Redistricting victims next cycle.

[lfromnj]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

Even if Illinois loses a seat they still combine Il 12th and 13th. They are too far away from Bustos's district to actually gerrymander up there. If I had to guess for bustos they might keep a tentacle that goes from the northwest corner to Lake county to stave of the republican trend of the district.

[lfromnj]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

Even if Illinois loses a seat they still combine Il 12th and 13th. They are too far away from Bustos's district to actually gerrymander up there. If I had to guess for bustos they might keep a tentacle that goes from the northwest corner to Lake county to stave of the republican trend of the district.

I thought the same, but not in light of taking IL-14. I just don’t think a 14-3 map is realistic in IL. If someone can post a map proving otherwise, I’d be happy to see it. I think the best they do is try to string some Democratic areas together and maybe get a tilt-R district. I’m looking at this in terms of our current political paradigm where Trumpism is here to stay.

It depends on what you mean by 14-3. the 2 downstates should be possible to combine for atleast a decade as some parts of donwstate are trending democrat. The question is basically Bustos. I think Bustos makes her seat Likely D if they add a bit of Chicago Land but in a wave she might go down but she is a pretty strong candidate.

[lfromnj]

Here a rudimentary 2020 map showing that you can still get two Blue seats out of downstate - as you can see I'm still working on Chicagoland. Both seats are between D+4 and D+5 PVI, and they can get more democratic. I wanted to keep my tentacles 'thick' and actually logical, but this adds pubs. If you connect the cites using thin bacon strips, you can hit D+5 or more.

A lot I feel depends on 2020 regarding Illinois. How democratic the collar counties get/stay/remain and whether IL-14 remains in dem hands determines if the seat needs to go Pub to shore up everyone else.

yeah this is probably the best map for democrats. It doesn't use up chicago land for the downstate districts and it keeps both downstate districts relatively Likely D. So Chicago land has 12 districts?
Im guessing Mike bost Davis and Skimkus all have to choose either the Likely D district or Skimkus's  far southern district.

[lfromnj]

Sanford Bishop, given his district is bleeding population and will get chopped up.

Isn't his district protected by the VRA?

It's 52% black, so yes. 

yeah but they can just make a 4th atlanta VRA district (aka another vote sink as atlanta VRA district would be like 75% dem by now) and chop bishops district and that still leaves the same number of VRA districts. Backfire could be that courts do a virginia remake and force them to make a SW VRA district without touching the rest of the map but its still the best option as Atlanta needs 4 districts for dems by now.

[lfromnj]

damn what  an Illinois gerrymander. If I was a democrat id just go 14-3 as that touch point will be challenged. in a 15-2 who stays?
Skimkus and Lahood?

[lfromnj]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

I think the commision might take into account incumbents like NJ does.

[lfromnj]

What do these 14-3 maps look like if one draws two Hispanic districts?

Pretty much the same from an overall big picture view. IL-03 (Lipinski's seat) was already 33% Hispanic in 2010. Even with its current boundaries, it should be more so now. So basically the current Hispanic seat IL-04 just takes the area around the northern earmuff of the current IL-04, and IL-03 is modified slightly to take in more Hispanics that were formerly in the southern earmuff of IL-04.

So there are a lot of advantages of making a 2nd Hispanic district from a progressive perspective... You expand Hispanic representation in line with their population growth, you probably make it easier to primary Lipinski, because you a progressive Hispanic can primary him and get both the Hispanic vote and the Progressive vote, and another benefit is IL-07 is not surrounded by IL-04. That means that if you want to, you can then draw out IL-07 at least a bit into more Republican areas outside of Cook County, which helps a lot with making everything else more safely Democratic. If you wanted to do a 15-2 map in a somewhat cleanish looking way, that would probably be the easiest way to do it, because suddenly you could unpack IL-07 and incorporate that into the gerrymander, in addition to having a bunch of extra packed Dem votes in IL-05 and IL-09 to work with.

lol @daddy madigan hurting Dan Lipinski.

[lfromnj]

How does a 14D - 3R map perform under a 2014 scenario?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois,_2014

House popular vote: 51.42% (D) - 48.58% (R)

That was back when Republicans were competitive, and sometimes even winning in the collar counties. That time is over. Trump has pushed those areas away from the Republican party, and these areas are not the type that will go back to the Republicans even after Trump is gone. Republican are not going to ever perform this well again in Illinois anytime in the near future. There is nothing to be worried about here.

I mean there can be a countertrend in downstate that kills Bustos and the other downstate district near East St louis+ the 2 colleges
Then a wave takes down one chicago land district.

[lfromnj]

Anyway here's a few maps I messed around with:



5-1 R AL that cuts AL03



A Fair MN map that keeps all PVIs from 2010 intact: MN02 R+1, MN03 D+2, MN07 R+3



A slightly more D Biased MN map, but still fair: MN02 D+1, MN03 D+3.5, MN07 R+3



A Dem Gerry which is only one state senate seat away...  MN02 D+3.5, MN03 D+4, MN07 D+3

All MN maps try to avoid cutting localities - the only one cut by the Gerry is Bloomington for example.

Is purple or yellow ilhan omar. If its purple I'm disappointed that u aren't giving the Racist hicks ilhan omar

[lfromnj]

Yarmuth is pretty liberal, and if the KY GOP draws the maps well, they can probably get him in a D+2 seat (depending on population growth). He might be able to lose that.

Louisville is trending democrat. Anyway atleast Yarmouth can't be lloyd dog get ed . The Texas gop hated him so much they almost screwed themselves over
D plus 2 would basically be something like hillary plus 7. Unless it's a red wave Yarmuth should be good

[lfromnj]

Kentucky's State Constitution bans splintering up KY-03. Yarmuth is complete safe unless somehow the GOP gets another Anne Northup.

Yeah I wouldn't call it titanium d but unless it's a massive wave he should be good.

[lfromnj]

How about Emanuel Cleaver in the 5th Missouri district? It's not as Democratic as it once was, while the adjacent 4th and 6th are much more Republican. So if after 2020 the governor is Republican, what would prevent the district being split between the 4th and 6th and a new district being created in central Missouri?

Yeah him too. He deserves it. I'm gonna laugh

[lfromnj]

How about Emanuel Cleaver in the 5th Missouri district? It's not as Democratic as it once was, while the adjacent 4th and 6th are much more Republican. So if after 2020 the governor is Republican, what would prevent the district being split between the 4th and 6th and a new district being created in central Missouri?

First off, the reason the seat is less Dem is because of the 'arm' to the East, the city and her suburbs are only getting more blue.

 Second, this seat is somewhat protected by geography, being all the way on the edge of the state. You would have to rework three or four districts into tendrils to kill the city.  Along with reinforcing the second, this means basically every Pub will have a new, squiggly CD. Not the best scenario for incumbents wishing to retain their local loyal constituents.

Finally, there is Amendment 1, Missouri's new fair districts amendment which creates a nonpartisan demographer office charged with drawing maps that reflect the views of local constituents and state electoral lines. This position is appointed by the SOS, spoiler who is a democrat. Now right now, Amendment 1 only covers local legislative lines. But considering the trend-line of legislative redistricting amendments, they are almost always extended by initiative to federal redistricting ASAP. If it does get passed, there is no way the commissioner can create maps that cut Kansas City without violating the orders of his commission. Such rules though do though prevent dem hopes of winning a third cd in the Show-Me State.

that arm to the east is what Cleaver wanted to get to Columbia + kansas city trended R in 2016 on the MO side(although a heavy D trend on the kansas side)

I really hope Cleaver gets gerrymandered. He deserves it the most.

[lfromnj]

Second, this seat is somewhat protected by geography, being all the way on the edge of the state. You would have to rework three or four districts into tendrils to kill the city.  Along with reinforcing the second, this means basically every Pub will have a new, squiggly CD. Not the best scenario for incumbents wishing to retain their local loyal constituents.

Not that squiggly.





MO-04 (Red): R+12.0
MO-05 (Yellow): R+10.0
MO-06 (Teal): R+12.0

The rest of the state left over for the other 5 districts is R+7.5. So after making a St. Louis vote sink, the other 4 R districts can obviously easily be safe.

But yeah, if they do something like this that will help non-partisan redistricting get passed in the future.

yeah this would generally work
The GOP would also have to worry about the 2nd district but I guess they could do the same thing with the 2nd being split up among 3 districts too and 1 last Titanium R district in rural MO.