GOP house gains in 2012?

[Mr.Phips]

Altmire, Critz and Holden are all going to be in trouble in 2012 no matter what happens with redistricting. Altmire faced a bottom of the barrel candidate who has not supported by the establishment and he could be in an even more difficult district in 2k12. Critz would probably be facing a stronger challenger in 2012 without redistricting but that's moot because his district is done and he will only have awful choices for other districts to run in. Holden's only real base this year was in Schuylkill County, if the Republicans want to be bastards they could eliminate that and make things every difficult for him.

Overall bad things are going to happen in PA.

Holden would just run wherever Republicans put Schuylkill county.  If he and Altmire could survive in the worst year for Democrats since 1894, they can survive in 2012.  

Altmire only barely survived because he faced no serious opposition. The same applies somewhat towards Holden.

Holden faced a state Senator.  Ill state that any Democrat who won in 2010 is safe for life. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It'd be more logical to shove Dem areas into Holden's district than try to eliminate him. The GOP would be spreading themselves far too thin if they couldn't get Scranton in a Dem seat for example. Might survive in 2012 but would eventually backfire.

As for Altmire, eliminating him means only one Dem in western PA, from Pittsburgh. The area just isn't built for that. Even if it worked then, it would eventually backfire.

[Nichlemn]

TX: +3D, +1R(VRA will mandate new Hispanic majority districts)

I'm not sure how the population distribution has changed, but it's important to note that districts don't fall out of sky (or vanish into nothing for states losing seats). All new districts were once part of existing districts. A Republican state gaining seats is almost always good news for Republicans, though rounding can make it neutral or slightly negative.

+3 Hispanic majority districts seems like an awful lot anyway. Isn't there a "quota" of them relative to the population? I can't imagine the quota increases that much with four more seats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a chance. Lots of Democratic incumbents who survived 1994 lost in 2010, and I think a few lost before then. Although I haven't checked, I doubt this can be said for any election (i.e. no incumbent from a certain party who survived Election X ever lost).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I predict TX will get a new Dem Hispanic seat and three new Republican seats. Not sure how the Ortiz or Rodriguez seats will end up too, the Rodriguez one could no doubt be held but the Ortiz one would be very difficult to do so without gerrymandering violating the VRA. Phips left off Arizona btw, which will likely get a new Hispanic majority seat as well (DOJ will likely mandate it, and redistricting is done by an independent commission so there will be no desire to gerrymander.) Florida is likely getting only one new seat and while Dems will probably pick up a seat or two under the new rules (The two most blatant examples of districts that can't survive them are FL-08 and FL-22, both of which will be replaced with new far more Democratic seats), the new seat will likely be around central Florida in those heavily GOP fast growing sprawly counties that still aren't suburban as there is nothing to be suburbs of (ugh, wonder why I hate that state?)

[Landslide Lyndon]

From what I've read, according to the population growth the new Texas districts must be three Hispanic majority (one in Dallas, one in Houston and one at the Rio Grande valley) and one other safe Republican.
Otherwise the DOJ can and will reject the map.  

I've also read that maybe they'll demand another black majority district in Alabama.

[Dgov]

From what I've read, according to the population growth the new Texas districts must be three Hispanic majority (one in Dallas, one in Houston and one at the Rio Grande valley) and one other safe Republican.
Otherwise the DOJ can and will reject the map.  

I've also read that maybe they'll demand another black majority district in Alabama.

I don't think you can fit another Hispanic-majority district in Houston, but you definitively can't in South Texas.  The region's 3 districts are already sprawling upwards, and while you could theoretically shove another Hispanic-majority district in there, it would look so ugly (see 2003's 15th for an example of what i mean) that there's no way a court would sign off on it with a straight face.  Also, doing so would probably hurt the Democrats overall, as the GOP could do what they tried to in the old 15th and pack White Liberal Austin voters into a Hispanic-majority district, which would make the 25th into a competitive seat.

As for Houston, the population is there for another Hispanic-majority district, but it's next to impossible to fit two of them and two black-plurality districts in a neat map.  There's just not enough compact Hispanic or Black populations in the city to do it cleanly.

A Dallas Hispanic-majority district would also be rather ugly, but since it deserves at least one, it shouldn't be much of a problem.  It'll probably have to stretch into Tarrant county if it has to be more than 60% Hispanic though.

The only other place a Hispanic-majority district could realistically be formed in in the San Antonio-Austin area, taking some of the Hispanic strength from South SA and carrying it across a finger north to the Minority parts of Austin.  Doing so could also make the 25th competitive (or at least more Competitive) so if the Obama DOJ mandates another one, this is the best place for Republicans to create one.

Add that to the fact that TX-23 and TX-27 can both be made significantly more Republican without too much ugly work, and the GOP can probably squeeze at least an even map out of the redistricting process, and maybe even a +3R/+1D if they're creative enough.  They just made some significant gains on the state and local level in areas people thought the Democrats had a lock on, so it's not impossible they'll try for a much bolder plan than Delay had in mind back in 2003

As for Alabama, I'd bet the Obama DOJ would mandate one, though it would have the effect of making the rest of the state completely un-winnable for the Democrats, ever.  It would have to stretch from Montgomery across the Central Black belt down to Mobile, and as a result would take up all the counties let in the state that could theoretically vote Democrat (assuming the GOP jackknifes the 4th and 5th in the Northern part of the state to guarantee Roby's Seat even more).  It's like Louisiana in that regard; if the Democrats try to mandate another Black-majority district, they'll basically guarantee Republicans hold the other 4 for a LONG time.

[Nichlemn]

As for Alabama, I'd bet the Obama DOJ would mandate one, though it would have the effect of making the rest of the state completely un-winnable for the Democrats, ever.  It would have to stretch from Montgomery across the Central Black belt down to Mobile, and as a result would take up all the counties let in the state that could theoretically vote Democrat (assuming the GOP jackknifes the 4th and 5th in the Northern part of the state to guarantee Roby's Seat even more).  It's like Louisiana in that regard; if the Democrats try to mandate another Black-majority district, they'll basically guarantee Republicans hold the other 4 for a LONG time.

Probably a net benefit for Democrats. 2 black liberal Democrats is better than a single black liberal Democrat with maybe two Blue Dogs in good years (2008) and none in bad years (2010).

[Brittain33]

Maine is not going to gerrymander no matter who is in control. It's not in their culture with just two districts. The state already has a clear sense of identity that has Portland on one side and other cities on the other, the legislature is not going to put towns in extreme southern Maine with Lewiston and Houlton just to get an R+1 district.

[Nichlemn]

Maine is not going to gerrymander no matter who is in control. It's not in their culture with just two districts. The state already has a clear sense of identity that has Portland on one side and other cities on the other, the legislature is not going to put towns in extreme southern Maine with Lewiston and Houlton just to get an R+1 district.

I'm quite sure "culture" can be put aside when there's partisan advantage to be had. I could also see them redistricting early (it's easily explained away as "synchronising") to protect the Republican legislature in 2012, as well as create a toss-up House seat and electoral vote.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department.

[J. J.]

Redistricting will have the effect of either shortening the Democratic coattails or lengthening the Republican coattails.  In an absolutely neutral election, this could mark a 5-10 gain in GOP seats.

It might make a 20 Democratic gain in an Obama landslide a 15 seat gain.  Likewise, it might make a 15 seat loss in an Obama collapse a 20 seat loss.

[minionofmidas]

The GOP will almost assuredly "gain" some seats on the national scale because of redistricting.

(and others too, of course)

We should really not blur the distinction between *reapportionment* (which will favor Republicans, correcting an imbalance), and *redistricting*.

[Brittain33]

In an absolutely neutral election, this could mark a 5-10 gain in GOP seats.

People have run down the list of states by Republican/Democratic gains and losses. They don't add up to 5-10. Why don't you provide us your list of states and gains that add up to 5-10 gains... and take into account that a neutral election requires a swing away from the big Republican advantage they had in 2010.

How many seats do you expect Republicans to pick up in absolute terms in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan from their current numbers?

[Torie]

I'm laughing at all the people talking about the VRA. Justice Kennedy has given every indication that he is ready to overturn it. In fact, libtards were screaming back in 2009 during NAMUDNO that it was all but over for the VRA. The fact that the Roberts' court kept the decision narrow doesn't mean that the VRA is safe. Only that they are waiting for the right case to get rid of the whole thing.

Do you have some reference to the bolded bit?  I have never picked up that buzz, and if it is out there, I would love to read about it, along no doubt with our resident expert on the lacunae of our insane line drawing laws, Mr. Muon2. 

[Nichlemn]

Something we could do to estimate the probability of further Republican gains is break down the various Presidential scenarios. For instance, Intrade currently gives a probability of a Democratic President in 2012 at ~60%. Assume this is accurate. How likely are the Democrats to gain seats if they win the Presidential election versus losing it? This could perhaps be further broken down into "landslide win" and "landslide loss" versus more moderate wins and losses.

Presumably, Democrats are almost certain to gain seats in the event of a landslide win and lose them in the event of a landslide loss. Let's say about half the time Obama loses, it's in a "landslide" (too high?) That would put the probability of further Democratic losses at about 20%. In the non-landslide Republican wins, we'd probably see single digit changes that could go either way (like in 1976). That's another 10% or so. Finally, some of Obama's narrow wins will be in spite of a low approval rating because of the weakness of his opponent (e.g. if Palin were nominated). In those cases, it is conceivable that the incumbent's unpopularity weighs down enough on Congressional races to cause net losses. I'd give this about a 3% chance. Overall, this points to about a one in three chance of further Republican gains.

[Lief 🗽]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department.

^^^

I seriously doubt his DoJ is going to be very aggressive at all, unfortunately.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look back to controversy surrounding NAMUD in 2009. The liberals were scared to death that Kennedy was going to strike down the entire act in that case. The Roberts' court, keeping with form, kept the decision narrow, but there is virtually universal agreement that the VRA's days are numbered, and the Court merely needs the right case to give it the heave ho forever.

Here is one example of the liberal moaning: "Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote will be crucial, voiced deep concern about the differential treatment of states under the law, and the affront to the sovereignty of the states that are required to go through the preclearance procedures."

It was Kennedy that got rid of Bonilla's seat in Texas, enforcing his interpretation of the VRA, that one needs to look at VAP percentages, rather than population percentages, and that creating offsetting majority-minority districts elsewhere that do not tie communities of interest together, is a dog that won't hunt. So, if Kennedy wants to dump it all now, he has had a change of heart.

[Keystone Phil]

Altmire, Critz and Holden are all going to be in trouble in 2012 no matter what happens with redistricting. Altmire faced a bottom of the barrel candidate who has not supported by the establishment and he could be in an even more difficult district in 2k12. Critz would probably be facing a stronger challenger in 2012 without redistricting but that's moot because his district is done and he will only have awful choices for other districts to run in. Holden's only real base this year was in Schuylkill County, if the Republicans want to be bastards they could eliminate that and make things every difficult for him.

Overall bad things are going to happen in PA.

Holden would just run wherever Republicans put Schuylkill county.  If he and Altmire could survive in the worst year for Democrats since 1894, they can survive in 2012.  

Altmire only barely survived because he faced no serious opposition. The same applies somewhat towards Holden.

Holden faced a state Senator.  Ill state that any Democrat who won in 2010 is safe for life. 

A State Senator that was elected in a Special election just months before deciding to run for Congress, for the record.

Here's a story about the redistricting target: Is it Critz or Holden? - http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x603547917/Redistricting-crosshairs

[Torie]

Phil, you linked article suggests that the Pubbies will not have free reign to gerrymander the sh*t out of PA. Was this procedure in play in 2001?  I mean, the lines are drawn by a committee of 5, with the swing vote supposedly impartial. So just how would the GOP get their fantasy map even on the table to vote upon?

CC:  Muon2

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, you linked article suggests that the Pubbies will not have free reign to gerrymander the sh*t out of PA. Was this procedure in play in 2001?  I mean, the lines are drawn by a committee of 5, with the swing vote supposedly impartial. So just how would the GOP get their fantasy map even on the table to vote upon?

CC:  Muon2

Yeah, the committee is supposed to be impartial. As weird as this may sound, even with the Democratic members and an Independent, the GOP still gets what they want. In fact, this was in place in 2001 and all of the Democratic members of the committee signed off on the plan!

Personally, I wish we had a totally independent body control this to make sure it is fair.

[Verily]

Phil, you linked article suggests that the Pubbies will not have free reign to gerrymander the sh*t out of PA. Was this procedure in play in 2001?  I mean, the lines are drawn by a committee of 5, with the swing vote supposedly impartial. So just how would the GOP get their fantasy map even on the table to vote upon?

CC:  Muon2

Yeah, the committee is supposed to be impartial. As weird as this may sound, even with the Democratic members and an Independent, the GOP still gets what they want. In fact, this was in place in 2001 and all of the Democratic members of the committee signed off on the plan!

Personally, I wish we had a totally independent body control this to make sure it is fair.

Could be that it will be totally different this time. Sounds like whether the committee takes its role seriously depends entirely on the members.

[jimrtex]

TX: +3D, +1R(VRA will mandate new Hispanic majority districts)

TX: +3R +1D

The Supreme Court rejected a district that ran from the Rio Grande to Austin with the mere purpose of having a Hispanic majority.  The district court largely rejected districts that ran from the Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio.  Cuellar's district includes a very small portion of Bexar County.  Canseco's district includes West Texas simply because it had to go somewhere, and it is lightly populated.

There simply is not the population on the border to draw another district.  But there has been enough growth to consolidate the districts.  You split Corpus and Brownsville.  The Brownsville district will have to go into Hidalgo to get enough population.  The Hidalgo district may have to move a bit west.  And then you add places like Maverick and Zavala to Cuellar's district.  The Corpus district then includes areas to its north.

Before last week, that would have been a Republican pickup.  Now it is simply a hold.  And the Cameron-based seat is likely a Democratic gain.

You then add 1 seat each in the DFW, Houston, and Central Texas.  In the Houston area, the Green, Green, and Jackson Lee seats barely have enough population as it is.  So the new seat is a Republican seat in the suburbs.  You shift the Doggett seat into Travis County, and then the new seat goes to the east.  It could even end up being the Flores seat.  Carter's seat comes south.  And you create a seat starting in Bell and McLennan county heading north.  That is another Republican seat.  In the DFW area, the extra seat goes in the northern suburbs.

[minionofmidas]

Any sort of major wrenching in DFW would have to be carefully done to avoid creating a democratic target, though.

[Mr.Phips]

TX: +3D, +1R(VRA will mandate new Hispanic majority districts)

TX: +3R +1D

The Supreme Court rejected a district that ran from the Rio Grande to Austin with the mere purpose of having a Hispanic majority.  The district court largely rejected districts that ran from the Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio.  Cuellar's district includes a very small portion of Bexar County.  Canseco's district includes West Texas simply because it had to go somewhere, and it is lightly populated.

If that's the case, AL-07 and FL-03 will also be rejected by the Supreme Court. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department.

Well, if they try to play Moderate Hero even in that case, then maybe they should just resign and let the Republicans take officially control of everything.

But I have a hunch that the Black and Hispanic caucuses won't remain silent in such a case.