The Hill: Van Hollen targeting N.J. seats, but state GOP officials unafraid

[Mr.Phips]

LoBo will win easily unless Van Drew is nominated. If Van Drew gets it, it'll be close but the GOP will keep the seat. Whenever NJ 2 opens up, expect Van Drew to be the candidate and a real tough fight.

What? You once mocked me for saying that NJ-2 would be a tossup once LoBiondo retired.

I knew that this would be brought up.

You said that looking it would be a tossup with little to no knowledge of potential candidate and the area. Van Drew is one of very, very small number of prominent Dems in NJ 2. He's the one that would stand a chance. "Generic Dem" doesn't win this district. Van Drew could win but even then it would be tough for him to hold onto the seat.

If Van Drew won here it would likely be his for as long as he wanted it.  Do you remember Bill Hughes?  He was a Democrat and easily won this seat from 1974 to 1994,  and this was when this area was much more Republican. 

[Mr.Phips]

If Van Drew won here it would likely be his for as long as he wanted it.  Do you remember Bill Hughes?  He was a Democrat and easily won this seat from 1974 to 1994,  and this was when this area was much more Republican. 

I think Van Drew would have to go through some tough races at first though. I'll conceed that he is very popular and well known but the GOP will put in everything they have to defend this seat.

Is Van Drew like Harry Mitchell? A venerable Dem who can win in an otherwise conservative suburban district.

I don't know who Mitchell is but your description fits very well. Let there be no doubt, though, that NJ 2 is changing. I'm not saying that the area is a model of conservativism or anything. However, the area still leans to the right.

The area is changing.  Reagan carried the district by nearly a two to one margin in 1980 and 1984.  Bush SR carried it by 18 points in 1988.  Clinton won it by a point in 1992 and by a larger margin in 1996.  Gore carried the district by 11 points in 2000 and Bush and Kerry were essentially tied here in 2004, mainly due to the 9/11 effect.

[Mr.Phips]

If Van Drew won here it would likely be his for as long as he wanted it.  Do you remember Bill Hughes?  He was a Democrat and easily won this seat from 1974 to 1994,  and this was when this area was much more Republican. 

I think Van Drew would have to go through some tough races at first though. I'll conceed that he is very popular and well known but the GOP will put in everything they have to defend this seat.

Is Van Drew like Harry Mitchell? A venerable Dem who can win in an otherwise conservative suburban district.

I don't know who Mitchell is but your description fits very well. Let there be no doubt, though, that NJ 2 is changing. I'm not saying that the area is a model of conservativism or anything. However, the area still leans to the right.

Thanks. Harry Mitchell is the former Mayor of Tempe who beat J.D Hayworth.

NJ-02 went 55%-43% for Gore in 2000 and 50%-49% for Bush in 2004. Was that the 9-11 effect, or is this district getting more Republican?

Mostly 9/11 effect.  Both Corzine and Menendez carried the district comfortably in their 2005 and 2006 races.

[Mr.Phips]

B

We have to wait until redistricting to pick up NJ seats, but we almost certainly will after that.

Why do you say that?

Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994.  

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

  

[Mr.Phips]

B

We have to wait until redistricting to pick up NJ seats, but we almost certainly will after that.

Why do you say that?

Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.

[Mr.Phips]

Just a couple of facts here:  Back in the early 1990s, the Republicans didn't have enough clout in most Southern state legislatures (certainly not Texas and Georgia) to implement any plans.  The number of Democratic state legislators who were minorities were much smaller as well.

Democrats like Martin Frost pushed through these plans to create three basic types of seats:  packed urban black CDs that were safe for minority Democrats, packed rural white CDs that were safe for the incumbent white Democrats, and packed suburban white CDs that were safe for Republicans.

Of course, 1994 came along and most of these rural seats got taken over in the wave.  Then the South started expanding and many of these rural areas became suburban and more GOP naturally.

I don't see what DeLay has to do with this:  DeLay's plan was essentially to create as many suburban-majority seats as possible while keeping the minority-majority ones, and secondly it was about 10 years after.

Republicans had a decent amount of strength, but not majorities in Southern legislatures by 1990.  

Just look at the sudden dropoff in the Democratic percentage in many Southern districts in the 1992 election.  This happened beause a whole bunch of these white Democrats had their bases taken away to create these majority-minority districts.  If this had not happened, Democrats would hold a majority of Southern seats today.

[Mr.Phips]

B

We have to wait until redistricting to pick up NJ seats, but we almost certainly will after that.

Why do you say that?

Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.

The creation of minority-majority districts did not create a Republican majority.  Please look at the numbers and tell me whether things would have been any different.

OK, here is what I will do.  I am going through my almanac and I will compare the 1988 Bush/Dukakis percentage in the district before the 1991 redistricting and after and then see how much the Democratic candidate lost by in 1992 and 1994.

                                 

AL-02:  Terry Everett(R) vs.  George Wallace(D).  Wallace loses to Everett by one point.  Redistricting made the district six points (68%-32% Bush compared to 62%-38% Bush) more Republican by moving blacks into AL-07.
Result if blacks had been preserved:  Wallace by five points.  -1 Dems

AL-06:  Ben Erdreich(D, I) vs.  Spencer Baucus(R).  Baucus ousts Erdreich by seven points.  Redistricting made the district 20 points more Republican(77%-23% Bush comared to 57%-43% Bush) by moving blacks into AL-07.  Result if blacks had been preserved:  Erdreich by 33 points.  -2 Dems

This is just some of many examples where Democrats lost seats because of Republican/black Democrat deals to create majority-minority districts.

[Mr.Phips]

What do I know about Dinniman? I know he won 56-44 over some Republican you probably love.

Some Republican I probably love? I hardly know a thing about the lady that ran against him. I know we should have won but that's it.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have accepted the fact that there is no reason to worry for Gerlach especially after what I went through in 2006. I'm not afraid at all really. Let Dinniman run. It's going to be tough. Gerlach is more battle tested than Dinniman is.

Tell that to Democrat Harold Volkmer of MO-09 in 1996.  He kept on narrowly scraping by his Republican opponents.  Even in 1994 he won.  But his opponent, Ken Volkmer, came back in 1996 and beat him.  Everybody assumed that if he didn't lose in 1994 he never will.  Well, he did.

[Mr.Phips]

Great example. BTW, his opponent was Kenny Hulshof. I think Gerlach is another Volkmer. Both Volkmer and Gerlach were out of touch with their districts.

Gerlach is a moderate to conservative member. He is fine for PA 6.

Volkmer was a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat, perfect for MO-09, but still lost.

[Mr.Phips]

What do I know about Dinniman? I know he won 56-44 over some Republican you probably love.

Some Republican I probably love? I hardly know a thing about the lady that ran against him. I know we should have won but that's it.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have accepted the fact that there is no reason to worry for Gerlach especially after what I went through in 2006. I'm not afraid at all really. Let Dinniman run. It's going to be tough. Gerlach is more battle tested than Dinniman is.

Tell that to Democrat Harold Volkmer of MO-09 in 1996.  He kept on narrowly scraping by his Republican opponents.  Even in 1994 he won.  But his opponent, Ken Volkmer, came back in 1996 and beat him.  Everybody assumed that if he didn't lose in 1994 he never will.  Well, he did.

Another great example, check out this Minnesota State House seat:

2002:
Republican    RAY COX    8865   50.06   
Democratic-Farmer-Labor    DAVID BLY    8819   49.81   
Write-In    WRITE-IN (TOTAL)    23   0.13   

2004:
Republican    RAY COX    11433   51.24   
Democratic-Farmer-Labor    DAVID BLY    10847   48.62   
Write-In    WRITE-IN**    32   0.14   

2006:
Republican    RAY COX    9233   49.80   
Democratic-Farmer-Labor    DAVID BLY    9293   50.12   
Write-In    WRITE-IN**    14   0.08

No doubt if Phil was Minnesotan he'd be saying in State Leg discussions "There's no way you'll beat Cox, forget it, he'll always get just over 50% but there is no way he can possibly ever lose."

Another similar situation was Phil Kline and Bill Luther in MN-06 and MN-02.  Phil Kline ran against Bill Luther in MN-02 in 1998 and 2000 and lost.  After redistricting in 2001, Luther's home was placed a more Republican district(MN-02) and lost.

[Mr.Phips]

Correction:

In 2002, under the old lines of MN-06, the Republican versus Democrat vote was 59%-41% so Luther would have probably lost anyway.

[Mr.Phips]

John Kline.

The old 2nd and 6th districts were basically wiped out in redistricting. The 2nd was completely carved up, most of it going to the 1st and 7th, a small part going to the new 2nd, where Kennedy's home was. The old 6th was basically split evenly between the new 6th and 2nd. Kennedy opted to run in the new 6th district despite not living there and it containing only one county of the old 2nd district (Wright). Luther opted to run in the 2nd against Kline again in the interest of not pitting incumbents together. He should've done the 6th, while more Republican, it contained more territory in his old district than it did of Kennedy's.

Do you think Luther would have beaten Kennedy in MN-06 in 2002?

[Mr.Phips]

Probably not, but he would've done better than that joke of a candidate we did put up. Luther should've ran in the 6th in 2006. He would've certainly done better than Wetterling and possibly won.

Kennedy's victory was a blessing in disguise though, without it he would've never launched his disasterous Senate campaign.

He should run against Bachmann in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

He's kind of a bit too washed up now. He ran for Attorney General under a strange set of circumstances. Basically we had a nominee who was really ethically challenged and it was discovered he actually paid for a private investigation of Mike Hatch for whatever reason and kept getting embroiled in scandal until he dropped out with literally less than 24 hours remaining before the filing deadline. He filed to run, as well as two other candidates, State Sen. Steve Kelley and Solicitor General Lori Swanson. Kelley won the endorsement, but Swanson ran a big campaign (with Hatch's assistance). Luther barely campaigned at all, and came in third. He only won one county (his home of Washington.)

The best candidate to take on Bachmann is probably the original guy who dropped out after Wetterling beat him at the convention, Elwyn Tinkelberg. He's the former mayor of Blaine (second largest city in the district), ordained United Methodist minister and pro-life and pro-gun. You probably need a pro-life candidate to take that district, which disqualifies Luther. (Those damn German Catholic areas around St. Cloud, the most annoying batch of swing voters...) St. Rep. Larry Hosch might be a good candidate too, he's a pro-life Democrat from that German Catholic area I mentioned who isn't even 30 yet.

Yeah, Tinkelberg would be a good candidate.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just one? Ok...

ANWR - http://gerlach.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=44399

Mike Fitzpatrick received a 92% rating from the LCV and earned their endosrsement; Jim Gerlach didn't. Gerlach voted for more oil drilling in the form of the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Fitzpatrick voted no.

Gerlach cast a meaningless vote on a resolution that was bound to fail. The House Leadership set up the vote and when they knew it would fail, they let "moderates" like  Gerlach use it as a form of greenwashing to help them win reelection.  Unlike Gerlach, Fitzpatrick stood with the conservationists 92% of the time.  You also never responded to my AMT point.

If I'd lived in PA-08, I would have voted for Fitzpatrick in 2006.

Why did Jim Gerlach vote against the non-binding troop resolution?  If he's so moderate, why didn't he follow the path of Jim Walsh and Rep. Castle?

Phil English cast a courageous  vote for the resolution. I won't actively support English's opponent because of that brave vote. Gerlach voted with the leadership.

Jim Gerlach represents  the interests of Washington lobbyists, not the interests of the people of Norristown.

I hope Jim Gerlach spend more time listening to Phil English than he does listening to John Boehner.

I don't know why Gerlach voted against the resolution.  That is going to come back to bite him in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

English won less than 54% of the vote last time. His district is also moving towards Democrats, as is Dent's district. PA-03, PA-06 and PA-15 are all targets for the DCCC.

PA 3 is a target? Amazing! I love when you guys waste money!

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have a weird obsession with Jim Gerlach of all people. Very odd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yawn...and he'll win again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, you're reaching with the Iraq vote when the issue was the environment. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right that that's the reason why Fitz went down but please notice that just because someone in neighboring district went down doesn't mean that you are going to go down, too. If Gerlach didn't get beaten over Iraq in 2006, why would he go down in 2008 because of that issue?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dan Wofford was a weak candidate so please, please, please get him to run again.

A weak candidate?  He almost beat Gerlach in an awful year for Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

I'll swap a DINO for a RINO. You're just worried about what happens when your party loses touch with suburban America. You lost your majority because folks like Melissa Hart lost. Imagine what happens when the Mark Krik's and Charlie Dent's go down. Where will the GOP go?
They'll have to go back to the Deep South.

Suburban America will send Hart back. Suburban America will bring Fitz back.

The Dems have just as good a chance to knock off Dent, Murphy(PA-18), and Gerlach.

[Mr.Phips]

Hi. First post here. I figured I'd de-lurk and finally register as I live (and vote) in PA 6 (and also the 19th State Senate district). I think Dinniman would be the strongest candidate. He's not a flash in the pan, as he'd been a County Commissioner (guaranteed Dem spot) since the early 90s, and, would have a high level of name recognition here in Chesco and could  really cut into Gerlach's base here. He's been virtually the only elected Dem for that time. He's known for getting involved in worthy causes and has a good reputation in these parts, and got a fair bit of Republican support in the special election, soundly beating a strong candidate in Carol Aichele. (I wouldn't mind her taking over Dinniman's old seat, should he beat Gerlach.) I believe Dinniman would start as the favorite, and I'd certainly consider voting for him, and I've voted for Jim all three times that he has run for Congress. Should be very interesting to watch if Dinniman enters the race. Obviously, a lot would depend on the national mood in 2008.

Great first post. Welcome to the forum!

Dinniman is a strong candidate. He is recognizable and did run a good campaign to run that Special election. However, I think Gerlach has the edge. It'll be tough. Let's see if he even runs.

Here's my honest, non-hackish opinion. If Dinniman runs, Gerlach will be in the fight of his life and has a 50/50 shot of winning. If virtually any other Democrat runs, Gerlach will finally win by a comfortable ( 2%+ margin).

PA-03: Phil English will win re-election, if he runs. his 53% closely tracks Bush's 54% in 2004. This district is a gerrymandered monstrosity that will elect a Republican, unless the Democrats find a strong candidate. The race reminds me of NY-24. Dems won because Mike Arcuri was an excellent candidate and because the GOP opponent inexplicably  supported raising taxes.

PA-04. Keystone Phil is nearly as sanguine about Melissa Hart's chances as  I am up Andy Dinniman's chances. I think Melissa Hart has a good shot of winning her seat back. The question is how well will Altmire deliver the pork and can Hart find a rationale for her run.  Jay Dickey narrowly lost his seat in 2000 and ran again in 2002 and lost by 20% Baron Hill narrowly lsot his seat in 2004 and ran again and won by 5% in 2006.  Why did Hill win and Dickey lose, because Hill had a message discipline and a indefatigable demeanor. If Hart wants it and runs hard, she can win -- otherwise, she'll lose.

There is already a pretty large GOP field that is interested in this seat.  I keep hearing about this Ron Francis guy.

[Mr.Phips]

PA-15: Charlie Dent is an even better fit for this district than Pat Toomey. Dent is an economic conservative and a social moderate.

Neither Dent or Toomey are a good fit for the district at all.

The district isn't what it once was.

It pretty much is.