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

[publicunofficial]

Returning to Illinois, I wonder how much the favorite son effect was.  Is 5% about right (Illinois trended 5 points to the Dems in 2008, and about 5 points back to the Pubs again in 2012)?  

I ask, because per my "good government" non partisan map below using the rules that I like to use (minimizing chops, with a laser beam like focus on minimizing erosity, and ignoring just about everything else other than the VRA (and in this instance making some effort to create a second Hispanic influence CD, even though there is no second Hispanic CD to draw required by the VRA that hits 50% Hispanic VAP), I count nine potentially competitive CD's (yes nine), if one uses a 5 point PVI adjustment towards the Pubs.  Pity the map was not enacted into law, because if it had, Illinois could have had its economy revived just by all the campaign cash pouring into it given the jury sized number of CD's in play.  

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

That looks like a decent map, but I can't tell whether or not it has a majority Latino district.

[publicunofficial]

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):
Florida 10 (Webster)
Indiana 9 (Young)
Michigan 7 (Walberg)
Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)
Pennsylvania 7 (Meehan)
Pennsylvania 8 (Fitzpatrick)
Wisconsin 7 (Duffy)

Would have held on to:
Indiana 2 (Donnelly)
North Carolina 11 (Shuler)
North Carolina 13 (Miller)
Pennsylvania 12 (Critz)

Would have lost:
Arizona 1 (Open)
Maryland 6 (Bartlett)
Illinois 10 (Dold)
Illinois 11 (Biggert)
Illinois 17 (Schilling)

[publicunofficial]

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.

I meant to say Johnson instead of Turner. Turner's seat is probably the least gerrymandered in Ohio. Also I think Chabot's record is too hard right, and could easily be defeated in 2012 by Mark Mallory or Steve Driehaus if he stopped his Peace Corps mission in Africa.

Under a fair map, LaTourette's seat would be much more Dem-friendly but Joyce would have still won because of how terrible the Dem candidate was. Latta's seat could also be made much friendlier to Democrats by dismantling the Toldeo-to-Cleveland gerrymander.

[publicunofficial]

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.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.