Republican gains on the West Coast and in New England

[redcommander]

I was very surprised that Republicans only managed to take over in New Hampshire's house delegation, and pick up one House seat in Washington. When will the Republicans actually make up greater ground in these regions?

[memphis]

[sg0508]

When the party returns to its fiscally conservative roots and socially moderate stances, they will gain traction in these regions again.  It will not happen before.

[redcommander]

When the party returns to its fiscally conservative roots and socially moderate stances, they will gain traction in these regions again.  It will not happen before.

In 94 they had already had the religious element to the platform though and did very well in those regions. Is it maybe just leftover disgust for Bush?

[bgwah]

other (not any time soon)

[Smash255]

LOL, but very true.

[Smash255]

When the party returns to its fiscally conservative roots and socially moderate stances, they will gain traction in these regions again.  It will not happen before.

In 94 they had already had the religious element to the platform though and did very well in those regions. Is it maybe just leftover disgust for Bush?

They had that religious element, but that element wasn't a requirement the way it is now.  It had influence, but at that point it had yet to take over the party. 

[Penelope]

Never.

The West Coast is trending fast and hard towards the Democrats, and New England seems to be keeping the Democratic status quo in place. Look for gains in the Midwest for the GOP.

[J. J.]

I voted 2012, but that assumes Obama continues downward.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Never, they are done there.

[nhmagic]

Id say that winning ME Gov, 60% of the leg seats, both NH congressional districts, and a veto proof NH legislature are pretty darn good.  That gives us the opportunity to rebuild, particularly in ME.  The other states are really hard to crack, but we got at least 40% of the vote in all Mass cds, and thats pretty good too.  Wishing for anything to happen in Vermont or Rhode Island is fools gold.  CT was a disappointment.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Maine House only barely went for the Republicans (78-72) and the Senate is 20-14. Not 60%. I expect the House will snap back in 2012. The Senate has always been pretty close, so the Republicans might be able to hold it.

[DrScholl]

It's not going to happen, if 2010 wasn't gainful in those regions, future prospects are very poor.

[Brittain33]

but we got at least 40% of the vote in all Mass cds,

I can't parse this in a way that makes it true. It was a banner year for Republicans in Mass. House races, which means they barely broke 40% in 5 of the 10 districts and got 39% in a sixth.

[fezzyfestoon]

When the party returns to its fiscally conservative roots and socially moderate stances, they will gain traction in these regions again.  It will not happen before.

In 94 they had already had the religious element to the platform though and did very well in those regions. Is it maybe just leftover disgust for Bush?

They had that religious element, but that element wasn't a requirement the way it is now.  It had influence, but at that point it had yet to take over the party. 

Exactly

[Dan the Roman]

but we got at least 40% of the vote in all Mass cds,

I can't parse this in a way that makes it true. It was a banner year for Republicans in Mass. House races, which means they barely broke 40% in 5 of the 10 districts and got 39% in a sixth.

And if, as looks increasingly likely, its the 8th that disappears from the map, three of those seats are about to get a lot worse for them.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

but we got at least 40% of the vote in all Mass cds,

I can't parse this in a way that makes it true. It was a banner year for Republicans in Mass. House races, which means they barely broke 40% in 5 of the 10 districts and got 39% in a sixth.

And if, as looks increasingly likely, its the 8th that disappears from the map, three of those seats are about to get a lot worse for them.

What do you MA posters think about this gerrymander that was posted on SSP:

[Brittain33]

I think it shows how ridiculous a Worcester-based district looks if you insist on keeping two districts to the west of it, but otherwise, it's not absurd. The leader of the committee in charge of redistricting is from Amherst, so I suppose the die is cast about letting western Mass avoid the axe for the third dropped district in a row. My guess is that if the 8th is broken up, instead of connecting Cambridge and Somerville to the 6th as in this map, they get put in the 7th and I have Ed Markey as a Congressman. In that case, the 7th contracts a lot and the 6th picks up some more northern suburbs. I guess the rest of Boston goes to the (current) 9th, which makes for an interesting primary for Steve Lynch.

[tpfkaw]

If MA-08 is broken up, the GOP will almost certainly challenge it under VRA.

Then again, it is the MAGOP, so I wouldn't put any level of incompetence past them.

[albaleman]

Probably never.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

If MA-08 is broken up, the GOP will almost certainly challenge it under VRA.

Then again, it is the MAGOP, so I wouldn't put any level of incompetence past them.

It's not covered under VRA, it's plurality-white (like, 49% or so white). And there's no real way to draw a majority-minority seat in Massachusetts anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Your aren't going to have seats just falling into your hands if thats what you mean. You have to have the perfect combo of good candidate and either an open seat or a scandal plague incumbent in a seat like CT-04, CT-05, MA-10, MA-06, or ME-02. Its possible but unlikely and slapping a year on when it will happen is impossible. 

As for the west coast, we picked up a seat in Washington and there are one or two other seats in WA that would be interesting with again tthat good candiate + open seat/scandal plagued incumbent. The same is true for OR-05, OR-04, CA-18, and CA-20.

Of course this is all based on the current maps which will change.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When the party returns to its fiscally conservative roots and socially moderate stances, they will gain traction in these regions again.  It will not happen before.

1. What motivation does the GOP have to abandon and destroy its most loyal voter base?


Barring that, the best you will get is a cycle dominated by the economy and fiscal issues.

2. Hasn't the party already returned to its fiscally conservative roots?

You see that means different things to different people. When I hear going back to fiscally conservative roots, I think about rejecting Delay and Bush wasteful spending and returning to Gingrich and Kasich of the 1990's. In which case you are talking about a slight but important difference. I get the feeling you are wanting to make a more substantial change, to what I would ask do you want to change to and how is possibly anything close to fiscal conservatism? I hate to say it but 2010 was the best year a social moderate is going to get. Somehow, I think you might want to go back to 2002-2006, despite social issues being more important. That is because fiscal conservatism has also become more stringent to the point where most of the what you consider "fiscally conservative" don't meet the standard. You have a lot bigger problems then social issues, otherwise 2010 should have been wonderfull for you.  The only reason you refer to social issues is because it became a bussword for hard core conservatism.

[Skill and Chance]

I think it shows how ridiculous a Worcester-based district looks if you insist on keeping two districts to the west of it, but otherwise, it's not absurd. The leader of the committee in charge of redistricting is from Amherst, so I suppose the die is cast about letting western Mass avoid the axe for the third dropped district in a row. My guess is that if the 8th is broken up, instead of connecting Cambridge and Somerville to the 6th as in this map, they get put in the 7th and I have Ed Markey as a Congressman. In that case, the 7th contracts a lot and the 6th picks up some more northern suburbs. I guess the rest of Boston goes to the (current) 9th, which makes for an interesting primary for Steve Lynch.

Assuming Capuano runs for Senate, you might want to give Cambridge to Barney Frank.  Frank will likely retire before 2020, and Sean Bielat was extremely strong in 2010.  He'll probably be back when the seat is open.  Somerville should probably go to Tierney (no need to have Cambridge and Somerville in the same district anymore).  Furthermore, you can move Keating's district NW into the Boston suburbs and potentially have a Cape Cod to Fall River seat.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I think it shows how ridiculous a Worcester-based district looks if you insist on keeping two districts to the west of it, but otherwise, it's not absurd. The leader of the committee in charge of redistricting is from Amherst, so I suppose the die is cast about letting western Mass avoid the axe for the third dropped district in a row. My guess is that if the 8th is broken up, instead of connecting Cambridge and Somerville to the 6th as in this map, they get put in the 7th and I have Ed Markey as a Congressman. In that case, the 7th contracts a lot and the 6th picks up some more northern suburbs. I guess the rest of Boston goes to the (current) 9th, which makes for an interesting primary for Steve Lynch.

Assuming Capuano runs for Senate, you might want to give Cambridge to Barney Frank.  Frank will likely retire before 2020, and Sean Bielat was extremely strong in 2010.  He'll probably be back when the seat is open.  Somerville should probably go to Tierney (no need to have Cambridge and Somerville in the same district anymore).  Furthermore, you can move Keating's district NW into the Boston suburbs and potentially have a Cape Cod to Fall River seat.

Alternatively, you can also bring Lynch down to New Bedford/Fall River and then give central and (non-Irish) southern Boston to Frank.