New Hampshire currently has two districts that have changed hands a total of four times in the last five years. Whilst it is probably a good thing to have competitive districts, a question we could ask about New Hampshire is what might the map look like if there was bipartisan agreement to split the congressional districts between the parties?
CD 1 (Blue): 48.9% Obama
CD 2 (Green): 60.5% Obama
Today's Census data dump is three slow-growth northern states: Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire. Massachusetts is set to lose one seat (from 10 down to 9), meaning its new target is 727,514 (up from about 634K in 2000). Interestingly, the growth among all the districts was pretty consistent, with only about 20,000 difference between the state's largest and smallest districts. Estimates over the decade had shown Boston losing population, but in the final count it did eke out a small gain.
With no clear loser on the population front among the districts, that makes the question of who draws the shortest redistricting straw even more complicated... unless someone reverses course and decides to retire, either to challenge Scott Brown (most likely Mike Capuano or Stephen Lynch) or to call it a career (John Olver). Olver's 1st did wind up being the smallest by a small margin, so the most talked-about mashup of the 1st and 2nd may well happen; alternatively, based on seniority the axe could fall on the delegation's newest member, William Keating. At any rate, with Dems firmly in charge of the process, don't look for any of these districts to lose their bluish hues; the main question is who gets left without his musical chair.
District
Rep.
Population
Deviation
MA-01
Olver (D)
644,956
(82,558)
MA-02
Neal (D)
661,045
(66,469)
MA-03
McGovern (D)
664,919
(62,595)
MA-04
Frank (D)
656,083
(71,431)
MA-05
Tsongas (D)
662,269
(65,245)
MA-06
Tierney (D)
650,161
(77,353)
MA-07
Markey (D)
648,162
(79,352)
MA-08
Capuano (D)
660,414
(67,100)
MA-09
Lynch (D)
650,381
(77,133)
MA-10
Keating (D)
649,239
(78,275)
Total:
6,547,629
When it was revealed in December that Michigan was the only state out of 50 that actually lost population since 2000, it was clear that the state's urban districts were in a world of hurt... but I have to admit I'm still surprised at the way that Detroit has utterly cratered. The Motor City, at one point the 4th largest city in America, is now down to 15th, with a population of 713,777 (now smaller than johnny-come-latelies like Columbus, Austin, and Charlotte). The 13th may be the 2nd least populous district in the country at this point (after WY-AL). I briefly had to wonder whether we might actually see Detroit turned into one CD, mostly contiguous with the city boundaries (since it's now about the same population as an ideal district), but I can't imagine that the Obama administration's DOJ would allow the state GOP (which controls the redistricting trifecta) to pack only one overwhelmingly African-American VRA district when the population is there to support two, albeit two that will have to reach significantly into the suburbs now.
Michigan's current target is 705,974 (based on the drop to 14 from 15 seats), up from about 663K in 2000. That means that six of its districts (the Upper Peninsula-based 1st, the Flint-and-Saginaw 5th, and the 9th and 12th in Detroit's northern suburbs, in addition to the 13th and 14th) outright lost population over the decade. With the 9th and 12th also big losers, and with the VRA looming over the 13th and 14th, this all seems to confirm what most people are expecting, that Gary Peters and Sandy Levin are going to get much better acquainted with each other in a Dem primary. If you go further out into the districts that contain Detroit's exurbs (the GOP-held 8th and 10th), those are the two districts in the state that actually need to shed some population.
District
Rep.
Population
Deviation
MI-01
Benishek (R)
650,222
(55,752)
MI-02
Huizenga (R)
698,831
(7,143)
MI-03
Amash (R)
694,695
(11,279)
MI-04
Camp (R)
686,378
(19,596)
MI-05
Kildee (D)
635,129
(70,845)
MI-06
Upton (R)
671,883
(34,091)
MI-07
Walberg (R)
676,899
(29,075)
MI-08
Rogers (R)
707,572
1,598
MI-09
Peters (D)
657,590
(48,384)
MI-10
Miller (R)
719,712
13,738
MI-11
McCotter (R)
695,888
(10,086)
MI-12
Levin (D)
636,601
(69,373)
MI-13
Clarke (D)
519,570
(186,404)
MI-14
Conyers (D)
550,465
(155,509)
MI-15
Dingell (D)
682,205
(23,769)
Total:
9,883,640
These two district states are really drama-free, and New Hampshire might be the least dramatic of all. The two districts in the state stayed remarkably balanced (as they always do... the state has had two districts since the 1800s, with the boundaries rarely moving much), to the extent that the 1st needs to pick up only 254 people from the 2nd. I'll leave it to the good folks in comments to argue over which ward in Hooksett should be the one that gets moved. (New Hampshire's target was 658,235, up from 618K in 2000.)
Now that it's 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in the coming weeks and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and it's time to look at Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Hampshire.
9:06pm: Holy shit, let's continue the party over here.
9:05pm: Update from the DE DoE! With 78% in (252 of 325), it's O'Donnell 54 and Castle 46. 3600 votes separate them. Over in Maryland, MD-04 has been called for Donna Edwards, not much contest there either. Maybe also worth mentioning: the GOP primary in NH-Gov got called long ago (with only 7% reporting): John Stephen easily defeated his weird opposition, teabagging businessman Jack Kimball and social con activist Karen Testerman, 77-17-8.
9:00pm: In DE-AL, Glen Urquhart is, as PPP predicted, leading Michelle Rollins. He's up 51-46 with 37% in.
8:50pm: And it wasn't even a contest in Maryland -- the AP has called the GOP gube nomination for Bob Ehrlich. He's sitting on 82% of the vote so far.
8:49pm: In MA-09, douchebag conservadem Stephen Lynch leads Mac D'Allesandro by 43% with 3% in.
8:47pm: I can't get through to the DE DoE, but the latest AP count has O'Donnell up by 55-45 with 37% in. 2300 vote spread.
8:43pm: Some non-DE updates: In MA-10, state Sen. Rob O'Leary leads Norfolk DA Bill Keating by 57-43, and Jeff Perry leads Joe Malone by 58-35 with 5% in. In MD-01, Andy Harris is leading Rob Fisher by 40 points.
8:39pm: We're now up to 31% reporting in DE, and O'Donnell leads by 54-46 (or about 1400 votes).
8:37pm: We're up to 22% reporting in DE, and O'Donnell leads by 56-44! 1450 vote spread.
8:35pm: Before conking out, the last DoE update had O'Donnell up by 55-45 with 17% reporting. 900 vote margin.
8:33pm: Folks, looks like we've crashed the DE DoE site. Restrain yourselves! (Yeah, as if that's possible.)
8:31pm: Now it's 14% reporting in Delaware. O'Donnell now up 55-45, with a 700-vote margin.
8:29pm: We're up to about 11% reporting in Delaware, and O'Donnell leads Castle by 55-45. Hang on to your butts...
8:26pm: Now up to 25 precincts in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell is now leading Mike Castle 52-48, or about 180 votes.
8:22pm: We have some early numbers from the Delaware DoE site! Nutbag Christine O'Donnell leads Mike Castle by 655-449, or 59-41, with 8 out of 325 "Districts" reporting.
8:13pm: I just got off the horn with the Elections Division at the New Hampshire Secretary of State office. They inform me that it's NEVER too early for a ganja break.
7:51pm: Via the Twitter, Delaware elections officials are expecting a quick count there, with most of the results being known by 9:30.
7:49pm: We're up to 5% in, and Lamontagne is up by 53-32. Much of that is based on Lamontagne's strength in his hometown of Manchester, though.
7:44pm: Checking in with the House races, baggage-laden Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta leads Rich Ashooh by 46-28 with 9% in. Sean Mahoney, a guy who's spent a lot in recent weeks, is only pulling in 19%. In NH-02, ex-Rep. Charlie Bass leads Jen Horn by only 8%, but we're just looking at a few hundred votes so far. (Likewise, Ann McLane Kuster has an early lead on Katrina Swett for the Dem nod.)
7:40pm: 3.7% is in, and Ovide leads by 53-32.
7:34pm: We have some early results in New Hampshire. With 2% in, Ovide Lamontagne leads Kelly Ayotte by 23 points, 54-31!
Polls will be closing in Delaware, Massachusetts and Maryland at 8pm Eastern (some polls have already closed in New Hampshire; the rest will follow at 8pm). We'll be using this thread to follow the returns, and we'll check in with Rhode Island, New York, and Wisconsin when polls close in those states at 9.
PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, now I will look at the swing states of West Virginia and New Hampshire.
From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties -- starting in 2012 -- might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.
The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable -- at worst, severely flawed.
The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan -- one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes -- and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.
The following factors are the key ones to consider:
Margin of Victory
- The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates' margins of victory in the preceding general election -- with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.
For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina -- and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.
- The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.
Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness
- Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they'll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.
- Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren't held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.
- This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.
Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing
- By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.
- Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.
- Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However -- should that not happen -- states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.
- Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions -- the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.
- All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.
- Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.
- Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state -- Virginia or Maryland -- is closer to its own margin of victory.
- American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad -- not having Electoral votes of their own -- will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.
Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:
January 2012
Tue, 1/10
Missouri
North Carolina
Indiana
Florida
Montana
Tue, 1/24
Ohio
Georgia
Virginia
Colorado
South Dakota
Tue, 2/7
North Dakota
Arizona
South Carolina
Iowa
New Hampshire
Tue, 2/21
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Texas
Nevada
West Virginia
Tue, 2/26
Mississippi
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico
Tennessee
Tue, 3/6
Kansas
Nebraska
Oregon
Kentucky
Michigan
Tue, 3/20
Washington
Maine
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama
Tue, 4/3
Connecticut
California
Illinois
Delaware
Maryland
Washington DC
OK, now that the convention is over... It's time for us to get back to work! And for us here at C4O, this means getting more & better Democrats elected. So today, I'd like to introduce you to a truly awesome person who will make a fantastic Senator from New Hampshire.
On Sunday I attended a Vets BBQ at the Sweeney VFW post in Manchester, NH to support the re-election of Carol-Shea Porter (D-NH) to the US Congress from the first district. An overflow crowd, they even ran out of hamburgers, greeted CSP and her guest in NH that day, Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX) from the 17th district which includes the village of Crawford which is currently missing the idiot that is currently and woefully living in the White House, most woefully.
The two have become fast friends in DC as Congressman Edwards, Carol's new BFF down there, is the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and VA (MILCON/VA). He came to NH to see what's up first hand. He was impressed with the turnout at the event, so was I.
Carol's remarks were brief and focused on the outrage that NH is currently the only state in America that does not have a full service VA hospital. Follow me below the fold for all the remarks because as Carol told us all in attendance: "There is no excuse."
Before looking at whether or not the Democrats can expect to get the magic sixty, lets review the seats which have the potential to flip, starting from the ones most likely to flip to the ones least likely to flip (anything not listed here means that we consider the seats to be completely safe). (Note, these are all Election Inspection's ratings)
Solid Democratic (Pick-up)
Virginia (Warner)
New Mexico (Domenici)
Leans Democratic
Sununu (New Hampshire)
Landrieu (Lousiana)
Colorado (Allard)
Stevens (Alaska)
Leans Republican
Smith (Oregon)
Coleman (Minnesota)
Collins (Maine)
Wicker (Mississippi-B)
McConnell (Kentucky)
Likely Republican (Open Seat retention)
Idaho (Craig)
Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent)
Dole (North Carolina)
Cornyn (Texas)
Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Roberts (Kansas)
First of all, I think we can safely assume that Democrats will win in New Mexico and Virginia, so we can start off with a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. So, to start off with in the second session, the Democrats are basically guaranteed to start from a vantage point of 50 seats. With the way the Leans Democratic races have been playing out (including the newly added AK-Sen), I'm pretty confident that the Democrats will win at least three and probably all four (Pollster shows Democrats leading by at least 5 points in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Alaska) and while it seems like it's close in Louisiana, with the exception of Zogby, Landrieu has shown to have a consistent lead of no less than 3 points (with the most recent Rasmussen poll giving Landrieu a 5 point edge). So, we'll give the Democrats three more seats and put them up to 53 seats (by the way, this doesn't include Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman who caucus with the Democrats). Alright, so the score now should be at Democrats 53 guaranteed seats and Republicans with 34 guaranteed seats. Now then, let's assume that Republicans win all of the seats which I consider to be either Likely or a potential Dark-horse (which, realistically, is more likely to happen than not), Republicans will have 38 seats (from now on, I'm going to consider Sanders to be a Democrat, for the purposes of voting, which gives the Democrats 54 seats and I'm going to consider Lieberman a wild-card as far as voting in concerned since, even though Lieberman has taken a more Conservative position on several issues, he is still considered to be more likely to support Democratic domestic agendas than Republican ones). So we have a score of 54-39-1, which means that for Democrats to win a filibuster-proof Senate which doesn't rely on Lieberman, they'll have to win 6 additional seats on top of the 5 which I'm projecting for them to win already, now how realistic a shot to Democrats have at this?
I believe that more likely than not, Democrats will win in Louisiana, so we'll give the Democrats that extra seat which puts the score at 55-39-1 (5 undecided). I also think that Republicans should win in Kentucky. so the score now stands at 55-40-1 (4 undecided), which also basically eliminates any reasonable possibility of Democrats getting to the magic 60 number without Lieberman (which, might not be as bad as people think). So, that means that whether or not the Democrats can get to a filibuster proof senate rests on Minnesota, Maine, Oregon, and Mississippi-B. Mississippi-B and Oregon look to be within striking distance but Maine and Minnesota, seem to be moving away from us, so right now, I'd say that, at most, Democrats will probably end up with 57 seats (including Sanders) Republicans with 42 seats, and Joe Lieberman as a wild-card in the Senate.
Doesn't look like we're going to get our filibuster-proof majority this time around, but we'll do well enough that it's possible we can set 2010 up to get there.
Whatever the make-up of the 111th Congress, no one will be able to say that Democrats didn't try everything in their power to reach a 60-seat majority. As of the spring of 2008, there already were eight highly competitive seats that no one would be surprised to see turn-over: With Virginia and New Mexico all but lost for Republicans (and Senator Ensign acknowledging just as much), the GOP is in grave danger in New Hampshire, Colorado, Alaska, Mississippi, Oregon and Minnesota. On the other hand, Republican attempts to go on the offensive have been disastrous, with only Louisiana looking competitive.
