Does increased urbanization hurt the Democrats in the House?

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

The majority of Congressional districts D+20 (and these are districts that would normally go 60-40 in favor of a Democrat in a 50-50 election) or more are in California and New York, and those reflect the giant urban areas that hold the vast majority of the population of those states. There is no way to avoid such districts in California or New York  in such numbers. I didn't count the total, but most states with large populations and at least one giant metro area have one. To give some idea of their rarity outside of California and New York, Illinois has four, Pennsylvania has three, Texas has three, North Carolina has two,  Florida has three New Jersey has two, and Michigan has two. (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin each have one).   

Republicans have done an excellent job of ensuring that Democrats must win about 53-47 in Congressional races on the whole to have a chance at a majority, at least based on assumptions of 2010. They have created some of the D+20 districts as sure wins for any Democrat who does nothing so egregious as a felony crime while diluting any significant concentrations of Democratic votes elsewhere.   Such allows Congress to represent what Sarah Palin calls "the Real America" -- the part of America still rural, conservative in religious beliefs and family traditions, and that still believes in the benevolence of Corporate America.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

But the counties that hold Kalamazoo, South Bend, and Lansing are all held entirely intact in Congressional redistricting. Such 'dilution' is mandatory unless of course you go chopping cities up like Peoria and Rockford. The Michigan mapping scheme generally does not chop up cities.

MI-07 was chopped up so that the Democratic Representative barely defeated in 2010 could not challenge the bare victor of 2010, in accordance with the suggestions of Koch's group.