Assembly, we'd get an awesome free hand on the federal level, and no matter how brutal a gerrymander the Senate GOP made, they'd still be living on borrowed time.

After all, we broke through their last gerrymander in 2008 - and this time, population has sunk in upstate NY, plus prisoners can no longer be counted as living where their prisons are. So for these reasons, even the "best" Senate map for Republicans would be something we'd win back some day (and probably relatively soon).

And think of the Congressional map we could create! While I'd lobby for Shelly Silver to hire abgin as his chief consultant, even if we didn't get a 28-0 map (I kid), we'd still wind up with something nice and defendable, with a bit of upside (just thanks to time) and almost no downside.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:25:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're right that we can beat them

on their own Senate map in NY. But I think the example of our last majority should serve as a warning. I want to write carefully here, but it's probably not wrong to say that there are several Democratic Senators who are either corrupt, politically unreliable, or both. We need to win a majority in the Senate that doesn't rely on such people, and we need to do it in the first instance.

There's also the confluence of my personal interest in passing marriage equality in NY, which I don't think can be done by just winning on their map. Or, at least, it won't be as sure a thing.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:34:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a very fair point

But I think we'd need, oh, around 38 if not 40 guys before we were no longer beholden to the Espadas of the world (or their ilk). I mean, we're already at the mercy of those four "independent Democrats" or whatever the fuck they call themselves. So that means 36 right off the bat. And I just think even with a court-drawn map, we're unlikely to do well enough to clear the hurdle you identify.

As for marriage equality, I agree, it's certainly more likely to happen the more Dems we elect - but of course, so are most good things. (I realize that this particular issue is of unusual import, though.)

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:06:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't underestimate

the opportunity that a fresh map during a Presidential election presents. I could easily imagine winning 2/3 of the seats in 2012. Of course, that's just speculation, and who knows how well we would do in 2014 (I'm not remotely prepared to bet against Cuomo--Republican lite or otherwise).

Another point to consider is this: I do not believe that the Republicans will honor the "count the prisoners at home" legislation from last session. And because it's just last session, "last in time" means that they probably don't have to. A court, on the other hand, probably does.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:30:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait, why?

What does "last in time" mean? Also, it doesn't matter whether they accept the legislation - all it'll take is a lawsuit to force them to recognize it. That's a pretty cognizable one man, one vote claim.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 18:15:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New legislative redistricting

requires new legislation. The Republicans can and will renegotiate the prisoner count.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 18:19:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We'll see about that

I'm not sure it's that simple.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:14:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I confess that I am not a

New York statutory construction whiz, but I think it's common ground that one legislature cannot bind a future one. If a Republican map based on unadjusted Census figures is passed into law, I don't see how you can argue that it is impermissible because it violates some previous law.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 20:21:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

On legal grounds, I don't doubt that you are correct as a technical point. I just think politically, Democrats (especially those who represent minority communities) would have a very hard time giving up on a fairly major piece of legislation they just passed. You said that Republicans "will renegotiate" the prison law. I think they'd very much like to, but I don't think it's on the table.

Then again, pretty much the entire NY legislature (and certainly all its leadership) are a bunch of crooks, so you never know what those thugs will barter.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:23:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As they say,

"past performance is no guarantee of future results," but the "deal" I envision is identical to the one Shelly Silver agreed to ten years ago. Perhaps Skelos would allow a freer Democratic hand on the Congressional map as a result of his conference's weakened position, but I wouldn't bet on that either.

All of these uncertainties are solved if we can prevail on Cuomo to make good on his veto threat.  

---

by: andgarden @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 05:44:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And they should just mid-decade redistrict

and be done with it if given the opportunity.  Pass a law saying they can and then do it if need be.  No more!  One hand at drawing the map would secure NY until who knows when.

Dream scenario, economy is okay'ish, Obama wins NY big, retake senate with their own stupid map, redistrict, gay marriage after 2014 elections once we have enough of the right Dems.  NY perfect for life.  CA needs to be readjusted somehow as well as it is not as reliable as it should be.  It's unfortunately not just a matter of electing more Dems or really even better Dems, which makes it tougher to get on track to being to producing the Dems and accomplishments we need for the party.

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 03:10:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Johnny

Would you care to re-post this comment as a diary?

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:16:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Done.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:55:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which election?

This is an interesting analysis, but one problem could be looking only at the Deeds race, since in the end he did quite poorly.  It may be of value to look at the same districts using the Kane, Webb, or Obama races.  Perhaps the outlook for Democrats would look better under such analysis.

---

by: LanceS @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 13:45:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VA Senate Howell Districts in Dave's App

As best I could I drew out the proposed Senate districts under the Howell plan using Dave's App. Some caution on these numbers, the Howell plan does split precincts and I don't think Dave's App allows for this (if it does my apologies).

1
58% Obama/42% McCain
55% White, 31% Black, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  59% White, 29% Black, 7% Hispanic, 4% Asian
Avg. 2000-20009  52% Dem/48% Rep

2
70% Obama/30% McCain
38% White, 51% Black, 5% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  41% White, 50% Black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  65% Dem/35% Rep

3
38% Obama/62% McCain
81% White, 13% Black, 3% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP  82% White, 12% Black, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  39% Dem/62% Rep

4
39% Obama/61% McCain
77% White, 15% Black, 4% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  78% White, 15% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  38% Dem/62% Rep

5
74% Obama/26% McCain
35% White, 55% Black, 5% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  38% White, 53% Black, 5% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  69% Dem/32% Rep

6
57% Obama/43% McCain
60% White, 26% Black, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  62% White, 25% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  54% Dem/46% Rep

7
52% Obama/48% McCain
55% White, 28% Black, 8% Hispanic, 7% Asian
VAP  59% White, 24% Black, 7% Hispanic, 7% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  52% Dem/48% Rep

8
63% Obama/37% McCain
53% White, 30% Black, 10% Hispanic, 5% Asian
VAP  57% White, 28% Black, 9% Hispanic, 5% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  56% Dem/44% Rep

9
75% Obama/25% McCain
38% White, 55% Black, 3% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP  41% White, 52% Black, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  71% Dem/29% Rep

10
39% Obama/61% McCain
76% White, 15% Black, 3% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  78% White, 16% Black, 3% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  37% Dem/63% Rep

11
42% Obama/58% McCain
68% White, 25% Black, 4% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  70% White, 25% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  40% Dem/60% Rep

12
41% Obama/59% McCain
77% White, 11% Black, 4% Hispanic, 7% Asian
VAP  78% White, 11% Black, 3% Hispanic, 6% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  39% Dem/61% Rep

13
43% Obama/57% McCain
66% White, 21% Black, 4% Hispanic, 6% Asian
VAP  68% White, 21% Black, 4% Hispanic, 6% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  43% Dem/57% Rep

14
37% Obama/63% McCain
81% White, 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  83% White, 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  38% Dem/62% Rep

15
37% Obama/63% McCain
74% White, 22% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  75% White, 22% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  37% Dem/63% Rep

16
72% Obama/29% McCain
35% White, 53% Black, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP  38% White, 52% Black, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  64% Dem/37% Rep

17
51% Obama/49% McCain
70% White, 17% Black, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP  72% White, 17% Black, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  47% Dem/53% Rep

18
64% Obama/36% McCain
42% White, 52% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  44% White, 51% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  61% Dem/39% Rep

19
37% Obama/63% McCain
91% White, 4% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  92% White, 4% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  39% Dem/61% Rep

20
49% Obama/51% McCain
67% White, 28% black, 4% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  69% White, 27% Black, 3% Hispanic
Avg. 2000-2009  48% Dem/52% Rep

21
57% Obama/43% McCain
73% White, 16% Black, 4% Hispanic, 4% Asian
VAP  76% White, 15% Black, 4% Hispanic, 4% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  55% Dem/45% Rep

22
51% Obama/49% McCain
65% White, 9% Black, 10% Hispanic, 13% Asian
VAP  67% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic, 13% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  46% Dem/54% Rep

23
37% Obama/63% McCain
80% White, 14% Black, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP  82% White, 14% Black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  39% Dem/61% Rep

24
36% Obama/64% McCain
88% White, 6% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  89% White, 7% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  35% Dem/66% Rep

25
58% Obama/43% McCain
81% White, 10% Black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  82% White, 9% Black, 3% Hispanic, 4% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  56% Dem/44% Rep

26
41% Obama/59% McCain
86% White, 3% Black, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  88% White, 3% Black, 6% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  38% Dem/63% Rep

27
43% Obama/57% McCain
83% White, 6% Black, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian
VAP   85% White, 6% Black, 6% Hispanic, 2% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  40% Dem/60% Rep

28
44% Obama/56% McCain
71% White, 16% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian
VAP  73% White, 16% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  41% Dem/59% Rep

29
61% Obama/39% McCain
41% White, 20% Black, 28% Hispanic, 7% Asian
VAP  45% White, 20% Black, 25% Hispanic, 8% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  52% Dem/48% Rep

30
66% Obama/34% McCain
62% White, 13% Black, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian
VAP  64% White, 12% Black, 14% Hispanic, 7% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  64% Dem/36% Rep

31
62% Obama/39% McCain
68% White, 5% Black, 12% Hispanic, 12% Asian
VAP  69% White, 5% Black, 11% Hispanic, 12% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  60% Dem/40% Rep

32
61% Obama/39% McCain
68% White, 5% Black, 9% Hispanic, 14% Asian
VAP  71% White, 5% Black, 8% Hispanic, 14% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  59% Dem/41% Rep

33
59% Obama/41% McCain
48% White, 9% Black, 20% Hispanic, 20% Asian
VAP  51% White, 9% Black, 19% Hispanic, 19% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  52% Dem/48% Rep

34
57% Obama/43% McCain
61% White, 5% Black, 11% Hispanic, 19% Asian
VAP  63% White, 5% Black, 10% Hispanic, 19% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  54% Dem/46% Rep

35
66% Obama/34% McCain
42% White, 12% Black, 26% Hispanic, 16% Asian
VAP  45% White, 12% Black, 25% Hispanic, 16% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  63% Dem/37% Rep

36
64% Obama/36% McCain
42% White, 25% Black, 22% Hispanic, 8% Asian
VAP  46% White, 24% Black, 20% Hispanic, 8% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  59% Dem/41% Rep

37
57% Obama/43% McCain
52% White, 7% Black, 15% Hispanic, 23% Asian
VAP  54% White, 7% Black, 14% Hispanic, 23% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  52% Dem/48% Rep

38
41% Obama/59% McCain
94% White, 4% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% Asian
VAP  94% White, 4% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  47% Dem/53% Rep

39
59% Obama/41% McCain
54% White, 17% Black, 13% Hispanic, 13% Asian
VAP  57% White, 16% Black, 12% Hispanic, 13% Asian
Avg. 2000-2009  54% Dem/46% Rep

40
33% Obama/67% McCain
95% White, 2% Black, 1% Hispanic
VAP  95% White, 2% Black, 1% Hispanic
Avg. 2000-2009  38% Dem/62% Rep

Under the Howell lines:
21 Senate districts voted for Obama and have a history of voting Democratic
2 Senate districts voted for Obama but have a history of voting Republican
17 Senate districts voted for McCain and have a history of voting Republican

---

by: TXObserver @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:56:33 AM UTC

Thanks for doing that work!

Do you think you could find a way to share the .drf? It would be a much better way for the rest of us to visualize these districts!  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 13:15:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]