Illinois-14

[Verily]

This is amusing on several different levels. Still, the seat won't stay Democrat for more than a couple of years at best.

The district is trending Democratic, and if Foster, Roskam, and Biggert all survive through the 2010 election, the legislature will probably make this district safer for Foster while shifting the rural and some of the more Republican exurbs elsewhere. It has enough of a Democratic base in the eastern end to provide the building blocks for a swing district rather than a Republican one.

The problem for Dem mapmakers is that this Nov they may have a wealth of riches in the suburbs if Bean, Foster, and Halvorson (CD-11) are all in. The region will likely lose a seat, and if CD-11 and 14 had been GOP then it would have been a straightforward task to combine them and cut them up so that both CD-8 and CD-14 were better for Dems, CD-10 shifted more D, while CD-6 and 13 in the suburbs became safer R. That could be a real problem in 2011 if the three seats are all in Dem hands.

I agree.  Of course, I would posit that (even with the Illinois GOP), there's a fairly decent chance that one of the three (most likely Foster) gets taken out in 2010 (by muon2!), which clears the problem up.  Especially if there's a D President.

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering; only with this victory did the Democrats take control of the Illinois delegation.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

This is amusing on several different levels. Still, the seat won't stay Democrat for more than a couple of years at best.

The district is trending Democratic, and if Foster, Roskam, and Biggert all survive through the 2010 election, the legislature will probably make this district safer for Foster while shifting the rural and some of the more Republican exurbs elsewhere. It has enough of a Democratic base in the eastern end to provide the building blocks for a swing district rather than a Republican one.

The problem for Dem mapmakers is that this Nov they may have a wealth of riches in the suburbs if Bean, Foster, and Halvorson (CD-11) are all in. The region will likely lose a seat, and if CD-11 and 14 had been GOP then it would have been a straightforward task to combine them and cut them up so that both CD-8 and CD-14 were better for Dems, CD-10 shifted more D, while CD-6 and 13 in the suburbs became safer R. That could be a real problem in 2011 if the three seats are all in Dem hands.

I agree.  Of course, I would posit that (even with the Illinois GOP), there's a fairly decent chance that one of the three (most likely Foster) gets taken out in 2010 (by muon2!), which clears the problem up.  Especially if there's a D President.

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering; only with this victory did the Democrats take control of the Illinois delegation.

Not to mention the 2000 redistricting was a bipartisan incumbent protection scheme -- at the time, Republicans controlled the State Senate and the governor's mansion, where Democrats only controlled the House.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering;

The trouble with gerrymandering is that it can all go horribly wrong if you get greedy.

[MarkWarner08]

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering;

The trouble with gerrymandering is that it can all go horribly wrong if you get greedy.

That's the Pennsylvania model.

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

[Verily]

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering;

The trouble with gerrymandering is that it can all go horribly wrong if you get greedy.

True, but gerrymandering to retain mere control of a delegation in a state which leans heavily to your party is not dangerous in the least.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Also, if Obama wins, I can't see the Illinois Democrats appointing anyone to that seat other than your normal Cook County politician (i.e. hack).  A moderate like Melissa Bean?  I don't think so.

I know.  I suppose there will be some pressure to appoint another Black to the seat like Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.  Or I could see Reps. Jan Schakowsky or Rahm Emmanuel being chosen.  Of course there are statewide officials as well. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

Slightly misleading; Ney would have lost if he'd stood again (and might actually have lost even if he'd not been politically killed by scandal; 2006 was brutal for the GOP in districts like his), while Chabot holding on had little to do with gerrymandering. The "brilliant" gerrymandering is mainly around Columbus and also Dayton.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's plenty of room for gerrymandering;

The trouble with gerrymandering is that it can all go horribly wrong if you get greedy.

True, but gerrymandering to retain mere control of a delegation in a state which leans heavily to your party is not dangerous in the least.

The trouble with that part of the state is that the machine in Chicago is perhaps a little unlikely to allow its clout to be diluted in order to save some suburban marginals.

[MarkWarner08]

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

Slightly misleading; Ney would have lost if he'd stood again (and might actually have lost even if he'd not been politically killed by scandal; 2006 was brutal for the GOP in districts like his), while Chabot holding on had little to do with gerrymandering. The "brilliant" gerrymandering is mainly around Columbus and also Dayton.

Good point about the Columbus and Dayton area gerrymandering.

I doubt Ney would've lost if hadn't been involved in the Abramoff scandal. Space was a dismal candidate who probably couldn't have won in anything but the most optimum of conditions.

Chabot most certainly won because of gerrymandering. The Republican redistricting plan split the Democratic base in Cincy, effectively putting OH-01 and OH-02 out of play. If the pre-2002 lines had been in place, Cranley would likely have narrowly defeated Chabot.

[Brittain33]

True, but gerrymandering to retain mere control of a delegation in a state which leans heavily to your party is not dangerous in the least.

Excellent point.

This is why gerrymandering to protect Bean is dicey--that district is too Republican--but redistricting in suburbs that are historically republican but trending Democrat (DuPage, Kane, Will County) is more likely to succeed in the long run.

[Adlai Stevenson]

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

Slightly misleading; Ney would have lost if he'd stood again (and might actually have lost even if he'd not been politically killed by scandal; 2006 was brutal for the GOP in districts like his), while Chabot holding on had little to do with gerrymandering. The "brilliant" gerrymandering is mainly around Columbus and also Dayton.

Good point about the Columbus and Dayton area gerrymandering.

I doubt Ney would've lost if hadn't been involved in the Abramoff scandal. Space was a dismal candidate who probably couldn't have won in anything but the most optimum of conditions.

Chabot most certainly won because of gerrymandering. The Republican redistricting plan split the Democratic base in Cincy, effectively putting OH-01 and OH-02 out of play. If the pre-2002 lines had been in place, Cranley would likely have narrowly defeated Chabot.

Yet OH-18 is ancestrally Democratic and a candidate like Space did very well getting 62% of the vote there.  Of course, the dynamics of 2006 and Joy Padgett's poor candidacy had something to do with it but I should think Space is pretty well-favoured to retain the seat.  People who are elected to their first term with over 60% of the vote aren't generally that endangered the following election. 

[Padfoot]

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

Slightly misleading; Ney would have lost if he'd stood again (and might actually have lost even if he'd not been politically killed by scandal; 2006 was brutal for the GOP in districts like his), while Chabot holding on had little to do with gerrymandering. The "brilliant" gerrymandering is mainly around Columbus and also Dayton.

Good point about the Columbus and Dayton area gerrymandering.

I doubt Ney would've lost if hadn't been involved in the Abramoff scandal. Space was a dismal candidate who probably couldn't have won in anything but the most optimum of conditions.

Chabot most certainly won because of gerrymandering. The Republican redistricting plan split the Democratic base in Cincy, effectively putting OH-01 and OH-02 out of play. If the pre-2002 lines had been in place, Cranley would likely have narrowly defeated Chabot.

Yet OH-18 is ancestrally Democratic and a candidate like Space did very well getting 62% of the vote there.  Of course, the dynamics of 2006 and Joy Padgett's poor candidacy had something to do with it but I should think Space is pretty well-favoured to retain the seat.  People who are elected to their first term with over 60% of the vote aren't generally that endangered the following election. 

Another point about OH-18 is that it is located in an area where both Sen. Brown and Gov. Strickland campaigned heavily and won handily.  Their coattails should not be ignored when examining Space's large margin.  He's probably not going to break 60% this year.

[Adlai Stevenson]

However, the current Ohio gerrymandering plan is brilliant. Losing no incumbents in the worst year for the Ohio GOP in three decades was a testament  to the strength of that plan.

Slightly misleading; Ney would have lost if he'd stood again (and might actually have lost even if he'd not been politically killed by scandal; 2006 was brutal for the GOP in districts like his), while Chabot holding on had little to do with gerrymandering. The "brilliant" gerrymandering is mainly around Columbus and also Dayton.

Good point about the Columbus and Dayton area gerrymandering.

I doubt Ney would've lost if hadn't been involved in the Abramoff scandal. Space was a dismal candidate who probably couldn't have won in anything but the most optimum of conditions.

Chabot most certainly won because of gerrymandering. The Republican redistricting plan split the Democratic base in Cincy, effectively putting OH-01 and OH-02 out of play. If the pre-2002 lines had been in place, Cranley would likely have narrowly defeated Chabot.

Yet OH-18 is ancestrally Democratic and a candidate like Space did very well getting 62% of the vote there.  Of course, the dynamics of 2006 and Joy Padgett's poor candidacy had something to do with it but I should think Space is pretty well-favoured to retain the seat.  People who are elected to their first term with over 60% of the vote aren't generally that endangered the following election. 

Another point about OH-18 is that it is located in an area where both Sen. Brown and Gov. Strickland campaigned heavily and won handily.  Their coattails should not be ignored when examining Space's large margin.  He's probably not going to break 60% this year.

I agree with you, but I doubt Space goes below say 55%-45%.  Bush carried this District 57%-43% in 2004, so its virtually the same as his margin in West Virginia.  I should think Clinton would either win or come close enough to give Space a free pass.  With Obama on the ticket, OH-18 will probably be won by McCain by a handy margin but I doubt it will gave Space any trouble.

[StateBoiler]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

[Adlai Stevenson]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

[Joe Republic]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

South Dakota at-large in 2004.  Only a few months after the time before, which was KY-06.

[Meeker]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

South Dakota at-large in 2004.  Only a few months after the time before, which was KY-06.

[Brittain33]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

South Dakota at-large in 2004.  Only a few months after the time before, which was KY-06.

Before that, VA-04, which was the first time a special election had flipped a seat in the President's favor in quite some time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

And seeing as the previous Rep there was Silvio Conte (RIP), how much of a switch was that anyway...

[Mr.Phips]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

[Adlai Stevenson]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

You can say that now but John Olver won only 50%-48% to become the first Democrat to represent MA-1 since the Spanish-American War.  Reagan also beat Mondale 51%-49% here in 1984.

[Sam Spade]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

You can say that now but John Olver won only 50%-48% to become the first Democrat to represent MA-1 since the Spanish-American War.  Reagan also beat Mondale 51%-49% here in 1984.

Reagan won a lot of those districts populated by "Reagan Democrats". 

[Adlai Stevenson]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

You can say that now but John Olver won only 50%-48% to become the first Democrat to represent MA-1 since the Spanish-American War.  Reagan also beat Mondale 51%-49% here in 1984.

Reagan won a lot of those districts populated by "Reagan Democrats". 

Yeah and it was close enough.  I assume Dukakis narrowly defeated Bush here in 1988 but don't have the Almanac of American Politics 1990 to prove it...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

You can say that now but John Olver won only 50%-48% to become the first Democrat to represent MA-1 since the Spanish-American War.  Reagan also beat Mondale 51%-49% here in 1984.

Yeah, but the previous Rep. was Silvio Conte; a true RINO and a friend of Tip O'Neill.

[Mr.Phips]

When was the last time we had a special election where the winning party switched?

MA-1 in 1991 from Republican to Democrat?  I know that is almost 20 years ago so there must be an earlier example but I'm struggling to think of it. 

Dukakis beat Bush here 58%-41% in 1988, one of his best districts in the state. 

That district was so Democratic that I have a hard time counting that. 

You can say that now but John Olver won only 50%-48% to become the first Democrat to represent MA-1 since the Spanish-American War.  Reagan also beat Mondale 51%-49% here in 1984.

Reagan won a lot of those districts populated by "Reagan Democrats". 

Yeah and it was close enough.  I assume Dukakis narrowly defeated Bush here in 1988 but don't the Almanac of American Politics 1990 to prove it...