Election 2018 Open Thread v2 - Mia, Mimi, Gil, and T.J.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

You're missing my point Tony,
From 1994-2006 many claimed it was pretty difficult for dems to gain the house,
They did in 2006 and kept it in 2008,
After 2010 and 2012 people claimed dems won't regain the house any time soon and all the gerrymandering stuff,
Dems gained the house this year and broke the gerrymandering,
And if the swings in the suburbs are stable, it gonna take a while for republicans to retake the house ...

And regarding the national election, republicans won the popular vote only once since 1988 (30 years),
Walter's prediction wasn't very wrong in that regard...

What bizarro alternate reality are you talking about? It's gonna be extremely easy for Republicans to take back the House. Just winning every seat that had a Republican PVI in 2016 gets them to 236 seats...

The House is only Lean D in 2020 (Tossup if T***p is reelected, though obviously Likely or Safe D if he loses), and is almost guaranteed to flip back the next time we have a midterm election under a Democratic President.

If Trump loses re-election, the House is safe D.  Many of the freshmen who's districts narrowly went for Trump will now have districts that vote Dem for President in 2020.

[wbrocks67]

It's pretty obvious all that Republicans voted for De Leon. Which is ironic though, because he's more progressive than Feinstein.

[Virginiá]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

[Virginiá]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

We had a pretty detailed discussion on this here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=306188.0

The gist being that the upside of Trump being president is that Republican plans to rig elections nationwide for the 2020s has basically imploded and could get worse for them yet. Although "worse for them" is relative. The worst they will see in most places is fair maps, which is peanuts compared to what Democrats had to deal with  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

[Zaybay]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

Yeah, they'll probably be forced to concede a Cincinnati vote sink. But they will dismantle Ryan's district, so eventually it'll be a wash.

[Mr.Phips]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

Yeah, they'll probably be forced to concede a Cincinnati vote sink. But they will dismantle Ryan's district, so eventually it'll be a wash.

Wouldn't Ryan just run against David Joyce?  Joyce's district already isn't THAT Republican and adding Youngstown to the district will make it even less so.

[lfromnj]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

Yeah, they'll probably be forced to concede a Cincinnati vote sink. But they will dismantle Ryan's district, so eventually it'll be a wash.

Wouldn't Ryan just run against David Joyce?  Joyce's district already isn't THAT Republican and adding Youngstown to the district will make it even less so.

Youngstown trends aren't good

[Mr.Phips]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

Yeah, they'll probably be forced to concede a Cincinnati vote sink. But they will dismantle Ryan's district, so eventually it'll be a wash.

Wouldn't Ryan just run against David Joyce?  Joyce's district already isn't THAT Republican and adding Youngstown to the district will make it even less so.

Youngstown trends aren't good

It would still provide a base for Ryan.  Hillary still won Machining county and a district including Mahoning as well as Lake, Geauga, Ashtabla, and Trumbull wouldn't be terrible for Ryan.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, one thing a Democratic president would have going for them in 2022 is that the maps this time will probably be a lot more fair, even before considering any more split governments created from the 2020 elections. So even if they lost the House in 2022, they could quite possibly gain it back in 2024.

Are there any states that are likelier to have fairer maps due to having elected Democratic governors this year? The states that I can think of that were ground zero for the Republican gerrymandering after 2010--Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, possibly others I'm forgetting--have mostly instituted various forms of nonpartisan, bipartisan, or court-ordered redistricting now, with the exception of Wisconsin, where I'm wary of the possibility of the legislature stripping Evers of his power to veto new maps (if they haven't already).

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are guaranteed to have fair maps because Democrats control the state supreme courts. In Michigan they control the governorship and an independent redistricting commission just passed via referendum. In Virginia they will probably control the trifecta after next year's elections. Ohio and Florida will probably be the same, if not slightly worse. In Wisconsin even if the lege strips Evers' veto power the state supreme court might strike down that law if Democrats win the next two elections and get the majority.
The big question mark is Texas where Democrats have a realistic chance to flip the state house and block any Republican gerrymandering.

You got almost everything right, but you missed OH. The state commission, while R controlled and weak, has to obey certain laws when drawing their maps. The Cincinnati area would be forced as a tossup-lean D district, so the Ds could make a gain there. Otherwise, you got everything important.

Yeah, they'll probably be forced to concede a Cincinnati vote sink. But they will dismantle Ryan's district, so eventually it'll be a wash.

Wouldn't Ryan just run against David Joyce?  Joyce's district already isn't THAT Republican and adding Youngstown to the district will make it even less so.

Youngstown trends aren't good

It would still provide a base for Ryan.  Hillary still won Machining county and a district including Mahoning as well as Lake, Geauga, Ashtabla, and Trumbull wouldn't be terrible for Ryan.

Ryan is a much stronger incumbent than Joyce and has a pretty solid personal vote in certain parts of that district.  I think Ryan would be favored if the districts were merged tbh.

[lfromnj]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

[Tintrlvr]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Republicans wouldn't draw this map, though. Regardless of whether the long-term trends end up making districts 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 safe R, the Congressmen getting them would revolt against having Obama-Obama seats.

Also, that map blatantly fails prong 6 of the requirements. There are two discontiguous parts of Franklin County in district 12, two discontiguous parts of Cuyahoga County in district 6 and two discontiguous parts of Lucas County in district 4.

Prong 6 does a surprising amount of work in restricting gerrymandering because of the municipal boundaries and political geography of the large counties.

[Mr.Phips]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Hahaha, that Cincinnati district would never be complient with the amendment. 

[lfromnj]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Republicans wouldn't draw this map, though. Regardless of whether the long-term trends end up making districts 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 safe R, the Congressmen getting them would revolt against having Obama-Obama seats.

they might agree after seeing the 2020 trends. Anyway a 11-3 district looks possible as the only shaky part of RRH's gerrymander is the Cincinatti district. The rest of the districts are reasonably compact.

[Mr.Phips]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Republicans wouldn't draw this map, though. Regardless of whether the long-term trends end up making districts 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 safe R, the Congressmen getting them would revolt against having Obama-Obama seats.

they might agree after seeing the 2020 trends. Anyway a 11-3 district looks possible as the only shaky part of RRH's gerrymander is the Cincinatti district. The rest of the districts are reasonably compact.

The map also assumes that the Trump 2016 numbers are the new normal as there are a bunch of districts that Obama not only won in 2008, but also 2012. 

[2016]

Republicans will win back the House. If not in 2020 then certainly in 2022 assuming there is a D-President. Given how Obama overreached from 2008-2010 with the Stimulus, O-Care I can definitly see that again especially if some ultra-liberal like Warren, Harris, Gillibrand occupies the WH.

[lfromnj]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Republicans wouldn't draw this map, though. Regardless of whether the long-term trends end up making districts 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 safe R, the Congressmen getting them would revolt against having Obama-Obama seats.

they might agree after seeing the 2020 trends. Anyway a 11-3 district looks possible as the only shaky part of RRH's gerrymander is the Cincinatti district. The rest of the districts are reasonably compact.

The map also assumes that the Trump 2016 numbers are the new normal as there are a bunch of districts that Obama not only won in 2008, but also 2012. 

the good news for the Ohio GOP. They get to see the new trends in 2020 on what happens and I assume the trends will hold.
Even if its a dummymander (say it turns out something like 6-9 or 7-8) this gerrymander will not pass with dem support besides a few black legislators in Cleveland it will require a new map in 4 years. If the map holds they just pass the same map again. If they map fails and is a dummymander they can concede one more seat and shore up the rest and it should be good.

[Tintrlvr]

RRH claims this map can work with the rules. With the way ohio is trending this would not shock me.

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2018/11/27/ohio-13-2-map-compatible-with-redistricting-amendment-rules/

Republicans wouldn't draw this map, though. Regardless of whether the long-term trends end up making districts 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 safe R, the Congressmen getting them would revolt against having Obama-Obama seats.

they might agree after seeing the 2020 trends. Anyway a 11-3 district looks possible as the only shaky part of RRH's gerrymander is the Cincinatti district. The rest of the districts are reasonably compact.

The map also assumes that the Trump 2016 numbers are the new normal as there are a bunch of districts that Obama not only won in 2008, but also 2012. 

the good news for the Ohio GOP. They get to see the new trends in 2020 on what happens and I assume the trends will hold.
Even if its a dummymander (say it turns out something like 6-9 or 7-8) this gerrymander will not pass with dem support besides a few black legislators in Cleveland it will require a new map in 4 years. If the map holds they just pass the same map again. If they map fails and is a dummymander they can concede one more seat and shore up the rest and it should be good.

As I pointed out in my edits, the map fails at least one of the requirements in a clear-cut way. They have to go back to the drawing board in Cuyahoga, Franklin and Lucas because they can't have two parts of a district in the same county that are discontiguous within that county.

[lfromnj]

Anyway the NE is reasonably compact and I think Tim Ryan looks screwed in 2022. He might as well run statewide.  I do think the reps will probably just concede Cincinnati finally and the Columbus sink stays the same. However what about Kapturs Toledo district. Its also trending R and they can probably cut it up and make it more compact.

[Tintrlvr]

Also, while the Cincinnati area technically follows the hard-and-fast rules on that map, a court would almost find that drawing that the Cincinnati district is not an "attempt" to draw compact districts, as the reform requires.

[Zaybay]

There is one big reason the GOP would probably not use this map. Its too risky. There are 9 seats in the R+3-6 range, and many of them feature D trending areas that could cause a dummymander. Not to mention, as the author even points out, many of the district's Representatives dont live in the districts he drew.

That being said, there is also the problem of the Cincinnati district not following the rules.

There is also a wild card thrown into the deck, the supreme court. Normally, this wouldnt be an issue, because the court was 7-0 R. But after 2018, two Democrats were elected. This makes the court 5-2R, and in 2020, two more R seats will be up for reelection. The SC has the final say on the map, which could throw a wrench into any R plans.

The OH map is likely going to see no change, or possibly a D+1 increase just because of Cincinnati.

[Mr.Phips]

Anyway the NE is reasonably compact and I think Tim Ryan looks screwed in 2022. He might as well run statewide.  I do think the reps will probably just concede Cincinnati finally and the Columbus sink stays the same. However what about Kapturs Toledo district. Its also trending R and they can probably cut it up and make it more compact.

Does Bob Latta want Toledo in his district?  Looking at the RRH map, they would not be able to split Toledo like that.  The district they drew (if including all of Lucas county) would have voted for Sherrod Brown in 2018. 

[lfromnj]

There is one big reason the GOP would probably not use this map. Its too risky. There are 9 seats in the R+3-6 range, and many of them feature D trending areas that could cause a dummymander. Not to mention, as the author even points out, many of the district's Representatives dont live in the districts he drew.

That being said, there is also the problem of the Cincinnati district not following the rules.

There is also a wild card thrown into the deck, the supreme court. Normally, this wouldnt be an issue, because the court was 7-0 R. But after 2018, two Democrats were elected. This makes the court 5-2R, and in 2020, two more R seats will be up for reelection. The SC has the final say on the map, which could throw a wrench into any R plans.

The OH map is likely going to see no change, or possibly a D+1 increase just because of Cincinnati.

There is no major dummymander risk as they can just redraw after 4 years.