CA-11(McNerney)

That district could be made ultra-safe for him by shedding off some heavily Republican SanJoaquin precincts to George Randovich(CA-19) and possibly extending the district towards Oakland pick up some heavily Hispanic and African American precincts.  This would likely move his seat from being 54%-45% Bush to 52%-47% Kerry. 

---

by: Sean @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 20:22:17 PM UTC

Gerrymander undone

Here's a district designed to be deep red. But the pop has already increased 20%. All the careful computerized tweaking down the drain. Especially since it looks like the growth has come from the Bay Area demographic pushing east into the district. With the housing bubble burst, that change could slow, but it won't stop. I think we'll hld it without a redraw of the map. Now if we can get McNerney to vote against Bush just a few crucial times more . . .

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:42:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still would like

to make him safer.  With the district drawn as my plan suggests, Republicans wouldnt even bother targetting McNerney. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:04:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We could also make Lampson much safer in TX-22

if we got control of the Texas House(we are just six seats away).  What we could do is take heavily Republican Brazoria and Harris county out of the district while adding in all of Galveston and Jefferson county and linking it by a narrow string along the coast to Dem trending Fort Bend(which is already in the district).  Harris and Brazoria would go to Ron Paul in TX-14 and Ted Poe in TX-03, making their districts even more Republican.  This would make TX-22 about 10 points more Democratic, from 64%-36% Bush to 54%-46% Bush and safe for Lampson. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:24:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I got over-optimistic too

Remember that even when or if the Dems take control of the state house, the Repubs dominate the state senate and hold the governorship. We won't be doing much, except if we are lucky to veto their worst actions and throw the thing back into the courts as it was after 2000 and 1990 IIRC. And the courts are likely to be less friendly, dare I say less fair, after being loaded with Bushies. I do think the demographic changes, the growing Hispanic vote with their protected status under the Voting Rights Law, will help us for sure. But I predict incumbent protection and 3 of 4 new seats to the Dems.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:34:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incumbent Protection

That is likely to happen if Democrats get the state House.  Republicans will likely let the Dems protect Lampson if they can get some of the new districts or have the ones they hold protected.

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:38:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My bet

Assuming we go into 2011 with the state house and Texas is getting 4 new seats, We use what we can to secure all incumbents, both sides, especially Lampson (assuming he holds on for 2 more elections) and secure Ciro somewhat and Chet a little less so (guy's an excellent campaigner, gotta give him that).

As for the four new seats, I think we could argue getting one of them and making a second a toss up. I think this is the best we can do with only one part of the redistricting arm. If Bill White somehow gets to be Governor in 2010, maybe we can get a little more aggressive, but assuming the matchup is White vs. Hutchison, this is one heck of an argument.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 04:54:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

question about chet edwards

should hutchinson retire from the senate to run for gov, would edwards have a chance at the special election for her seat (assuming they choose a generic texas repub) if he can hold his district so well he should have a chance, right?

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:03:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dunno

However, that special does sound intriguing, it'd be the only way he could try statewide without risking his house seat.

From the rumors I have heard it sounds like Rep. Hensarling and Sessions are the favorites to replace Hutchison. Lt. Gov Dewhurst has also been mentioned. Then again you have to ask two factors, if she retires in 2009 to run, Perry gets to appoint and you can expect a far right replacement, if she retires after winning the election and gets to appoint her own we can expect someone a little more centrist.

Truth is there are too many if/thens about the Republicans going into the 2010 governor's race. Perry COULD seek a third term. Lt. Gov Dewhurst wants in, and Sen. Hutchison wants it. Who knows, it could go either way. Heck, if Hutch retires in 2009 and there is a special election, White could skip Governor and go for Senate, I dunno.

It's important to note, while most of us don't like her, a majority of Texans do like Sen. Huchison. No matter what race she ran, she would be considered the favorite. She's the only entrenched Republican in Texas, the rest are just . .  Republicans and must be better than whoever the Democratic nominee is. It is a major problem here having 19 media markets, no matter how good you are, no one will care or listen. Most people just vote on party identification in Texas because it is too hard to gather information about anyone. On an optimistic note, we seem to be doing a good job in the urban cities of changing them to Democratic strongholds, meaning they will be filled with people who will vote straight D, no matter who the nominees are.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:27:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A thought

Is Texas' Republicanism just a tad inflated over the past few cycles because of Bush being the "home team?"

---

by: Seth D @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:34:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congressman Chet

From where I see it, Chet Edwards has great seniority in the House, 3rd ranking on the Budget Committee, and on Appropriations he's a "Cardinal" -- a powerful Subcommittee chair, over Veterans Affairs and Military Construction. He's famous for constituent service and local contact, constantly working his district.

He likes what he does and where he is. And I'm not worried about him. I think the Repub wave has peaked in Texas. Bush is no longer the homestate hero, the Repub brand is tarnished. If they couldn't take Chet Edwards down after the mid-decade redistricting ...

A Senate race would take him off the turf he knows, having to raise $10 or $15 million bucks. I don't think he'd have a nice time or like doing that at all.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 17:19:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see how

Chet Edwards can be helped much.  The best we could do is probably trade some heavily Republican counties like Johnson(73% Bush) and Hood(76% Bush) with John Carter in TX-32 for some less heavily Republican counties and Bell(64% Bush) and the most Democratic parts of Williamson.  This would likely bring the Bush percentage in TX-17 from 70% to around 63%. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:16:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

We're gaining 4 new congressional seats, so the simple logic is that you drop the most Republican precincts out of his district. Not that that matters, I think Chet got all but 3 counties in 2006 against the credible Van Taylor (stupid, but credible). I think those 3 were all on the Fort Worth side of TX-17.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:30:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TX-17

Taylor only won Hood and Johnson counties in the extreme northern part of the district outside of Fort Worth. Taylor only won Johnson County (Burleson, Cleburne), the third most populated county in the district, but 8 votes.

Edwards won everything else in the district, including McClellan County (Waco and Crawford), the largest county in the district, with 65% of the vote. He also wn Brazos County (College Station), the second largest county, witih 57%.

You take out Hood and Johnson Counties, and maybe add a county or two heading toward Austin, and he's pretty solid.


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

---

by: nrafter530 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:36:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The good news about Arizona

is that there is an independent redistricting commission, and they like to make the districts as balanced as possible.  Even though much of the growth is in the West Valley (AZ-02) & southeastern Maricopa County (AZ-06), we will probably get at least one more purple district out of the two Arizona is (usually) projected to be receiving in '12.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 21:20:20 PM UTC

Redistricting

Does anyone know what the predicted changes to the electoral college map will happen after 2010?  I know blue states are projected to lose some votes :-\

---

by: benjso @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 21:43:25 PM UTC

Estimates are out there

They may not always exactly agree, and all are subject to change. But here's one:

http://www.polidata....

Summary:
The biggest gainers are:
Texas, up 4 to 36 seats*;
Florida, up 2 to 27;
Arizona, up 2 to 10.
Other gainers are:
Georgia, up 1 to 14;
Utah, up 1 to 4;
Nevada, up 1 to 4;
and new to the list:
Oregon, up 1 to 6 and
Washington, up 1 to 10.

The losing states losing the most
New York, down 2 to 27
Ohio, down 2 to 16.
Other losers are:
Massachusetts, down 1 to 9;
Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18;
Michigan, down 1 to 14;
Illinois, down 1 to 18;
Minnesota, down 1 to 7;
Iowa, down 1 to 4;
Missouri, down 1 to 8.
New to the list of losers
New Jersey, down 1 to 12;
and Louisiana, down 1 to 6.
*Texas estimates are guestimates
trying to account for Katrina
refugees -- resettled? or returning?

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:24:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The DLCC

needs to make sure that they have control in most all of the losing states so they can make the Republicans absorb the losses there as well create some new Democratic seats to make up for what the Republicans are likely to do to us in Florida and Georgia. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:42:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse the double post.

An awful waste of cyberspace and pixels.

About those four (4) Texas seats. The Hispanic political organizations like LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) argued before the courts right up to the Supremes that they got screwed out of two (2) seats by Tom DeLay. The re-draw that saw Ciro Rodriguez beat Bonilla was only half a loaf. So the Hispanics will go into the next reapportionment feeling they are owed one. And with the population growth in this decade, they will be demanding two seats -- if not three.

Another post here asks to see the whole list.

Me too!

Back in July someone worked up a map of Bush's approval ratings by congressional district. You know what was red -- most of Utah, Idaho, some ugly spots in Deep Dixie -- and three sprawling Texas districts in the High Plains, the big emptying out area, where rural populations are disappearing. Those districts are now each centered around Amarillo, Lubbock, and Midland-Odessa, but already stretch to the suburban edge of Dallas-Ft Worth in search of enough pop to exist.

Meanwhile Ciro's district to the south of those is growing rapidly, especially the part around San Antonio. And El Paso county is growing, while Midland-Odessa is becoming more heavily Hispanic. Another West Texas district would lean (D). Then surely another one of those new Hispanic districts will be in South Texas, and squeeze against Lamar Smith (R) whose district takes the most-Repub suburbs of both San Anonio and Austin, or even push up against Mike McCaul (R) in TX-10, that barbell district that takes in both Houston suburbs and fast-growing, lib'rul leaning Austin suburbs.

My guess is that it will be very difficult for the Repubs to torture the next map and gain more than one new (R) district. They will be lucky to get a good incumbent protection plan out of the numbers. Democrats net +3.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 01:10:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP's texas strategy

Breakup Austin, Give San Antonio 1 district and break the rest up, Give Dallas 1 district and break up the entire Metro and Republicanify the rest of the region, and make all of East Texas connected to either Dallas/Fort Worth suburbs or Houston Exurbs... And it worked...

Dems controlled 4 East Texas districts before 2003 (although 1 was Ralph Smith); what we need to do is restore at least 2 of these districts into competitive districts; make sure that 1 of the new Houston Districts is at least competitive, make a Fort Worth district (there IS no district, its all split), and make 2 competitive Dallas districts, and make sure that the new South Texas district and the at least 2 Austin districts competitive.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:12:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I assume

that the Fort Worth district would look a lot like the one that Jim Wright held until 1989.  The district was made heavily Republican in the 1990's by adding in heavily Republican Parker and Wise counties(both 78% Bush) to delute Democratic strength in Fort Worth.  By just taking the most Democratic parts of Tarrant county, including Fort Worth, we could probably create a district much like Jim Wright's that voted for Bush by just 53%-46%, which means Democratic in Texas. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:31:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

East Texas

You mean Ralph Hall, not Ralph Smith.

---

by: Vadranor @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:45:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, if we get the state House

we could also create a district in West Texas(it would likely be numbered TX-01) that consists of yellow dog Democratic territory.  It would still be a tough district, but Max Sandlin could probably come back and win it if he wanted to. 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 22:20:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LA-02, anybody? anybody?

I think that is a bit of a glaring absense

---

by: RBH @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 22:15:32 PM UTC

Also see my source above for discussion

I don't think anyone has got a grip on the N'awlins exodus yet. But start with one figure, pre-Katrina the city pop was about 450,000 and the last time I saw a Census estimate in the NY Times it said 250,00 there now. So 200,000 gone?

Wanna guess how many voters were lost? Families with children had the most reason to leave and stay gone: the public schools didn't open at all for months, still aren't all open, never were very good. A family that landed in another place could well find their kids in better schools than ever before, and some parents found better jobs. They may be homesick and heartsick for the rest of their lives, but they probably aren't going back.

But let's say 200,000 gone and 150,000 are kids, leaves 50,000 voting age, half of them voters. We could be down by all of 25,000 voters in N'awlins.

But where are they now? Houston, Atlanta, Jackson. But isn't Baton Rouge now the largest city in LA? Didn't Shreveport and Monroe and Lafayette and Alexandria gain pop? Even little ole Jena got Karina refugees. That was part of "the problem" there, wasn't it, that uppity blacks from the city didn't know their place in backwoods Jena?

So how many Democratic voters are gone from LA? I'll make a wild guess, down by 15,000. Anybody else wanna try?

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:35:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not saying a lot.

This chart really doesn't say all that much, without knowing exactly who is moving where. I live in Los Angeles, and I can tell you that we are while we are still growing in population, our white population is moving, many out of state. It is just constantly being replaced with increasing numbers of immigrants. These are the people that are fueling the growth of the populations of many of these districts.

If you'll notice that while Speaker Nancy's district has suffered a population loss, nearby CA-11 has a huge increase. What you may be seeing is an exodus of people from the larger metropolitan areas into some of the outlying communities.

It is my belief that this type of migration is only going to strengthen democrats across the nation. As some of these conservative areas grow larger and larger, the same thing that happened in large cities decades ago, will begin to transform these new metropolis. Bigger cites almost always tend to be more liberal than the country side that surrounds them. Its is the exodus from California that is fueling the liberalization of Colorado, Nevada and to a lesser extent, Arizona. Just as people leaving Massachusetts is changing New Hampshire, and new residents are quickly changing the demographics of Virginia and North Carolina. This will only benefit us in the long run.

---

by: Venslor @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 22:17:40 PM UTC

Not much of an effect

From what I've heard, anecdotally, the movement from Massachusetts to New Hampshire is causing the latter to become slightly more conservative (although this is compensated for by a more widespread swing to the left among non-immigrants).  This makes some degree of logical sense -- those who dislike the policies enacted by a particular state or region are more likely to move away from it.  For example, in Los Angeles, those leaving are predominantly whites, who tend to be more conservative than minorities.  A lot depends on exactly who leaves and why; this could vary on a state-by-state basis.  It could be a large contributing factor the liberalization of states such as Virginia and Nevada, but to the reddening of states such as New Hampshire.  And you also have to factor in those fleeing from more rural areas into the cities.  I don't see much of a net change from these shifting demographics; some formerly red states will become much more competitive, while certain blue ones will be less reliably so.

---

by: Begoner @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 22:37:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scary Stuff.....

....but not at all surprising to anybody who tracks population growth.  I do, however, strongly challenge the notion that Keith Ellison's MN-05 lost 4% of its population between 2000-2005.  At worst, the population of that Minneapolis-based district is stagnant, particularly with the huge rate of immigration.  I would suggest we not take these 2005 "estimates" that seriously because the mid-decade figures all-too-frequently turn out to be inaccurate when the next census figures come out.  Still, the urban enclaves of Detroit and Cleveland most likely are hemorrhaging just as bad as the figures suggest.

As for the growth districts, the younger and perhaps less ideologically rigid demographic of voters that tend to move to these "exurban" enclaves are said to be trending slightly less Republican.  But how much of that is simply the product of Bush fatigue and Iraq fatigue?  If the Dems win back power and produce a favorable alternative outcome in Iraq, we may continue to see these voters trend our direction in the decade to come.  But if said scenario does not come to fruition, above-average income exurban voters are certain to snuggle back in with the party most likely to pander to their low-tax, high-consumption lifestyle.

---

by: Mark @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 23:16:32 PM UTC

Ellison District

The -4% is actually kind of close.  I read somewhere that the projected population of Minneapolis is 10,000 less than the 2000 census.  The 2000 census was roughly 382,000 and the projected one for right now is 372,000.  So if you take 372,000/382,000 you get a .973 so the population of Minneapolis has projected to be down 3.7% right there.  And since that's like 2/3rds of the population of the CD, I can see -4% being pretty accurate.

Anyone ever wonder what PVI a CD with just Minneapolis/St Paul would be.  Looking at the two seperate PVI's to me makes us look more Republican, I would think that CD could compete with some of the NYC PVI's.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 23:55:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans Tried That....

....in the 2001 reapportionment.  They wanted to combine Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same district and cut the two northern Minnesota districts into a far north district (Oberstar) and near north district (Peterson) as opposed to the existing northwestern quadrant and northeastern quadrant their districts currently represent.  Peterson would have shed Democratic-leaning Bemidji, Crookston, and Thief River Falls to Oberstar, and gained Republican leaning north metro exurbs like Elk River and Cambridge.  That map would have given the Dems only two districts in Minnesota with a positive PVI index. 

If I were to draw the Minnesota map, I'd do the following:

Try to squeeze as many exurbs as possible in MN-02, attempting a half-moon shaped district stretching from the Burnsville area all the way up to Elk River, taking in most or all of Scott, Wright, Sherburne, and Carver Counties with some of southwestern Dakota County.  It would centrallize the Republicans in one super-GOP district and make other metro districts more competitive.

Cut Ramsey County in half, giving MN-04 the city of St. Paul but shifting district lines southward to take in Northfield, Red Wing, and the majority of Dakota County.

Give the Democratic-leaning suburbs of northern Ramsey County currently in MN-04 to MN-06, making the district look more like Bill Luther's old district and less like Michele Bachmann's current one.  I can't see how Bachmann could continue to be elected in a district that consisted of northern Ramsey County, all of Washington County and most of Anoka County.

And finally, give St. Cloud back to MN-07 after the reconfiguration negates the need for it to be in MN-06.  It'll make MN-07 nominally more Republican, but Peterson can weather that storm no problem, particularly having already represented St. Cloud for 12 years.

Of course all this could be moot if Minnesota loses a Congressional seat as is predicted.  Pretty sad when the fastest-growing northern state is predicted to be losing House seats.

Move MN-01's district lines north to take in Faribault and Le Sueur County.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 02:10:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds like a good plan

I am wondering if you would shore up MN-01 a bit for Walz.  I am thinking that he should be fine with the district the way it is, as the demographic trends are already quite favorable to him there.  I am wondering if you are also assuming that the open MN-03 goes to Democrats in 2008.  That is another district where the Democrat should be fine in the district as it is.

I would like to get all of the heavily Republican(and fast growing) counties around the twin cities all into one district(MN-02) like Shelburne, Wright, McLeod, Scott, Carver, Sibley, and LeSuer.  I would also give Rice county to Walz in exchange for Dodge and Steele counties which would be thrown into the new heavily Republican MN-02.  This would bring the Bush percentage from 51% to 50%. 

 

---

by: Sean @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 02:40:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My opinion

I have heard that we may not lose a CD.  We are in the running with South Carolina and some other state in losing one.

But if we do lose one (we probably will), I would add St Cloud to Peterson's for sure.  St Cloud is a Democrat city and that can add up the DFL's percentage for when Peterson retires (which I doubt will be any time soon but plan ahead).

I certainly want to see one super GOP CD.  You guys all say do that with Kline's but Bachmann's is already more conservative actually (PVI wise) but Kline's does allow more space to conservative-it-up so that makes sense.  One big crescent shaped one would work well, but what would happen to CD3?  It could take in Anoka county and some other moderate areas.

We will probably have to add to CD4 so we could add Washington county to CD4, put Bachmann against McCollum, she'll get trounced or simply move to the new CD6.

Some of CD2 will go to CD1, CD2 has a PVI of 2.6 I think  which isnt that bad.  Walz is excellent and can hold his own in a slighty more Republican district.

No clue what to do with CD3.  If it somehow is a Republican in that seat, we can fuck them over BIG time and basically make them have to run against another Republican.  If it is Bonoff, what a conundrum....

Oh why must we lose a seat, at least we'll probably still have DFL dominated state legislature, lets just hope we get a DFLer for governor, a Republican would really screw this up.

Although, it seems anyway you look at it, I dont think we'll be able to maintain a 6-1 DFL advantage, the most likely outcome of losing a seat will be 5-2 DFL.  But ya never know, maybe the Dems will have done beautifully and 2012 will be a go Dems year.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:17:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Combine them

In fact, if we do lose a seat the best thing could be to combine Minneapolis/St. Paul plus maybe the Dem burbs just south of St Paul (South and West St. Paul, they dont deserve to be represented by Kline anymore!).  I see no way of maintaing these two CD without throwing CD3 under the bus and not being able to make CD6 Democratic enough to win. 

We could easily make CD3 more Democrat (Crystal, SLP, Robbinsdale, Fridley, Brooklyn Park/Center, Northfield), CD6 more Democrat (all of the burbs around St Paul), turn CD2 into one super GOP stronghold (crescent shape mentioned before), CD1 would be fine, add St. Cloud to CD7 (you said this would make it more Republican but St. Cloud is a Democrat city, does it not make up for the rest of Sherburne county?  I spose it wouldnt) and then CD8 would be fine, just got expand a little bit, take in some of the more Republican areas from Cd6 maybe, although CD8 already has a low PVI, but at the local level, the DFL obliterates the GOP so maybe a more Republican CD8 would mean a more Republican voting bloc for President but still reliably Democratic in everything under that..

Safe ones would be CD1, CD7, CD8, CD4-5, CD2 would be a lost cause for forever (unless Sarvi pulls it out!) and then CD3 would favor us heavily and CD6, depending on how Democratic we make it could lean our way or be completely 50-50, and we win in 50-50 cases due to Minnesota's DFL leaning (or in some cases, clear advantage).

I would think this would be our best option.  This would pit McCollum and Ellison against one another, which I'm fine with because I loathe McCollum, too conservative.  I'd be happy to see Ellison take her out, he would represent the bigger chunk (Minneapolis has about 100,000 people more than St. Paul)

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know if I would consider MN 1st and MN 7th safe...

... unless Walz and Peterson are running. I have a feeling Walz may run for Govenor in 2010(just a hunch) and Peterson will be 68 years old in 2012. If you move too many Republican leaning areas into the 1st and 7th you could lose them if you don't have the strong incumbants running for re-election.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 04:01:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Absolute Worst Thing We Could Do....

....is to combine Minneapolis and St. Paul.  That would produce five or six GOP-majority districts in Minnesota.  There's a reason why the DFL ferociously resisted this premise back in 2001.  It would ruin us.

Here's the best map we can hope for with eight districts.

MN-01....all of the current territory, but minimal population growth will force us to take in some new turf.  The best prospect would be much of the terrain lost in 2002, including most of Le Sueur, Rice and Goodhue Counties.  On the whole, this area would probably have a net neutral effect on Walz with a pretty even balance of Democrats and Republicans.

MN-02....Concede a supermajority Republican district to Kline that includes as much of exurbia as possible, beginning with home turf of Lakeville, Burnsville, and Apple Valley in southwestern Dakota County, hooking west and north to pick up all or most of Scott County, Carver County, McLeod County, Wright County, and Sherburne County.  I'm pretty sure this would account for 650,000 voters.

MN-03....Cut Bloomington in half, keeping the west side but moving district lines north to pick up the city of Anoka, but also slightly east to pick up New Hope.  Overall, this would be a net gain for Democrats.

MN-04....Keep only the city of St. Paul in Ramsey County, moving the district southward to include the majority of Dakota County (but not the most Republican parts of Dakota which will be in Kline's district, and for good measure, if it's necessary, add in Democratic Northfield and Red Wing on the south flank of the district.  The district would be less Democratic than it is now, but the Dems would still have a huge advantage.

MN-05....Pick up the east half of Bloomington and concede New Hope to MN-05.  A net loss of Democratic strength, but would make MN-03 slightly more Democratic.

MN-06....The northern half of Ramsey County (Maplewood, White Bear Lake) added in with all of Washington County and the majority of Anoka County (albeit the most Republican parts) would not be a pretty map for Michele Bachmann.  If she loses her base in Sherburne and Wright Counties to MN-02, she's got a major problem.  This was a close variation on the map that I had hoped Bill Luther would have the good fortune of inheriting in 2002.

MN-07.....Keep the district the same except give St. Cloud back to Collin Peterson.

MN-08....Not sure how much new territory MN-08 would need based on its population growth, but the portion of Benton County outside of St. Cloud would probably be enough.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:29:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think 5-2 is the best we can hope for in MN

I think it is almost certain Minnesota will lose a seat in 2012. Using Census Bureau 2006 estimates right now Minnesota's 8th seat would be be the 435th and last seat in the House but Minnesota's population is not growing as fast as some of the states behind it and it will likely be passed for the final seat.

http://www.edssurvey...

Minnesota's 2 fastest growing districts, the 2nd and 6th, are also the most Republican. The 3 slowest growing districts, 4th 5th and 7th, are all held by Democrats (the rural 7th will also be tough to hold when Collen Peterson decides to retire). I just don't see how we can fit most of the Republican leaning areas of the state into just one district.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:47:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kline's District Would Be Much Easier....

....to become super GOP than Bachmann's simply because Bachmann lives in northeastern Washington County, which is a considerable distance from the particularly toxic western growth suburbs.  It would be logistically impractical to have a district stretching from Forest Lake to Shakopee.  Besides, I'd rather see Bachmann go than Kline, and it could be done if Washington County and eastern Anoka County were gerrymandered in with northern Ramsey County (White Bear Lake, Mounds View, Maplewood).  In a district like that, Bachmann loses.

MN-04 should be the city of St. Paul stretching down to the majority of Dakota County (excluding the Burnsville, Lakeville and Apple Valley area which Kline would keep) as well as Democratic-leaning Red Wing and Northfield.

MN-03 could become more hospitable if we cut Bloomington in half, sharing the eastern half with MN-05 and shift the MN-03 border to take in the city of Anoka and perhaps east to pick up Democratic New Hope currently in MN-05.

South Carolina's growing like crazy while growth numbers have slowed considerably in Minnesota.  I'm afraid we're gonna lose a seat.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:09:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CD4

I like that idea of adding in the southern burbs/exurbs that favor Dems. 

But if we lose a seat, we are going to have a tough time figuring out which DFLer to screw over.  It will probably have to be Bonoff since she'll be the newest.  If we lose one, instead of combing MSP, we could combine a lot of the 3rd and 6th.  We would have to add to CD5 so give some of CD3 to CD5 and then combine remaining CD3 with CD6 while giving those really Republican areas of CD6 (the counties you have all listed) and add that to CD2. 

That would create a Bonoff vs Bachmann which is something I feel Bonoff could win actually.

I think if we have both state legislature and governor, we can gerrymander this to be 6-1. 

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 15:38:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there a link to the original data, so one can look at districts

that aren't posted here?

Also, to add to some of the comments above, southern Oregon is trending more conservative because of conservative Californians moving there, especially retirees, whereas northern Oregon (i.e. Portland metro area and elsewhere in the Willamette Valley) is the opposite-- liberal Californians are flocking there.  California's 35 million is about 55-45 Democrat-Republican, so there are plenty of each to swing neighboring states with a much smaller population, depending on who moves where.

---

by: verasoie @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:00:16 AM UTC

As we grow older ...

We don't change, we just become "more so."

As Oregon grows, it doesn't change. The liberal metro area becomes more so, and the small towns more so. Very funny.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 00:38:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No link.

The numbers are from a subscription-only House Race Hotline article.  They got the info from the 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.

---

by: James L. @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 03:18:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Demographic Changes Favor Democrats

Judging from the fastest growing districts, it appears as if the country is getting more Republican.

However, as several have pointed out, the key is who is moving into these districts.  If Democratic voters are moving from the cities into the suburbs, the suburbs will no longer be GOP strongholds.

Looking at population changes by ethnicity in the US as a whole, the growth is almost entirely among non-whites.  In 48 of the 50 states, the white population growth rate lags the overall state growth rate; Hawaii and Louisiana are the only exceptions.

http://www.usatoday....

Here is the growth rate in the US (from 2000 to 2006) by ethnicity:
White: +1.6%
African-American: +6.9%
Latino: +25.5%
Asian: +24.4%

And, here is the 2004 vote by ethnicity:
White: 58 Bush, 41 Kerry
African-American: 11 Bush, 88 Kerry
Latino: 44 Bush, 53 Kerry
Asian: 44 Bush, 56 Kerry

http://www.cnn.com/E...

So, virtually all of the growth since 2000 has come from demographic groups that favor Democrats.

---

by: DCal @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 04:14:27 AM UTC

The Trick Is Now To Get Them To The Polls...

Despite representing approximately 67% of the nation's population in 2004, whites represented 77% of the electorate, and that was a year where African-American turnout was its most robust in recent memory.  I have yet to see evidence that this groundswell of Latino voters is going to materialize for at least another generation (or two).  My dad's efforts to register working-class Hispanics at southern Minnesota packinghouses has been almost entirely fruitless.

Furthermore, I think it's a fair assumption long-term that if the Hispanic voting population surges and consolidates around Democrats, we will see a continued exodus of working-class whites to the Republicans negating the net gain.  Last year, I did some calculations on the trendlines of Midwestern communities with the highest percentage of Latino growth in the last 20 years.  With rare exception, all of these areas became more Republican, and often substantially so, than they were in the 1980's.  I said all along that the immigration issue is as much if not more of a double-edged sword for Democrats than it is for Republicans, and I continue to believe so.  Right now, the Democrats have the wind at their backs due to an unpopular Republican President, but after 2008, I'm skeptical to the perception that the aforementioned growth districts will continue trending slowly Democratic.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 07:01:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whiter than white?

Mark, very interesting observation about the exodus of whites from the D party in the Midwest growing when the number of Hispanics increases.

Disappointing. But I guess I shouldn't have been at all that surprised. Not all so much has changed since Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean in "Giant."

Except maybe it has. Texas could be ahead of the curve on the Hispanic thing. When I started school in the 1950s, my town had separate and decidedly unequal elementary schools for Anglos (as we call us in Texas), blacks -- and Hispanics. In junior high Anglos and Hispanics were combined (not the blacks until the late 1960s), and in retrospect, one of the purposes of junior high was to illuminate to the Hispanics that they were not wanted in the high school.

But when I read my hometown paper nowadays, I'm constantly amazed to see the Engagement columns, with the number of mixed Anglo-Hispanic couples. The town lies in the German-settled belt, where well into the last century it still happened that if a German girl married a non-German Anglo, her family held a WAKE instead of a reception, the bride and groom not invited! But three or four generations later, a combo like Stautzenberger and Flores is commonplace.

On my most recent visit home, I ran into a Hispanic women I've known for years. Her grandmother had come over the border with her children after Pancho Villa offered her husband the famous choice, "silver or lead," and he took the lead. My friend is well assimilated now, even if she does own a Tex-Mex restaurant. She introduced me to her new "friend" named Scott, and apparently he is.

Even the local rodeo now has black and Hispanic contestants, apparently well accepted. A couple of those black cowboys sport bottle-blond trophy girlfriends on their arms, no one bats an eye.

All leading up to say, Texas has been about as racist as possible about the Hispanics -- and the blacks. But Anglos who held strong racist feelings started voting Repub when Reagan ran with the suggestion that he'd roll back the Civil Rights era. Then Tom DeLay did the mid-decade redistricting, aimed at taking out every Anglo Dem in the Congressional delegation, hoping to leave the Dems the party of only blacks and tans.

Now the Democrats can't lose any more Anglo voters over race -- the haters are all gone. We retain the white liberals, more than you might expect. And times are changing. So we can begin to regain Anglo voters who aren't happy with the way things have turned out.

With growing numbers of Hispanic voters, ever more assimilated and voting in better numbers, we can pick up three out of the four seats gained after the next Census, and maybe tilt another few seats if a stalemate in the Lege lets the courts end up doing the redistricting in a mostly fair way.

How far are Anglo Texans into a post-Reagan acceptance of the social changes? We'll know after they count the votes in Lt Col Rick Noriega's Senate race!

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 19:53:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Few Observations

First of all, and this is obvious (and pointed out by at least one other person on this thread), most of the districts that are shrinking are the metro areas of major cities, mostly northeastern and midwest, where crime, cost of living, and/or quality of life (and sometimes also weather) is at issue. Most of these inner city areas have seen the white population move to the suburbs, making the suburbs more conservative and leaving the city itself for the reliably Democratic minorities. Basically, the districts that are losing population are just going to stay hugely Democratic. The problem is more if enough people move out to justify eliminating one of these districts (and therefore costing the Democrats a solid seat), but that will probably not happen for decades at least.

The districts that are growing the fastest, with few exceptions, are all in the Sun Belt. (The three that aren't, VA-10, IL-14 and CO-06, are suburbs of major cities, and therefore attract the white, conservative 2.5 children suburban types.) Demographically, there's a huge exodus (real and projected to continue through 2030) of 18-25 year olds and retirees from the Northern states to the Sun Belt. Retirees are the age demographic most likely to vote, but can be difficult to predict - though traditionally more conservative in the Eisenhower sense, a lot of retirees (especially WWII vets) voted for Kerry. Overall, it's probably fair to assume a 50-50 median split in the new retiree population. 18-25 year olds, meanwhile, usually just got out of school and want some time to party before reality sinks in. Though traditionally the most liberal group, my generation also doesn't vote, so the majority of that growth is meaningless for the purpose of political statistics. Some may vote in the future, but the number voting at any one time in the next several elections will be small for decades to come, and we can't trust them to vote for Democrats over spoiler candidates like Nader.

The crossroads of all of the growth in the United States is Vegas, not surprisingly high on the list. Between 2000 and 2006, the population of Nevada grew 400%, and as much of Nevada is desert and/or belongs to the military, we can assume that nearly all of that growth was in the major urban areas, particularly Clark County. The sort of person who moves to Vegas over some other city moves there to have a good time, and is unlikely to be a terribly informed voter if they vote at all. I point to Jim Gibbons as proof of this - everybody in Nevada hates him now, but nobody bothered to figure out who he was before they voted for him, and voter turnout in Nevada was terrible. Regardless of the PVI of NV-03, a lot of people who move to Vegas are there to party and gamble and get drunk and watch strippers, not be responsible citizens. (Not that there aren't responsible people in Vegas - they're just outnumbered by the majority.) NV-03 is the one district on this list that could get a lot more Democratic in preference, but it might not change anything in actuality if few of those polled are active voters.

Finally, we can't discount the Mormons. A lot of the "fastest growing" districts are represented by a Mormon and/or have a fast-growing Mormon population (AZ-06, AZ-02, NV-03, CA-25). If we assume that at least 3 in every 4 Mormons is also a reliable Republican, that helps to keep the R PVI up.

With all that said, I'm a little surprised that AZ-06 and CA-25 are growing faster than, say, ID-02 or the Utah districts. With the population of Idaho having doubled in the last ten years in large part because of Mormon activity (who else would want to move to Idaho?), you'd think Idaho in particular would've been higher. Maybe the population-doubling growth is evenly split between districts?

It's also worth noting that a lot of other major East Coast and Midwestern cities are posting net population losses and seeing the same trends, but probably won't be affected by redistricting thanks to their districts encompassing a larger area. (CT-01 and NY-28 are two good examples of this). In a few more years, it's also likely that some fast-growing areas not listed, such as Seattle and Portland, will be turning bluer, and pushing that blue outward to neighboring areas. (WA-01, 03, 07, and 09 and OR-03 will get even bluer, and WA-08 and OR-01 will probably see a moderate net increase in blue as well as their suburban swing vote gets diluted.)

Finally, how much of these growth statistics are simply more people being born? Especially in the suburbs, a lot of the growth percentage is simply the existing conservative population liberally having babies, who won't be eligible to vote for 18 years, and at least 2/3s of whom will probably continue their parents' preferences when they vote at all?

Also, notice how much of the current House leadership is from districts that are shrinking. Perhaps they think they can get away with doing whatever they want because they don't have a majority of informed, independent-minded constituents left to represent? I doubt that Pelosi or Emanuel is going to catch the heat that Peter Welch is catching in Vermont for waffling on the war, and Conyers' constituents will probably cheer him up and down and clap him on the back if it means more business for General Motors.

Basically, any area that's conservative now will remain so, and any area that's liberal now is likely to also remain so, unless so many people leave that it ends up costing us a seat (potentially offset by seats added elsewhere). In the long run, neither R nor D really stands to benefit from these patterns - with a few exceptions on either side,
it'll just help to reinforce the red/blue divide even further as more people move to areas that are more like them. The one exception is rural areas, which are continuing to see a slow decline in population because nobody is moving there and the 18-25 demographic mostly moves away to the cities. Rural areas especially vote depending on local issues, and may (in large numbers) become the new, non-minority swing voters as the urban/suburban split becomes ever more predictable. Independent voters will become a lot more diluted across the country, making the rural vote necessary for victory. With the traditionally blue states likely to lose seats (and electoral votes) in the coming decades, the D's need to rediscover how to appeal to blue-collar and rural voters - maybe at the congressional level depending on redistricting, but definitely at the presidential level.

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 17:10:46 PM UTC

The Evidence Seems to Suggest....

....that the retirees who stay up north are more likely to be Democrat while the Sun Belt snowbirds are more likely to be Republicans.  It should come as no surprise given that the Sun Belt retirees are usually looking for no-tax states.  This poses a real problem for us in Florida as Democratic northeastern Jews no longer seem to represent the largest demographic of Florida snowbirds.  Perhaps this will be offset by shrinking Republican margins among Florida's Cuban population, but I'd wager the Latino growth in Florida even struggles to keep up with all the Midwestern retirees looking to settle in no-tax Florida.

And I disagree with you about Nevada.  Most people who move to Vegas have to survive there and thus have to seek out employment.  The job market of Las Vegas increases the likelihood of union affiliation compared to the national average, and union members tend to be more engaged in politics rather than less.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Nevada has gone from a 2-1 Republican state to an even-steven battleground state in the last generation.

Winning back blue-collar and rural voters....it's gonna be very hard given the Democrats' legislative priorities this year.

---

by: Mark @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:49:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very true.

Re: retirees. While some of the more liberal Northern retirees do move south when they reach a certain age and get tired of the winters (as my grandparents did), 3/4 of the retirees moving to Florida/Georgia probably are actively Republican, or at least Republican-inclined. Add that to the rednecks, apathetic kids, and rich suburbanites already there, and you've got a former swing state turning red. 2000 was the last competitive presidential election there - whether or not Jeb was screwing with the voting machines again in 2004, I think Florida would've gone Republican anyway. Probably the only major groups in Florida that still reliably support Dems are minorities, hence minorities being illegally purged in droves during the 2000 mess. The Cubans are coming around, finally, though at this point it's too little too late. We might ultimately replace the Diaz-Balarts and some other vulnerable Republicans (such as Young, Feeney, etc.) with competent representatives, but I don't think Florida will be truly competitive at the presidential level ever again. After all, outside of the beaches it is really a Southern state, and the conservative influx is tipping it farther to the right. Georgia, of course, is too far gone for words.

Re: Nevada. Fair enough. I was more saying that 400% growth in a decade and a half can't be convincingly explained away by anything other than the mass appeal of the place to a certain type of person. I wasn't saying that aren't responsible people in Nevada - more that people (especially young people) move there out of college expecting to get rich quick or party it up or whatever, then find themselves working a crappy food service job instead. And as powerful as the unions are, they can't keep up with the growth that the area is experiencing. For every two union members voting the union ticket, there are three unaffiliated people who just moved there. Clark County right now is pure chaos, and I don't expect anything to stabilize there for a long time. Maybe eventually Porter goes down, but there are just so many variables that I wouldn't bet money either way.

Re: Winning back blue-collar and rural voters. I know. On the other hand, it's not as though the Republicans have done them any favors lately, either. Even the most rabidly Republican farmers are beginning to realize how badly Bush has screwed them, and the blue collar crowd is increasingly unhappy to have their kids dying in a pointless war for oil. (In some cases, such as Vermont, both are happening - because of Bush's war, a semi-blue state with a long Republican history is now bright blue and mad as hell.) I just wish the Democrats would ditch the crap-for-brains Beltway consultants and start growing a spine. It's like they enjoy being in the minority so they don't have to take responsibility for the mess that this country is in. Sigh.

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 16:33:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY-12

Being from New York City, I'm pretty surprised she's on the list and not NY-10 or NY-16 in the Brooklyna and the Bronx.

Velasquez's district includes Williamsburg, Bushwick, Red Hook and the Lower East Side, where alot of young folk are moving into.

I can't imagine growth would be less there than in other parts of the city.

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

---

by: nrafter530 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:43:31 PM UTC

Ohio

I see I live in the slowest growing district in the country. However, because of the way lines are drawn, it's unlikely that it would be "eliminated," more likely expanded to take in more suburban territory which currently (in District 13 and 14) wiggles like a snake all over the region. 13 (Betty Sutton) is totally ridiculous, swooping  from Lorain County on the lake to our west down along the southern exurbs and all the way into Akron on our southeast. 6 (Charlie Wilson, formerly the district of our governor Ted Strickland) is also a long skinny district circumventing  a third of the state. Strickland once said he could drive to DC in less time than it took him to drive from one end of his district to the other.

But when Ohio loses those two seats, the composition of the apportionment board is going to become critical. Luckily the entire state is becoming so much less Republican that we may be in the majority in our delegation after next year DESPITE gerrymandering. We are well positioned with Gov. Strickland and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner popular and doing a good job. But this is one reason why the bandying of Strickland's name as Hillary's VIP should she be the nominee would be disastrous for Ohio. Not that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher would be a bad governor; he's a smart, progressive man who had held and run for statewide office before and is fully qualified. However, we didn't elect Lee Fisher, a fact that the GOP here would exploit to the max, painting  Strickland's move as an abandonment of the job he was elected to do (and frankly, has done an outstanding job). In addition, Strickland, being a rural southern Ohio guy, has a personality more suited to working with those types who populate the GOP. Lee Fisher is another urbanite from Cleveland. I'm afraid if Strickland bailed on us (and for the record, I think it's all just speculation and gossip, something to keep ther media interested since they HATE to discuss issues), we'd see someone like Bush's former trade advisor, Rob Portman ("Rob Portman: he sent Ohio jobs overseas" See, I'm preparing), who quit and moved back to Ohio last year, become our next governor which would essentially kill the economy of this state.

BTW a lot of us need to tell Mr. Strickland that his pal Hillary whom he endorsed last week is not on the right side of the trade issues that have devastated this state. Sherrod Brown, call home!

---

by: anastasia p @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 21:25:41 PM UTC