Argument for Dem House for a long time

[zorkpolitics]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

Fourth, it is questionable as to whether additional fund raising capabilty will translate into favorable elections results for Democrats in 2008 House races. 

Fifth, I think you confuse redistricting with reapportionment.  While about 4-5 (net) seats will go from states carried by Kerry in 2004 to states carried by Bush in that year (reapportionment) the varying growth rate within states are likely to further harm Democrats.

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that whoever controls the House for the next few elections is likely to do so by a very slim margins (no more than 17 seats),

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

The only ones that I can think of that are probably very likely to go Republican are TX-22(Nick Lampson) and PA-10(Chris Carney). 

I assume that you figure these two will probably go Republican in 2008, which I agree right now.

Then there a 2-3 other districts that you are thinking of.  I am betting they are FL-16(Mahoney), CA-11(McNerney), and KS-02(Boyda).

FL-16 and CA-11 are basically swing districts, they each gave Bush just three points more than his national average in 2004, meaning they are winnable for either party.  And McNerney and Mahoney now have the advantage of incumbency which is usually worth another seven points. 

KS-02 is a tricky one.  This district often elects moderate Democrats like Boyda.  It did so before Jim Ryun narrowly won the open seat in 1996 when Dole was at the top of the ticket. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

IF gerrymandering is abolished we'd have more moderates from either party winning.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

The only ones that I can think of that are probably very likely to go Republican are TX-22(Nick Lampson) and PA-10(Chris Carney). 

I assume that you figure these two will probably go Republican in 2008, which I agree right now.

Then there a 2-3 other districts that you are thinking of.  I am betting they are FL-16(Mahoney), CA-11(McNerney), and KS-02(Boyda).

FL-16 and CA-11 are basically swing districts, they each gave Bush just three points more than his national average in 2004, meaning they are winnable for either party.  And McNerney and Mahoney now have the advantage of incumbency which is usually worth another seven points. 

KS-02 is a tricky one.  This district often elects moderate Democrats like Boyda.  It did so before Jim Ryun narrowly won the open seat in 1996 when Dole was at the top of the ticket. 

Well, we're not far off.

My bottom line contention is that neither party is likely to have firm control of the house.

If the Democrats maintain a narrow majority, it will because Democrats in several districts will buck national Democrat policy on several issues to get reelected.

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

[Verily]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their amazing spinelessness.

I voted no, they are too stupid.

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their amazing spinelessness.

I voted no, they are too stupid.

I don't see how a lot of those districts with the exception of ones like CA-11, OH-18, PA-10, KS-02, and FL-16 could go back to Republicans unless there is a 1980 or 1994 style Republican wave in 2008.

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

And I quote: "In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  "

That sounds like a school-book example of racial gerrymandering to me. Saying that it constitutes putting an end to racial gerrymandering seems highly contradictory to me.

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

And I quote: "In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  "

That sounds like a school-book example of racial gerrymandering to me. Saying that it constitutes putting an end to racial gerrymandering seems highly contradictory to me.

Fine, how about putting an end to drawing crazy looking districts just to make sure they are majority-minority?

[Gustaf]

Ah, so what you really mean is "let's put an end to racial gerrymandering unfavourable to my party and replace it with racial gerrymandering more beneficial to my party"?

I may be wrong but given the level of segregation I would think natural districts would tend to be more unfavourable to Democrats in this aspect than gerrymandered ones. But I could be wrong.

[Verily]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

And I quote: "In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  "

That sounds like a school-book example of racial gerrymandering to me. Saying that it constitutes putting an end to racial gerrymandering seems highly contradictory to me.

I suppose I find the first example different from what he said in later posts. I agree with this sentiment:

"im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit."

Not the one you quoted.

North Carolina's gerrymandering is just as bad as some other gerrymanders.

[Mr.Phips]

Ah, so what you really mean is "let's put an end to racial gerrymandering unfavourable to my party and replace it with racial gerrymandering more beneficial to my party"?

I may be wrong but given the level of segregation I would think natural districts would tend to be more unfavourable to Democrats in this aspect than gerrymandered ones. But I could be wrong.

It would give each party an equal shot at winning more districts.