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

[Mr.Phips]

For this purpose I'll only count gerrymanders in swing or lean states, won't count things in safe states like Illinois, Maryland (IL seats and MD-6) or Indiana (legislature helped GOP in IN-2). Also won't count non-partisan commissions (AZ dems got a friendly map and NJ, WA GOP prevailed). Places like WA-8 might have gone Dem under the old maps. Same with court-drawn maps.

PA: Dems likely win PA-11 (Obama did well in Scranton), PA-7 (Ditto in Delaware County)
but fall short in PA- 6 (Gerlach always runs strong and Obama would have won this but by much less than 2008), PA-8 (Obama would have won old PA-8 as narrowly as Romney won the new one) and PA- 15 (Dent is a good candidate).
 +2 D

OH: Dems retake OH-1, OH-15 (Obama won both by at least 7 and the 15th by probably 10 or so) but fall just short in OH-6. Obama wins old OH-12 but these districts would be slightly different due to losing seats. Still, based on Obama showing in Cincinnati and Columbus I'm sure Dems would have won 2 seats.

+4 D

NC: Dems certainly hold onto NC-13 and NC-8 while likely taking back NC-2 (traditionally Democratic and Obama won it). NC-11 its possibly Shuler sticks around but that is too speculative for here. NC-7 isn't a race. Dems gain 3 seats.

+7 D

VA: Despite the changes, Wolf likely wins the old VA- 10 easily anyway and ditto for Rigell in a very similar VA-2. No change.

WI: WI-8 stays the same. Possible that WI-7 gets a stronger Duffy challenger and Obama likely wins the district but difficult to tell. No change.

MI: With the McCotter issues, Dems likely pick up MI-11 as Obama likely won a narrow victory here. Other than that the GOP likely prevails in MI- 1 and 7.

+8 D

So even with more fair redistricting, the GOP likely still takes the House. But they have a 226-209 majority, still enough.

However, Dems would then be only 9 seats away and GOP would hold these Obama seats: NJ-2, NJ-3, PA-6, PA-8, PA-15, NY-2, NY-11, NY-19, VA-2, VA-10, WA-8, CO-6, CA-10, CA-21, CA-31, IA-3, WI-7. There's probably a couple more I forgot but this would be enough to make GOP strategists sweat a bit more.

Dems would have probably finally beaten Gerlach in PA-06.  Obama would have been winning there 54%-44% and that district was simply an hourglass that was losing more and more sand every cycle for the GOP.

Dems also probably would have taken WA-08 with DelBene.  Remember that she came within two points of beating Reichart in the horrific year of 2010.  Throw in Presidential turnout and a better climate for Dems and Reichart is a goner.

In Mi-07, Schauer doesn't have his home base of Battle Creek removed and runs here and beats Wahlberg.

In PA-04 and PA-12, Critz and Altmire likely hold on as well.  Both districts would have been getting tougher and tougher for Dems, but they would have held on this time.

With OH-12. I think Dems would have found a good challenger and beaten Tiberi.  Obama would have won here by around 11 points and the trends in this district were just awful for Republicans.  Remember that Tiberi was held to just 55% here in 2010 in a horrible Dem year against a candidate who was long written off by Dems.

You are pretty much on target with everything else.

[Mr.Phips]

Without Gerrymandering, the Democrats wouldn't have had NC-02 to begin with. There should be at least one Republican district in this area, and the Democrats had drawn the old map specifically to prevent such a Republican from winning. There are simply too many areas to not have a GOP district, even if only marginally so, between Southern Wake, Johnston, Nash, and Harnett Counties and it would be a rather compact distrct too. The old 2nd was a gerrymander to to protect Etheridge and the old 13th was personally drawn by, for and of Brad Miller.

Its one thing to complain about a present gerrymander, it is quite another to then latch onto a previous hatchet job and assign it an undue level of respectability.

This I agree with.  The dip into Raleigh just to pick up blacks was a blatant Dem attempt to fortify the seat.  However, Republicans did some even uglier(and unprecedented) things elsewhere in the state, like carving Asheville out of NC-11 and placing the Lumbees in with the Sand Hills.

[Mr.Phips]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

There really isn't any way a neutral plan could create a seat is Mass that would be any worse for Dems than D+4.  You would have to create a Plymouth to Worcester suburbs seat, which would be a GOP Gerrymander and still probably wouldn't have voted GOP for President since 1988.

[Mr.Phips]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

Those districts are beautiful.

Districts 7 and 8 are at least vulnerable to Democrats in bad election years for Republicans.

Those two districts are a lot more Dem downballot than the Presidential numbers suggest.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.