What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[krazen1211]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

That's not the most recent map I've posted w/r/t Ohio, this is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173216.msg3723134#msg3723134

You will note that I have changed my mind since, and now would prefer a whole Cleveland.

And, you do realize that: a) splitting Cleveland and Akron like I did is a pro-Republican move, and if it is to be justified, would be justified via the VRA anyway (not an issue in Cincy) and b) Columbus is too large for a district, so you have to split it no matter what (and the municipal boundaries are such that an all-Columbus district is basically impossible). 

I await your retraction. Patiently. 

It is hardly a Republican move at all. A sizable number of Republican votes are wasted in that bizarre tail. Indeed, if it was you would not have used it. The legislature decided to keep the growing Columbus black population whole in order to give the black population of Ohio a potential chance at electing a second representative. I suspect you don't care about that and have no need to pretend to.

More importantly, Columbus is barely over the population of a Congressional district.That of course leaves the options of.

1. Make a district consisting mostly of the city and perhaps spill the small leftover into another district.
2. Chop the city into 2 pieces of roughly equal size.



Guess which one was, err, conveniently chosen? Your choice is no superior to the legislature's choice.




The 'split Cleveland but keep Cincinnati whole' phenomenon is hardly unique to your set of maps. Indeed, other so called 'fair' maps, drawn by, as you might guess, 'fair' map individuals, conveniently make such a simultaneous choice. Talk about schizophrenia.

[Mr.Phips]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

[politicallefty]

Was my PA map so good that no one dare comment on it?

As for Ohio, the Columbus-based district should be contained entirely within Franklin County. Cleveland and Cincinnati should also have one district each. I think if a county has the population to support a district, it must have a district. A plurality-Black district entirely within Cuyahoga County leaves a Democratic-leaning West-side district that moves into Lorain County. I think a reasonable map would leave six Democratic districts (Cleveland, Western Cuyahoga+Lorain, Toledo-based district, Summit+Portage district, Youngstown+Warren+Canton district, and Columbus). There are conceivably five toss-up districts (NE Ohio, SE Ohio, Cincinnati, Dayton area, and Columbus suburbs). That would leave five safe Republican districts (NW Ohio, NC Ohio, Columbus suburbs, Cincinnati-Dayton suburbs, and Southern Ohio). Turner is probably safe in his Dayton-based district, but OH-14 is definitely up for grabs now that LaTourette is gone. I think 10R-6D is the absolute worst Democrats can do under a fair and reasonable map. In a neutral year, I'd expect a fair map to split evenly between the two parties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was my PA map so good that no one dare comment on it?

I would much rather that Lackawanna be placed in the 10th like it was for decades until 2001 when it was removed to protect Sherwood from Junior making another attempt at him. When I drew the map like this the 10th came out as 51% McCain and the 11th as 53% Obama. A Casey Dem with a whole Lackawanna as a base could toss Marino in all but the most GOP of years and then produce a series of competative elections until some Republican managed to reign in Lackawanna or some Democrat likewise with Lycoming and thus hold it for a good length of time. Barletta would be able to win such an 11th in all but the most Dem of years. Might sacrifice a bit on the district quality, but Congressman quality would benefit as incumbents in both would be kept on their toes. These solid districts reduce degrade the incumbent over time, and NE PA needs solid representation, not solid districts.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

But that district did not include 'all' of Cincinatti in either its 1990 or 2000 iterations.

[TJ in Oregon]

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinnati and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

You underestimate Steve Dreihaus. He was a fairly good fit for OH-1, a sitting congressman, and actually had some cross-over appeal. Of course OH-1 was not a seat the Democrats could hold in 2010 regardless of the candidate, but it's not like replacing Dreihaus with Connie Pillich would have helped their chances any.

[Mr.Phips]

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinnati and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

You underestimate Steve Dreihaus. He was a fairly good fit for OH-1, a sitting congressman, and actually had some cross-over appeal. Of course OH-1 was not a seat the Democrats could hold in 2010 regardless of the candidate, but it's not like replacing Dreihaus with Connie Pillich would have helped their chances any.

Had the DCCC not pulled out of that seat, Dreihaus could have won.  Chabot is essentially a Todd Akin type who somehow managed to hold onto a Dem leaning seat for years.

[Mr.Phips]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

But that district did not include 'all' of Cincinatti in either its 1990 or 2000 iterations.

It included all of it in the 1991 iteration and about 95% in the 2001 one.

[Torie]

Gosh, I'm getting good at this.  Here is the "fair" map for the 2012-2020 cycle. The Dems pick up one seat (the Akron-Canton seat), are well positioned over time to get another (Cincinnati), and a third CD is a tossup (my OH-11). So absent a wave, the Dems pick up 1-3 seats over the GOP gerrymander, and would have picked up two seats I think in 2012 (Sutton would have won OH-11, but if she did not moderate, would eventually probably fall against a strong Pub in an off year election). Chabot I suspect would have barely held on, but his half life would not be that long.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

But that district did not include 'all' of Cincinatti in either its 1990 or 2000 iterations.

It included all of it in the 1991 iteration and about 95% in the 2001 one.

Link


The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

[Down the Gurney]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

[politicallefty]

I would much rather that Lackawanna be placed in the 10th like it was for decades until 2001 when it was removed to protect Sherwood from Junior making another attempt at him. When I drew the map like this the 10th came out as 51% McCain and the 11th as 53% Obama. A Casey Dem with a whole Lackawanna as a base could toss Marino in all but the most GOP of years and then produce a series of competative elections until some Republican managed to reign in Lackawanna or some Democrat likewise with Lycoming and thus hold it for a good length of time. Barletta would be able to win such an 11th in all but the most Dem of years. Might sacrifice a bit on the district quality, but Congressman quality would benefit as incumbents in both would be kept on their toes. These solid districts reduce degrade the incumbent over time, and NE PA needs solid representation, not solid districts.

That might be good if you're going for competitive districts as a priority. My primary intent was to keep communities of interest together and have reasonably shaped districts with minimal county splits (and lower municipalities for that matter). I made a point of keeping Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties together as the core of one district, as I think they constitute a strong community of interest. I'll admit that my PA-10 isn't the best district, but I think it's a natural extension to account for population loss. I would like to see the map you've drawn that splits Lackawanna from Luzerne.

That's a very nice map overall. My only real objection is that it doesn't leave a true Southeastern Ohio district and divides the Columbus suburbs somewhat excessively. I'd accept that map over the current in a heartbeat, but I'd probably object to districts 7, 10. and 12. I'm not fond of CD-08, but it's probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

[Mr.Phips]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

If you are going to go back to Bush, then Democrats should be able to go back to Obama where he won 28 states in 2008.  That gives Democrats 56 Senate seats.  To call anything but  FL, NC, OH, and VA a swing state at this point is a stretch.  Many of those states haven't voted GOP for President since 1988.  If e everything else was a equal, we would have something like a 50/50 senate.

[Torie]

I would much rather that Lackawanna be placed in the 10th like it was for decades until 2001 when it was removed to protect Sherwood from Junior making another attempt at him. When I drew the map like this the 10th came out as 51% McCain and the 11th as 53% Obama. A Casey Dem with a whole Lackawanna as a base could toss Marino in all but the most GOP of years and then produce a series of competative elections until some Republican managed to reign in Lackawanna or some Democrat likewise with Lycoming and thus hold it for a good length of time. Barletta would be able to win such an 11th in all but the most Dem of years. Might sacrifice a bit on the district quality, but Congressman quality would benefit as incumbents in both would be kept on their toes. These solid districts reduce degrade the incumbent over time, and NE PA needs solid representation, not solid districts.

That might be good if you're going for competitive districts as a priority. My primary intent was to keep communities of interest together and have reasonably shaped districts with minimal county splits (and lower municipalities for that matter). I made a point of keeping Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties together as the core of one district, as I think they constitute a strong community of interest. I'll admit that my PA-10 isn't the best district, but I think it's a natural extension to account for population loss. I would like to see the map you've drawn that splits Lackawanna from Luzerne.

That's a very nice map overall. My only real objection is that it doesn't leave a true Southeastern Ohio district and divides the Columbus suburbs somewhat excessively. I'd accept that map over the current in a heartbeat, but I'd probably object to districts 7, 10. and 12. I'm not fond of CD-08, but it's probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

Muon2 and I have thrown the  communities of interest thing (other than the VRA), into the dustbin. It is just always gamed by partisans - here, there and everywhere. We focus on chops and erosity, although I do bear in mind keeping metro areas together, and I did that. The Columbus burbs are almost all in one CD, and most of the city in another, and the choice involved not splitting the black community where it was contiguous, and trying to keep most of the city together.

[Miles]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

[krazen1211]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

I would think that Mr. Phips's inaccurate post about the history of OH-01 would merit your purple haired girl and not this other guy's accurate one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

If you are going to go back to Bush, then Democrats should be able to go back to Obama where he won 28 states in 2008.  That gives Democrats 56 Senate seats.  To call anything but  FL, NC, OH, and VA a swing state at this point is a stretch.  Many of those states haven't voted GOP for President since 1988.  If e everything else was a equal, we would have something like a 50/50 senate.

My comparison used 2012 data, not 2004. I only mentioned 2004 to illustrate my point with a vivid example of a 50-50 election producing a lopsided number of Senators in GOP states and my point still applies today, so in typical liberal fashion you demand to include a seven point Democratic blow out in in conflict with the parameters established. Also, a great many of those states you are bitching about have Republican Senators right now.

In 2008, Obama won just one state on the list of strong Romney states (Indiana), which many regarded as a rare event and it reverted to its normal position in terms of partisanship in 2012 that leaves 46 seats in Republican territory

And nice job contracting the list of swing states down to the four that if added to Romney's collumn would not equal a victory without one more state. NH, PA, NV, IA and WI all have Republican Senators right now, and four of them have Republican Governors and Colorado would have a Republican Senator and Governor right now were it not for incompetence candidates. The list of swing states, was the list that Romney competed in. Only two haven't gone for a Republican since 1988. Since when has two become many? They both have one Republican Senator, a Republican Governor and strong GOP state party operations in both, and one of them was the tipping point state, which makes my case for making the list as a swing state.

My point was that if the GOP quit being so stupid, they would be in a position to dominate the Senate. Does it not stand a reason that as a part of that, as a part of not running Akins and Mourdocks and Rick Bergs instead of Steelmans, Skillmans, and Stenejhems that GOP electability in those states you are whining about would rise proportionally, as well? Mack ran a terrible campaign, Buck was destroyed by a rape scandal, AKin, by a rape scandal, Mourdock likewise, Berg came accross as unrelateable, Rehberg blew it again, Allen was underwhleming, Thompson and Mandell were just train wrecks. The GOP underestimated Democratic turnout in 2012 and had crappy polling so they couldn't catch onto it. They sunk billions into ads that were poorly crafted and chased an elusive objective as opposed to effectively prosecuting the case against Obama + Insert Democratic Senator, or defining their own people first. They had no credible and well rounded alternative agenda and they kept defeating themselves with gaffes adn stupid comments. Remove all that and Romney gains Florida, and the Republicans net five to six Senate seats in 2012 alone. Throw in 2010 and the number grows to eight to nine.

But no, you rushed to challenge the numbers before even considering the primary premise.

[TJ in Oregon]

Cincinnati has rather irregular-shaped boundaries, so it's not at all surprising it hasn't been in one district in a long time:

[hopper]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

Well the Talk Radio, Fox News Arm, and The Hard Right Money Bundelers want all the R's Senators to vote like they are from Alabama unfortunately.

Chiesa isn't gonna run again anyway. The reason Christie put Chiesa in that Senate Seat temporarily is because Chiesa didn't want to be attorney general for NJ anymore.

Collins and Kirk don't have the liability of being challenged by a Tea Party type. The Senate Results in Delaware(2010) and in Maine last year I think the Tea Party pulled out of the Northeast and other deep blue states because I don't think they have confidence anymore that they can win in those states with their candidates.

[Miles]

I would think that Mr. Phips's inaccurate post about the history of OH-01 would merit your purple haired girl and not this other guy's accurate one.

Oh, I forgot, pop culture references are over your head.  Sorry!

[Mr.Phips]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

If you are going to go back to Bush, then Democrats should be able to go back to Obama where he won 28 states in 2008.  That gives Democrats 56 Senate seats.  To call anything but  FL, NC, OH, and VA a swing state at this point is a stretch.  Many of those states haven't voted GOP for President since 1988.  If e everything else was a equal, we would have something like a 50/50 senate.

My comparison used 2012 data, not 2004. I only mentioned 2004 to illustrate my point with a vivid example of a 50-50 election producing a lopsided number of Senators in GOP states and my point still applies today, so in typical liberal fashion you demand to include a seven point Democratic blow out in in conflict with the parameters established. Also, a great many of those states you are bitching about have Republican Senators right now.

In 2008, Obama won just one state on the list of strong Romney states (Indiana), which many regarded as a rare event and it reverted to its normal position in terms of partisanship in 2012 that leaves 46 seats in Republican territory

And nice job contracting the list of swing states down to the four that if added to Romney's collumn would not equal a victory without one more state. NH, PA, NV, IA and WI all have Republican Senators right now, and four of them have Republican Governors and Colorado would have a Republican Senator and Governor right now were it not for incompetence candidates. The list of swing states, was the list that Romney competed in. Only two haven't gone for a Republican since 1988. Since when has two become many? They both have one Republican Senator, a Republican Governor and strong GOP state party operations in both, and one of them was the tipping point state, which makes my case for making the list as a swing state.

My point was that if the GOP quit being so stupid, they would be in a position to dominate the Senate. Does it not stand a reason that as a part of that, as a part of not running Akins and Mourdocks and Rick Bergs instead of Steelmans, Skillmans, and Stenejhems that GOP electability in those states you are whining about would rise proportionally, as well? Mack ran a terrible campaign, Buck was destroyed by a rape scandal, AKin, by a rape scandal, Mourdock likewise, Berg came accross as unrelateable, Rehberg blew it again, Allen was underwhleming, Thompson and Mandell were just train wrecks. The GOP underestimated Democratic turnout in 2012 and had crappy polling so they couldn't catch onto it. They sunk billions into ads that were poorly crafted and chased an elusive objective as opposed to effectively prosecuting the case against Obama + Insert Democratic Senator, or defining their own people first. They had no credible and well rounded alternative agenda and they kept defeating themselves with gaffes adn stupid comments. Remove all that and Romney gains Florida, and the Republicans net five to six Senate seats in 2012 alone. Throw in 2010 and the number grows to eight to nine.

But no, you rushed to challenge the numbers before even considering the primary premise.

Republicans were not going to net five or six seats in 2012 unless Romney was winning solidly.  Incumbents don't run behind there Presidential ticket unless there is a scandal. 

Using your same logic, I could argue that Democrats would have 59 seats today had House Republicans not cleverly made up that fake Shelley Berkeley non-scandal to help Heller in Nevada in 2012 and if in 2010 they didn't run a crook in Illinois, and defined Johnson and Toomey in Wisconsin and PA respectively.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

Well the Talk Radio, Fox News Arm, and The Hard Right Money Bundelers want all the R's Senators to vote like they are from Alabama unfortunately.

Chiesa isn't gonna run again anyway. The reason Christie put Chiesa in that Senate Seat temporarily is because Chiesa didn't want to be attorney general for NJ anymore.

Collins and Kirk don't have the liability of being challenged by a Tea Party type. The Senate Results in Delaware(2010) and in Maine last year I think the Tea Party pulled out of the Northeast and other deep blue states because I don't think they have confidence anymore that they can win in those states with their candidates.

I am well aware how Chiesa got there. Such thinks happen by fate courtesy of having Republican Governors in blue states. We would have inherited a seat from Lieberman in 2000 had Gore won the Presidency just the same.

A shame they didn't realize that sooner. I have had a Kerry by 10 rule idealogy exception that led to me supporting the likes of Castle, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, etc etc. As 2012 exemplified, I need to create a new one for stupidity, probably Romney by 15 or less.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

Actually the Senate is a natural Republican gerrymander courtesy of the fact that there are more small Republican states, then large blue ones. For instance, Bush won 31 states in 2004, which accounts for 62 Senate seats. On top of that you have narrow Kerry states like a PA that can elect a Conservative if they don't shoot their mouths off. If the Republicans would quit blowing seats in places like MO, IN, ND, MT, FL and WV (That is six seats presently in Dem hands, that don't have to be) with piss poor candidates, the Democrats would always find themselves in a disadvantage. If they would also strategize and allow a Castle or a Kirk to hold down the fort in a deep blue state here and there instead of demanding they all vote like they represent Alabama, the Dems would be locked out of the Senate in all but wave years and Republicans could count on the Conservatives in the 31 or so states that Bush won to render their votes unnecessary when it counts, anyway.

Strong Romney States (46 Seats):
AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV and WY

Swing States (20 Seats):
CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI

Blue States Beyond Reach Normally (34 Seats):
CA, CT, DE, HI, ILL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA

And the real bitch is we actually hold some seats in the last grouping (Chiesa, Collins and Kirk) and had things gone differently in the previous two cylces, we could have easily had more (Brown, Castle, Rossi and Wilson ) at this point.

If you are going to go back to Bush, then Democrats should be able to go back to Obama where he won 28 states in 2008.  That gives Democrats 56 Senate seats.  To call anything but  FL, NC, OH, and VA a swing state at this point is a stretch.  Many of those states haven't voted GOP for President since 1988.  If e everything else was a equal, we would have something like a 50/50 senate.

My comparison used 2012 data, not 2004. I only mentioned 2004 to illustrate my point with a vivid example of a 50-50 election producing a lopsided number of Senators in GOP states and my point still applies today, so in typical liberal fashion you demand to include a seven point Democratic blow out in in conflict with the parameters established. Also, a great many of those states you are bitching about have Republican Senators right now.

In 2008, Obama won just one state on the list of strong Romney states (Indiana), which many regarded as a rare event and it reverted to its normal position in terms of partisanship in 2012 that leaves 46 seats in Republican territory

And nice job contracting the list of swing states down to the four that if added to Romney's collumn would not equal a victory without one more state. NH, PA, NV, IA and WI all have Republican Senators right now, and four of them have Republican Governors and Colorado would have a Republican Senator and Governor right now were it not for incompetence candidates. The list of swing states, was the list that Romney competed in. Only two haven't gone for a Republican since 1988. Since when has two become many? They both have one Republican Senator, a Republican Governor and strong GOP state party operations in both, and one of them was the tipping point state, which makes my case for making the list as a swing state.

My point was that if the GOP quit being so stupid, they would be in a position to dominate the Senate. Does it not stand a reason that as a part of that, as a part of not running Akins and Mourdocks and Rick Bergs instead of Steelmans, Skillmans, and Stenejhems that GOP electability in those states you are whining about would rise proportionally, as well? Mack ran a terrible campaign, Buck was destroyed by a rape scandal, AKin, by a rape scandal, Mourdock likewise, Berg came accross as unrelateable, Rehberg blew it again, Allen was underwhleming, Thompson and Mandell were just train wrecks. The GOP underestimated Democratic turnout in 2012 and had crappy polling so they couldn't catch onto it. They sunk billions into ads that were poorly crafted and chased an elusive objective as opposed to effectively prosecuting the case against Obama + Insert Democratic Senator, or defining their own people first. They had no credible and well rounded alternative agenda and they kept defeating themselves with gaffes adn stupid comments. Remove all that and Romney gains Florida, and the Republicans net five to six Senate seats in 2012 alone. Throw in 2010 and the number grows to eight to nine.

But no, you rushed to challenge the numbers before even considering the primary premise.

Republicans were not going to net five or six seats in 2012 unless Romney was winning solidly.  Incumbents don't run behind there Presidential ticket unless there is a scandal. 

Using your same logic, I could argue that Democrats would have 59 seats today had House Republicans not cleverly made up that fake Shelley Berkeley non-scandal to help Heller in Nevada in 2012 and if in 2010 they didn't run a crook in Illinois, and defined Johnson and Toomey in Wisconsin and PA respectively.

I meant net five to six from there present situation, but even so, lets play ball here.

Indiana, Montana, Missouri and Indiana that is 49 (net two from where they were before)

A Romney narrow win includes him winning Florida, Virginia and Ohio

So lets throw them onto the pot (I count five already).

Wisconsin was an open seat and had Romney been winning narrowly nationwide, then Thompson should have been able to win with either a narrow win or loss for Romney in the state, had Thompson run a more competent campaign and had he not make crazy statements about eliminating popular entitlements.

I win.

I wouldn't try and use my logic if I were you, as you seem to be having a hard time understanding it so far.

You wouldn't have been able to define Toomey, because they actually tried to do so and failed. Feingold always performed with minimal cross-over appeal and in a GOP year would be vulnerable. It is kind of hard to define someone like Johnson, who was practically a blank slate at the time. Toomey had a record, working on Wall Streat with evil derivitives and supporting privitizing Social Security, neither of which worked to stop him and both were tried. Sestak wasn't that bad a candidate either really. Keep in mind that Kirk was also hobbled by a controversy of his own and that probably negated much of what was benefited from the crookedness you reference.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PA-Dems-congressional-map.png
I have just a question: how many seats could the democrats have in Pennsylvania with this map?

I can't understand why the minority Dems in PA would put out such a crazy map. At least the OH Dems filed a neutral proposal as an alternative to the GOP gerrymander.

The silly map eliminates the 19th on grounds of being the 19th, and keeps everybody else around. (It also doesn't do the insane finesplitting around Philly needed to shore up all the freshmen, of course.) It is, in short, a fair map. It just happens to also be an insane map.

A Dem gerrymander would actually have been both easier to draw and easier on the eye.