Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[Brittain33]

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

But if two incumbents are drawn together in 2012, isn't that a pretty impactful event, even if the lines are redrawn in 2013?

The question then becomes, would Silver care if some of his caucus members in more marginal parts of the state lose, if he gets to preserve his power in the long run and maybe get some pliant freshmen in their place in 2014 if they don't run again?

[Lunar]

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

But if two incumbents are drawn together in 2012, isn't that a pretty impactful event, even if the lines are redrawn in 2013?

The question then becomes, would Silver care if some of his caucus members in more marginal parts of the state lose, if he gets to preserve his power in the long run and maybe get some pliant freshmen in their place in 2014 if they don't run again?

Wouldn't the status quo also preserve his power in the long run?

Silver is powerful because he takes care of his members and doesn't necessarily dictate to them (except on issues that affect him personally like medical malpractice reform).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems to me like most of those Republican freshman would lose anyway even with minimal changes to their districts.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all -- Grisanti (the dude up in Buffalo who won against a terrible candidate) is the only one who comes to mind as one destined to lose.

I was referring to the Massachusetts legislature.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

But if two incumbents are drawn together in 2012, isn't that a pretty impactful event, even if the lines are redrawn in 2013?

The question then becomes, would Silver care if some of his caucus members in more marginal parts of the state lose, if he gets to preserve his power in the long run and maybe get some pliant freshmen in their place in 2014 if they don't run again?

Wouldn't the status quo also preserve his power in the long run?

Silver is powerful because he takes care of his members and doesn't necessarily dictate to them (except on issues that affect him personally like medical malpractice reform).

How about Cuomo's national ambitions? If the Dem establishment encourages him to veto the maps so that the Democrats can proceed with a mid-decade redistricting, is he going to ignore them or will he try to show that he's a good soldier for the national party?

[Lunar]

It seems to me like most of those Republican freshman would lose anyway even with minimal changes to their districts.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all -- Grisanti (the dude up in Buffalo who won against a terrible candidate) is the only one who comes to mind as one destined to lose.

I was referring to the Massachusetts legislature.

Whoops!

[Lunar]

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

But if two incumbents are drawn together in 2012, isn't that a pretty impactful event, even if the lines are redrawn in 2013?

The question then becomes, would Silver care if some of his caucus members in more marginal parts of the state lose, if he gets to preserve his power in the long run and maybe get some pliant freshmen in their place in 2014 if they don't run again?

Wouldn't the status quo also preserve his power in the long run?

Silver is powerful because he takes care of his members and doesn't necessarily dictate to them (except on issues that affect him personally like medical malpractice reform).

How about Cuomo's national ambitions? If the Dem establishment encourages him to veto the maps so that the Democrats can proceed with a mid-decade redistricting, is he going to ignore them or will he try to show that he's a good soldier for the national party?

I don't think doing an independent redistricting in 2012 only to pull a Delay and force a gerrymander in the next election cycle, an explicitly partisan and anti-good government move, would help his national ambitions.

[Napoleon]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

[Lunar]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Ι doubt it. Mitch Daniels did nothing to prevent his fellow Republicans from gerrymandering Indiana, yet nobody seems to care about that.
And Democrats don't need to go DeLay-crazy. New York is Democratic enough to allow them for example to eliminate King and one upstate Republican without much trouble.

[Napoleon]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Which doesn't mean people all of a sudden care. Who is going to decide not to vote for Cuomo for doing something that is commonplace in modern politics?

[Cincinnatus]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Which doesn't mean people all of a sudden care. Who is going to decide not to vote for Cuomo for doing something that is commonplace in modern politics?

Not many people in New York, at least where I am, care about redistricting.  In fact, like you said, if I asked a number of people I'd be lucky if they knew what I was talking about.  Those that do understand what it is often, don't understand how it might influence elections.  I can't see this effecting public opinion or influencing any significant number of voters.

[Lunar]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Ι doubt it. Mitch Daniels did nothing to prevent his fellow Republicans from gerrymandering Indiana, yet nobody seems to care about that.
And Democrats don't need to go DeLay-crazy. New York is Democratic enough to allow them for example to eliminate King and one upstate Republican without much trouble.

What Daniels did wasn't a mid-year partisan gerrymander.

My point was never that thousands of voters are going to care, only that it could be a black mark on his record when viewed in retrospect.  Editorial boards, reporters, bloggers, etc. are going to remember and bring this up if he were ever to make a run for national office, and it could affect the narrative of his future races, not to mention acts of governance.

The gains of adding two Congressional Districts and pleasing a few party elders might not be a good trade-off.

Is the national party establishment going to be mad at him if he DOESN'T force a mid-year hack gerrymander?  Unlikely.  Their memories are likely to be even shorter than the voters in this regard.

[cinyc]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Ι doubt it. Mitch Daniels did nothing to prevent his fellow Republicans from gerrymandering Indiana, yet nobody seems to care about that.
And Democrats don't need to go DeLay-crazy. New York is Democratic enough to allow them for example to eliminate King and one upstate Republican without much trouble.

King isn't going anywhere.  If you make King's district too Democratic, King will move to another Long Island district and defeat an incumbent Democrat, probably Bishop, who won by the skin of his teeth in 2010 and whose district can't be Gerrymandered all that much due to simple geography.

[ag]

If you make King's district too Democratic, King will move to another Long Island district and defeat an incumbent Democrat, probably Bishop, who won by the skin of his teeth in 2010 and whose district can't be Gerrymandered all that much due to simple geography.

Wouldn't replacing the bulk of Smithtown currently in the 1st CD w/ something a bit further south/southwest do the trick, without even  appearing much of a gerrymander? Of course, Smithtown would have to go somewhere, but it should be possible to suck enough of Queens into LI districts to make the Dem gerrymander work. Or am I missing something serious?

[cinyc]

If you make King's district too Democratic, King will move to another Long Island district and defeat an incumbent Democrat, probably Bishop, who won by the skin of his teeth in 2010 and whose district can't be Gerrymandered all that much due to simple geography.

Wouldn't replacing the bulk of Smithtown currently in the 1st CD w/ something a bit further south/southwest do the trick, without even  appearing much of a gerrymander? Of course, Smithtown would have to go somewhere, but it should be possible to suck enough of Queens into LI districts to make the Dem gerrymander work. Or am I missing something serious?

Nassau and Suffolk Counties are entitled to almost exactly 4 districts.  Sure, you could push one or two of the districts into Queens, but any Republicans taken out of NY-01 and NY-03 would ultimately have to go somewhere.  Packing Republicans into Peter King's district makes the other three Long Island Democrats safer. 

I really don't see the legislature messing with King's seat.  I know posters here are acting as if New York Republicans don't matter in the redistricting process - but they still control the New York State Senate.  There's no way they won't fight to keep the seat of the most senior member of the New York Republican Congressional delegation, particularly since he's from the same general area of the state as the Senate Majority Leader.

Regional differences do matter, too.  If Long Island is entitled to 4 seats, they're not going to want to share any more of a district with New York City than they have to.

[ag]

Of course, Republicans do control the Senate and do matter for redistricting. But I was addressing a fairly narrow point: purely on geographic (not political) considerations it IS possible to gerrymander Long Island, and, specifically  1st and 3rd districts in a way much friendlier to the Dems.

Just take the Smithtown out of the 1st, replacing it with something around Ronkonkoma  and cut the rest horizontally, rather than vertically, so as to create the big North Shore district, from Smithtown all the way into Queens (taking care to dip a bit south when you get there). Get some 150,000 black and Asian voters from Queens and stick them into LI, while taking a bit of LI back into Queens and  you should be fine. The current 2nd (Israel) and 4th (McCarthy) are reasonably safe D, so it's only the matter of strengthening the 1st while screwing the third. 150 thousand minority Queens voters stuck onto the most Republican parts of the Island should do the trick (and if that's not enough, there are ways of making it 200,000). The districts won't even appear much gerrymandered to a naked eye - certainly, there are many worse gerrymanders elsewhere.

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

[Lunar]

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

To be blunt, I don't know if the NY State Legislature is capable of placing long-term partisan goals over short-term partisan gains.  

[cinyc]

Of course, Republicans do control the Senate and do matter for redistricting. But I was addressing a fairly narrow point: purely on geographic (not political) considerations it IS possible to gerrymander Long Island, and, specifically  1st and 3rd districts in a way much friendlier to the Dems.

Just take the Smithtown out of the 1st, replacing it with something around Ronkonkoma  and cut the rest horizontally, rather than vertically, so as to create the big North Shore district, from Smithtown all the way into Queens (taking care to dip a bit south when you get there). Get some 150,000 black and Asian voters from Queens and stick them into LI, while taking a bit of LI back into Queens and  you should be fine. The current 2nd (Israel) and 4th (McCarthy) are reasonably safe D, so it's only the matter of strengthening the 1st while screwing the third. 150 thousand minority Queens voters stuck onto the most Republican parts of the Island should do the trick (and if that's not enough, there are ways of making it 200,000). The districts won't even appear much gerrymandered to a naked eye - certainly, there are many worse gerrymanders elsewhere.

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

Anything's possible.  But Israel's district isn't as Democratic as you think.  It's as Democratic (D+4) as King's district is Republican (R+4).

I don't think you can take many black residents out of Queens without jeopardizing the ability to draw the current 3 non-Hispanic African-American majority districts in Brooklyn and Queens.  NY-06 isn't even majority non-Hispanic black any more, and NY-11 is trending that way, at only 53.1%.  NY-10 has some excess black population, but not much - it's 58.5% black.  And all three districts are going to need to add population to get up to ideal size.  That stock of Dem voters can't be unleashed on the suburbs.  Nor is there any suburban Republican Congressman anywhere near the city other than Peter King - and even he's not that all that close to it.

[ag]

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

To be blunt, I don't know of the NY State Legislature is capable of placing long-term partisan goals over short-term partisan gains. 

well, here I'd agree w/ you ))

[ag]

I don't think you can take many black residents out of Queens without jeopardizing the ability to draw the current 3 non-Hispanic African-American majority districts in Brooklyn and Queens.  NY-06 isn't even majority non-Hispanic black any more,

Well, yeah, it's not majority black anymore, so does it really have to become majority black again? I have a hard time believing that in a plurality black district with a diverse population a half-way decent incumbent black congressman will be in that much trouble. Is Meeks THAT pathetic? (I haven't lived in the City since 2000, of course, I might be out of touch on this one).

[Lunar]

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

To be blunt, I don't know if the NY State Legislature is capable of placing long-term partisan goals over short-term partisan gains. 

well, here I'd agree w/ you ))

A'ight!

Partisanship in establishment circles here can sometimes be mushy too -- Joe Bruno was routinely whole-heartedly endorsed by left-wing unions and I doubt Andrew Cuomo even wants John Sampson to be leading the State Senate THAT badly.

[cinyc]

Well, yeah, it's not majority black anymore, so does it really have to become majority black again? I have a hard time believing that in a plurality black district with a diverse population a half-way decent incumbent black congressman will be in that much trouble. Is Meeks THAT pathetic? (I haven't lived in the City since 2000, of course, I might be out of touch on this one).

Three non-Hispanic black majority districts can be drawn in Queens and Brooklyn, so they most likely will be drawn.  Blacks make up about a quarter of New York City's population, which means they should be entitled to about 3 Congressional Districts.  No non-Hispanic black majority district can easily be drawn in Harlem or the Bronx any more, so...

NY-06 is only barely non-Hispanic black majority - 49% non-Hispanic black.

[ag]

Three non-Hispanic black majority districts can be drawn in Queens and Brooklyn, so they most likely will be drawn. 

Any reason for that, in general? I understand, given that Republicans would block getting rid of King, that this is what's likely to happen now: no real reason for it not to happen. But if a good enough reason emerges, why bother about the magical 50%? 45% or even 40% black plurality should be enough for any incumbent. I don't see any LEGAL reason for it to happen (especially given that NY-6 is not majority black, anyway).

Anyway, there are not merely blacks, there are also the Asians and Hispanics, all in good supply.  Majority black/Hispanic districts in Northern Queens are not under consideration, unless I am mistaken, are they? The North Shore district would look slightly uglier that way, but only slightly.

[ag]

Partisanship in establishment circles here can sometimes be mushy too -- Joe Bruno was routinely whole-heartedly endorsed by left-wing unions and I doubt Andrew Cuomo even wants John Sampson to be leading the State Senate THAT badly.

No argument there.

[Skill and Chance]

Is there any reason why Cuomo wouldn't play hardball with the state senate like McDonnell is doing in reverse in VA?

1. Veto the maps and send 2011-12 redistricting to a court
2. State court draws maps for 2012 elections
3. Retake NY state senate by a substantial margin in the 2012 elections and hold the Assembly (both are very likely in a presidential year under a non-partisan map)
4. Redraw the maps in 2013, putting >60% of each chamber of the state house in 60%+ Obama 2008 districts and make a new congressional map with 24-25 60%+ Obama districts and 2-3 very strong McCain districts

Andrew Cuomo's presidential ambitions are literally the only thing standing in the way of this right now, right?