U.S. House Redistricting: New Jersey
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:12:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  U.S. House Redistricting: New Jersey
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11
Author Topic: U.S. House Redistricting: New Jersey  (Read 52607 times)
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: December 23, 2011, 11:05:47 AM »
« edited: December 23, 2011, 11:12:37 AM by krazen1211 »

Considering Garrett is a tea partier and the tiebreaker vote is a moderate, my money would be on him taking the Dems map but you never can be sure. The GOP attempting to give Garrett a 50-51% McCain district and strengthening NJ-3 while the dems have a tossup Rothman/Garrett plus NJ-3 remaining swing territory sounds like a much fairer deal.

Not a very fiscally responsible decision.

The new 'Pascrell' district, NJ-09, not only has Rothman's designation, but the bulk of the population is from Bergen County and not Passaic County. Paterson, Clifton, Passaic Cities only sum up to ~280k people.

Indeed, Rothman is highly unlikely to run in NJ-05 at all.



Edit: the Garrett district is 52% McCain, down 2 points from before.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: December 23, 2011, 11:31:10 AM »

It was more of a guess, this is really just an incumbent protection map on steroids with the elimination of a D seat in declining population area.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: December 23, 2011, 12:30:48 PM »

Disappointing map.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

At least he'll be less safe.

What number is the Sires Hispanic district?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: December 23, 2011, 12:35:42 PM »

8
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: December 23, 2011, 12:51:54 PM »

What were the past results from the commission like in NJ?  From memory:

2011
Congressional:R
Legislative:D

2001
Congressional:D
Legislative:D

1991
Congressional:R
Legislative: Huh?

It seems to average out to be quite fair (especially if the GOP in fact won their legislative map in 1991).
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: December 23, 2011, 12:57:08 PM »

What were the past results from the commission like in NJ?  From memory:

2011
Congressional:R
Legislative:D

2001
Congressional:D
Legislative:D

1991
Congressional:R
Legislative: Huh?

It seems to average out to be quite fair (especially if the GOP in fact won their legislative map in 1991).


It's really not fair to describe the 2001 congressional map as D. 1991 legislative was fairly R leaning.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: December 23, 2011, 01:26:18 PM »

Win some, lose some. At least for an R map it's quite fair and resolves a lot of irregularities and you can't argue with where the lost district should have come from.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: December 23, 2011, 01:47:11 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2011, 01:54:19 PM by Skill and Chance »



It's really not fair to describe the 2001 congressional map as D. 1991 legislative was fairly R leaning.

Was 2001 a straight bipartisan compromise, as in the tiebreaker wasn't the deciding vote on the commission?  Hmmm:

2011
Congressional: R
Legislative: D

2001
Congressional: Bipartisan (deal)
Legislative: D

1991
Congressional: R
Legislative: R

...So it's probably fair, although it could tilt R- we need more cycles to compare!  I've heard that 2001-Legislative was particularly egregious as a gerrymander, though.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: December 23, 2011, 02:18:58 PM »

Estimated Obama/McCain numbers from DKE:

1    65.4    34.6
2    53.9    46.1
3    51.9    48.1
4    45.7    54.3
5    48.9    51.1
6    59.1    40.9
7    47.8    52.2
8    74.4    25.6
9    64.2    35.8
10    85       15
11    47.4    52.6
12    66.3    33.7

And who currently represents how much of the new districts:

1    Andrews 90%    Runyan 10%              
2    LoBiondo 94%    Runyan 6%              
3    Runyan 76%    Smith 23%    LoBiondo 1%    Andrews 1%    
4    Smith 66%    Holt 19%    Pallone 14%    Runyan 2%    
5    Garrett 79%    Rothman 21%              
6    Pallone 64%    Lance 20%    Sires 11%    Holt 6%    
7    Lance 61%    Freylinghuysen 27%    Garrett 5%    Holt 3%    Payne 3%
8    Sires 68%    Rothman 16%    Payne 11%    Pascrell 5%    
9    Rothman 52%    Pascrell 44%    Garrett 4%         
10    Payne 72%    Sires 15%    Pascrell 10%    Lance 3%    
11    Freylinghuysen 65%    Pascrell 32%    Garrett 3%         
12    Holt 68%    Pallone 14%    Smith 10%    Lance 7%
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: December 23, 2011, 02:29:04 PM »

NJ-3 is not unwinnable by any stretch but probably only switches in a wave year for now. NJ-2 leans slightly Dem but no one is going to win it until it opens.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: December 23, 2011, 02:52:25 PM »

TBH, some dems are exaggerated the changes to NJ-3, while it did lose Cherry Hill it also gained all of Burlington county which added another several thousand Dem votes erased by Cherry Hill. Obama won the new district by about 3-4 and the old one by 5. Runyan is safer but the Dems certainly can and must win this seat to take back the house.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: December 23, 2011, 02:53:16 PM »

Well, as a liberal, I'm disappointed. But the districts are clean(er than the current map) and seem to respect municipal boundaries, so I can't complain too much.

What's the Hispanic percentage of Sires's district?
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: December 23, 2011, 03:02:30 PM »

TBH, some dems are exaggerated the changes to NJ-3, while it did lose Cherry Hill it also gained all of Burlington county which added another several thousand Dem votes erased by Cherry Hill. Obama won the new district by about 3-4 and the old one by 5. Runyan is safer but the Dems certainly can and must win this seat to take back the house.

No way does northern Burlington County cancel out losing Cherry Hill and picking up Brick. Most of those townships in northern Burlington are swingy at best, and Brick is rock-solid Republican. Burlington City and Township help somewhat, but I don't see this seat changing hands over the decade.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: December 23, 2011, 03:24:35 PM »


Hard to believe that 2 redistrictings ago, this was a Republican district.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: December 23, 2011, 04:14:42 PM »


Hard to believe that 2 redistrictings ago, this was a Republican district.

It's only 68% of the current Holt district.  It's probably even less of the district it was in the 1990s, geographically speaking.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: December 23, 2011, 04:52:29 PM »



It's really not fair to describe the 2001 congressional map as D. 1991 legislative was fairly R leaning.

Was 2001 a straight bipartisan compromise, as in the tiebreaker wasn't the deciding vote on the commission?  Hmmm:

2011
Congressional: R
Legislative: D

2001
Congressional: Bipartisan (deal)
Legislative: D

1991
Congressional: R
Legislative: R

...So it's probably fair, although it could tilt R- we need more cycles to compare!  I've heard that 2001-Legislative was particularly egregious as a gerrymander, though.

The 2001 legislative redistricting ignored the NJ constitutional rules governing legislative districts.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: December 23, 2011, 05:18:47 PM »


Hard to believe that 2 redistrictings ago, this was a Republican district.

It's only 68% of the current Holt district.  It's probably even less of the district it was in the 1990s, geographically speaking.

Sure, the result was as much due to redistricting as to demographic and electoral change, although there was some of that. If you'd said in 1994 that someday Republicans would concede the district (2001) and then make it a Democratic vote sink (2011), I would have been pleasantly shocked.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: December 23, 2011, 08:01:08 PM »

Man, I hope they offered Rothman some lube first.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: December 23, 2011, 08:02:45 PM »


Its still D+1.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: December 23, 2011, 08:41:31 PM »

The Dems probably should have written off the north jersey  seat and tried to gain more friendly districts either in 3 or 7. NE Jersey did lose the most population so it's not that shocking it loses a seat. It sounds like the dems have a chance to win NJ-2,3 but the GOP has no chance in hell for any of the 6 dems. Another boring decade.

NJ Dems cannot, and frankly have no interest in, defeating Lance. That district getting more Republican was an inevitability. Dems didn't want him to face Holt.

Runyan is safe absent a wave. It was a lean GOP district before, and the few extra voters it picked up is just gravy. This is not a district represented by Democrats downballot. There's no bench.

Republicans got a good "fair fight" district in NJ-02. LoBiondo will retire eventually, and the GOP is fortunate to get a decent district to fight that epic battle in.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: December 23, 2011, 08:59:34 PM »

Man, I hope they offered Rothman some lube first.

Rothman both has a plurality in the population in the new 'Pascrell' district, and has the district number.

It's far more accurate to say that NJ-8 was dissolved. All the white Republican towns that were surrounded by Paterson were liberated and given to Rodney.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: December 23, 2011, 10:13:10 PM »

Estimated Obama/McCain numbers from DKE:

1    65.4    34.6
2    53.9    46.1
3    51.9    48.1
4    45.7    54.3
5    48.9    51.1
6    59.1    40.9
7    47.8    52.2
8    74.4    25.6
9    64.2    35.8
10    85       15
11    47.4    52.6
12    66.3    33.7

And who currently represents how much of the new districts:

1    Andrews 90%    Runyan 10%              
2    LoBiondo 94%    Runyan 6%              
3    Runyan 76%    Smith 23%    LoBiondo 1%    Andrews 1%    
4    Smith 66%    Holt 19%    Pallone 14%    Runyan 2%    
5    Garrett 79%    Rothman 21%              
6    Pallone 64%    Lance 20%    Sires 11%    Holt 6%    
7    Lance 61%    Freylinghuysen 27%    Garrett 5%    Holt 3%    Payne 3%
8    Sires 68%    Rothman 16%    Payne 11%    Pascrell 5%    
9    Rothman 52%    Pascrell 44%    Garrett 4%         
10    Payne 72%    Sires 15%    Pascrell 10%    Lance 3%    
11    Freylinghuysen 65%    Pascrell 32%    Garrett 3%         
12    Holt 68%    Pallone 14%    Smith 10%    Lance 7%


For NJ, where the Obama-McCain numbers overstate Dem PVI by a bit for NJ-05, those numbers are the numbers of a "responsible" Pub gerrymander. I assume the Pubs got lucky with the geography of the state.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: December 23, 2011, 10:47:21 PM »

If I was Rothman, I'd pass on the rigged primary and the rigged general and set my sights on Bergen County Executive instead. It's hard to argue that's a major step down, or really, even a step down at all. And he's probably the only person who could beat Donovan for the position.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: December 23, 2011, 10:49:09 PM »

Here's my reconstruction of the NJ map based on the pdf at the link earlier in the thread,



Here's the DRA stats from this map:

NJ-01: D 62.6-37.4; Obama 65.1-34.9
NJ-02: D 52.0-48.0; Obama 53.7-46.3
NJ-03: R 50.8-49.2; Obama 51.6-48.4
NJ-04: R 55.1-44.9; McCain 53.3-46.7
NJ-05: R 52.6-47.4; McCain 51.3-48.7
NJ-06: D 58.6-41.4; Obama 59.2-40.8
NJ-07: R 57.4-42.6; McCain 53.0-47.0
NJ-08: D 72.5-27.5; Obama 72.5-27.5
NJ-09: D 64.2-35.8; Obama 64.1-35.9
NJ-10: D 81.0-19.0; Obama 84.5-15.5
NJ-11: R 55.1-44.9; McCain 53.3-46.7
NJ-12: D 60.7-39.3; Obama 65.4-34.6
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: December 23, 2011, 11:07:54 PM »

Estimated Obama/McCain numbers from DKE:

1    65.4    34.6
2    53.9    46.1
3    51.9    48.1
4    45.7    54.3
5    48.9    51.1
6    59.1    40.9
7    47.8    52.2
8    74.4    25.6
9    64.2    35.8
10    85       15
11    47.4    52.6
12    66.3    33.7

And who currently represents how much of the new districts:

1    Andrews 90%    Runyan 10%              
2    LoBiondo 94%    Runyan 6%              
3    Runyan 76%    Smith 23%    LoBiondo 1%    Andrews 1%    
4    Smith 66%    Holt 19%    Pallone 14%    Runyan 2%    
5    Garrett 79%    Rothman 21%              
6    Pallone 64%    Lance 20%    Sires 11%    Holt 6%    
7    Lance 61%    Freylinghuysen 27%    Garrett 5%    Holt 3%    Payne 3%
8    Sires 68%    Rothman 16%    Payne 11%    Pascrell 5%    
9    Rothman 52%    Pascrell 44%    Garrett 4%         
10    Payne 72%    Sires 15%    Pascrell 10%    Lance 3%    
11    Freylinghuysen 65%    Pascrell 32%    Garrett 3%         
12    Holt 68%    Pallone 14%    Smith 10%    Lance 7%


For NJ, where the Obama-McCain numbers overstate Dem PVI by a bit for NJ-05, those numbers are the numbers of a "responsible" Pub gerrymander. I assume the Pubs got lucky with the geography of the state.

More data.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/1537/nj-congressional-numbers


NJ-05 always votes slightly Republican. Very nonswingy. Not like NJ-03 where Mcgreevey outperformed Corzine by 15 points.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.