Argument for Dem House for a long time

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain being the candidate would do nothing.  Clinton being the nominee in 1992 and 1996 didn't defeat Jay Dickey or Tim Hutchinson in AR-04 and AR-03 respectively in 1992 of 1996.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

This is not true.  Democrats now control most state legislatures and that advantage will probably grow at least if a Republican is elected President in 2008.  There is a good chance that Democrats will be in control of redistricting in states like California, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  This will allow them to undo Republican gerrymanders and make give most of these states solid Democratic delegations.  This alone could give them possibly an additional 25 House seats to offset the losses that they will incur elseware.  A

Also, the large states that the Republicans are likely to control, Florida, Texas, and Georgia have delegations that are already so gerrymandered against the Democrats that it could not get any worse.

Back to the seats in Arizona, Democrats picked both of them up because of the growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats. 

[Mr.Phips]

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.

This is not true.  Democrats now control most state legislatures and that advantage will probably grow at least if a Republican is elected President in 2008.  There is a good chance that Democrats will be in control of redistricting in states like California, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  This will allow them to undo Republican gerrymanders and make give most of these states solid Democratic delegations.  This alone could give them possibly an additional 25 House seats to offset the losses that they will incur elseware.  A

Also, the large states that the Republicans are likely to control, Florida, Texas, and Georgia have delegations that are already so gerrymandered against the Democrats that it could not get any worse.

Back to the seats in Arizona, Democrats picked both of them up because of the growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats. 

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, your assertion that the "Democrats picked both of them up because of growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats" is simply false.  Here is the registration data for the two Congressional districts (5 &

District         Democrats          Republicans

5                    86,743                 139,057

8                   124,932                144,642

Third, gerrymandering is becoming more and more difficult as many states have enacted measures to prevent this and the courts are acting to prevent it.

Fourth, let me provide an illustration using California counties of the interrationship between population growth and partisan preferences:

County   2000 to 2005   Kerry   Bush
   Growth Rate   2004   2004

Alpine          -4.1   53.2   44.4
Marin                        -0.1   73.2   25.4
Mono                   -2.7   49.2   49.1
San Francisco   -4.8   83   15.2
San Mateo   -1.1   69.5   29.2
Santa Cruz   -2.3   73   24.9
Sierra                   -3.4   33.2   64.1

Median                   -2.7   69.5   29.2

Calaveras                  15.6   37.1   60.9
Madera                  16   34.7   64
Merced                  14.8   42.3   56.5
Placer                  27.6   36.3   62.6
Riverside                  26   41   57.8
San Bernardino      14.9   43.6   55.3
San Joaquin           17.8   45.8   53.2

Median                 16   41   57.8

You are forgetting what often happens when these fast growing areas begin to cool down.  Look at states like North Carolina and Virginia.  For years, these states were blowouts for Republican Presidents.  Now they are often much closer. 

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

The only ones that I can think of that are probably very likely to go Republican are TX-22(Nick Lampson) and PA-10(Chris Carney). 

I assume that you figure these two will probably go Republican in 2008, which I agree right now.

Then there a 2-3 other districts that you are thinking of.  I am betting they are FL-16(Mahoney), CA-11(McNerney), and KS-02(Boyda).

FL-16 and CA-11 are basically swing districts, they each gave Bush just three points more than his national average in 2004, meaning they are winnable for either party.  And McNerney and Mahoney now have the advantage of incumbency which is usually worth another seven points. 

KS-02 is a tricky one.  This district often elects moderate Democrats like Boyda.  It did so before Jim Ryun narrowly won the open seat in 1996 when Dole was at the top of the ticket. 

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their amazing spinelessness.

I voted no, they are too stupid.

I don't see how a lot of those districts with the exception of ones like CA-11, OH-18, PA-10, KS-02, and FL-16 could go back to Republicans unless there is a 1980 or 1994 style Republican wave in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

And I quote: "In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  "

That sounds like a school-book example of racial gerrymandering to me. Saying that it constitutes putting an end to racial gerrymandering seems highly contradictory to me.

Fine, how about putting an end to drawing crazy looking districts just to make sure they are majority-minority?

[Mr.Phips]

Ah, so what you really mean is "let's put an end to racial gerrymandering unfavourable to my party and replace it with racial gerrymandering more beneficial to my party"?

I may be wrong but given the level of segregation I would think natural districts would tend to be more unfavourable to Democrats in this aspect than gerrymandered ones. But I could be wrong.

It would give each party an equal shot at winning more districts.