No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:
First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).
Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).
Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted. Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas. Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.
I buy the second one, but not the first and third.
I buy the first one (in all probability) but we're talking about two seats here - AZ 05 is a contender for the title of third most easily recoupable Republican loss of 06, btw.
The loss of AZ 08 was obviously made much easier by Rep infighting... but it's no more'n half the story here.
As to gerrymandering... both arguments are somewhat correct.
If we assume (just for simplicity's sake) stable political affiliations and no gerrymandering, Dems moving into Rep areas turn Rep districts Democratic one at a time, all over the period. Rep gains due to seat distribution, on the other hand, occur exclusively at the decadal redistricting, but quite a few of them at once (Indeed, you get a pattern like this in the UK, though obscured by the much larger swings).
Reps did a pretty damn ugly job at redistricting America in 2002, and
actually should work in the Dems' favor as a result.
On a side note,
is dead wrong insofar as Georgia is concerned, and even Texas could have been done a good bit worse as far as net numbers of Democrats are concerned (though such a map would without a doubt have been overturned on Voting Rights Act grounds).
Poll
