Which of the Following Southern Chambers are Democrats Most Likely to Take?

[Frodo]

And I am referring to November 3, 2020 -so don't answer Virginia...

Here's the current partisan make-up:

North Carolina House:

Republicans: 65
Democrats: 55

North Carolina Senate:

Republicans: 29
Democrats: 21

Florida House:

Republicans: 71
Democrats: 46

Florida Senate:

Republicans: 23
Democrats: 17

Georgia House:

Republicans: 105
Democrats: 75

Georgia Senate:

Republicans: 35
Democrats: 21

Texas House:

Republicans: 83
Democrats: 67

Texas Senate:

Republicans: 19
Democrats: 12

[Roll Roons]

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

[Indy Texas]

Probably one of the NC chambers.

In Texas, I'd expect the Democrats to pick up 4-6 seats in the House and 1-2 in the Senate in 2020. And they will most likely end up losing seats in 2022 once the Republicans shore themselves back up in redistricting. So it will probably be in the late 2020s before the map has gotten stale enough to allow the Democrats a chance to pick up a chamber (most likely the House).

[S019]

NC Senate,

FL Dems are inept (see Nelson, Gillum losses)

TX and GA need more time

The NC House of Reps has too large of a majority

Dems need to pick up 5 seats in the NC Senate, in what is a swing state with a competent state party

[LoneStarDem]

NC State Senate: The NC Dems are going to eventually turn the Tar Heel State Blue sooner or later as demographics are changing the state.

TX: TX GOP will be dominating the Lone Star State for awhile, I do believe the TX Dems will eventually get off the losing streak in 12 years (maybe 2026).

GA: NOT happening anytime soon.

FL: Forget about it. Not happening anytime soon because the FL Dems are so much of WEAKLINGS.

LA: LA Dems better pray the GOPers start dying off in 12 years.

[Boobs]

Probably one of the NC chambers.

In Texas, I'd expect the Democrats to pick up 4-6 seats in the House and 1-2 in the Senate in 2020. And they will most likely end up losing seats in 2022 once the Republicans shore themselves back up in redistricting. So it will probably be in the late 2020s before the map has gotten stale enough to allow the Democrats a chance to pick up a chamber (most likely the House).

What’s the second Senate district in Texas you think they’d pick up? Flores is obvious, but other than that? Nelson?

[Idaho Conservative]

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

In TX, reps will be smart enough to cede some suburban seats that trended D and ensure a majority for the remainder of the cycle.  Funny how everyone Atlas thinks 2018 is the new norm for TX, just like how everyone assumed that district in ME was now solidly red after 2016.

[Oryxslayer]

For those wondering, Florida Sen is even worse on Paper for dems then it appears. In 2020, Dems need to win a red seat equivalent to either FL-16 or FL-18 to tie the chamber - and thats if they take the seats more favorable which is questionable. And then who knows what happens post redistricting.

North Carolina is bad for dems because they pushed close to their ceiling in 2018. Things might change in 2020 if there is more redistricting, or who knows what happens post-2020 with the republican non-super majorities and a safe dem state court. So maybe NC house is possible.

GA too gerrymandered. Dems got all the low hanging fruit in 2018, and even though they can still advance further, expect a seat count near to this to be locked in post-2020.

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

In TX, reps will be smart enough to cede some suburban seats that trended D and ensure a majority for the remainder of the cycle.  Funny how everyone Atlas thinks 2018 is the new norm for TX, just like how everyone assumed that district in ME was now solidly red after 2016.

The difference between this and TX is that there is a clear partisan breakdown. The voters brought out by Beto stayed cast partisan dem ballots - they (mostly) voted dem all the way down the ticket. Turnout was also high, and if weighted for minority midterm turnout, it would be higher than 2016. This is in contrast to the low turnout of Maine during the Obama years, and the persistance of some downticket dems in upstate Maine. But that doesn't change the fact that the district is close to gone - most handycappers put the seat at lean R for the 2020 presidential contest.

This is why if TX remains competitive in 2020 (Beto on the ticket, another star senate candidate, of just a dem atmosphere nationally) I say the state house gets close to or get the chamber. There is  clear path unlike other states. Also, gerrymandering can't save the republicans fully here - TX uses the county group/nesting phenomenon for the state house - see the thread in Geography and demographics for more info. With this in mind, the pubs can flip a handful of seats and reinforce others, but the majority probably can't get above 90. So even if the dems don't flip it, the chamber is on the target list for the future. TX sen thoguh does not use the nesting, so expect a republican majority there for years to come.

[Idaho Conservative]

For those wondering, Florida Sen is even worse on Paper for dems then it appears. In 2020, Dems need to win a red seat equivalent to either FL-16 or FL-18 to tie the chamber - and thats if they take the seats more favorable which is questionable. And then who knows what happens post redistricting.

North Carolina is bad for dems because they pushed close to their ceiling in 2018. Things might change in 2020 if there is more redistricting, or who knows what happens post-2020 with the republican non-super majorities and a safe dem state court. So maybe NC house is possible.

GA too gerrymandered. Dems got all the low hanging fruit in 2018, and even though they can still advance further, expect a seat count near to this to be locked in post-2020.

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

In TX, reps will be smart enough to cede some suburban seats that trended D and ensure a majority for the remainder of the cycle.  Funny how everyone Atlas thinks 2018 is the new norm for TX, just like how everyone assumed that district in ME was now solidly red after 2016.

The difference between this and TX is that there is a clear partisan breakdown. The voters brought out by Beto stayed cast partisan dem ballots - they (mostly) voted dem all the way down the ticket. Turnout was also high, and if weighted for minority midterm turnout, it would be higher than 2016. This is in contrast to the low turnout of Maine during the Obama years, and the persistance of some downticket dems in upstate Maine. But that doesn't change the fact that the district is close to gone - most handycappers put the seat at lean R for the 2020 presidential contest.

This is why if TX remains competitive in 2020 (Beto on the ticket, another star senate candidate, of just a dem atmosphere nationally) I say the state house gets close to or get the chamber. There is  clear path unlike other states. Also, gerrymandering can't save the republicans fully here - TX uses the county group/nesting phenomenon for the state house - see the thread in Geography and demographics for more info. With this in mind, the pubs can flip a handful of seats and reinforce others, but the majority probably can't get above 90. So even if the dems don't flip it, the chamber is on the target list for the future. TX sen thoguh does not use the nesting, so expect a republican majority there for years to come.

R's need to change the state constitution and make the senate solely in charge of redistricting then.  We need to act NOW to keep TX red. 

[Boobs]

For those wondering, Florida Sen is even worse on Paper for dems then it appears. In 2020, Dems need to win a red seat equivalent to either FL-16 or FL-18 to tie the chamber - and thats if they take the seats more favorable which is questionable. And then who knows what happens post redistricting.

North Carolina is bad for dems because they pushed close to their ceiling in 2018. Things might change in 2020 if there is more redistricting, or who knows what happens post-2020 with the republican non-super majorities and a safe dem state court. So maybe NC house is possible.

GA too gerrymandered. Dems got all the low hanging fruit in 2018, and even though they can still advance further, expect a seat count near to this to be locked in post-2020.

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

In TX, reps will be smart enough to cede some suburban seats that trended D and ensure a majority for the remainder of the cycle.  Funny how everyone Atlas thinks 2018 is the new norm for TX, just like how everyone assumed that district in ME was now solidly red after 2016.

The difference between this and TX is that there is a clear partisan breakdown. The voters brought out by Beto stayed cast partisan dem ballots - they (mostly) voted dem all the way down the ticket. Turnout was also high, and if weighted for minority midterm turnout, it would be higher than 2016. This is in contrast to the low turnout of Maine during the Obama years, and the persistance of some downticket dems in upstate Maine. But that doesn't change the fact that the district is close to gone - most handycappers put the seat at lean R for the 2020 presidential contest.

This is why if TX remains competitive in 2020 (Beto on the ticket, another star senate candidate, of just a dem atmosphere nationally) I say the state house gets close to or get the chamber. There is  clear path unlike other states. Also, gerrymandering can't save the republicans fully here - TX uses the county group/nesting phenomenon for the state house - see the thread in Geography and demographics for more info. With this in mind, the pubs can flip a handful of seats and reinforce others, but the majority probably can't get above 90. So even if the dems don't flip it, the chamber is on the target list for the future. TX sen thoguh does not use the nesting, so expect a republican majority there for years to come.

R's need to change the state constitution and make the senate solely in charge of redistricting then.  We need to act NOW to keep TX red. 

The Rs don’t even have enough seats to confirm appointments by themselves. They’ll have to get Dem votes to amend the constitution.

[Idaho Conservative]

For those wondering, Florida Sen is even worse on Paper for dems then it appears. In 2020, Dems need to win a red seat equivalent to either FL-16 or FL-18 to tie the chamber - and thats if they take the seats more favorable which is questionable. And then who knows what happens post redistricting.

North Carolina is bad for dems because they pushed close to their ceiling in 2018. Things might change in 2020 if there is more redistricting, or who knows what happens post-2020 with the republican non-super majorities and a safe dem state court. So maybe NC house is possible.

GA too gerrymandered. Dems got all the low hanging fruit in 2018, and even though they can still advance further, expect a seat count near to this to be locked in post-2020.

On paper Florida, but there is really no reason to have any faith whatsoever in the Florida Democratic Party.

So maybe one of the North Carolina chambers, although probably not both. NC Dems seem to be fairly competent. Texas could also happen soon, though probably not in 2020. Georgia will be after.

In TX, reps will be smart enough to cede some suburban seats that trended D and ensure a majority for the remainder of the cycle.  Funny how everyone Atlas thinks 2018 is the new norm for TX, just like how everyone assumed that district in ME was now solidly red after 2016.

The difference between this and TX is that there is a clear partisan breakdown. The voters brought out by Beto stayed cast partisan dem ballots - they (mostly) voted dem all the way down the ticket. Turnout was also high, and if weighted for minority midterm turnout, it would be higher than 2016. This is in contrast to the low turnout of Maine during the Obama years, and the persistance of some downticket dems in upstate Maine. But that doesn't change the fact that the district is close to gone - most handycappers put the seat at lean R for the 2020 presidential contest.

This is why if TX remains competitive in 2020 (Beto on the ticket, another star senate candidate, of just a dem atmosphere nationally) I say the state house gets close to or get the chamber. There is  clear path unlike other states. Also, gerrymandering can't save the republicans fully here - TX uses the county group/nesting phenomenon for the state house - see the thread in Geography and demographics for more info. With this in mind, the pubs can flip a handful of seats and reinforce others, but the majority probably can't get above 90. So even if the dems don't flip it, the chamber is on the target list for the future. TX sen thoguh does not use the nesting, so expect a republican majority there for years to come.

R's need to change the state constitution and make the senate solely in charge of redistricting then.  We need to act NOW to keep TX red. 

The Rs don’t even have enough seats to confirm appointments by themselves. They’ll have to get Dem votes to amend the constitution.

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

[lfromnj]

Either NC house/senate with redistricting or the one where a democrat won a majority of districts in 2018 while losing the state.

[Cynthia]

Probably Texas. Although it is not realistic to call Texas changed forever with the election of Beto, the other ones on this list just do not seem within reach.

North Carolina Dems are close to their structural barrier with gerrymandering - maybe with another redistricting it can be within reach but I'd say the chances of that happening to be pessimistic.

Forget about Florida - FL Dems proved themselves to be more incompetent than I've thought previously.

Georgia - Gerrymandering still poses too much of a structural barrier to the Democrats, and the state's division is too strong.

[Gass3268]

The North Carolina House map is probably going to get redrawn by the State Supreme Court, so them. The Texas House is probably next given the constitutional restrictions to gerrymandering.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

[Idaho Conservative]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

[Sestak]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Except under the federal system rural interests do dominate because urban areas are all cracked/put into vote sinks.

[Idaho Conservative]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Except under the federal system rural interests do dominate because urban areas are all cracked/put into vote sinks.

If we overturned Reynold, I'd be open to eliminating gerrymandering.  In all honesty, overturning that descision might be the only thing I'd accept in return for giving up gerrymandering.  There should be rules to prevent cracking of cohesive communities.  But I'm not ready to turn the entire snbelt blue, so we need state senates which aren't urban dominated.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

[Idaho Conservative]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

[Xeuma]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

Why do rural areas/states, where far far less people live, deserve to have equal representation to urban areas?

[Idaho Conservative]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

Why do rural areas/states, where far far less people live, deserve to have equal representation to urban areas?

Because they have unique interests but due to lower populations have far less say.  This is the principle behind the great compromise.  You should've learned about it in 8th grade, but if not I'll explain.  Big states had bigger populations and wanted population based representation so they'd get more say.  Meanwhile, small states wanted equal representation because they would have no say if it was soley population based.  So, a compromise was made, one house would be population based and the other would have equal representation.  This ensured neither big OR small states would dominate.  The same was applied to state legislatures for most of history.  One house was population, the other equality for each county.  If we have this, both sides have say and won't dominate the process. 

[Xeuma]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

Why do rural areas/states, where far far less people live, deserve to have equal representation to urban areas?

Because they have unique interests but due to lower populations have far less say.  This is the principle behind the great compromise.  You should've learned about it in 8th grade, but if not I'll explain.  Big states had bigger populations and wanted population based representation so they'd get more say.  Meanwhile, small states wanted equal representation because they would have no say if it was soley population based.  So, a compromise was made, one house would be population based and the other would have equal representation.  This ensured neither big OR small states would dominate.  The same was applied to state legislatures for most of history.  One house was population, the other equality for each county.  If we have this, both sides have say and won't dominate the process. 

Yes, I understand why it was done, but I'm asking why do rural areas deserve it? What properties do they have that entitles them to extra representation? Black and white people also have different concerns, but we don't give black people extra representation. Conservatives and liberals, men and women, we can divide the country in many different ways. Why population density?

[lfromnj]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

Why do rural areas/states, where far far less people live, deserve to have equal representation to urban areas?

Because they have unique interests but due to lower populations have far less say.  This is the principle behind the great compromise.  You should've learned about it in 8th grade, but if not I'll explain.  Big states had bigger populations and wanted population based representation so they'd get more say.  Meanwhile, small states wanted equal representation because they would have no say if it was soley population based.  So, a compromise was made, one house would be population based and the other would have equal representation.  This ensured neither big OR small states would dominate.  The same was applied to state legislatures for most of history.  One house was population, the other equality for each county.  If we have this, both sides have say and won't dominate the process. 

Yes, I understand why it was done, but I'm asking why do rural areas deserve it? What properties do they have that entitles them to extra representation? Black and white people also have different concerns, but we don't give black people extra representation. Conservatives and liberals, men and women, we can divide the country in many different ways. Why population density?

Some states do in Academia.

[Idaho Conservative]

I really wish we could overturn Reynold v Simms and restore state senates to their original intents.

Yeah, we know you hate representative democracy.

No, I just believe stare legislatures should be drawn like the federal congress.  State House is by population, State Senate gives each county 1 senator.  Like how the US Senate gives 2 senators per state.  This system would prevent rural or urban interests from dominating.

Are you kidding? With this kind of systems the rural interests will always dominate.
Not to mention that bicameralism is a sh**tty system in general.

Incorrect, rural interests would only control one house.  The lower house would be population based.  If you are still confused, see the US House and Senate.

Why do rural areas/states, where far far less people live, deserve to have equal representation to urban areas?

Because they have unique interests but due to lower populations have far less say.  This is the principle behind the great compromise.  You should've learned about it in 8th grade, but if not I'll explain.  Big states had bigger populations and wanted population based representation so they'd get more say.  Meanwhile, small states wanted equal representation because they would have no say if it was soley population based.  So, a compromise was made, one house would be population based and the other would have equal representation.  This ensured neither big OR small states would dominate.  The same was applied to state legislatures for most of history.  One house was population, the other equality for each county.  If we have this, both sides have say and won't dominate the process. 

Yes, I understand why it was done, but I'm asking why do rural areas deserve it? What properties do they have that entitles them to extra representation? Black and white people also have different concerns, but we don't give black people extra representation. Conservatives and liberals, men and women, we can divide the country in many different ways. Why population density?

because our system has single member dstricts, not PR.  But one part is false, non whites do get special VRA districts.