Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on December 21, 2010, 01:35:23 PM Redistricting New York just became a whole lot more fun.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on December 21, 2010, 01:38:35 PM Redistricting New York just became a whole lot more fun. It'll probably be some annoying incumbent protection plan thingy, though. The districts will be removed from the obvious places, the other question, not mentioned above, is exactly how west NY will be dealt with. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on December 21, 2010, 01:49:56 PM Redistricting New York just became a whole lot more fun. It'll probably be some annoying incumbent protection plan thingy, though. The districts will be removed from the obvious places, the other question, not mentioned above, is exactly how west NY will be dealt with. They would probably eliminate NY-25, no? And keep the rest of the Republican districts leaning Republican, but gettable for Democrats in return for concessions on the state maps? Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2010, 02:00:57 PM From a map drawing aesthetics perspective, it should be Engel in NY-17. His district is the ugliest (other than Velasquez' NY-12, which won't be axed due to racial reasons). There's no reason at all why the Bronx should share a district with Rockland County. I wonder what happens to underpopulated Long Island and city districts if both districts eliminated start with the Bronx and head north, which is also what happened in 2002. I think they have to axe a district more deeply enmeshed in the city than Engel's in order for it to pencil out. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: RBH on December 21, 2010, 02:05:07 PM From a map drawing aesthetics perspective, it should be Engel in NY-17. His district is the ugliest (other than Velasquez' NY-12, which won't be axed due to racial reasons). There's no reason at all why the Bronx should share a district with Rockland County. Obviously, the other dead district is going to have to come from Upstate. NY-23 is probably most vulnerable to being carved up due to likely population loss and the sheer size of it. It'd take a special election and a happier Grisanti to get a better Senate for those lines. NY23 is a hard one to handle since I think every district bordering NY23 is now Republican and that Democratic vote from Owens base would make him formidable. Especially since the votes don't exist to totally carve the district. Wonder how the dynamic would change if Slaughter retired, her district got distributed. How much would more Rochester wound one of the newer Republicans? Plus Chris Lee lives in Erie so some of that county will not be in Higgins district. I don't think any of the upstate freshman Republicans are necessarily in a good spot right now because I don't recall any of them having elected state government experience and the map is probably either a compromise or court-drawn Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on December 21, 2010, 02:08:03 PM From a map drawing aesthetics perspective, it should be Engel in NY-17. His district is the ugliest (other than Velasquez' NY-12, which won't be axed due to racial reasons). There's no reason at all why the Bronx should share a district with Rockland County. Obviously, the other dead district is going to have to come from Upstate. NY-23 is probably most vulnerable to being carved up due to likely population loss and the sheer size of it. It'd take a special election and a happier Grisanti to get a better Senate for those lines. NY23 is a hard one to handle since I think every district bordering NY23 is now Republican and that Democratic vote from Owens base would make him formidable. Especially since the votes don't exist to totally carve the district. Wonder how the dynamic would change if Slaughter retired, her district got distributed. How much would more Rochester wound one of the newer Republicans? Plus Chris Lee lives in Erie so some of that county will not be in Higgins district. I don't think any of the upstate freshman Republicans are necessarily in a good spot right now because I don't recall any of them having elected state government experience and the map is probably either a compromise or court-drawn This is the reason why I said the mess probably has to be sorted out in west NY. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2010, 02:18:25 PM From a map drawing aesthetics perspective, it should be Engel in NY-17. His district is the ugliest (other than Velasquez' NY-12, which won't be axed due to racial reasons). There's no reason at all why the Bronx should share a district with Rockland County. I wonder what happens to underpopulated Long Island and city districts if both districts eliminated start with the Bronx and head north, which is also what happened in 2002. I think they have to axe a district more deeply enmeshed in the city than Engel's in order for it to pencil out. Pushing another Bronx district into lower Westchester only should handle that, I'd think. I think NY-23 is either going to have to be carved up or take on a significant population base outside of the North Country. I'm almost certain it has significantly lost population in the past decade - even more so if the prisons are no longer counted (which they can't be for state apportionment purposes due to a new law, though I'm not sure how that affects the federal apportionment). In any event, I don't see it existing in its current form. It either has to become more Albany-centric or more Utica/Syracuse-centric. The latter is more likely - though carving it in half and giving half to NY-20 and half to the Central NY districts can't be out of the question. IIRC, Owens lives in the eastern part of the district. NY-20 could be made more Democratic by putting the three eastern counties in it. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: RBH on December 21, 2010, 02:31:26 PM It seems like an unlikely compromise for NYC Assembly Dems to agree to give up 2 seats. I could see them giving up an NYC seat ("Hey, want to be mayor Eliot?") in exchange for seriously hurting the re-election prospects of one of the upstate Republican freshmen.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on December 21, 2010, 02:35:55 PM Giving up 2 Democratic seats would be ridiculous, though if any party is capable of failing so hard, it's the Democrats.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2010, 03:02:53 PM It seems like an unlikely compromise for NYC Assembly Dems to agree to give up 2 seats. I could see them giving up an NYC seat ("Hey, want to be mayor Eliot?") in exchange for seriously hurting the re-election prospects of one of the upstate Republican freshmen. It's kind of hard not to give up seats when you overwhelmingly control the state Congressional delegation 21-8. Which Republicans are you going to pit against each other? Only NY-19/20 and the NY-24/25/26/29 combo are contiguous. NY-19/20 is probably out of the question because the Hudson Valley is at least growing (though moving boundaries to include more Democratic-leaning areas isn't out of the question). And if you do combine two of the NY-24/25/26/29 combo, what effect would that have on the rest of the Upstate map? Locking in the remaining Republicans? Remember - Democrats held some of those seats this decade. If you try to take out Peter King on LI, the Democrat he faces would be in for a tough fight. I suppose NY-13 could take on parts of Manhattan instead of Brooklyn, making it more Democratic-leaning if Democrats really wanted to - but Staten Island is growing and that district would be impossible to abolish. I don't think a properly carved and redrawn NY-23 would be a Democratic loss. It could actually make Owens safe, if done right. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2010, 03:35:17 PM It's kind of hard not to give up seats when you overwhelmingly control the state Congressional delegation 21-8. An alternative way to look at is a downstate delegation of 19 districts that loses a seat plus an upstate delegation of 10 districts that loses a seat. The population loss neatly divides along those lines. The upstate delegation is 5-5. The downstate delegation is 16-3. Since the downstate delegation almost certainly must sacrifice a Democrat, it stands to reason that evenly divided upstate can and should sacrifice a Republican. There are multiple ways this can be done successfully, although NY-23 as it stands is not so much as a lean-D district and would need shoring up to be counted as a D district. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2010, 04:04:07 PM It's kind of hard not to give up seats when you overwhelmingly control the state Congressional delegation 21-8. An alternative way to look at is a downstate delegation of 19 districts that loses a seat plus an upstate delegation of 10 districts that loses a seat. The population loss neatly divides along those lines. The upstate delegation is 5-5. The downstate delegation is 16-3. Since the downstate delegation almost certainly must sacrifice a Democrat, it stands to reason that evenly divided upstate can and should sacrifice a Republican. There are multiple ways this can be done successfully, although NY-23 as it stands is not so much as a lean-D district and would need shoring up to be counted as a D district. If you want to look at things that way, Upstate Democrats have a choice - kill off a Republican and lose 3, if not all 4 of the remaining Republican-leaning districts for the decade or sacrifice one of their own and have a good chance of picking up 7 or even 8 of the remaining 9 Upstate seats in a good cycle. Politicians being politicians would prefer the former. But the latter may leave Democrats in a better position, particularly if Louise Slaughter were convinced to retire and her D+15 district used to make a redrawn NY-25 and NY-26 off limits to Republicans except in the very best of cycles. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2010, 04:12:26 PM Gotcha. I think they'd be foolish not to let the Republicans have 3-4 reasonably safe districts: two based on NY-24/26/29, and one roughly corresponding to NY-20. The lifespan of the '06-'08 Dem pickups is too sobering to ignore. Not sure what happens exactly with NY-25 and NY-23 but neither one is close to secure for the party currently holding it. I think politicians are concerned enough with their own careers that they'd be happy to do that to make their own districts safer.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 21, 2010, 05:55:41 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying.
So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on December 21, 2010, 06:10:01 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. I doubt the GOP will try that. Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander. If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: RBH on December 21, 2010, 06:10:35 PM and if the NYS Senate holds the Congressional Map hostage, the NYS Assembly can just shut down the NYS Senate redistricting map.
The New York State Senate is ridiculously gerrymandered: http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/propsen/fsnys.pdf So if they want to save a few House Seats at the expense of their Senate Majority, that's their problem. Granted, they can't count the prison population in their districts anymore, so that'll hurt them. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on December 21, 2010, 06:16:51 PM Given the history of NY, both parties will work out their gerrymanders with each other just fine, so I wouldn't exactly expect the giant conflict mentioned.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2010, 09:41:44 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals What sordid little district deals in NYC? I really don't see this. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 21, 2010, 10:05:42 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals What sordid little district deals in NYC? I really don't see this. The Dems would lose the ability to carve up the Dem seats (and who gets knocked out) in NYC and environs in a way that suits them, and would lose Hinchey (his district is ludicrously erose), whom the Assembly Speaker has a crush on, for some inexplicable reason. Is that really all worth just one seat for them? Are they really that desperate to reduce the GOP NY delegation from 8 to 7, in order to have the court mess with their 18 seats remaining seats ? I suspect not. The GOP should play the tractor game. If nothing else, it would be fun to watch. Last time, the parties did deadlock, and after they saw the court map, they then cut a deal, making safe those who felt too exposed per the court map, and so that Assembly Speaker Silver could keep his pet Hinchey ensconced in a snake district. Hinchey despite that did not win by much this time. So call it the Hinchey card if you want that will be played, along with the other concern about losing the ability to carve up the Dem spoils, that I think the Dems would have. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 21, 2010, 10:08:22 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. I doubt the GOP will try that. Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander. If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines. Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson? Why didn't that happen in 2001? Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on December 21, 2010, 10:14:50 PM Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson? Why didn't that happen in 2001? Torie, New York is about many different moving gears. In 2001, you had Assembly Democrats, Senate Republicans, and a Republican Governor. They were free to strike a deal that would disadvantage the other gears on the board. In 2010, there's enough of a redistricting reform force at work that nothing outrageously crazy gerrymander-wise is going to be passed (outside of what already exists). The New York Republicans don't have very solid control over the Senate either, so their own piece on the board is weak. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on December 21, 2010, 10:21:57 PM I am sure the Democrats can work out a deal with some Senate Republicans. They get safe seats in exchange for gerrymandered congressional and assembly maps.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on December 21, 2010, 10:22:36 PM So who is the biggest loser of today's numbers? I nominate Russ Carnahan. Some NYC area Dem rep is also royally f-ed today. Which one do you think it will be? Most likely Ackerman, Maloney or Crowley, based on previous talk. You think the chairman of the Queens Democratic Party could be chopped? Crowley isn't exactly on a low, having Liu on the upswing and knocking out Padavan. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 21, 2010, 10:24:25 PM I know I seem obnoxious, opining about NY, when we have some experts here on NY. We shall see. It should be fun.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 21, 2010, 11:23:47 PM Obviously a Republican seat upstate needs to go. Slaughter's district is already a ridiculous pack to waste Democratic votes. It's basically downtown Buffalo and downtown Rochester.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on December 22, 2010, 03:32:19 AM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. I doubt the GOP will try that. Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander. If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines. Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson? Why didn't that happen in 2001? The Dems have a massive advantage in the Assembly, even if the Assembly districts are drawn by the courts they will still have a massive advantage. The GOP would have more to lose by bringing it to the courts, it would result in a Permanent Dem Majority in the Senate and a diminished but still massive Dem majority in the Assembly. Due to the GOP's minimal advantage in the State Senate which is heavily gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, they really have no leverage to take it to the courts. My guess is each side loses a Congressional seat, the rest is something similar to the Incumbent Protection, GOP gets to draw the Senate, Dems the Assembly. That is probably the best the GOP can hope for Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 22, 2010, 07:25:57 AM Torie, the Republicans don't want Hinchey's district carved up. Look at where Ithaca and Binghamton go (students up the wazoo and the people who love them) if that district goes.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 22, 2010, 08:23:10 AM It's pretty easy to carve up one district held by a Republican and make all the remaining upstate districts pretty safe for their current occupant. I just did a map of upstate New York that eliminates NY-20 and makes every district except for NY-23 pretty safe (my definition of "pretty safe" is at least 59% Obama for the Dems, and at least a 5-point McCain margin for the Republicans), NY-23 being 54-45 Obama.
Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 22, 2010, 08:59:30 AM Torie, the scenario you describe happened in 2002 when there was a split legislature and a Republican governor. The congressional maps went to a judge or special master and the results were so disruptive to Republican incumbents that both sides freaked out and worked out an incumbent protection compromise that froze a Republican advantage in western NY and a Democratic advantage on LI. Republicans have more to lose than Democrats if it goes to the courts.
I also don't think there's much discipline of any type, party or moral, in the New York State Senate to count on. I wouldn't expect them to save the national GOP's bacon on this map any more than the Virginia Senate Democrats are going to use their leverage to upend the table in that state and force the Republicans to unpack the old gerrymander, or that Jan Schakowsky is going to torpedo a Dem gerrymander in Illinois because she would fight tooth and nail any watering down her district. It's a pipe dream. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 22, 2010, 12:08:32 PM I wrote the other day, if Democrats want to play hardball they must go to Grisanti and give him what he wants (a safe seat, a job in Cuomo's administration) just to vote with them on redistricting.
Also, if the courts draw the districts then it's almost certain that New York will be this decade's Texas. We'll just have to wait and see who will be the Democrats' Tom DeLay. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 22, 2010, 04:01:46 PM Torie, the Republicans don't want Hinchey's district carved up. Look at where Ithaca and Binghamton go (students up the wazoo and the people who love them) if that district goes. Ithaca could be appended to Rochester. As to a court drawing, it would be fun to see if the court map could be found on the internet. I don't recall it put any upstate Pubbie at any great risk, irrespective of where Ithaca was. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on December 22, 2010, 04:33:25 PM Torie, about NY, you need to understand that both sides will always work with each other to effect resolution that keeps the politicians'/government's/corporate interests' power and screws the people (not to mention the party activists on both sides).
The GOP has always worked with the Dems in order to protect their interests and will naturally give up other things to ensure that the present situation is preserved as much as possible. The fight will never happen on these issues. It may, for once, occur in other places, once the new session starts. But don't bet on it. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 22, 2010, 05:11:37 PM Ithaca could be appended to Rochester. As to a court drawing, it would be fun to see if the court map could be found on the internet. I don't recall it put any upstate Pubbie at any great risk, irrespective of where Ithaca was. As I recall, it shifted everyone around greatly in a counter-clockwise fashion. Sue Kelly's district looked more like Tom Sweeney's district and stretched up the eastern side of the state. Sweeney's district was half his, half McHugh's. I don't know who was put at risk other than that there was extensive change for change's sake without regard for the prior map. No incumbent likes that. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 22, 2010, 05:14:08 PM Torie, the Republicans don't want Hinchey's district carved up. Look at where Ithaca and Binghamton go (students up the wazoo and the people who love them) if that district goes. Ithaca could be appended to Rochester. It could be in a Republican gerrymander, but if we're talking a court-drawn map where Hinchey's district is broken up, it's more likely to go in with Syracuse, or both Ithaca and Binghamton thrown in with Elmira and points west in a revised and renumbered NY-29. Or maybe they shift the liberal hellmouth and NY-24 to the Dems, I think right now that district encircles the town of Ithaca. Reed's district could probably take that and stay R--Buerkle's couldn't--but neither rep would want to. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on December 23, 2010, 04:52:44 AM It could be in a Republican gerrymander, but if we're talking a court-drawn map where Hinchey's district is broken up, it's more likely to go in with Syracuse, or both Ithaca and Binghamton thrown in with Elmira and points west in a revised and renumbered NY-29. Or maybe they shift the liberal hellmouth and NY-24 to the Dems, I think right now that district encircles the town of Ithaca. Reed's district could probably take that and stay R--Buerkle's couldn't--but neither rep would want to. Have you ever tried to draw a district with Elmira, Ithaca, Binghamton and points west in it? It's an interesting experiment, given New York's shape. Normally, I start from the corners. New York's shape almost compels it, which usually ends up with Elmira and Binghamton in separate districts. But if you just draw Upstate without worrying about Downstate, it makes things easier because you don't have to worry about the Bronx-Westchester bottleneck. Leave out Orange County and points south, but keep all of Dutchess County except the area immediately surrounding Beacon. That will allow you to draw 9 districts on a 27 district map. If you assume a court will try to respect county and city lines to the extent possible, putting Binghamton, Elmira, Ithaca and their respective counties together in a district stretching from Stueben to Delaware Counties ends up throwing the Rochester and Syracuse suburbs together and ultimately ends up putting the city of Syracuse in another district, probably with Utica, possibly with the North Country, depending on how you want to draw things. Monroe County pretty much gets its own district and Erie County a whole district plus a fraction. Title: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 23, 2010, 05:10:16 AM NY-26 and NY-29 should be merged to create one ultra Republican district. Meanwhile Slaughter's ultra-Democratic NY-28 can afford to take on some more Republicans. It's only fair.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: dpmapper on December 23, 2010, 08:43:36 AM It's kind of hard not to give up seats when you overwhelmingly control the state Congressional delegation 21-8. An alternative way to look at is a downstate delegation of 19 districts that loses a seat plus an upstate delegation of 10 districts that loses a seat. The population loss neatly divides along those lines. The upstate delegation is 5-5. The downstate delegation is 16-3. Since the downstate delegation almost certainly must sacrifice a Democrat, it stands to reason that evenly divided upstate can and should sacrifice a Republican. There are multiple ways this can be done successfully, although NY-23 as it stands is not so much as a lean-D district and would need shoring up to be counted as a D district. NY-26 and NY-29 should be merged to create one ultra Republican district. Meanwhile Slaughter's ultra-Democratic NY-28 can afford to take on some more Republicans. It's only fair. It's interesting how you Dems believe that 'fairness' compels those who have more to give up proportionally more when it comes to taxes, but not when it comes to districts. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on December 23, 2010, 09:16:53 AM Thank you to the moderators for your extensive clean-up of the mess I helped make last night, including the duplicate NJ threads. I woke up this morning thinking how helpful it would be if the NY discussion were hived off.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 01, 2011, 10:42:10 PM Is this the decade they finally chop Staten Island in half?
You can turn the 13th into a 60% McCain district by ditching the areas along Northern Staten Island to the 8th and picking up all the bloodred territory in Queens. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 01, 2011, 11:44:18 PM Is this the decade they finally chop Staten Island in half? You can turn the 13th into a 60% McCain district by ditching the areas along Northern Staten Island to the 8th and picking up all the bloodred territory in Queens. Its possible if a pro-incumbent gerrymander is in order. Are you sure about those numbers, though? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 01, 2011, 11:49:54 PM Is this the decade they finally chop Staten Island in half? You can turn the 13th into a 60% McCain district by ditching the areas along Northern Staten Island to the 8th and picking up all the bloodred territory in Queens. Its possible if a pro-incumbent gerrymander is in order. Are you sure about those numbers, though? He means Brooklyn - but the numbers sound right. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 02, 2011, 12:32:23 AM Is this the decade they finally chop Staten Island in half? You can turn the 13th into a 60% McCain district by ditching the areas along Northern Staten Island to the 8th and picking up all the bloodred territory in Queens. Its possible if a pro-incumbent gerrymander is in order. Are you sure about those numbers, though? If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases? He means Brooklyn - but the numbers sound right. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 02, 2011, 12:41:18 AM If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases? I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman. It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger. Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway. Looking upstate - it could really be anyone. Probably depends on who the establishment likes least. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 02, 2011, 10:03:12 AM If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases? I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman. It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger. Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway. Looking upstate - it could really be anyone. Probably depends on who the establishment likes least. If its Ackerman, I would guess that Weiner would take over a lot of that district. Much of the Brooklyn area of his CD 9 will be needed to expand 13 and the three black districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 02, 2011, 08:47:52 PM ()
My map. Slim chance of this happening I think, but I kind of like it because it is kind of clean.: Red CD-4 (McCarthy) - This district barely goes into Queens. Slate Green CD-6 (Meeks) - Majority AA district located in Queens. Grey CD-7 (Ackerman, Crowley, Weiner) - Majority white district in Queens meant for Crowley, who I believe is a lot better liked than the other 2. Purple CD-8 (Nadler) - Staten Island, South Brooklyn, Wall Street. He's probably not going to like it though. Light Blue CD-9 (open) - New majority Hispanic district located in Queens/Bronx. Pink CD-10 (Towns) - Majority AA district located in Brooklyn/Queens. Lime Green CD-11 (Clarke) - Majority AA district located in Brooklyn. Blue CD-12 (Velasqeuz) - Majority Hispanic district located in Brooklyn/Manhattan/Queens Peach CD-13 (Grimm) - All the Republicans go here. 63% McCain. Gold CD-14 (Maloney) - Midtown Manhattan district. Orange CD-15 (Rangel) - Harlem based Manhattan district. Bright Green CD-16 (Serrano) - Majority Hispanic district in the Bronx. Dark Purple CD-17 (Engel) - The crossover district that goes into Westchester, although not too much. Most population is located in the Bronx. 31% White, 34% AA. The 5th gets obliterated. Beyond that, upstate, I gave safe districts to Lee and Reed. Hanna and Gibson were merged, while Buerkle got a torrid Syracuse to Ithaca district. I call that one the college towns. Hayworth gets an ugly gerryandered 53% McCain mess that dips into Yonkers. Bill Owens gets about what he has. Overall, upstate ends up being 6-5-1, with the 1 being Owens's 23rd. Long Island, not much to say. Find all the Republican areas and give them to Peter King. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 03, 2011, 12:47:27 AM Here's one way to create an incumbent protection map for the downstate area. I assumed that downstate a D district is eliminated while upstate an R seat will go. I think I was able to find home locations for the incumbents, so let me know if I missed one. Here Ackerman and Weiner are placed together in the new CD 5. I also took the liberty of renumbering a couple of districts to better reflect the general pattern of increasing numbers from SE to NW.
() CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% CD 5 (yellow, Ackerman D, Weiner D): White 52%, Asian 20%, Hispanic 18%; Obama 64% CD 6 (teal, Meeks D): Black 52%, Hispanic 16%, White 16%; Obama 84% CD 7 (grey, Crowley D): White 35%, Hispanic 30%, Asian 20%; Obama 74% CD 8 (slate, Nadler D): White 61%, Asian 21%; Obama 69% CD 9 (cyan, Grimm R): White 73%; McCain 54% CD 10 (pink, Towns D): Black 57%, White 23%; Obama 85% CD 11 (pale green, Clarke D): Black 54%, White 24%; Obama 92% CD 12 (sky, Velazquez D): Hispanic 61%; Obama 85% CD 13 (peach, Engel D): White 34%, Black 33%, Hispanic 26%; Obama 79% CD 14 (olive, Maloney D): White 71%; Obama 80% CD 15 (orange, Rangel D): Hispanic 46%, Black 28%, White 20%; Obama 93% CD 16 (lime, Serrano D): Hispanic 63%, Black 30%; Obama 95% Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on January 03, 2011, 12:58:09 PM The legendary Bay Ridge in Brooklyn just isn't as Pubbie as it used to be I guess, is it, Muon2?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on January 03, 2011, 11:23:36 PM Here's one way to create an incumbent protection map for the downstate area. I assumed that downstate a D district is eliminated while upstate an R seat will go. I think I was able to find home locations for the incumbents, so let me know if I missed one. Here Ackerman and Weiner are placed together in the new CD 5. I also took the liberty of renumbering a couple of districts to better reflect the general pattern of increasing numbers from SE to NW. () CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% CD 5 (yellow, Ackerman D, Weiner D): White 52%, Asian 20%, Hispanic 18%; Obama 64% CD 6 (teal, Meeks D): Black 52%, Hispanic 16%, White 16%; Obama 84% CD 7 (grey, Crowley D): White 35%, Hispanic 30%, Asian 20%; Obama 74% CD 8 (slate, Nadler D): White 61%, Asian 21%; Obama 69% CD 9 (cyan, Grimm R): White 73%; McCain 54% CD 10 (pink, Towns D): Black 57%, White 23%; Obama 85% CD 11 (pale green, Clarke D): Black 54%, White 24%; Obama 92% CD 12 (sky, Velazquez D): Hispanic 61%; Obama 85% CD 13 (peach, Engel D): White 34%, Black 33%, Hispanic 26%; Obama 79% CD 14 (olive, Maloney D): White 71%; Obama 80% CD 15 (orange, Rangel D): Hispanic 46%, Black 28%, White 20%; Obama 93% CD 16 (lime, Serrano D): Hispanic 63%, Black 30%; Obama 95% A couple years ago Ackerman moved to Roslyn Heights, so you would have him in McCarthy's district Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on January 04, 2011, 12:04:28 AM Smash, can you tell where that district ends? Is that a five towns cut off? Does that reach up to RVC?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on January 04, 2011, 02:21:55 AM Smash, can you tell where that district ends? Is that a five towns cut off? Does that reach up to RVC? It actually appears the five towns is split between three districts. Inwood thrown in with Meeks's district, Lawrence, Ceaderhurst and Woodmere in King's district, with Hewlett remaining in McCarthy's district. King's district also appears to take in the ultra orthodox precincts in Far Rockaway Queens along the border with Lawrence. Rockville Centre looks like it is in King's district as well, though it is hard to tell. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 04, 2011, 04:28:49 AM I'm not sure your changes to SE Brooklyn would be welcomed by local operatives or either of the two congressmen involved, Muon.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 04, 2011, 08:45:07 AM Here's one way to create an incumbent protection map for the downstate area. I assumed that downstate a D district is eliminated while upstate an R seat will go. I think I was able to find home locations for the incumbents, so let me know if I missed one. Here Ackerman and Weiner are placed together in the new CD 5. I also took the liberty of renumbering a couple of districts to better reflect the general pattern of increasing numbers from SE to NW. () CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% CD 5 (yellow, Ackerman D, Weiner D): White 52%, Asian 20%, Hispanic 18%; Obama 64% CD 6 (teal, Meeks D): Black 52%, Hispanic 16%, White 16%; Obama 84% CD 7 (grey, Crowley D): White 35%, Hispanic 30%, Asian 20%; Obama 74% CD 8 (slate, Nadler D): White 61%, Asian 21%; Obama 69% CD 9 (cyan, Grimm R): White 73%; McCain 54% CD 10 (pink, Towns D): Black 57%, White 23%; Obama 85% CD 11 (pale green, Clarke D): Black 54%, White 24%; Obama 92% CD 12 (sky, Velazquez D): Hispanic 61%; Obama 85% CD 13 (peach, Engel D): White 34%, Black 33%, Hispanic 26%; Obama 79% CD 14 (olive, Maloney D): White 71%; Obama 80% CD 15 (orange, Rangel D): Hispanic 46%, Black 28%, White 20%; Obama 93% CD 16 (lime, Serrano D): Hispanic 63%, Black 30%; Obama 95% A couple years ago Ackerman moved to Roslyn Heights, so you would have him in McCarthy's district Thanks, my info is clearly a couple of years old. In any case I was working from Sam's speculation that Ackerman would be most likely to retire if one rep was eliminated. If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases? I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman. It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger. Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway. Looking upstate - it could really be anyone. Probably depends on who the establishment likes least. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on January 04, 2011, 09:01:41 AM Long Island's population no longer supports 4 entire districts, so if 5 representatives now live on Long Island because Ackerman has moved to Nassau, one of them is almost certainly out of a seat barring extensive crossover into Queens that are not likely IMO.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 04, 2011, 09:10:35 AM I'm not sure your changes to SE Brooklyn would be welcomed by local operatives or either of the two congressmen involved, Muon. Brooklyn was one of the hardest areas on the map, and I suspect it will pose problems for the real mappers. I assume that I have to protect the minority districts of Velazquez, Town and Clarke, as well as maintain a black majority for Meeks in Queens. I started by drawing Velazquez's district which effectively creates a wall across the northern edge of Brooklyn. Then I started filling in the three black districts. The black districts all need a lot of extra population and the likely area comes from current CD 9 in SE Brooklyn. If CD 6 expands north instead of west to pick up the population, it's hard to maintain the black majority. CD 6 could push east into Nassau, and then force CD 4 to wrap around the north into Queens following the current CD 5, and allow CD 5 to follow the current path of CD 9 into SE Brooklyn. In any case, what's left must be divided by the Staten Island and Manhattan districts. There's any number of ways one can cut up SW Brooklyn between the two districts. So I picked one that wasn't too erose, but improved the Staten Island district's R performance. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 04, 2011, 09:17:41 AM Long Island's population no longer supports 4 entire districts, so if 5 representatives now live on Long Island because Ackerman has moved to Nassau, one of them is almost certainly out of a seat barring extensive crossover into Queens that are not likely IMO. True. The 2009 census estimates had Nassau plus Suffolk equal to 20 K less than 4/27 of the state's population. That's another reason to predict Ackerman's elimination in the remap. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 04, 2011, 09:37:58 AM I'm not sure your changes to SE Brooklyn would be welcomed by local operatives or either of the two congressmen involved, Muon. Brooklyn was one of the hardest areas on the map, and I suspect it will pose problems for the real mappers. I assume that I have to protect the minority districts of Velazquez, Town and Clarke, as well as maintain a black majority for Meeks in Queens. I started by drawing Velazquez's district which effectively creates a wall across the northern edge of Brooklyn. Then I started filling in the three black districts. The black districts all need a lot of extra population and the likely area comes from current CD 9 in SE Brooklyn. If CD 6 expands north instead of west to pick up the population, it's hard to maintain the black majority. CD 6 could push east into Nassau, and then force CD 4 to wrap around the north into Queens following the current CD 5, and allow CD 5 to follow the current path of CD 9 into SE Brooklyn. In any case, what's left must be divided by the Staten Island and Manhattan districts. There's any number of ways one can cut up SW Brooklyn between the two districts. So I picked one that wasn't too erose, but improved the Staten Island district's R performance. it should not be supposed that the Hasidic areas are safe for a Republican congressional candidate just because they are safe for a Republican presidential candidate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 04, 2011, 11:14:28 AM If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases? I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman. It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger. Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway. Looking upstate - it could really be anyone. Probably depends on who the establishment likes least. Upstate, it really makes sense for the GOP to axe Buerkle and that Dem leaning district. PVI of D+3. It seems like there's no point in the Slaughter earmuffs anymore. You can just expand Higgins into the western earmuff of Slaughter's district instead. Instead you get the new upgraded 2010 earmuffs that goes to from Rochester to Syracuse. Obama 67% or so. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on January 04, 2011, 12:10:57 PM Instead you get the new upgraded 2010 earmuffs that goes to from Rochester to Syracuse. Obama 67% or so. Why would Democrats agree to that? In 2002, you had the excuse of a Republican governor and the influence of the White House, and the district being eliminated downstate was Republican. This time, the Democrats have a stronger hand everywhere and are going to lose a seat downstate. I don't see why they'd agree to a Pennsymander-type Democratic district upstate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on January 04, 2011, 12:20:53 PM Instead you get the new upgraded 2010 earmuffs that goes to from Rochester to Syracuse. Obama 67% or so. Why would Democrats agree to that? In 2002, you had the excuse of a Republican governor and the influence of the White House, and the district being eliminated downstate was Republican. This time, the Democrats have a stronger hand everywhere and are going to lose a seat downstate. I don't see why they'd agree to a Pennsymander-type Democratic district upstate. Exactly. If Democrats are going to have a downstate district eliminated, they are going to want a Republican district eliminated upstate and a better district for Owens(possibly going into Syracuse). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 04, 2011, 01:02:33 PM Instead you get the new upgraded 2010 earmuffs that goes to from Rochester to Syracuse. Obama 67% or so. Why would Democrats agree to that? In 2002, you had the excuse of a Republican governor and the influence of the White House, and the district being eliminated downstate was Republican. This time, the Democrats have a stronger hand everywhere and are going to lose a seat downstate. I don't see why they'd agree to a Pennsymander-type Democratic district upstate. I don't know if they would go for that. The problem is giving Syracuse to Owens is just asking for him to be primaried. Of course, its possible nobody cares about him. Syracuse does have to be given to a Democrat, though. I see only 2 possibilities. To elaborate, right now, New York has 8 Republicans. Chopping it down to 7 means upstate has to go 6-5, and carving 5 Republican seats in upstate NY is rather tricky and does require some gerrymandering, imo. If the Democrats can force upstate to go 7-4 (which is in essence a 2 Republican loss), you do get cleaner lines. I can see how Reed, Lee, and Gibson survive. Hayworth needs some rough lines, but you can chop together a McCain district there. I think the Democrats are going to want to eliminate both Buerkle and Hanna while the GOP is going to want to give Hanna some place he can win. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 04, 2011, 08:37:51 PM Here's an attempt at a 6-5 map of upstate. It's hard.
() Higgins, NY-27 (Buffalo): 63% Obama Lee, NY-26 (Buffalo suburbs, Rochester suburbs, Southern Tier): 53% McCain Slaughter, NY-25 (Rochester, Rochester suburbs, Geneseo): 59% Obama Reed, NY-24 (Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain (Buerkle could try running in the primary here, too) Owens, NY-23 (Syracuse, Ithaca, Northern Tier): 62% Obama (Buerkle lives here but couldn't win it, and Owens might lose a primary) Hanna, NY-22 (Rome, Utica suburbs, Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain Tonko, NY-21 (Albany, Schenectady, Utica, random college towns, Hudson): 59% Obama Gibson, NY-20 (random rural places): 49% McCain, by about 1,500 votes Hinchey, NY-19 (Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Middletown, Beacon, Binghampton): 58% Obama Hayworth, NY-18 (New York exurbs): 52% McCain Lowey, NY-17 (Westchester, Spring Valley, Nyack): 64% Obama Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on January 04, 2011, 09:06:59 PM Good heavens. I take it those tentacles are motivated principally by the need to keep your 20th and 22nd from becoming too swingy, rather than a worry about the Dem percentage of the districts themselves?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 04, 2011, 11:05:30 PM Good heavens. I take it those tentacles are motivated principally by the need to keep your 20th and 22nd from becoming too swingy, rather than a worry about the Dem percentage of the districts themselves? Exactly. Syracuse and Ithaca have to go somewhere, but they're surrounded by GOP-held seats (and contained in a GOP seat in the case of Syracuse) at the moment. Because there are a bunch of rural counties that are only marginal to lean R, the really Democratic areas have to be isolated to create a 6-5 map. Which means the R to be eliminated has to be Buerkle (who lives in Syracuse) in any such situation). Alternatively, there could be an agreement to eliminate a different R seat while failing to shore up Buerkle, making the assumption that she will lose in the near future anyway. That allows the map to look much neater. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 04, 2011, 11:58:10 PM The problem is giving Syracuse to Owens is just asking for him to be primaried. Of course, its possible nobody cares about him. Owens can just move left like Gillibrand did. She went from the Blue Dogs to like the third or so most liberal member of the Senate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2011, 06:13:42 PM Here's an attempt at a 6-5 map of upstate. It's hard. () Higgins, NY-27 (Buffalo): 63% Obama Lee, NY-26 (Buffalo suburbs, Rochester suburbs, Southern Tier): 53% McCain Slaughter, NY-25 (Rochester, Rochester suburbs, Geneseo): 59% Obama Reed, NY-24 (Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain (Buerkle could try running in the primary here, too) Owens, NY-23 (Syracuse, Ithaca, Northern Tier): 62% Obama (Buerkle lives here but couldn't win it, and Owens might lose a primary) Hanna, NY-22 (Rome, Utica suburbs, Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain Tonko, NY-21 (Albany, Schenectady, Utica, random college towns, Hudson): 59% Obama Gibson, NY-20 (random rural places): 49% McCain, by about 1,500 votes Hinchey, NY-19 (Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Middletown, Beacon, Binghampton): 58% Obama Hayworth, NY-18 (New York exurbs): 52% McCain Lowey, NY-17 (Westchester, Spring Valley, Nyack): 64% Obama Yikes, that's ugly! I still think the Democrats' best Upstate plan is for Slaughter to retire (or face off against a Republican) and her heavily inefficient district be carved up and allocated to its neighbors, changing a potential 5-4 map into a 6-3 one. You kind of do that by separating urban Buffalo from Rochester in her district, but Buffalo and Rochester might have to be further carved up for that to work. Given that's never going to happen, my guess is Burkle will be the odd woman out as NY-23 takes on more of the Syracuse area to become more Democratic. I generally exclude the main NYC suburbs from my definition of Upstate, though the outer fringes in Dutchess, Ulster and Orange need to be thrown in to create 9 seats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on January 10, 2011, 11:39:00 AM So if one were going to draw 9 geographically logical districts in upstate it would be:
Buffalo-Niagara Falls (2 districts) Rochester Syracuse+ (Rome, Utica?) Albany-Schenectady-Troy-Saratoga (minus) The 4 rural districts would then be: South Tier - Finger Lakes, with perhaps some pieces extending up between Buffalo and Rochester or Rochester and Syracuse. It will be referred to as Southern Tier, but won't really be that. North Country, but extending south towards Albany, Utica, Rome, or Syracuse to get enough population. Mid Hudson, but extending north into the Albany area to make room for the final district. Binghamton-Ithaca plus wherever it can get enough population, so extending up into the Mohawk Valley or towards the Hudson and down the Delaware to keep it somewhat compact. Everything from Orange and Putnam south considered NYC suburban, with the exception of the part necessary to get enough population for 9 upstate districts? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 10, 2011, 02:21:17 PM The problem is giving Syracuse to Owens is just asking for him to be primaried. Of course, its possible nobody cares about him. Owens can just move left like Gillibrand did. She went from the Blue Dogs to like the third or so most liberal member of the Senate. I guess he could, but Gillibrand didn't have to run in a primary. She was appointed. Owens might ask for a 50/50 rural seat like he has now. In which case the map is still 6-5 (in terms of PVI) but with the Democrats holding 1 of the 5 Republican seats until Doug Hoffman stops running. That outcome probably works better for the Democrats, since its nets them 7 total upstate seats (Higgins, Slaughter, somenewdemfromSyracuse, Tonko, Hinchey, Lowery, Owens) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2011, 02:43:38 PM Owens didn't have a primary either; he was selected by the party to run in the 2009 special. He was even a registered independent at the time.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 10, 2011, 07:47:20 PM That's a bit silly to assume Owens would have a primary and would want a more Republican district. It's almost always easier for an incumbent to win a primary than a general election (with some recent exceptions like Murkowski). What, six House Democrats in New York lost their general election contests in 2010? How many lost primaries?
He voted for health care reform and is in no way despised by liberals. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 11, 2011, 12:36:05 AM He did something pretty stupid by mentioning that he might vote for Boehner after the election. But he ended up voting for Pelosi anyway which should make that a moot issue. What I don't get is why'd he even mention that, it's obvious he was never planning on voting for anyone besides Pelosi.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 11, 2011, 01:09:11 AM it's obvious he was never planning on voting for anyone besides Pelosi. Yeah, that obviousness is the key part. I can't see labor & liberals trying to fund a primary against Owens over that one incident because it was never really in doubt. And most people probably don't care. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: dpmapper on January 11, 2011, 01:36:01 AM ()
Hideous, but it does get all the GOP seats to a +5 PVI at least, Dems to +8. I'm not even going to pretend that this is realistic, but it was fun nonetheless. Blue, Buffalo: Higgins, 64-35 Obama. Green, between Buffalo and Rochester: Lee, 53.64-44.88 McCain. Purple, southern tier: Reed, 53.24-45.18 McCain. Yellow, Rochester-Ithaca: Slaughter, 65-34 Obama. Red, east of Rochester to Watertown/Rome: Hanna, 51.78-46.52 McCain. Teal, the piece de resistance - Syracuse, Utica, Binghamton, and Schenectady: Buerkle and Tonko (!), 60-38 Obama. Light blue, north country-Albany: Owens, 61-37 Obama. Yellow, leftovers: Gibson, 51.42-46.82 McCain. Orange, Hudson valley: Hinchey, 61-38 Obama. Green, leftovers: Hayworth, 52.42-46.41 McCain. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 11, 2011, 12:14:46 PM Someone talked about a possible compromise that eliminates Buerkle while preserving a "Republican" district that Bill Owens represents. Here's a map like that. Owens' seat is 52% Obama, so R+1 (but that's inflated for the Democrats as Republicans are still very strong locally in the the federally D counties in the far north), while a new Syracuse-Ithaca seat is created (60% Obama). The other seats are all safe. Many are unchanged from my previous map; the rural seat around the Syracuse-Ithaca seat is now up to 54% McCain, while the Utica-Hudson Valley seat is now up to 51% McCain. The Albany-Schenectady-Saratoga Springs seat is 58% Obama. Hinchey's seat is mostly unchanged from my previous map, still 59% Obama (actually slightly better for him as it gained Oneonta and lost some more R areas).
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on January 11, 2011, 12:21:03 PM Verily, that deal makes a lot of sense to me. I think I would sign off on that as a Pubbie.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 11, 2011, 01:26:19 PM Verily, that deal makes a lot of sense to me. I think I would sign off on that as a Pubbie. That map actually looks much, much nicer than connecting the northern counties on the Canada Border with the Syracuse region. I think thats about the best the Pubbies can do that looks somewhat clean. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 11, 2011, 01:32:12 PM That's a bit silly to assume Owens would have a primary and would want a more Republican district. It's almost always easier for an incumbent to win a primary than a general election (with some recent exceptions like Murkowski). What, six House Democrats in New York lost their general election contests in 2010? How many lost primaries? He voted for health care reform and is in no way despised by liberals. You might be right. I thought his record was more conservative than it actually is, which goes to show that Doug Hoffman is an idiot, and that he's done a really good job with his fake moderate rhetoric. I believe that Andrew Cuomo would want clean districts, although Shelly Silver is probably going to roll him on this issue and a lot of others. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 11, 2011, 01:57:04 PM There are a couple of other things I might do to make that map a little more favorable to the incumbents, such as stretching the Rochester seat down to Canandaigua and then dropping some of the really R suburban areas to the west in exchange. That could get the Rochester seat up to 59% Obama and the rural seat between Rochester and Syracuse up to 55% McCain. Also, Hamilton (in Madison County) is a very D college town isolated just beyond the Syracuse-Ithaca district that it seems a shame to strand in a heavily R seat, but drawing it into the Syracuse-Ithaca seat makes the border with the rural seat a little ugly.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 11, 2011, 02:18:26 PM Hideous, but it does get all the GOP seats to a +5 PVI at least, Dems to +8. I'm not even going to pretend that this is realistic. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 11, 2011, 03:07:32 PM CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% The other point to think of is Long Island. McCarthy's and King's district pretty much draw themselves in this manner. The question I see is whether Israel will want something more than 54% here. I don't think Long Island really trended towards the Democrats all that much from 2000 to 2008. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 11, 2011, 11:09:23 PM Wow, looking at a list of New York's most populous cities, it's impressive that many of NYC's neighborhoods would place well into the top 6 (i.e. Flushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing,_Queens), my own Sunset Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Park,_Brooklyn)) etcetc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Cities
And even more would place in the top 7. I wonder how some high growth neighborhoods in NYC will fair compared to that list of cities once the census information is complete. None of those neighborhoods could hold up against a similar list of the most populous Californian cities (the other state I have familiarity with). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on January 11, 2011, 11:26:41 PM Wow, looking at a list of New York's most populous cities, it's impressive that many of NYC's neighborhoods would place well into the top 6 (i.e. Flushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing,_Queens), my own Sunset Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Park,_Brooklyn)) etcetc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Cities And even more would place in the top 7. I wonder how some high growth neighborhoods in NYC will fair compared to that list of cities once the census information is complete. None of those neighborhoods could hold up against a similar list of the most populous Californian cities (the other state I have familiarity with). Even larger when you consider that Sunset Park was until recently (I think around the early 1960's with completion of Gowanus/BQE) considered part of Bay Ridge. The other cities in New York have been bleeding population for decades. They have more in common with Rust belt than SE part of the state. It is crazy when you think Buffalo was once in the top ten largest cities. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 12, 2011, 09:41:31 AM Wow, looking at a list of New York's most populous cities, it's impressive that many of NYC's neighborhoods would place well into the top 6 (i.e. Flushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing,_Queens), my own Sunset Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Park,_Brooklyn)) etcetc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Cities And even more would place in the top 7. I wonder how some high growth neighborhoods in NYC will fair compared to that list of cities once the census information is complete. None of those neighborhoods could hold up against a similar list of the most populous Californian cities (the other state I have familiarity with). Even larger when you consider that Sunset Park was until recently (I think around the early 1960's with completion of Gowanus/BQE) considered part of Bay Ridge. The other cities in New York have been bleeding population for decades. They have more in common with Rust belt than SE part of the state. It is crazy when you think Buffalo was once in the top ten largest cities. Yup. Buffalo now has the distinction of being one of the few cities that now has less than half the population it once did, a distinction it shares with only Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis. I did a map of population growth and decline in New York at one point. Outside of Ithaca, it's a sea of red Upstate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 12, 2011, 09:48:38 AM Wow, looking at a list of New York's most populous cities, it's impressive that many of NYC's neighborhoods would place well into the top 6 (i.e. Flushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing,_Queens), my own Sunset Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Park,_Brooklyn)) etcetc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Cities And even more would place in the top 7. I wonder how some high growth neighborhoods in NYC will fair compared to that list of cities once the census information is complete. None of those neighborhoods could hold up against a similar list of the most populous Californian cities (the other state I have familiarity with). Even larger when you consider that Sunset Park was until recently (I think around the early 1960's with completion of Gowanus/BQE) considered part of Bay Ridge. The other cities in New York have been bleeding population for decades. They have more in common with Rust belt than SE part of the state. It is crazy when you think Buffalo was once in the top ten largest cities. Yup. Buffalo now has the distinction of being one of the few cities that now has less than half the population it once did, a distinction it shares with only Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis. I did a map of population growth and decline in New York at one point. Outside of Ithaca, it's a sea of red Upstate. 8th most populous city in the country to 70th. Ouch. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: dpmapper on January 13, 2011, 12:31:18 PM There are a couple of other things I might do to make that map a little more favorable to the incumbents, such as stretching the Rochester seat down to Canandaigua and then dropping some of the really R suburban areas to the west in exchange. That could get the Rochester seat up to 59% Obama and the rural seat between Rochester and Syracuse up to 55% McCain. Also, Hamilton (in Madison County) is a very D college town isolated just beyond the Syracuse-Ithaca district that it seems a shame to strand in a heavily R seat, but drawing it into the Syracuse-Ithaca seat makes the border with the rural seat a little ugly. If you take Canandaigua, you may as well go over and grab Geneva, as it's still the same county. Free up the Syracuse seat to take Utica, perhaps? The other small problem with the map is that it puts Tonko, Hanna, and Gibson all in the same district (the pink one). I think Tonko lives in Montgomery County. That's the easy part to fix, but I think the Pubbies would complain if you crush Buerkle *and* push two of their other incumbents together. Is there a good way to do the 6D-4R-1 Owens swing with one of the GOP reps tossed in with Owens? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 13, 2011, 02:39:29 PM There are a couple of other things I might do to make that map a little more favorable to the incumbents, such as stretching the Rochester seat down to Canandaigua and then dropping some of the really R suburban areas to the west in exchange. That could get the Rochester seat up to 59% Obama and the rural seat between Rochester and Syracuse up to 55% McCain. Also, Hamilton (in Madison County) is a very D college town isolated just beyond the Syracuse-Ithaca district that it seems a shame to strand in a heavily R seat, but drawing it into the Syracuse-Ithaca seat makes the border with the rural seat a little ugly. If you take Canandaigua, you may as well go over and grab Geneva, as it's still the same county. Free up the Syracuse seat to take Utica, perhaps? The other small problem with the map is that it puts Tonko, Hanna, and Gibson all in the same district (the pink one). I think Tonko lives in Montgomery County. That's the easy part to fix, but I think the Pubbies would complain if you crush Buerkle *and* push two of their other incumbents together. Is there a good way to do the 6D-4R-1 Owens swing with one of the GOP reps tossed in with Owens? You're right, but it's easy to fix. Either way, on this design two R incumbents will have to share a district in addition to Buerkle's seat becoming D, however. It's a 6-4-1 map, after all. The choice is whether Hanna goes with Gibson or with Reed. The point of this map is: One R seat is eliminated. Buerkle's seat becomes D. It leans D now anyway, but it becomes more strongly D to shore up the other R seats. This goes with the assumption that the Republicans will assume they will lose Buerkle's seat on the current lines within a couple of cycles anyway, which is probably true. Owens' seat remains competitive to lean R. All others are left safe. Then, downstate, one D seat (likely Ackerman) is eliminated. The alternative is like the map I posted earlier with the extremely erose lines. Yes, it preserves five Rs, but it would never pass a basic-logic test. NY does not gerrymander that extremely. And any less-gerrymandered map leaves multiple R incumbents vulnerable. Better for them to surrender two seats upstate in exchange for the Ds surrendering one seat downstate and leaving one upstate D vulnerable. Utica is too far from Syracuse. Same for Geneva from Rochester. Geneva goes with Syracuse because there are other D-leaning towns in between them. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 13, 2011, 02:55:14 PM Okay, made some minor modifications to put Amsterdam (Tonko's residence) into his seat in exchange for some R areas of Saratoga County.
Trenton (Hanna's residence) is northeast of Utica, so I'll leave him with Gibson instead of Reed. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 13, 2011, 03:01:05 PM ()
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ilikeverin on January 13, 2011, 03:01:53 PM They have more in common with Rust belt than SE part of the state. Their dialect's the same as the Rust Belt, too; the only difference is that Buffalonians are aware of their dialect due to stigmatization by downstaters, while Michiganders are like "we talk like everyone else in the entire world". Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on January 13, 2011, 03:35:35 PM I agree with everyone else, it's a great map. Why the east-west split between two GOP districts in Dutchess and Columbia counties?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 13, 2011, 03:38:51 PM It looks good to me, and is the type of map I really expect to actually occur.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 13, 2011, 03:49:45 PM I agree with everyone else, it's a great map. Why the east-west split between two GOP districts in Dutchess and Columbia counties? The eastern bits are very Democratic (Berkshires/Pittsfield influence, I guess). I drew them into Hayworth's district to even out the partisanship of the two seats. I would have drawn them into Owens' district instead, but I would assume the GOP would not condone making his district any more Democratic on this map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 13, 2011, 06:54:11 PM Here's Long Island (ignore Queens). Pete King's district snakes around to be as R as possible while shoring up the other three incumbents. Ackerman is tossed out.
Bishop: 57% Obama Israel: 55% Obama (Ackerman is here, too) King: 56% McCain McCarthy: 60% Obama The map contains some water connections without roads, but New York has been perfectly amenable to those in the past, so I am assuming they are fine. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 13, 2011, 08:17:53 PM Here's Long Island (ignore Queens). Pete King's district snakes around to be as R as possible while shoring up the other three incumbents. Ackerman is tossed out. Bishop: 57% Obama Israel: 55% Obama (Ackerman is here, too) King: 56% McCain McCarthy: 60% Obama The map contains some water connections without roads, but New York has been perfectly amenable to those in the past, so I am assuming they are fine. () indeed :) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on January 13, 2011, 10:36:46 PM That is one ugly map of LI. :) I like how it just magically jumps across Reynolds channel and scoops up the black/Hispanic area of Long Beach. It then snakes around to bring in what looks like Elmont, W Valley Stream and Inwood. Wonderful gerrymander.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on January 13, 2011, 11:51:01 PM Here's Long Island (ignore Queens). Pete King's district snakes around to be as R as possible while shoring up the other three incumbents. Ackerman is tossed out. Bishop: 57% Obama Israel: 55% Obama (Ackerman is here, too) King: 56% McCain McCarthy: 60% Obama The map contains some water connections without roads, but New York has been perfectly amenable to those in the past, so I am assuming they are fine. () This would get me the hell out of King's district Yea :) Ironically enough my old precinct which is more Democratic than my current one would be in King's district Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 14, 2011, 03:53:33 PM That is one ugly map of LI. :) I like how it just magically jumps across Reynolds channel and scoops up the black/Hispanic area of Long Beach. It then snakes around to bring in what looks like Elmont, W Valley Stream and Inwood. Wonderful gerrymander. it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 14, 2011, 04:55:37 PM I just lost a map of NY that was 22 seats finished. >:( It was one of those "pointedly non-gerrymandered" things again... clean lines, no unnecessary county splits, no unnecessary town splits, race used as an argument among many in NYC but no more. I had a packed in 77% Black seat in the middle of Brooklyn. I also had the four Long Island seats very very similar in vote percentage... starting marginally Democratic and getting ever more marginal as you went eastward.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 14, 2011, 06:39:30 PM That is one ugly map of LI. :) I like how it just magically jumps across Reynolds channel and scoops up the black/Hispanic area of Long Beach. It then snakes around to bring in what looks like Elmont, W Valley Stream and Inwood. Wonderful gerrymander. Actually, I realized it almost does have full road connections except for that. Central Islip could be connected to the rest of NY-01 by the Bay Shore-Fire Island Ferry with only a little bit of editing (although is the ferry year-round?). Also, can you drive from Mastic Beach to Fire Island Pines on Fire Island? Google Maps makes it ambiguous. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 14, 2011, 07:53:00 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on January 14, 2011, 08:44:01 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. That's basically the district I added to King's current CD to get my map. It strengthens the district and is a reasonable concession from the Dems if they get 3 LI districts. I made CD-1 significantly stronger for the Dems, especially given the results they saw in 2010. A 2% shift from CD-2 would not have hurt Israel in 2010. If its a big deal, it wouldn't be hard to shift another point of Dems from CD-1 to CD-2. () CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% (2008 Obama 51%) CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% (2008 Obama 56%) CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% (2008 McCain 52%) CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% (2008 Obama 58%) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 15, 2011, 11:24:26 AM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 15, 2011, 12:57:23 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman. Fair enough points, we'll see, but anything that strengthens Bishop could be a tough pill for them to swallow after the closeness of 2010. Also: the Senate Republicans are very region-obsessed I've noticed lately, complaining how the Democratic Party is controlled by NYC. Would they approve a plan that had two districts eliminated [mostly] outside of NYC? Dean Skelos won't be in control, but it would seem that any redistricting plan would need to avoid any perceived insults. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on January 15, 2011, 01:06:12 PM Wouldn't Chris Lee's seat be vulnerable given that it contains all of Niagara County, a slice of Monroe County, and Erie County (minus Buffalo), or do the rural counties have enough people to overcome this? This may be the GOP's best realistic bet/they may not have much choice, but (correct me if I'm wrong), this map seems like it would eliminate Gibson in exchange for Ackerman, while also causing Lee and Buerkle to lose (although Buerkle is pretty much a goner no matter what). Also, I could see Owens' district taking some Democratic parts of Oneida county and giving Hanna's district some Republican parts of Gibson's old district (although I'm not sure how either party would feel about that). Other than that, this is probably more or less how the map will end up looking. Now if the Democrats get a Republican State Senator to vote with them on redistricting in some sort of deal, than that obviously changes everything...
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 15, 2011, 01:14:21 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman. From what I've read, traditionally, only 1 district crosses from Long Island into New York City. Since Long Island has about 3.9 districts worth of population, you can't drown any of the 4 LI districts into NYC without crossing a second one over. More importantly, Peter King is the Homeland Security chairman and the most powerful House member New York has now. If you try to stick him with enough of Queens to matter he'll probably run against Steve Israel, and nobody wants that. As it stands, CD-1 is about perfectly populated. If the Democrats are going to ram through a 7-4 upstate map, they're going to have to throw Skelos a bone somewhere if they want to make this easy for themselves. Of course, perhaps they don't. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 15, 2011, 01:16:08 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman. From what I've read, traditionally, only 1 district crosses from Long Island into New York City. Since Long Island has about 3.9 districts worth of population, you can't drown any of the 4 LI districts into NYC without crossing a second one over. More importantly, Peter King is the Homeland Security chairman and the most powerful House member New York has now. If you try to stick him with enough of Queens to matter he'll probably run against Steve Israel, and nobody wants that. As it stands, CD-1 is about perfectly populated. If the Democrats are going to ram through a 7-4 upstate map, they're going to have to throw Skelos a bone somewhere if they want to make this easy for themselves. Of course, perhaps they don't. Yes, throwing Skelos a bone is eliminating Ackerman. There is no reason ("tradition" is not one) why multiple districts could not cross into Queens. And no reason why Israel's seat could not also go into Queens (alternatively, no reason to think that King would defeat Israel--he wouldn't in a neutral seat). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 15, 2011, 01:16:36 PM it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy. But the Democrats probably get what they want. Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09 I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman. Fair enough points, we'll see, but anything that strengthens Bishop could be a tough pill for them to swallow after the closeness of 2010. Also: the Senate Republicans are very region-obsessed I've noticed lately, complaining how the Democratic Party is controlled by NYC. Would they approve a plan that had two districts eliminated [mostly] outside of NYC? Dean Skelos won't be in control, but it would seem that any redistricting plan would need to avoid any perceived insults. I think if you give the Republicans 6 districts (4 upstate, Staten Island, 1 Long Island), with the chance of winning a 7th (either a 5th upstate or CD-1 on Long Island), both sides can go with that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 15, 2011, 01:18:45 PM Ultimately, I think Muon's map is fairly likely, but I think there will be an attempt to put Glen Cove and environs in Israel's district in exchange for putting a chunk of Smithtown in King's district. There's really no reason why King's district should stretch all the way from the South Shore to the North, so Glen Cove and Smithtown should be exchanged.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on January 15, 2011, 01:37:29 PM Yes, throwing Skelos a bone is eliminating Ackerman. There is no reason ("tradition" is not one) why multiple districts could not cross into Queens. And no reason why Israel's seat could not also go into Queens (alternatively, no reason to think that King would defeat Israel--he wouldn't in a neutral seat). Shrug, I'd be really shocked if they do anything like that with the regional interests involved. We shall see. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 15, 2011, 02:42:29 PM Shrug, I'd be really shocked if they did anything like the map I've drawn here, but it's "fair".
() Enhance () Superenhance () Districts 1-4. Long Island, clean lines, single town splits. D1 52-47 Obama, 84 white - 8 hispanic D2 53-47 Obama, 75 white - 13 hispanic - 8 black D3 53-46 Obama, 76 white - 9 black - 9 hispanic D4 56-44 Obama, 70 white - 11 hispanic - 11 black I don't think I drew any Long Island incumbent out of their seat, though who knows. Just goes to show you don't need creative mapping to make King fight for his seat for once I suppose. D5 67-33 Obama, 40 white - 26 asian - 23 hispanic - 7 black Broadly speaking Ackerman's old district. Open seat, actually - neither Ackerman nor Weiner lives here. I guess Weiner ought to just move. ;) D6 86-14 Obama, 49 black - 18 hispanic - 17 white - 8 asian Meeks' district. Which is very reasonably drawn as is. D7 71-28 Obama, 41 white - 32 hispanic - 20 asian The district Joe Crowley has always wanted but would never think of asking for as it destroys deals elsewhere. Weiner also lives here. D8 84-15 Obama, 49 white - 26 hispanic - 15 asian - 6 black Arguably just a cleaned-up version of Velazquez' seat - Lower Manhattan, Williamsburg, a bit of Queens - but I suppose Jerry Nadler would be favored for it and the VRA police wants a word with me. Though he doesn't live here. Anybody know where Velazquez actually lives, btw? D9 96-4 Obama, 68 black - 21 hispanic - 6 white And my earlier version that I lost was even more packed with Blacks, lol. For one, it excluded all of Brownsville (if that's what it's called, I didn't look it up) whereas now it's split. For another, I was a little more careful this time with what I did with D10 80-19 Obama, 46 black - 29 white - 16 hispanic - 6 asian No idea which Black representative would run for which. D11 68-32 Obama, 57 white - 20 hispanic - 14 asian Yeah, the one major group in New York City royally screwed over by the current alignment is White Brooklyn Democrats, shared up between Nadler, Velazquez, the Staten seat and the Black seats. As a result, this is bona fide wide open. D12 51-48 McCain, 70 white - 12 hispanic - 8 black - 8 asian Always thought it ugly how Nadler's district wrapped around its Brooklyn portion. I thought Grimm was from Brooklyn; wiki has him on Staten wtf? Anyways, it'd take Republicans another Fossella style meltdown to lose here again. D13 81-18 Obama, 68 white - 17 hispanic - 7 asian - 6 black Upper Manhattan. The color line on the east side is ridiculously well defined on 96th street, the west side's is weird. Used to be that the poor lived closer to the river in Manhattan, but not anymore. Anyways that long north-south split is a retread from the 80s. Sets up Nadler against Maloney, though he might want to try the 8th instead. Actually, I suppose he's favored in a primary in either. D14 95-4 Obama, 56 hispanic - 36 black Rangel's district crosses the Harlem River. He's used to representing Hispanics (though not quite so many... but he had whites too in the last 20 years), he's never had a racially motivated primary challenge to my knowledge. 'Course, with his ethics problems, who knows. D15 93-6 Obama, 59 hispanic - 30 black - 5 white Northern boundary mostly traces the end of residual white population quite closely (except in the central portion). Serrano's district is still demoted from most Democratic in the country to third most Democratic in the state. ;D D16 75-24 Obama, 40 white - 30 black - 23 hispanic North Bronx, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Pelham. And exactly that. Custombuilt for Eliot Engel I suppose. D17 60-39 Obama, 73 white - 13 hispanic - 8 black Suburban Westchester. Nita Lowey. Hayworth lives here too. D18 52-47 Obama, 76 white - 11 hispanic - 9 black Rockland, Orange, southern Sullivan. Open I think, and wide open in a general election. Heh, it could be won and lost repeatedly on the Kiryas Joel bloc vote. :D D19 54-44 Obama, 85 white - 6 black - 6 hispanic Another Hudson Valley seat. Hinchey and Gibson. Hinchey might well be too weak to hold this, but a generic Democrat ought to win I think. D20 58-40 Obama, 87 white - 7 black Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga Springs (city line is the district line too). Safe Paul Tonko. D21 53-46 Obama, 93 white Owens might hold it, but it's generically Republican at a congressional level. D22 51-47 McCain, 93 white Here we get to the awkward part of the New York state map. This iteration is far from perfect, obviously, but most of the others I've seen are worse. Anybody got a good suggestion - good not from partisan considerations, but just what belongs together versus the district totals we're forced to work with? I just don't like splitting urban areas when I can avoid it. Hanna would be happy though. D23 56-43 Obama, 88 white - 7 black Forced me to go west from Syracuse. IIRC the current version is not much less Democratic, actually? Still a little surprised Buerkle managed to regain that seat. If ever a seat was supposed to be "lost for good" it's that one. D24 50-48 Obama, 92 white Awkward part of New York state, second instalment. It got worse. I do hold that Binghampton, Ithaca, Elmira belong in a district together... though not ideally one that stretches exclusively west from there. Thomas Reed is the incumbent and would be strongly favored to hold it... until the next Democratic wave. Those pesky collegepeople will always be a problem though. D25 58-40 Obama, 78 white - 13 black - 5 hispanic (Rochester) D26 53-46 McCain, 92 white D27 62-36 Obama, 78 white - 15 black (Buffalo) Nothing to see here. Safe for Slaughter, Lee, and Higgins. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 15, 2011, 02:44:27 PM Addendum: all seats within 500, no additional county splits, no additional town splits. Awkward split of Ontario County was necessary to balance populations.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: danny on January 15, 2011, 03:51:04 PM Rockland, Orange, southern Sullivan. Open I think, and wide open in a general election. Heh, it could be won and lost repeatedly on the Kiryas Joel bloc vote. :D Not just Kiryas Joel, you put the Ramapo Hasids who are currently in Engels district in here as well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 16, 2011, 12:36:00 AM Quote D8 84-15 Obama, 49 white - 26 hispanic - 15 asian - 6 black Arguably just a cleaned-up version of Velazquez' seat - Lower Manhattan, Williamsburg, a bit of Queens - but I suppose Jerry Nadler would be favored for it and the VRA police wants a word with me. Though he doesn't live here. Anybody know where Velazquez actually lives, btw? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 01:10:38 AM I think Velazquez lives in west Brooklyn, somewhere in the northern part of the western portion here, like around the I-278/I-478 nexus.
() But I am just basing that off something I read on another blog at sometime. If true that would put her outside of the seat Lewis drew of course and in the new White Brooklyn seat. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 02:57:12 AM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 16, 2011, 08:31:50 AM Of course, putting Weiner into the NE Queens district would not actually harm the logic of the map in any way - might even improve it, actually, to switch what's now the northwestern 5th and southeastern 7th. I just happen to have drawn it this way before looking up where he lives, and found it intellectually dishonest to change it after that.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 12:57:51 PM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere Oh so that's Williamsburg? Puerto Ricans live there too? It's not just scene kids? Of course, putting Weiner into the NE Queens district would not actually harm the logic of the map in any way - might even improve it, actually, to switch what's now the northwestern 5th and southeastern 7th. I just happen to have drawn it this way before looking up where he lives, and found it intellectually dishonest to change it after that. Weiner probably wouldn't mind that, as the guy only cares about his seat as a stepping stone to being mayor of NYC (basically his dream since childhood.) So getting more territory and becoming more well known would boost his chances there. I'm already willing to bet that he'll be the next mayor anyway though since I can't see even Bloomberg having the chutzpah to run for a fourth term, and based on the 2009 results he'd probably lose even if he did. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 01:03:05 PM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere Oh so that's Williamsburg? Puerto Ricans live there too? It's not just scene kids? I mean, it's a fairly large neighborhood geographically. There's a huge Hasidic portion of Williamsburg too. The Lower East Side is another area that used to be solidly Puerto Rican before the scene kids started moving in. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 16, 2011, 02:09:13 PM The LES as a whole has never been solidly anything. Except working class, I suppose.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 02:10:05 PM The LES as a whole has never been solidly anything. Except working class, I suppose. Yeah, poor descriptor. "much more" is what I meant, I suppose Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 04:11:50 PM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere Oh so that's Williamsburg? No, it's not. Williamsburg is more or less the area around 278 in the northern portion of the district, on the Brooklyn side. The location you pointed to is Red Hook (the peninsula southwest of 478/278 in the southern area), which would be an odd place for Velasquez to live as it's mostly white except for a very large housing project that's mostly Hispanic (and I doubt she lives in the projects). Quote Puerto Ricans live there too? It's not just scene kids? The three Hs of Williamsburg: Hipsters, Hispanics and Hasids. Hipsters in the north, Hispanics in the center, Hasids in the south. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 16, 2011, 05:55:07 PM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere Oh so that's Williamsburg? No, it's not. Williamsburg is more or less the area around 278 in the northern portion of the district, on the Brooklyn side. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 05:59:17 PM The LES as a whole has never been solidly anything. Except working class, I suppose. Uh wow. It's just so hard to imagine any part of Manhattan as ever being working class. It's kind of like how even if McDowell County, West Virginia was posh at one time, it still seems bizarre. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 06:03:19 PM The LES as a whole has never been solidly anything. Except working class, I suppose. Uh wow. It's just so hard to imagine any part of Manhattan as ever being working class. It's kind of like how even if McDowell County, West Virginia was posh at one time, it still seems bizarre. I mean, there're still projects in Manhattan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority#Manhattan_.28Neighborhood.29 Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 06:03:48 PM Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere Oh so that's Williamsburg? No, it's not. Williamsburg is more or less the area around 278 in the northern portion of the district, on the Brooklyn side. 10 years ago, Greenpoint was going Hispanic (maybe peaking at around 25-30% Hispanic around 1998), but gentrification hit and cut that off at the pass. It's now more and more like the hipster parts of Williamsburg. Anyway, large chunks of Manhattan were working-class white as late as 1990, BRTD. Of course, even today Washington Heights and Inwood have working-class prices, albeit occupied by Hispanics, not whites, and Harlem and East Harlem also have a lot of poverty. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 06:06:07 PM It's still ruhlly Polish though if you hop off at Nassau Station at least.
I'm starting to work out a theory that Spanish neighborhoods get gentrified the most: LES, Park Slope, Williamsburg most notably to my untrained eye, but also probably Spanish Harlem & Bushwick. African-American neighborhoods less so: Harlem & Clinton Hill? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 06:10:36 PM It's still ruhlly Polish though if you hop off at Nassau Station at least. I'm starting to work out a theory that Spanish neighborhoods get gentrified the most: LES, Park Slope, Williamsburg most notably to my untrained eye, but also probably Spanish Harlem. African-American neighborhoods less so: Harlem & Clinton Hill? Prospect Heights. Your argument is invalid. Actually, probably sort of true, but only at the fringes. For whatever reason, Hispanic communities have tended to be closer to the forefront of gentrification geographically, but it's not clear that it's not just coincidence. After all, South Harlem (the rectangle from 125th to CPN and Morningside to Lenox) has been gentrifying significantly faster than East Harlem. Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 06:12:28 PM When I think of working class, I don't think of the projects or slums. I'm talking more about like where Keystone Phil lives or the part of Boston in The Town (minus the bank robbers).
Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990. That provides a lot of context to a certain scene in The Squid and the Whale. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 06:13:57 PM Fair enough re: Prospect Heights. And honestly it could have to do with subway commute locations and coincidence more than anything else.
Or it could be lower crime rates and more bustling small businesses lining the streets in certain areas, I'm not really sure, I haven't done the research and I have't lived here long enough. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 06:14:51 PM After all, South Harlem (the rectangle from 125th to CPN and FDB to Lenox) has been gentrifying significantly faster than East Harlem. True, but that could be Columbia, right? I've never even been up there. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 06:16:02 PM Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990. Well, South Park Slope at least Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 06:18:07 PM After all, South Harlem (the rectangle from 125th to CPN and FDB to Lenox) has been gentrifying significantly faster than East Harlem. True, but that could be Columbia, right? I've never even been up there. I think it's more that it's the only part of Harlem without any housing projects. East Harlem is overrun with them. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 06:18:15 PM Lunar if you have not seen The Squid and the Whale yet you deserve to be evicted.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 06:21:32 PM Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990. Well, South Park Slope at least Oh, you mean "Greenwood Heights"? *snicker* Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 16, 2011, 06:27:07 PM Clinton Hill? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 16, 2011, 06:31:53 PM Clinton Hill? Clinton Hill is a rapidly gentrifying formerly black neighborhood in Brooklyn, around Pratt. The blacks in Hells Kitchen are just a relic of low land values and rent control there who are slowly (or, actually, rather quickly) leaving. Unless you mean the projects near Lincoln Center, which are just over the border in the Upper West Side. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 16, 2011, 07:09:05 PM I've seen Velasquez before (more than once) in the fanciest restaurants in my neighborhood. Doubt she lives here though.
Greenpoint still has its Polish parts - or so I've learned from the Polish restaurant in my area. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 07:12:03 PM I've seen Velasquez before (more than once) in the fanciest restaurants in my neighborhood. Doubt she lives here though. Well, I'm pretty sure I've ready that she's from Williamsburg, so she might well be in walking distance to the nicer restaurants around Greenpoint. I visited a friend four or five times up by the Nassau st. station, and I was impressed by how very Polish it still was, every single bar and shop around there seemed to be Polish Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 16, 2011, 09:01:10 PM I've seen Velasquez before (more than once) in the fanciest restaurants in my neighborhood. Doubt she lives here though. Well, I'm pretty sure I've ready that she's from Williamsburg, so she might well be in walking distance to the nicer restaurants around Greenpoint. I visited a friend four or five times up by the Nassau st. station, and I was impressed by how very Polish it still was, every single bar and shop around there seemed to be Polish Can't tell from your answer whether you think I live in Greenpoint. I don't. In fact, my answer is pretty much a dead giveaway when I live to any Brooklynite. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on January 16, 2011, 09:11:25 PM I thought from your sentence structure you were implying you live in Greenpoint. The only other place I can think of where there are Polish restaurants is across the way in Williamsburg
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 16, 2011, 11:38:04 PM Did McCain actually win the white vote in Brooklyn?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on January 16, 2011, 11:51:41 PM I thought from your sentence structure you were implying you live in Greenpoint. The only other place I can think of where there are Polish restaurants is across the way in Williamsburg You don't know Brooklyn well enough then... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 17, 2011, 08:13:13 AM Did McCain actually win the white vote in Brooklyn? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 17, 2011, 01:19:47 PM Did McCain actually win the white vote in Brooklyn? You wouldn't think so. But he got just short of 20%. Brooklyn is about 37% white, 33% black, 9.5% Asian and 20% Hispanic. 20% is more than half of 37%, but when you consider he got a non-negligable percentage of the Asian vote and that the Hispanic turnout isn't as high (though certainly higher than most places as the Hispanics are mostly Puerto Rican I believe and thus all are US citizens.) it does seem unlikely. But the fact that Obama's percentage is just in the 50s itself sounds quite odd. Of course the white vote in Brooklyn itself is so diverse the fact is only trivial, comparing the white vote in Williamsburg and Park Slope to Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst is completely pointless. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on January 17, 2011, 01:41:24 PM Well, take my districts. The white vote in the West Brooklyn district must have broken *roughly* even, perhaps tilted Democrat, and the same goes for the area in with the Staten district and presumably for the white territory marooned on the western end of the southern Black district.
And non-Hasidic whites in Williamsburg vote roughly like their counterparts in Manhattan. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on January 24, 2011, 10:03:05 AM http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/23/nyregion/20110123-nyc-ethnic-neighborhoods-map.html?ref=nyregion
More data about ethnicity in NYC. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on January 24, 2011, 12:48:57 PM Did McCain actually win the white vote in Brooklyn? You wouldn't think so. But he got just short of 20%. Brooklyn is about 37% white, 33% black, 9.5% Asian and 20% Hispanic. 20% is more than half of 37%, but when you consider he got a non-negligable percentage of the Asian vote and that the Hispanic turnout isn't as high (though certainly higher than most places as the Hispanics are mostly Puerto Rican I believe and thus all are US citizens.) it does seem unlikely. But the fact that Obama's percentage is just in the 50s itself sounds quite odd. Of course the white vote in Brooklyn itself is so diverse the fact is only trivial, comparing the white vote in Williamsburg and Park Slope to Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst is completely pointless. Turnout is dreadful among black voters in Brooklyn, many of whom are in abject poverty or Caribbean immigrants (or both). And a good chunk of Brooklyn Hispanics are not Puerto Ricans. Turnout is also dreadful among Asians in Brooklyn, the majority of whom (at least in the areas of Asian concentration) are recent immigrants. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on February 05, 2011, 10:28:51 AM I thought from your sentence structure you were implying you live in Greenpoint. The only other place I can think of where there are Polish restaurants is across the way in Williamsburg You don't know Brooklyn well enough then... omg is it Brooklyn Heights? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 05, 2011, 10:47:17 AM I thought from your sentence structure you were implying you live in Greenpoint. The only other place I can think of where there are Polish restaurants is across the way in Williamsburg You don't know Brooklyn well enough then... omg is it Brooklyn Heights? Remember he's a lawyer, Lunar. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 11, 2011, 02:27:32 PM So, with the Chris Lee thing, I decided to do a map of upstate New York that eliminated NY-26.
() () () Red - Tom Reed (R) lives here; 53-46 McCain, a safe Republican district. Blue - Brian Higgins (D) gets Buffalo and Niagara Falls; it's 63-35 Obama. Green - Louise Slaughter (D) gets nearly all of Monroe County; her old district was around 69-30 Obama, this drops it down to 59-40 Obama. Purple - Ann Marie Buerkle (R) and probably whoever wins the special for NY-26 would go here. It takes in about half of Syracuse and stretches all the way to the Buffalo suburbs. 50-48 McCain. Teal - Richard Hanna (R) has a district that takes in the other half of Syracuse, Oneida County, and some surrounding territory. It's 51-48 Obama, which is the same as it was before. Grey - Bill Owens (D) gets a slightly more favorable district; it's 54-45 Obama now. Light Purple - Paul Tonko (D) gets a slightly less favorable district, though it only drops down 1 point to 57-41 Obama. Sky Blue - Chris Gibson (R) has a district that went 50-49 for McCain. Yellow - The Maurice Hinchey (D) gerrymander remains; 59-39 Obama. Magenta - Nan Hayworth (R) also gets a 50-49 McCain district. Light Green - Nita Lowey (D) gets a safe district that takes in most of Westchester; 63-36 Obama. Very light purple - Eliot Engel (D) has a super-safe district since it's mostly in NYC. 78-22 Obama. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 11, 2011, 11:19:35 PM I don't think the Democrats would ever agree to screw over Syracuse like that.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2011, 01:32:55 AM I don't think the Democrats would ever agree to screw over Syracuse like that. Someone has to get "screwed over" in Western/Central New York. Under the current map, it's arguably the Rochester area - Monroe County is split among 4 districts. In the next map, it's probably going to have to be Syracuse or Utica - Utica, by losing effective control of a House district or Syracuse/Onondaga County by being split up. The population simply isn't there anymore. JohnnyLongtorso's map is really ugly, but plausible. Gibson and Tonko's districts seem to be a bit less compact than they probably have to be. And I'd expect Hinchey's Gerrymandered monstrosity to somehow keep Newburgh in Orange County, if not also Middletown. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on February 12, 2011, 12:09:46 PM Well, take my districts. The white vote in the West Brooklyn district must have broken *roughly* even, perhaps tilted Democrat, and the same goes for the area in with the Staten district and presumably for the white territory marooned on the western end of the southern Black district. And non-Hasidic whites in Williamsburg vote roughly like their counterparts in Manhattan. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/county/#NYH09p1 Brooklyn 9:53 a.m. EST, Nov 11, 2010 Weiner (Incumbent) 14,599 52% Turner 13,395 48% 100% of precincts reporting Queens 9:53 a.m. EST, Nov 11, 2010 Weiner (Incumbent) 32,405 62% Turner 19,935 38% 100% of precincts reporting That's 2010, obviously. I wonder how that district would do in an open seat situation. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on February 12, 2011, 12:55:07 PM I don't think the Democrats would ever agree to screw over Syracuse like that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on February 12, 2011, 01:31:26 PM I don't think the Democrats would ever agree to screw over Syracuse like that. Considering how the Syracuse area has screwed them over time and time again, I can't say it's impossible. (I still go WTF a little over 2010) Besides cinyc is right , some major county in west/central NY is going to get screwed. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dgov on February 12, 2011, 01:54:47 PM Wouldn't it make more sense to give Slaughter a Rochester-Syracuse district? It makes her district much safer, and opens up some of the more Republican parts of the Rochester area to help buffer NY-25 and NY-24.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 12, 2011, 06:44:49 PM Wouldn't it make more sense to give Slaughter a Rochester-Syracuse district? It makes her district much safer, and opens up some of the more Republican parts of the Rochester area to help buffer NY-25 and NY-24. I don't think there are any Republicans in the Rochester area that are still in Slaughters district. Her current district is basically Rochester itself, and a strip along Lake Ontario to Niagara Falls. When they split LaFalce's Niagara based CD up, they wanted to keep the most Dem areas like Niagara Falls out of the new 26th which was to be held by Tom "Give me a district that will allow me to vote like a Southern Conservative" Reynolds. Do we really think that the Democrats in the Assembly who are mostly from NYC and downstate are going to give a rats ass about Syracuse. In the old days, when the GOP dominated both houses of the state legislature, they used to screw with the downstate area quite a lot. Now, I do beleive the city is represented by Republicans in the State Senate, which could add an interesting dynamic to things. And keep in mind that Syracuse was split in two in the 1970s. Rochester was split between Horton and Conable/Slaughter untill the 1991. And Erie County has been split many ways over the decades. This will be the first time in many decades, that Buffalo will likely have one district that it shares with Niagara Falls. There is nothing new about splitting upstate cities. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2011, 09:49:33 PM Slaughter's CD takes in the black part of the city of Buffalo in Erie County.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 12, 2011, 09:53:35 PM Slaughter's CD takes in the black part of the city of Buffalo in Erie County. Yes, that is true. My description above was slightly misleading but it served its purpose. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 14, 2011, 02:38:52 PM ()
Drawing the most Republican version of the 13th possible, just for the lols. 65% McCain. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 14, 2011, 03:44:09 PM How much time did it take you to figure out how to draw that thing, Lewis? :)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 14, 2011, 04:12:40 PM Not so very long. (Arguably you could take a further jump along the coast and include the Far Rockaway Hasidim too. I suppose you could get it up to 66%, possibly 67%.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dgov on February 15, 2011, 01:43:06 PM Wouldn't it make more sense to give Slaughter a Rochester-Syracuse district? It makes her district much safer, and opens up some of the more Republican parts of the Rochester area to help buffer NY-25 and NY-24. I don't think there are any Republicans in the Rochester area that are still in Slaughters district. Her current district is basically Rochester itself, and a strip along Lake Ontario to Niagara Falls. When they split LaFalce's Niagara based CD up, they wanted to keep the most Dem areas like Niagara Falls out of the new 26th which was to be held by Tom "Give me a district that will allow me to vote like a Southern Conservative" Reynolds. Do we really think that the Democrats in the Assembly who are mostly from NYC and downstate are going to give a rats ass about Syracuse. In the old days, when the GOP dominated both houses of the state legislature, they used to screw with the downstate area quite a lot. Now, I do beleive the city is represented by Republicans in the State Senate, which could add an interesting dynamic to things. And keep in mind that Syracuse was split in two in the 1970s. Rochester was split between Horton and Conable/Slaughter untill the 1991. And Erie County has been split many ways over the decades. This will be the first time in many decades, that Buffalo will likely have one district that it shares with Niagara Falls. There is nothing new about splitting upstate cities. That was in response to the Idea above to just give Slaughter basically all of Monroe county, which has plenty of republican-leaning areas in it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on February 16, 2011, 06:29:12 PM I still don't think the Democrats will throw throw away an easy pickup like Buerkle's seat
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 24, 2011, 08:21:22 PM Here's the number of districts to which the various New York regions are entitled:
Long Island: 3.95 New York City: 11.39 Lower Hudson Valley: 1.90 Mid-Hudson Valley: 1.30 Albany: 1.76 North Country: 0.70 Southern Tier: 1.00 Central New York: 1.45 Rochester: 1.41 Western New York: 2.15 The ideal district size is 717,707. If you start districting from Long Island, it needs to pull 5% of a district from New York City - about 36,000 residents. NYC in turn will have 34% of a district to share with the Lower Hudson Valley (Westchester/Rockland/Putnam). The Lower Hudson Valley will then have about a quarter of a district to push into the Mid-Hudson region, which I've defined to include the outer counties the NYC TV Market (Orange/Dutchess/Ulster/Sullivan). That ends up giving those counties one full district and 54% of a district to be split up elsewhere. Pushing that 54% up into the Albany region and then into the North Country would leave the other three regions of the state with almost exactly 6 full districts to be split among them. Obviously, that's not necessarily how things will be done - Hinchey's district gets in the way of doing so - but should give an idea of how the math works. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on March 24, 2011, 08:58:47 PM I have a hard time believing urban immigrants were accurately counted. I bet there's probably more new immigrants on a single tract or two in Flushing than foreclosed homes in all of Queens.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on March 24, 2011, 10:44:38 PM http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?view=PopChangeView&lat=40.7606&lng=-73.974&l=14
NYT's beautiful map lets you sort by all the racial characteristics Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: danny on March 25, 2011, 12:24:14 AM http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?view=PopChangeView&lat=40.7606&lng=-73.974&l=14 NYT's beautiful map lets you sort by all the racial characteristics Wow, thanks, great map, and it has the entire country, I'm going to spend so much time on this thing. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 25, 2011, 12:45:13 AM I have a hard time believing urban immigrants were accurately counted. I bet there's probably more new immigrants on a single tract or two in Flushing than foreclosed homes in all of Queens. Flushing wasn't Queens' problem. Its population rose. The problem was with blacks fleeing places like Springfield Gardens, Whites leaving places like Woodside and Astoria's population declining, perhaps due to gentrification. I could spend hours looking at the NYT's maps - days if they had maps of percentage change in racial subgroups. That's about all they are missing. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on March 25, 2011, 12:53:17 AM Of course, my only point was that the huge immigrant surge almost certainly counter-balances whatever population loss has occurred. Unlike Nevada or other parts of the country, there aren't neighborhoods in NYC filled with vacant lots.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 21, 2011, 02:56:34 PM So all the talk of a potential Hochul win in NY-26 got me thinking as to how to give her a winnable district for 2012. And I never miss an opportunity to tinker with upstate New York. I drew the districts with the 2010 census numbers, then re-drew them in another browser with the old numbers so I could get the Obama/McCain totals (they're not exactly the same, since the 2008 data is in a shapefile that doesn't split smaller townships, but pretty close).
() Blue - Brian Higgins has to stay put for the next decade for this map to work. He's locked down his district; all I did was pull in some not terrible parts of Cattaugurus County and a little more of Erie County. Remains unchanged at 54-44 Obama. Green - Hochul winning would put her in this district, which takes all of the non-Erie parts of the Slaughtermander. Goes all the way from 52-46 McCain to 56-43 Obama. Red - Tom Reed gets the safest Republican district in the state, eating up all the Republican parts of NY-26. Goes from 51-48 McCain to 55-43 McCain. Purple - Slaughter gets a new gerrymander that picks up Auburn, Geneva, and Geneseo. Drops from 69-30 Obama down to 60-38 Obama, but that should be enough to keep it in Democratic hands. Teal - NY-24 and NY-25 get combined, so Hanna and Buerkle duke it out here; Syracuse is pulled out of the district to help out Bill Owens. Goes from 51-48 Obama (for NY-24) or 56-43 Obama (for NY-25) to 50-49 Obama. Yellow - Bill Owens adds Syracuse to his district and drops some Republican counties, and should be safe. Goes from 52-47 Obama to 59-40 Obama. Light Purple - Tonko's Albany-based district doesn't change a whole lot, it just stretches north instead of west now. Goes from 58-40 Obama to 59-40 Obama. Grey - A sprawling Republican district for Chris Gibson; goes from 51-48 Obama to 50-48 McCain. Sky Blue - The Hincheymander remains, with a little more territory added. Doesn't change, still 59-39 Obama. Magenta - Nan Hayworth has the northern borders of her district expanded a bit, and the Westchester portion contracted a bit. Goes from 51-48 Obama to 50-49 Obama. Light Green - Nita Lowey retains a Westchester district, and it goes from 62-38 Obama to 63-37 Obama. Light Purple (Rockland/Bronx) - Eliot Engel's district shifts upwards a bit to the suburbs, but remains safe Dem; goes from 72-28 Obama to 66-34 Obama. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on May 21, 2011, 02:59:59 PM Tonko lives in Amsterdam, which your NY-21 does not reach.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 21, 2011, 03:19:59 PM Tonko lives in Amsterdam, which your NY-21 does not reach. Huh, I could have sworn he lived in Albany. Either way, it was easy to fix, and didn't change the numbers any. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 25, 2011, 01:50:46 PM So all the talk of a potential Hochul win in NY-26 got me thinking as to how to give her a winnable district for 2012. And I never miss an opportunity to tinker with upstate New York. I drew the districts with the 2010 census numbers, then re-drew them in another browser with the old numbers so I could get the Obama/McCain totals (they're not exactly the same, since the 2008 data is in a shapefile that doesn't split smaller townships, but pretty close). () Blue - Brian Higgins has to stay put for the next decade for this map to work. He's locked down his district; all I did was pull in some not terrible parts of Cattaugurus County and a little more of Erie County. Remains unchanged at 54-44 Obama. Green - Hochul winning would put her in this district, which takes all of the non-Erie parts of the Slaughtermander. Goes all the way from 52-46 McCain to 56-43 Obama. Red - Tom Reed gets the safest Republican district in the state, eating up all the Republican parts of NY-26. Goes from 51-48 McCain to 55-43 McCain. Purple - Slaughter gets a new gerrymander that picks up Auburn, Geneva, and Geneseo. Drops from 69-30 Obama down to 60-38 Obama, but that should be enough to keep it in Democratic hands. Teal - NY-24 and NY-25 get combined, so Hanna and Buerkle duke it out here; Syracuse is pulled out of the district to help out Bill Owens. Goes from 51-48 Obama (for NY-24) or 56-43 Obama (for NY-25) to 50-49 Obama. Yellow - Bill Owens adds Syracuse to his district and drops some Republican counties, and should be safe. Goes from 52-47 Obama to 59-40 Obama. Light Purple - Tonko's Albany-based district doesn't change a whole lot, it just stretches north instead of west now. Goes from 58-40 Obama to 59-40 Obama. Grey - A sprawling Republican district for Chris Gibson; goes from 51-48 Obama to 50-48 McCain. Sky Blue - The Hincheymander remains, with a little more territory added. Doesn't change, still 59-39 Obama. Magenta - Nan Hayworth has the northern borders of her district expanded a bit, and the Westchester portion contracted a bit. Goes from 51-48 Obama to 50-49 Obama. Light Green - Nita Lowey retains a Westchester district, and it goes from 62-38 Obama to 63-37 Obama. Light Purple (Rockland/Bronx) - Eliot Engel's district shifts upwards a bit to the suburbs, but remains safe Dem; goes from 72-28 Obama to 66-34 Obama. Made another attempt at the map, and succeeded in upping the numbers for the incumbents a little bit: () Blue (Higgins) - 55-44 Obama. Green (Hochul) - 57-42 Obama. Yellow (Reed) - 56-43 McCain. Purple (Slaughter) - 61-38 Obama. Teal (Hanna/Buerkle) - 49-49 McCain. Red (Owens) - 57-42 Obama. Grey (Tonko) - 59-40 Obama. Light Purple (Gibson) - 49-49 McCain. Sky Blue (Hinchey) - 58-40 Obama. Magenta (Hayworth) - 50-49 Obama. Light Green (Lowey) - 64-36 Obama. Light Purple (Engel) - 66-34 Obama. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 02, 2011, 09:43:23 AM Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career?
Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go. Could they stretch NY-4 across the Rockaways, circling NY-6, and into the southern bits of NY-9? It makes sense to me. Give other parts of Brooklyn to NY-10, NY-11, and NY-8 on the one side and divide up Queens with Ackerman taking the lion's share and Crowley helping smooth out lines. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 02, 2011, 11:21:51 AM Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career? Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go. Could they stretch NY-4 across the Rockaways, circling NY-6, and into the southern bits of NY-9? It makes sense to me. Give other parts of Brooklyn to NY-10, NY-11, and NY-8 on the one side and divide up Queens with Ackerman taking the lion's share and Crowley helping smooth out lines. It always appeared that one of the non-VRA districts in NYC/LI had to go. Weiner may have given the legislature an easy out. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 02, 2011, 11:28:24 AM Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career? Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go. Could they stretch NY-4 across the Rockaways, circling NY-6, and into the southern bits of NY-9? It makes sense to me. Give other parts of Brooklyn to NY-10, NY-11, and NY-8 on the one side and divide up Queens with Ackerman taking the lion's share and Crowley helping smooth out lines. I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 02, 2011, 11:32:37 AM I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population. Do you think it's plausible for NY-13, NY-8, NY-10, and NY-11 to take up that half of NY-9? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on June 02, 2011, 12:34:18 PM I thought the consensus was that 26 was getting eliminated regardless of who won, but that a Hochul win made the actual act more painful?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on June 02, 2011, 12:50:14 PM I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population. The western half of the Rockaways are white. The question then becomes how to draw a district that allows NY-06 to take up Far Rockaway and NY-04 Rockaway Park or so and points west. Drawing NY-04 into the ocean census tract might work - or some type of point continuity in Jamaica Bay. I thought the consensus was that 26 was getting eliminated regardless of who won, but that a Hochul win made the actual act more painful? I've always though Burkle's NY-25 would be the odd district out Upstate - even more so now with a Democrat winning NY-26. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 02, 2011, 12:50:42 PM I thought the consensus was that 26 was getting eliminated regardless of who won, but that a Hochul win made the actual act more painful? I don't think it was ever targeted for elimination--it's in the exact spot where a district was eliminated last time and that's why NY-24 stretches so far to the west when it was a central NY district before. There is enough population in western NY for 4 districts: a Rochester-based Dem district, a southern tier Republican district, and two Buffalo/Niagara based districts incorporating a lot of Republican turf. It's very tough, once you've got that, to make a 3-1 arrangement. We were looking at a solid 2-2 moving forward with NY-24 retreating out of the Finger Lakes and/or NY-25 pulling out of Monroe County. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 02, 2011, 01:25:03 PM It always seemed really easy to crunch the 9th district compared to any of the others.
I would love to see the GOP win a special there, though. They'll need a Jewish Republican for sure. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on June 02, 2011, 01:43:49 PM I thought the consensus was that 26 was getting eliminated regardless of who won, but that a Hochul win made the actual act more painful? Democrats in the Assembly and Cuomo would never allow two Democratic seats to be eliminated, especially considering what is likely to happen to Democrats in other states. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 02, 2011, 01:46:35 PM I would love to see the GOP win a special there, though. They'll need a Jewish Republican for sure. I *would* say this, but I'm skeptical that the district would elect a Republican. Jewish Democratic voters in the New York area were unusually warm to Saddam's-ass-kicking Bush in the post-9/11 presidential election and didn't connect well with Obama in 2008. But they'll have no trouble supporting a local Democrat for Congress by large margins. Especially with Medicare on the table. Weiner would be a moron to outright resign over this. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 02, 2011, 02:18:55 PM I would love to see the GOP win a special there, though. They'll need a Jewish Republican for sure. I *would* say this, but I'm skeptical that the district would elect a Republican. Jewish Democratic voters in the New York area were unusually warm to Saddam's-ass-kicking Bush in the post-9/11 presidential election and didn't connect well with Obama in 2008. But they'll have no trouble supporting a local Democrat for Congress by large margins. Especially with Medicare on the table. Weiner would be a moron to outright resign over this. Really depends on whether he's lying about his crotch or not I suppose. A Republican would really need to make a big deal about Israel 1967 and all that and really clean house in the Brooklyn section to have a chance. The Orthodox Jews seem to wildly swing in mass, though, which probably makes it easier. I believe even Weiner lost the Brooklyn section last year but of course won the Queens section easily. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 02, 2011, 02:27:44 PM Weiner won Brooklyn 52-48 and Queens 65-35 last year.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 02, 2011, 02:41:16 PM Weiner won Brooklyn 52-48 and Queens 65-35 last year. Thanks. Close, but not quite. I guess in the end New York is probably more tolerant of this crap than most areas. Rudy had some shady incidents after all. He probably just needs to stop digging his own grave. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 02, 2011, 03:06:04 PM A Republican would really need to make a big deal about Israel 1967 But any Democrat who would be running would be saying the exact same thing, and sincerely, and that's enough. Voters may feel strongly about Israel but not enough that they'll vote against a pro-Israel Democrat from the neighborhood. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 02, 2011, 03:36:14 PM I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population. Do you think it's plausible for NY-13, NY-8, NY-10, and NY-11 to take up that half of NY-9? I think NY-10 and NY-11 could do it all by themselves, with NY-10 pulling out of Park Slope, etc. and giving it over to NY-8 (which would loop back around NY-12 through Windsor Terrace). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dgov on June 02, 2011, 03:41:45 PM I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population. Do you think it's plausible for NY-13, NY-8, NY-10, and NY-11 to take up that half of NY-9? I think NY-10 and NY-11 could do it all by themselves, with NY-10 pulling out of Park Slope, etc. and giving it over to NY-8 (which would loop back around NY-12 through Windsor Terrace). You could also do it much easier by having the 8th take most of North Staten Island (Which is Solid D Anyway), and letting NY-13 take most of the Rep. Parts. The problem with the 10th and 11th is that they're VRA-Black districts, meaning they can't pick up alot of the heavily white 9th. You can probably put the Queens part in NY-4 or 5 if necessary as well. Do you guys think Grimm would want a bunch of Hasidic Jews in his district? They're very Republican, but might present a primary challenge for him later on. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 02, 2011, 03:47:17 PM Not a primary challenge, a general election challenge. Hasidim have liked the federal Republicans recently, but they're perfectly willing to swing completely the other way to the Democrats in any given election, provided the Democrat panders to them. Some of those precincts that gave McCain over 90% of the vote also gave Gore over 90% of vote, IIRC. They're represented in the state General Assembly by a Democrat, Dov Hikind (in a district that was like 75% McCain, and Hikind is never seriously challenged).
NY-10, in particular, has a lot of white areas in inner Brooklyn that it can easily drop in favor of southern Brooklyn. NY-11 has become much more black as Canarsie and Flatlands experienced continued demographic transition during the past decade. And both have substantial flexibility anyway--if you packed blacks in, they would be about 53-55% each. Also, there's no way Staten Island gets split up. If the Democrats controlled redistricting, it might get paired with lower Manhattan to create a ~62% Obama seat, but Staten Island will always be kept whole. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 02, 2011, 09:30:45 PM Hikind is a DINO though, in the most literal definition of the word. He's probably the most right wing member of the Assembly. He is only a Democrat because of NYC local politics, he's very socially conservative and frequently endorses Republicans (including McCain and Bush both times). But that isn't the most odious thing about him, he's a far right fascist who is comparable to Pakistani MPs in the Osama bin Laden-defending parties. He may be a DINO but he doesn't fit the GOP either, he'd need to join to something like Avigdor Lieberman's party.
The GOP do more than just not seriously challenge him, they also run (legal due to NY's fusion system.) The Conservative Party is frequently the only challenger he has, and whoever their candidate is would easily get my vote. I'd even vote for a non-fascist Republican over him. He is a truly a vile individual. Even the vast majority of American Jews would find him repulsive (Think Meir Kahane.) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 02, 2011, 10:46:44 PM Do you guys think Grimm would want a bunch of Hasidic Jews in his district? They're very Republican, but might present a primary challenge for him later on. He would love them. http://forward.com/articles/137094/ Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 02, 2011, 10:49:36 PM Staten Island's Hasid population is also growing as many are priced out Boro Park in Brooklyn and seek cheaper housing elsewhere
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 02, 2011, 11:53:42 PM Do you guys think Grimm would want a bunch of Hasidic Jews in his district? They're very Republican, but might present a primary challenge for him later on. He would love them. http://forward.com/articles/137094/ Wow that guy is disgusting. Canadians should be really offended. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 04, 2011, 12:16:16 AM Do you guys think Grimm would want a bunch of Hasidic Jews in his district? They're very Republican, but might present a primary challenge for him later on. He would love them. http://forward.com/articles/137094/ Wow that guy is disgusting. Canadians should be really offended. Pollard should have been executed for treason decades ago. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2011, 05:48:35 AM Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career? Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 11, 2011, 12:43:34 AM OK trying to eliminate Weiner's district I have to ask: What is this Middle Village like? Is it one of those Italian olds type places?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 11, 2011, 12:53:51 AM Yeah, basically. Increasing population of newer immigrants too
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 11, 2011, 12:54:23 AM OK trying to eliminate Weiner's district I have to ask: What is this Middle Village like? Is it one of those Italian olds type places? It is kind of a green paradise among the asphalt:) It is probably one of the least dense neighborhoods in the city. A lot of parks and cemetaries so it is spread out and a lot of trees. The tornado/macroburst last September hit this neighborhood hard and that is how I came to know about it more. It is a white neighborhood for the most part. Bloomberg is not cared for here at all recently. It is definitely a lot more conservative than the city at large. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 11, 2011, 12:58:43 AM Oh and actually looking at precincts, damn we all have the stereotypes about the white parts of Williamsburg and Park Slope but if the numbers are really like this I would love to force BushOklahoma to live there for a year!
New York will probably never have a gay marriage referendum, but it'd be fun to watch some precincts vote >90% in favor of gay marriage which would obviously be happening here (granted that no doubt already happened in some San Francisco precincts.) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 11, 2011, 08:28:53 PM OK trying to eliminate Weiner's district I have to ask: What is this Middle Village like? Is it one of those Italian olds type places? It is kind of a green paradise among the asphalt:) It is probably one of the least dense neighborhoods in the city. A lot of parks and cemetaries so it is spread out and a lot of trees. The tornado/macroburst last September hit this neighborhood hard and that is how I came to know about it more. It is a white neighborhood for the most part. Bloomberg is not cared for here at all recently. It is definitely a lot more conservative than the city at large. I don't know that Middle Village is particularly lacking in density if you subtract the cemeteries (but leave in Juniper Valley Park since a lot of neighborhoods have parks). It's definitely denser than Forest Hills, for example. (A quick glance at Google Earth is all you need to see that.) The real reason it is relatively conservative is, as always, demographics. Lots of middle class Italians, Irish, etc. in Middle Village as well as in neighboring Maspeth and Glendale, which are all fairly conservative. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 13, 2011, 12:06:17 AM OK trying to eliminate Weiner's district I have to ask: What is this Middle Village like? Is it one of those Italian olds type places? It is kind of a green paradise among the asphalt:) It is probably one of the least dense neighborhoods in the city. A lot of parks and cemetaries so it is spread out and a lot of trees. The tornado/macroburst last September hit this neighborhood hard and that is how I came to know about it more. It is a white neighborhood for the most part. Bloomberg is not cared for here at all recently. It is definitely a lot more conservative than the city at large. I don't know that Middle Village is particularly lacking in density if you subtract the cemeteries (but leave in Juniper Valley Park since a lot of neighborhoods have parks). It's definitely denser than Forest Hills, for example. (A quick glance at Google Earth is all you need to see that.) The real reason it is relatively conservative is, as always, demographics. Lots of middle class Italians, Irish, etc. in Middle Village as well as in neighboring Maspeth and Glendale, which are all fairly conservative. My definition of density is different- read not many large residential buildings/projects/coops etc etc :) There are even trees and some people have backyards. Yeah, Forest Hills has more money and much larger lots. Jamaica estates and Staten Island and many other neighborhoods have less density so was an overstatement. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 13, 2011, 10:36:13 PM NYC glory.
() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/806/nycglor.png/) Fuschia: Long Island district for King. 49.8% McCain Red: Long Island/Queens district for some Democrat. 56.9% Obama Slate Green: Queens/Long Island district for Meeks. 51.0% black, 85.2% Obama Grey: Brooklyn/Queens district for some Jewish Republican. 54.5% McCain Peach: Staten Island/Brooklyn district for Grimm: 50.0% McCain Pink: Brooklyn district for Towns: 50.3% Black, 90.2% Obama Pale green: Brooklyn district for Clarke: 50.7% black, 92.0% Obama Purple: Manhattan district for Nadler: 82.2% Obama Cyan: Manhattan district for Maloney: 88.5% Obama Orange: Bronx/Manhattan district for Serrano: 61.8% Hispanic, 90.2% Obama Sky Blue: Queens/Brooklyn district for Velazquez: 52.8% Hispanic, 83.2% Obama Yellow: Queens district for Crowley. 71.9% Obama Puke: Bronx district for some Hispanic Democrat. 48.3% Hispanic, 89.5% Obama Bright Green: Westchester/Queens leftovers for Engel. No Rangel, no Weiner. 6 districts don't cross borough lines at all. New Hispanic district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on June 13, 2011, 11:16:09 PM NYC glory. () (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/806/nycglor.png/) Fuschia: Long Island district for King. 49.8% McCain Red: Long Island/Queens district for some Democrat. 56.9% Obama Slate Green: Queens/Long Island district for Meeks. 51.0% black, 85.2% Obama Grey: Brooklyn/Queens district for some Jewish Republican. 54.5% McCain Peach: Staten Island/Brooklyn district for Grimm: 50.0% McCain Pink: Brooklyn district for Towns: 50.3% Black, 90.2% Obama Pale green: Brooklyn district for Clarke: 50.7% black, 92.0% Obama Purple: Manhattan district for Nadler: 82.2% Obama Cyan: Manhattan district for Maloney: 88.5% Obama Orange: Bronx/Manhattan district for Serrano: 61.8% Hispanic, 90.2% Obama Sky Blue: Queens/Brooklyn district for Velazquez: 52.8% Hispanic, 83.2% Obama Yellow: Queens district for Crowley. 71.9% Obama Puke: Bronx district for some Hispanic Democrat. 48.3% Hispanic, 89.5% Obama Bright Green: Westchester/Queens leftovers for Engel. No Rangel, no Weiner. 6 districts don't cross borough lines at all. New Hispanic district. Why would Democrats ever agree to a map that gives Republicans another seat in New York City? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2011, 11:24:10 PM I think it's just an academic exercise.
BTW I'm just tweaking my final map now, but why was there such controversy over shoring up Hochul? It's quite easy with just the northern fourth of Buffalo with Higgins taking the rest. Her seat would basically be the one represented by John LaFalce for so long with the bit of Buffalo added. Both Buffalo seats are about 54% Obama, which has been fine for Higgins so far and should be fine for Hochul as long as she isn't stupid (which she hasn't been to even win that seat to begin with.) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 13, 2011, 11:30:16 PM I think it's just an academic exercise. BTW I'm just tweaking my final map now, but why was there such controversy over shoring up Hochul? It's quite easy with just the northern fourth of Buffalo with Higgins taking the rest. Her seat would basically be the one represented by John LaFalce for so long with the bit of Buffalo added. Both Buffalo seats are about 54% Obama, which has been fine for Higgins so far and should be fine for Hochul as long as she isn't stupid (which she hasn't been to even win that seat to begin with.) Yeah, that was just an exercise. What you suggest is definitely doable and probably likely. Whether it holds for a decade or not is another issue. Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dgov on June 13, 2011, 11:37:23 PM Why would Democrats ever agree to a map that gives Republicans another seat in New York City? Well, a Jewish Democrat could hold that 7th (which can be brought down closer to 50/50 if necessary), and it weakens the Staten-Island district enough to where Grimm wouldn't have won it in 2010. In other words it's a good "fair" map if the Democrats want to bet on winning both. Other than that however, it's probably moot. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2011, 11:39:58 PM Uh in exchange for two districts the Democrats "might" win Rangel's super-safe seat is lost. Even if the Democrats want to get rid of Rangel he can be easily replaced with another Democrat.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dgov on June 13, 2011, 11:45:21 PM Uh in exchange for two districts the Democrats "might" win Rangel's super-safe seat is lost. Even if the Democrats want to get rid of Rangel he can be easily replaced with another Democrat. Rangel's District is the new Hispanic-majority one, Weiner's district is the one that gets more Marginal. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 14, 2011, 12:13:40 AM Why would Democrats ever agree to a map that gives Republicans another seat in New York City? Well, a Jewish Democrat could hold that 7th (which can be brought down closer to 50/50 if necessary), and it weakens the Staten-Island district enough to where Grimm wouldn't have won it in 2010. In other words it's a good "fair" map if the Democrats want to bet on winning both. Other than that however, it's probably moot. Nah, its not a fair map at all. It's just a GOP map to accomplish numerous objectives. The grey district is an obvious and blatant gerrymander. The rest of the districts are fairly clean of course; I tried to give each borough 2 districts and end the Manhattan over representation. Queens is of course sliced and diced a bit due to its location. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 14, 2011, 12:00:35 PM Rangel's district isn't abolished in that map at all. It just becomes unequivocally a Black-influence Hispanic-majority seat. Which is the way it's headed anyhow - and which was never an issue for Rangel.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on June 14, 2011, 12:43:56 PM Rangel's district isn't abolished in that map at all. It just becomes unequivocally a Black-influence Hispanic-majority seat. Which is the way it's headed anyhow - and which was never an issue for Rangel. It would depend on whether Serrano would slide over to the neighboring Bronx district. But he might want to take the orange district and leave the puke Bronx district for, say, his son. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 14, 2011, 12:49:48 PM Rangel's district isn't abolished in that map at all. It just becomes unequivocally a Black-influence Hispanic-majority seat. Which is the way it's headed anyhow - and which was never an issue for Rangel. It would depend on whether Serrano would slide over to the neighboring Bronx district. But he might want to take the orange district and leave the puke Bronx district for, say, his son. You made no mention of Ackerman, you put him into King's district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on June 15, 2011, 09:30:56 AM BTW I'm just tweaking my final map now, but why was there such controversy over shoring up Hochul? Because Republicans will have to agree to whatever is done to the district. Democrats do not have full control of the process here. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 15, 2011, 09:52:39 AM BTW I'm just tweaking my final map now, but why was there such controversy over shoring up Hochul? Because Republicans will have to agree to whatever is done to the district. Democrats do not have full control of the process here. Republicans also do not, and the Democrats will just block any plan that eliminates two Democrats (as any plan that eliminates/fails to shore up Hochul would pretty much have to do). Failing to shore up Hochul (without clearly eliminating some other upstate Republican as well, which isn't going to happen without shoring up Hochul) isn't "bipartisan" or "partisan-neutral", it's a Republican plan. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 15, 2011, 11:23:55 AM I should note there isn't many options for eliminating an upstate Democrat. The upstate Democrats are Hochul, Higgins, Owens, Slaughter, Tonko and perhaps Hinchey.
Higgins' seat obviously can't be eliminated. You need a Democratic seat in Buffalo. Slaughter will lose the earmuffs, but will just get a Democratic seat in Monroe county. Can't be eliminated. Owens can't be eliminated because of geography. Tonko's seat would be easy to carve up, but neighboring Republicans would definitely NOT want that. Not going to happen. Hinchey's seat isn't really upstate, but there's a reason it crawls into upstate like that, and no Republicans are going to want the areas it takes in. So that leaves Hochul as the only real eliminatable upstate Democrat, and to actually eliminate her seat (not just leave it as is to where she could easily lose in the future which is different) requires some pretty funky lines and may require something as bad the earmuffs, like a Buffalo to Syracuse district. A district was already lost in that area last time (John LaFalce's old seat) too. NY-24 is the most logical and easiest upstate seat to eliminate it. Trash it and Weiner's seat and you have a "fair" loss of seats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on June 15, 2011, 11:37:41 AM Your map was quite similar to mine. Mine gives Republicans 25% of NYC/LI/Westchester seats, which is still below our vote total for the area.
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 15, 2011, 01:23:06 PM Your map was quite similar to mine. Mine gives Republicans 25% of NYC/LI/Westchester seats, which is still below our vote total for the area. () So much for claims that a second Republican seat can't be drawn without hideous gerrymandering. Your 13th is compact, and your 7th, 10th, and 11th are where they need to be to comply with the VRA. Your 12th is practically what's left. Nice map! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on June 15, 2011, 01:29:48 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 15, 2011, 07:37:43 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Dems draw?? The Congressional map has been a compromise map for decades... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 17, 2011, 06:54:40 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 17, 2011, 08:05:40 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? His map speaks for itself. Quote The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 17, 2011, 08:26:57 PM I agree that a Republican seat can easily be drawn in Brooklyn, but NYC's lines are not disfigured because of a Democratic plot to disrupt the Southern Brooklyn Republican vote.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 17, 2011, 08:29:53 PM Also: Just because the Jewish Orthodox vote is cracked and diluted does not mean it's a Democratic plot. The 100% Republican drawn State Senate map heavily divides the Jewish vote in Southern Brooklyn as well when it could have concentrated it.
It's a tricky voting bloc to have to deal with, is it that hard to believe that Republicans weren't comfortable dealing with it in 2000, when the Orthodox community voted much more heavily Democratic? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on June 17, 2011, 09:22:47 PM If you push the NYC delegation north, what's the furthest north you can push the Downstate district that will be carved up?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 17, 2011, 09:25:18 PM 2 and 4 in that map are obviously gerrymandered, and while 12 looks OK that's only because it's mostly water.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 21, 2011, 11:29:58 AM Reworking the state with some updated ideas and the real census figures, and I have a problem here - the Upper Manhattan district now needs to cross into unequivocally Harlem, devoid of Whites areas (or into the Northwest Bronx). So I was wondering - maybe you could as it were merge Velazquez' and Rangel's districts, with some weird one-block connection along the East River?
Superenhance () D11 68-32 Obama, 57 white - 20 hispanic - 14 asian Yeah, the one major group in New York City royally screwed over by the current alignment is White Brooklyn Democrats, shared up between Nadler, Velazquez, the Staten seat and the Black seats. As a result, this is bona fide wide open. D13 81-18 Obama, 68 white - 17 hispanic - 7 asian - 6 black Upper Manhattan. The color line on the east side is ridiculously well defined on 96th street, the west side's is weird. Used to be that the poor lived closer to the river in Manhattan, but not anymore. Anyways that long north-south split is a retread from the 80s. Sets up Nadler against Maloney, though he might want to try the 8th instead. Actually, I suppose he's favored in a primary in either. D14 95-4 Obama, 56 hispanic - 36 black Rangel's district crosses the Harlem River. He's used to representing Hispanics (though not quite so many... but he had whites too in the last 20 years), he's never had a racially motivated primary challenge to my knowledge. 'Course, with his ethics problems, who knows. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 21, 2011, 11:40:18 AM I would shoot that Upper Manhattan district into Riverdale (NW Bronx) before combining Rangel and Velasquez. I also don't like the way you split up the Hispanic vote around Corona--surely it would be neater and more reasonable to put all of Forest Hills in the NE Queens seat and all of Corona in the central/NW Queens seat.
As for the idiots arguing about the Hasidic Jewish vote... Sue Kelly would like a word with you on them being reliable Republicans. As a group, they're way too fickle in their voting patterns for any Republican to want them in their district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 21, 2011, 12:18:48 PM Yah, the swap in Queens was already argued-and-self-conceded by me a couple of posts below the one I'm quoting here IIRC. :)
The White Brooklyn seat has since been reconfigured to take in all the Brooklyn Hasidim, btw (it's still 64% Obama). But the merger of Greenpoint, hispanic parts of Williamsburg, some adjoining territory in Queens, the Lower East Side, Harlem, anything right by the river in between, and a bit of the Upper West Side (South of the Columbia campus, including the Hispanic enclave there. Forced simply by the remaining Manhattan White Sink being full) worked surprisingly well. Overall it's 33% White, 29% Hispanic, 22% Black and 14% Asian. ;D Oh, and while drawing Maloney into Riverdale would have made sense, it would have introduced an extra county split... and that's against my rules here. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 21, 2011, 02:05:41 PM I would shoot that Upper Manhattan district into Riverdale (NW Bronx) before combining Rangel and Velasquez. I also don't like the way you split up the Hispanic vote around Corona--surely it would be neater and more reasonable to put all of Forest Hills in the NE Queens seat and all of Corona in the central/NW Queens seat. As for the idiots arguing about the Hasidic Jewish vote... Sue Kelly would like a word with you on them being reliable Republicans. As a group, they're way too fickle in their voting patterns for any Republican to want them in their district. Given the choice between "fickle" swing voters, and reliably Democratic voters, the Republicans would prefer the swing voters every time. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on June 21, 2011, 05:06:36 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that. That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map. One man, one vote. Period Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on June 21, 2011, 05:24:56 PM At any rate, given the bloc voting element in the Gingles test I think you could make a pretty good case that there are no VRA considerations anywhere in New York City except along the line where black and (outer) white Brooklyn meet.
Racialized Democratic party factions, on the other hand, there are aplenty. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 21, 2011, 09:15:56 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that. That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map. One man, one vote. Period LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 21, 2011, 09:38:39 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that. That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map. One man, one vote. Period LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that. Would you care to explain why you believe race rather than partisan result drove the map? Or, more to your point, how the map "proves" race was the primary factor? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 21, 2011, 09:40:49 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 21, 2011, 09:50:29 PM At any rate, given the bloc voting element in the Gingles test I think you could make a pretty good case that there are no VRA considerations anywhere in New York City except along the line where black and (outer) white Brooklyn meet. Racialized Democratic party factions, on the other hand, there are aplenty. Primary votes can also be used to show bloc voting under the Gingles test. I would expect there are still VRA considerations in NYC. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 21, 2011, 10:06:03 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: metalhead2 on June 22, 2011, 10:23:00 PM It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about? The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate. If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn. NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts. VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that. That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map. One man, one vote. Period LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that. At what point does race trump community of interest considerations? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 22, 2011, 10:26:50 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 22, 2011, 11:13:15 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats. 1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust. 2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district. With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 23, 2011, 02:58:07 PM Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.
() CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2% CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7% CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6% CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6% CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5% CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1% CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2% CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3% CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7% CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5% CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4% Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 23, 2011, 06:41:53 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats. 1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust. 2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district. With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates. Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander. Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on June 23, 2011, 07:24:10 PM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats. 1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust. 2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district. With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates. Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander. Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. Extending the underpopulated VRA seat in Queens into the surrounding area with minorities is not "gerrymandering." It is taking the VRA seriously. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 23, 2011, 10:12:02 PM Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary. CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2% CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7% CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6% CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6% CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5% CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1% CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2% CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3% CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7% CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5% CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4% Oh, I dislike that McCarthy district a lot. (ingenious inventiveness though) It just creates a 3 borough mess where the communities have nothing in common. This, I think, makes it harder for a rep. to advocate for their constituencies. Not even sure I would still be in her district. Ugh, perhaps I'd be chucked into a Meeks district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 23, 2011, 10:58:11 PM Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary. CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2% CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7% CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6% CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6% CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5% CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1% CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2% CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3% CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7% CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5% CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4% Oh, I dislike that McCarthy district a lot. (ingenious inventiveness though) It just creates a 3 borough mess where the communities have nothing in common. This, I think, makes it harder for a rep. to advocate for their constituencies. Not even sure I would still be in her district. Ugh, perhaps I'd be chucked into a Meeks district. There's no question it was the most challenging district to draw. I started with the 3 black districts, and that forced a line across Brooklyn and Queens and into Hempstead in Nassau to get enough black population. At the same time I put in Velazquez' district which needed North Corona to bring the Hisp. numbers up high enough to get a reasonably solid seat (I'd prefer 60%, but 59.2% is fine at VTD granularity). Those four districts build a wall. I could still split between CD 6 and 10, but then one ends up with a district that is virtually the same as the current NY-9. That leaves no CD-5 for Ackerman. The expansion of 6 and the tear up of 9 leaves CD 4 to do the ugly work. My original draft was neater, but McCarthy lives at the northern edge of her district in Mineola. Keeping that linked to the Coney Island area resulted in the unpleasant shape in my map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 24, 2011, 03:08:47 AM The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11. No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them. Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them? So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats. 1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust. 2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district. With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates. Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander. Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. Extending the underpopulated VRA seat in Queens into the surrounding area with minorities is not "gerrymandering." It is taking the VRA seriously. I'm not sure if Meek's district qualifies as needing a black majority. Putting that aside from now. It still doesn't explain the partisan racialmander in western Suffolk & extreme SE Nassau you have going on between the 3rd and 4th. Not to mention the whole thing of leaving McCarthy with a district that covers 5% of her current one. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 24, 2011, 04:18:56 AM That's a gerrymander to elect another Republican (who would, of course, never be safe) that might actually work.
There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 24, 2011, 04:52:12 AM There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine. Yep. I agree. Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns). I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 24, 2011, 09:33:14 AM There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine. Yep. I agree. Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns). I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. As long as there are significant differences in the voting behavior of protected minorities compared to the white population, the Constitution through the VRA will require districts where minorities have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. In areas where the minorities are thinly spread in the general population, there is unlikely to be a need to create those districts, but where they are concentrated differences in voting patterns can be more readily distinguished, so special districts tend to be needed. In any case the situation for a minority must be examined on both the level of the state as well as in each locale. The state-level facts for NY show that blacks make up 15.2% of the voting age population and Hispanics make up 16.2% of the voting age population. Based on the DeGrandy decision, if NY draws fewer than 4 black-majority and 4 Hispanic-majority districts than they could be open to a challenge if additional seats could be reasonably drawn. Both black and Hispanic populations outside of NYC are too dispersed to provide congressional seat majorities, so 3 districts each is a reasonable upper limit. There is the additional challenge of making sure that the Hispanic population can control the vote in their districts due to turnout and citizenship factors. This tends to necessitate districts with larger Hispanic majorities to achieve electoral success, and that tends to reduce the number of districts. No agreed upon standard exists for Hispanic districts between the federal Appellate Courts, and many observers expect that SCOTUS will have to deal with this question this decade. So, the specific issue is what to do about Meeks' district? A cautious mapmaker would want to avoid a clear opportunity for a challenge, and would bring the VAP for that district over 50%. The only choices to do that are an extension into Nassau or a long thin bridge to Harlem or the Bronx. I think everyone would agree that the former is the better choice, since it's arguably the more compact choice and reflects closer communities of interest. Now in the real world, map makers could get an agreement from major civil rights groups like the NAACP. That agreement could include districts that were a lower percentage, but still likely to allow the minority to elect the candidate of their choice. If the NAACP and other major black civil signed off on a CD 6 with less than 50% black VAP, the chance of a successful challenge diminishes. But, since I don't have that concurrence, I was left with the more cautious route. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 24, 2011, 09:59:25 AM I think even the cautious mapmaker would be well-aware that, even if there were anti-black bloc voting in the Democratic primary or general election in SE Queens (which there isn't), the split nature of the surrounding communities means it is a clear the black-preferred candidate would be elected regardless. After all, you're not drawing a 47% black, 46% white sort of seat. You're drawing a 47% black, 21% Hispanic, 17% white, 15% Asian sort of seat--an enormous difference.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 24, 2011, 10:32:25 AM I think even the cautious mapmaker would be well-aware that, even if there were anti-black bloc voting in the Democratic primary or general election in SE Queens (which there isn't), the split nature of the surrounding communities means it is a clear the black-preferred candidate would be elected regardless. After all, you're not drawing a 47% black, 46% white sort of seat. You're drawing a 47% black, 21% Hispanic, 17% white, 15% Asian sort of seat--an enormous difference. I agree that the demographics of the area would allow a district less than 50% black to still be controlled by the black voters. That's why I expect that the civil rights advocates could come to an agreement with the map makers. However, I am not so confident that a precinct analysis of primary and general election voting patterns in Queens won't show statistically significant differences in voting preference among the racial and ethnic groups. I know those differences exist in Chicago. It's based on those voting patterns that a legal challenge would be made. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 24, 2011, 10:45:04 AM No legal challenge to keeping Meeks' seat as is is conceivable. Your map, on the other hand... (though it obviously would be upheld).
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 24, 2011, 11:07:28 AM More than one way to skin a New York kitten, aka Presenting the Rangelmander.
() 3rd district (purple, King) 50.1-49.1 McCain, 79% White Ungerrymandered but not too much, in order to keep it a McCain seat. 4th district (red, McCarthy) 59.1 Obama, 54% White, 18% Hispanic, 17% Black 5th district (yellow, Ackerman) 62.9 Obama, 42% White, 35% Asian, 16% Hispanic The idea here is to make it possible that this will become an Asian opportunity seat in the nearish future, of course. Precincts given to McCarthy were handpicked for Whiteness. 6th district (teal, Meeks) 85.7% Obama, 45% Black, 22% Hispanic, 13% White, 12% Asian No one should dream that a substantially different map is possible. Please, people. 7th district (grey, Crowley) 80.5% Obama, 53% Hispanic, 21% Asian, 18% White, 6% Black And, yes, it's majority Hispanic VAP. Probably not enough for Velazquez to move here, alas. IRL, of course, you're not going to see this district. 8th (lavender) 94.6% Obama, 53% Black, 21% White, 20% Hispanic 9th (light blue) 83.9% Obama, 52% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian I have no idea who runs for what. Both are majority Black VAP. Note Coney Island. 10th (pink, open) 63.4% Obama, 60% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Asian The Brooklyn White Democrat seat - the one disenfranchised major group in New York's current map. Now with added bonus of uniting all the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn into a single district. 11th (light green, Grimm) 51.9% McCain, 62% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 7% Black About as safe as can be drawn (when considering Hasidim to not be safe R votes). 12th (slate) 83.3% Obama, 62% White, 18% Asian, 13% Hispanic 13th (orange) 83.8% Obama, 49% White, 34% Hispanic, 8% Black, 7% Asian The Manhattan seats, though orange has a white piece of NW Queens. And yeah, I'm aware you'll have to swim or cross through another district. Maloney is in the orange district, not sure where Nadler is. 14th (black, just because. Rangel) 90.1% Obama, 45% Black, 34% Hispanic, 14% White, 5% Asian The only district to introduce unnecessary county splits here. :D 15th (tomato, Serrano) 94.3% Obama, 63% Hispanic, 30% Black Light green is part of Engel's and possibly Lowey's seat, of course. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 24, 2011, 12:22:14 PM More than one way to skin a New York kitten, aka Presenting the Rangelmander. () 3rd district (purple, King) 50.1-49.1 McCain, 79% White Ungerrymandered but not too much, in order to keep it a McCain seat. 4th district (red, McCarthy) 59.1 Obama, 54% White, 18% Hispanic, 17% Black 5th district (yellow, Ackerman) 62.9 Obama, 42% White, 35% Asian, 16% Hispanic The idea here is to make it possible that this will become an Asian opportunity seat in the nearish future, of course. Precincts given to McCarthy were handpicked for Whiteness. 6th district (teal, Meeks) 85.7% Obama, 45% Black, 22% Hispanic, 13% White, 12% Asian No one should dream that a substantially different map is possible. Please, people. 7th district (grey, Crowley) 80.5% Obama, 53% Hispanic, 21% Asian, 18% White, 6% Black And, yes, it's majority Hispanic VAP. Probably not enough for Velazquez to move here, alas. IRL, of course, you're not going to see this district. 8th (lavender) 94.6% Obama, 53% Black, 21% White, 20% Hispanic 9th (light blue) 83.9% Obama, 52% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian I have no idea who runs for what. Both are majority Black VAP. Note Coney Island. 10th (pink, open) 63.4% Obama, 60% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Asian The Brooklyn White Democrat seat - the one disenfranchised major group in New York's current map. Now with added bonus of uniting all the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn into a single district. 11th (light green, Grimm) 51.9% McCain, 62% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 7% Black About as safe as can be drawn (when considering Hasidim to not be safe R votes). 12th (slate) 83.3% Obama, 62% White, 18% Asian, 13% Hispanic 13th (orange) 83.8% Obama, 49% White, 34% Hispanic, 8% Black, 7% Asian The Manhattan seats, though orange has a white piece of NW Queens. And yeah, I'm aware you'll have to swim or cross through another district. Maloney is in the orange district, not sure where Nadler is. 14th (black, just because. Rangel) 90.1% Obama, 45% Black, 34% Hispanic, 14% White, 5% Asian The only district to introduce unnecessary county splits here. :D 15th (tomato, Serrano) 94.3% Obama, 63% Hispanic, 30% Black Light green is part of Engel's and possibly Lowey's seat, of course. Ackerman now actually live in Nassau (Roslyn Heights) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on June 24, 2011, 06:55:51 PM No legal challenge to keeping Meeks' seat as is is conceivable. Your map, on the other hand... (though it obviously would be upheld). So with a little squeezing I can make the districts neater. The LI black districts are now all a whisker over 50%. CD 12 gave up a few tenths as well. There is still a piece of CD 6 in Nassau, but it is small. Without it the best I could do is 49.2% black for CD 6. Here's the new map and revised table (changes in green). () CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 59.8% Obama CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 58.3% Obama CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 38.5%, Asian VAP 31.4% CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.2% CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6% CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6% CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 50.4% CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 50.1% CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 58.9% CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3% CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7% CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5% CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4% Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on June 24, 2011, 09:38:31 PM There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine. Yep. I agree. Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns). I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. As long as there are significant differences in the voting behavior of protected minorities compared to the white population, the Constitution through the VRA will require districts where minorities have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. In areas where the minorities are thinly spread in the general population, there is unlikely to be a need to create those districts, but where they are concentrated differences in voting patterns can be more readily distinguished, so special districts tend to be needed. In any case the situation for a minority must be examined on both the level of the state as well as in each locale. The state-level facts for NY show that blacks make up 15.2% of the voting age population and Hispanics make up 16.2% of the voting age population. Based on the DeGrandy decision, if NY draws fewer than 4 black-majority and 4 Hispanic-majority districts than they could be open to a challenge if additional seats could be reasonably drawn. Both black and Hispanic populations outside of NYC are too dispersed to provide congressional seat majorities, so 3 districts each is a reasonable upper limit. There is the additional challenge of making sure that the Hispanic population can control the vote in their districts due to turnout and citizenship factors. This tends to necessitate districts with larger Hispanic majorities to achieve electoral success, and that tends to reduce the number of districts. No agreed upon standard exists for Hispanic districts between the federal Appellate Courts, and many observers expect that SCOTUS will have to deal with this question this decade. So, the specific issue is what to do about Meeks' district? A cautious mapmaker would want to avoid a clear opportunity for a challenge, and would bring the VAP for that district over 50%. The only choices to do that are an extension into Nassau or a long thin bridge to Harlem or the Bronx. I think everyone would agree that the former is the better choice, since it's arguably the more compact choice and reflects closer communities of interest. Now in the real world, map makers could get an agreement from major civil rights groups like the NAACP. That agreement could include districts that were a lower percentage, but still likely to allow the minority to elect the candidate of their choice. If the NAACP and other major black civil signed off on a CD 6 with less than 50% black VAP, the chance of a successful challenge diminishes. But, since I don't have that concurrence, I was left with the more cautious route. Yep, thanks for the details. I am not well versed on the finer details of the VRA decisions like you guys so I appreciate the input. I vaguely understand why these monstrosity districts must be drawn, but they still annoy the heck out of me. New York is well on its way to being majority-minority and within that new majority the different groups will be broken down into even smaller groups. Drawing these patchwork special districts is just going to get ever more complicated and imo un-neccesary. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 25, 2011, 03:57:43 AM But the actual district drawn doesn't have to be Black majority under case law... things change if you're presenting a map that creates additional minority-majority districts and arguing that the state must draw more minority-opportunity seats than it is willing to, but that isn't the case with your map at all. (Though I wonder if it is possible, with some creative mapping, to draw an additional Hispanic-majority seat while keeping Rangel's as a coalition seat. That would probably entail gutting McCarthy's minority areas, and might be a worthwhile legal challenge. If the districts can be argued to be a community of interest. In other words, even if you can draw it you'll probably lose your case in court. But you'll get your day in court with such a map. Much like the second Black seat maps in AL and SC, then.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 25, 2011, 06:50:22 AM ()
I call this map "too many objectives". Two Black majority seats, Three Hispanic majority seats, two Black plurality seats one of which is evidently Meeks' (and, yeah, the other one is Engel's. Near three way tie), and an ever so barely Asian plurality seat, not that it would actually elect one in 2012. And my Brooklyn White district. And a North-South split of Nassau. 1st 78% White, 13% Hispanic, 52.0% Obama 2nd 65% White, 20% Hispanic, 53.0% Obama 3rd (south Nassau) 64% White, 17% Hispanic, 14% Black, 54.1% Obama 4th (north Nassau and all the way to Pelham) 72% White, 13% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 52.4% Obama I wonder who would run in which district... where do King and McCarthy live? Ackerman is in the 4th, evidently. 5th (yellow Queens) 40% Asian, 38% White, 15% Hispanic (still plurality White VAP), 63.1% Obama 6th (Meeks, sans Rockaway now) 43% Black, 22% Hispanic, 14% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 85.5% Obama 7th (grey Queens, with Bushwick, a corridor through Hispanic parts of Williamsburg, and Two Bridges and Alphabet City. I apologize for the way it looks in the East River, that's just the empty precincts' design. All cross East River districts have their own bridge or tunnel.) 54% Hispanic, 19% White, 17% Asian, 82.5% Obama 8th (central Brooklyn), 56% Black, 21% Hispanic, 16% White, 94.7% Obama 9th (light blue Brooklyn) 55% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic, 82.8% Obama 10th (pink Brooklyn) 61% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 62.2% Obama. Compared to previous map, adds a bit of Williamsburg, loses a sliver in South Brooklyn (the neighborhood of that name. Which is in North Western Brooklyn, of course.) 11th (Staten) 62% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 51.9% McCain. Not tampered with compared to previous version. 12th (Lower Manhattan with Greenpoint, Hunters Point. Nadler) 67% White, 17% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 82.0% Obama 13th (black Harlem River) 60% Hispanic, 29% Black, 94.9% Obama 14th (tomato Bronx) 59% Hispanic, 27% Black, 89.6% Obama Kind of assuming Rangel is forced into retirement no matter what, if not in 2012 then in '14 or '16, so no use propping him up either. 15th (orange. Uptown, Riverdale, NW Queens Whites. Maloney) 59% White, 22% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 81.3% Obama 16th (my masterpiece) 33% Black, 31% Hispanic, 30% White, 75.3% Obama. Whites move into second place on VAP. Is Engel still safe under this map? Or does he discover an interest in running for mayor? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 25, 2011, 07:15:01 AM ()
Enhance. I could have sworn I added internal road links to the orange district... apparently not. Oh well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 25, 2011, 03:15:22 PM And what I think is my final NYC map (upstate to be drawn... uh... sometime soon. I notice my earlier plan doesn't work now.)
() 3rd 59% White, 18% Hispanic, 17% Black, 56.4% Obama. Yeah, I suppose this is actually the 4th, not the 3rd. Anyways, wholly in Hempstead and Long Beach apart from the Far Rockaway Hasidim. 4th 74% White, 11% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 51.5% Obama. Should be good enough for King. If he lives here. If not, well there's Ackerman I suppose. (googles it) Ooh, apparently McCarthy, King and Ackerman are all here! I suppose McCarthy chicken runs to the south, though. 5th 40% Asian, 36% White, 16% Hispanic, 64.2% Obama. And open, apparently, at least til Weiner's successor has been chosen. Plurality Asian on VAP as well. 6th 45% Black, 21% Hispanic, 15% White, 12% Asian, 85.5% Obama. Safe for Meeks. 7th 53% Hispanic, 23% White, 17% Asian, 78.9% Obama. Piece of work keeping this majority Hispanic VAP. Maybe Velazquez even lives in it? And where does Crowley live? 8th 54% Black, 21% Hispanic, 19% White, 95.3% Obama. 9th 52% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic, 83.9% Obama 10th 60% White, 20% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 60.9% Obama. I had to remove a lot of uberliberal areas in Park Slope etc in the last goround. 11th 63% White, 15% Hispanic, 14% Asian, 52.2% McCain. Inched up a tad by adding Marine Park. 12th 62% White, 18% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 82.2% Obama 13th 62% Hispanic, 30% Black, 95.3% Obama 14th 53% Hispanic, 36% Black, 93.0% Obama 15th 52% White, 26% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 84.2% Obama. Yeah, it's the orange district from College Point to Inwood. No, it's not pretty. Basically a district of leftovers. My particular apologies to the people of East Harlem. Maloney, probably Crowley as well? 16th 46% White, 29% Hispanic, 18% Black. Includes all of Port Chester just outside the map, but nothing else. (Similarly, Rockaway, Coney Island and Staten are all undivided). Not strictly necessary county splits: two between Queens and Nassau, one necessary for the Asian plurality seat, the other just uniting a little marooned community that somehow came to be on both sides of the line. None elsewhere. Not strictly necessary town splits: None. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on June 26, 2011, 01:14:35 AM () I call this map "too many objectives". Two Black majority seats, Three Hispanic majority seats, two Black plurality seats one of which is evidently Meeks' (and, yeah, the other one is Engel's. Near three way tie), and an ever so barely Asian plurality seat, not that it would actually elect one in 2012. And my Brooklyn White district. And a North-South split of Nassau. 1st 78% White, 13% Hispanic, 52.0% Obama 2nd 65% White, 20% Hispanic, 53.0% Obama 3rd (south Nassau) 64% White, 17% Hispanic, 14% Black, 54.1% Obama 4th (north Nassau and all the way to Pelham) 72% White, 13% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 52.4% Obama I wonder who would run in which district... where do King and McCarthy live? Ackerman is in the 4th, evidently. 5th (yellow Queens) 40% Asian, 38% White, 15% Hispanic (still plurality White VAP), 63.1% Obama 6th (Meeks, sans Rockaway now) 43% Black, 22% Hispanic, 14% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 85.5% Obama 7th (grey Queens, with Bushwick, a corridor through Hispanic parts of Williamsburg, and Two Bridges and Alphabet City. I apologize for the way it looks in the East River, that's just the empty precincts' design. All cross East River districts have their own bridge or tunnel.) 54% Hispanic, 19% White, 17% Asian, 82.5% Obama 8th (central Brooklyn), 56% Black, 21% Hispanic, 16% White, 94.7% Obama 9th (light blue Brooklyn) 55% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic, 82.8% Obama 10th (pink Brooklyn) 61% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 62.2% Obama. Compared to previous map, adds a bit of Williamsburg, loses a sliver in South Brooklyn (the neighborhood of that name. Which is in North Western Brooklyn, of course.) 11th (Staten) 62% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 51.9% McCain. Not tampered with compared to previous version. 12th (Lower Manhattan with Greenpoint, Hunters Point. Nadler) 67% White, 17% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 82.0% Obama 13th (black Harlem River) 60% Hispanic, 29% Black, 94.9% Obama 14th (tomato Bronx) 59% Hispanic, 27% Black, 89.6% Obama Kind of assuming Rangel is forced into retirement no matter what, if not in 2012 then in '14 or '16, so no use propping him up either. 15th (orange. Uptown, Riverdale, NW Queens Whites. Maloney) 59% White, 22% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 81.3% Obama 16th (my masterpiece) 33% Black, 31% Hispanic, 30% White, 75.3% Obama. Whites move into second place on VAP. Is Engel still safe under this map? Or does he discover an interest in running for mayor? McCarthy lives in Mineola, which looks like is on the southern fringe of the red district in central Nassau. (looks like the Town borders of N. Hempstead and Hempstead or community borders of Mineola and Garden City is where you have it split. Even if she doesn't live there, my guess is McCarthy would choose to run in the purple one since that covers about 3/4 of her current district (Mineola is on the northern fringe of the current one. also you could draw her into the purple one with ease. King lives in Seaford (north of Sunrise). It looks like you use Sunrise Highway as the border between the two districts in SE Nassau, but I can't tell if that ends in Massapequa, or extends into Seaford (you bring the border a bit further north in the Seaford/Wantagh area, but its hard to tell exactly where. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on June 26, 2011, 08:38:07 PM Re, Buffalo: just noticed Hochul lives in Hamburg, which is south of the city and decidedly in Brian Higgins' district. The fact that she's already the member may suggest no-one cares about this, but if the legislature decides to care, the split here could look weirder than we have perhaps thought.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on June 26, 2011, 08:45:30 PM I think Hochul has said she will move if she has to.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2011, 06:11:46 AM So, here's the Upstate part of my New York map. I do consider this a fair, communities of interest, map that a truly independent commission might draw.
() Changes to NYC were minimal (compared to my last map) - I changed the numbers of the 3rd and 4th and of the 13th-15th, reverted to default colors, performed some mild gerrymandering in Huntington, found a quite populated unassigned precinct in the Bronx and adjusted boundaries there and in Scarsdale according to get back into my selfset 1000 deviation corridor. (all but 5 districts are actually within 500, and 5 are within 100. Indeed two of those are 4 inhabitants off the ideal, but that's basically a random occurrence. That most districts don't use the 1000 to full extent is not, though.) Adding figures for recap. 1st (Suffolk East) 78% White, 13% Hispanic. 52.0% Obama. Tim Bishop Nothing to see here. 2nd (Suffolk West) 64% White, 21% Hispanic. 53.6% Obama. Steve Israel Less safe than he was. 3rd (Nassau North) 75% White, 10% Hispanic, 10% Asian. 51.0% Obama. Steve King, Carolyn McCarthy, Gary Ackerman McCarthy chicken runs to the south. Ackerman retires or chicken runs to the Asian seat or loses to King. Or defeats King. Or someone else does. But these are the less likely scenarios. 4th (Nassau South) 59% White, 18% Hispanic, 17% Black. 56.4% Obama. Open McCarthy's, actually. She lives just outside. 5th (Queens Northeast) 40% Asian, 36% White, 16% Hispanic. 64.2% Obama. Open Not open until Weiner resigned, and presumably not open once the vacancy has been filled. Probably won't elect an Asian, but I think a specifically Asian influence seat, especially as it almost draws itself and only needs to be enhanced by finetuning the edges, is called for. Getting it much higher would require a one-inch wide connector into Chinatown and not be justified. 6th (Queens South) 45% Black, 21% Hispanic, 15% White, 12% Asian. 85.5% Obama. Meeks Nothing to see here. 7th (Queens Northwest & Bushwick) 53% Hispanic, 23% White, 17% Asian. 78.9% Obama. Nydia Velazquez At least I *guess* she's the incumbent (She lives in Williamsburg, which is split. Crowley is somewhere in the Queens portion of his constituency, the whiter parts of which portion end up in the 13th though I think the majority ends up here.) 8th (Brooklyn Central) 54% Black, 21% Hispanic, 19% White. 95.3% Obama. Yvette Clarke. As far as I can tell, Clarke lives in Flatbush, which is split but mostly here, and Towns seems to be living in Flatlands, which is in the 9th. Seeing as a lot of the dividing line runs through solidly jetblack territory and is pretty random, things could always be rearranged to keep them separate. 9th (Brooklyn Southeast) 52% Black, 23% White, 16% Hispanic. 83.9% Obama. Ed Towns. Nothing to see here. 10th (Brooklyn West) 60% White, 20% Hispanic, 16% Asian. 60.9% Obama. Open. I've pointed out what is to be seen here before. 11th (Staten Island & Brooklyn Southwest) 63% White, 15% Hispanic, 14% Asian. 52.2% McCain. Mike Grimm. Nothing to see here. 12th (Manhattan Lower) 62% White, 18% Asian, 13% Hispanic. 82.2% Obama. Jerry Nadler. Not sure he actually lives here, but he'd obviously represent it. 13th (Manhattan Upper & La Guardia) 52% White, 26% Hispanic, 11% Black. 84.2% Obama. Carolyn Maloney, Joe Crowley. I've issued my apologies before. Not sure about Crowley, or Maloney and Nadler actually. Might it be preferable to split the 12th and 13th east-west? 14th (Harlem River) 62% Hispanic, 30% Black. 95.3% Obama. Jose Serrano, Charlie Rangel. I *think* Serrano is here. Might be just across the line. He might run next door and leave this one to Rangel. Or Rangel might retire. 15th (Bronx Central) 53% Hispanic, 36% Black. 93.2% Obama. Open. Serrano's or a noob's. Who might well be a Black. 16th (Westchester South & Bronx Outer) 46% White, 29% Hispanic, 18% Black. 67.5% Obama. Eliot Engel. Nothing to see here. 17th (Westchester North) 72% White, 15% Hispanic. 56.9% Obama. Nita Lowey, Nan Hayworth. Not much to see here. Lowey wins. 18th (Rockland & Sullivan) 67% White, 17% Hispanic, 10% Black. 52.2% Obama. Open. And with lots of Hasidim as the core swing demographic! 19th (Hudson Valley) 84% White. 54.5% Obama. Maurice Hinchey, Chris Gibson. Can Hinchey hold this? It should probably elect a generic Democrat, but Hinchey is no generic Democrat. 20th (Albany & Mohawk Valley) 80% White. 57.7% Obama. Paul Tonko. Safe even though not as safe as in my earlier plan, where it would have included Saratoga instead of Fulton and Montgomery (drawing Tonko outside of his district in the process.) Thing is, my preliminary numbers plan of uniting Binghampton not just with Ithaca and Elmira as it really ought to be, but also with vast rural areas to the west, fleshing out Syracuse with points west, and creating a district based around Oneida and Montgomery Counties that ended up including all sorts of odds and ends that didn't really belong... it doesn't work anymore. There's too many people west of Elmira, too few people in New York (pushing the Hudson Valley seats outward), also too few people in Oneida itself, and the result of keeping that setup is pretty inevitably a three way split of Binghampton. It just wouldn't do. That recognition led to a major realignment of districts 19-24 (19 adding Otsego and Schoharie). If the Erie Canal / Mohawk Valley / New York State Thruway can't have its own district, then the next option is clearly the cities east and west. Evidently it would be ideal to include Fulton County (or at least the main towns of Johnstown and Gloversville), but I ran into population constraint issues. 21st (Saint Lawrence & Saratoga) 93% White. 51.7% Obama. Bill Owens. Not really all that much to see here. Adds Saratoga, loses Watertown. Obviously Owens won't ever be safe without a bipartisan gerrymander, but then in real life that's exactly what we'll be seeing. 22nd (Southern Tier) 90% White. 51.4% Obama. Tom Reed. This one came out quite neat. Reed holds it until the next Dem wave and no longer. 23rd (Syracuse & Rome/Utica) 81% White. 55.5% Obama. Ann Marie Buerkle, Richard Hanna. Two Republican incumbents in a seat that you'd expect to be generically fairly securely Democratic... though you'd be wrong, given Walsh's survival in 2006 and Buerkle's upset 2010 win. Whoever survives the primary still has a big red x on their back. 24th (deep purple remnant district) 91% White. 50.9% Obama. Open. Yeah, ugly. Stretching from Batavia to Fort Drum, evading Syracuse in the process. Something had to give. Would presumably be quite securely Republican in congressional elections. 25th (Rochester) 72% White, 15% Black. 58.8% Obama. Louise Slaughter. Nothing to see here. 26th (Suburban Erie & points south) 92% White. 50.5% McCain. Kathy Hochul. I think that's marginally more Democratic than her current district. Obviously still a prime Republican target. 27th (Buffalo & Niagara) 72% White, 18% Black. 62.2% Obama. Brian Higgins. The compact Buffalo district I drew at first works just fine - north to the county line, east to the Transit Road, south to Hamburg. What doesn't really work, then, is the 26th, which aquires an hourglass shape (especially once I noticed Genesee was just the population I needed in the 24th, while Wyoming is too small) and misses the main north-south thoroughfare (the interstate around Buffalo). I think this is a viable alternative. The partisan effect is fairly negligible. As to other options - stretching the 24th like a chewing gum? Splitting Rochester? Pleeease. (What might work is stretching the 22nd, but it's not going to be pretty either.) So yeah, thoughts. Comments. Point-outs of obvious errors of judgement or overlooked improvements. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 27, 2011, 06:45:46 AM 1. Splitting the Buffalo metro. No. One district for Buffalo and its immediate suburbs, as well as Niagara Falls, and one district for Buffalo exurbs and the Southern Tier conservatives.
2. Jefferson County only belongs with the far north. Same with Oswego County unless you can pair it with Syracuse. Certainly does not belong with Rochester exurbs and the Southern Tier, which are demographically and historically different (Dutch and German and deeply religious in the Southern Tier v. New England/English moderates in the far north) 3. Albany to Herkimer, WTF? I-90 is not a community of interest. Put Herkimer in the district to the south, along with all of Montgomery County west of Amsterdam. Put more of Rensselaer or Saratoga in the Albany seat. I'd try to work Steuben and Alleghany, and maybe Chemung, into the district to the north while pushing the Ithaca-Binghamton district further east into Otsego, Delaware and Sullivan Counties. Not sure how well that would work population-wise, but your current Ithaca-Binghamton seat is a mess. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 27, 2011, 08:04:20 AM This would be my counterproposal. Not a big fan of the area between Albany and Utica, but something strange has to happen there. Could swap Delaware County for Fulton/Montgomery, I suppose.
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2011, 01:05:48 PM 1. Splitting the Buffalo metro. No. One district for Buffalo and its immediate suburbs, as well as Niagara Falls, and one district for Buffalo exurbs and the Southern Tier conservatives. Quote 3. Albany to Herkimer, WTF? I-90 is not a community of interest. Put Herkimer in the district to the south, along with all of Montgomery County west of Amsterdam. Put more of Rensselaer or Saratoga in the Albany seat. That can be very easily done. This would be my counterproposal. Not a big fan of the area between Albany and Utica, but something strange has to happen there. Could swap Delaware County for Fulton/Montgomery, I suppose. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 27, 2011, 02:11:49 PM I didn't really pay attention to what was going on at the southern edge of Upstate, so what you did probably makes more sense. I didn't finish the map, just the nine upstate districts.
As for partisanship, on this new iteration (below, which I think is something of an improvement): Buffalo: 62-36 Obama Rural Buffalo: 45-52 McCain Rochester: 58-39 Obama Rural Rochester and Southern Tier: 45-53 McCain Syracuse: 56-41 Obama Ithaca-Binghamton-Utica-Oneonta: 53-44 Obama (I think this was 53-45 before) Far North: 50-47 Obama (I think this was 51-47 before) Albany etc.: 58-39 Obama Hudson Valley: 54-44 Obama (I think this was 54-43 before) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2011, 02:20:19 PM 'kay, here's the reworked upstate, rather like Verily's but not quite.
() 19th (Hudson Valley) 84% White. 54.4% Obama. Maurice Hinchey, Chris Gibson. Can Hinchey hold this? It should probably elect a generic Democrat, but Hinchey is no generic Democrat. 20th (Albany) 80% White. 58.3% Obama. Paul Tonko. Back up to Saratoga, but Tonko is still in as he's from Rotterdam. 21st (Saint Lawrence & Mohawk Valley) 92% White. 51.0% Obama. Bill Owens. Regains Watertown, but not Oswego. 22nd (babyshit brown) 87% White. 53.2% Obama. Richard Hanna. Now combines Binghampton and Ithaca (but not Elmira) with Rome and Utica. Swingy until/unless an incumbent digs in. Hanna's home is just barely inside the district. 23rd (Syracuse with Oswego and Auburn) 84% White. 56.4% Obama. Ann Marie Buerkle Might be too Democratic now for Buerkle to hold. 24th (West Central) 92% White. 52.9% McCain. Tom Reed Quite safe here. 25th (Rochester) 72% White, 15% Black. 58.7% Obama. Louise Slaughter. Nothing to see here. 26th (Niagara, Outer Erie, Chautauqua) 90% White. 52.8% McCain. Open. Hochul would run here (she's just inside the Buffalo seat), but it's a prime Republican target. 27th (Buffalo) 73% White, 16% Black. 62.4% Obama. Brian Higgins, Kathy Hochul. The compact Buffalo district I drew at first that works just fine. (hits post) Ah, you beat me. Quite similar now. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on June 27, 2011, 03:54:21 PM I-88, connecting Oneonta to Binghamton, runs through the NW corner of Delaware County. Personally, I prefer preserving transit links to preserving county lines and would put the northwesternmost corner of Delaware County (Sidney) in NY-22. (You could then drop the bit of Herkimer in NY-22 maybe and put that tiny bit of Rensselaer in NY-21 in NY-19--not sure how the populations work out, but something like that.)
NY-22 ends up a truly odd duck. That was my intent, of course; it's a weird fusion of small post-industrial cities (Binghamton, Utica, Rome), college towns (Ithaca, Oneonta, Hamilton, Clinton, Binghamton again) and rural areas. It extends outward to precisely take in all of the college towns in central NY. But they all fit together fairly well in the end. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on June 28, 2011, 05:37:54 AM It's not a tiny part population-wise. And I think it makes perfect sense to draw Troy with Albany.
The bit of Herkimer, similarly, is (in my map) a single township (Schuyler) whose population is mostly just outside of Utica though the area extends well eastward. I never get what people mean with the "preserving transit links" argument... does the drive along I-88 somehow become impossible or take one second longer because it crosses a district line? Or are we talking of Sidney's transit links? If the town is politically in Delaware County but looks to its neighbors along the interstate as a Community of Interest, then that would make sense. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on July 02, 2011, 12:39:47 PM is it possible that Charlie Rangel gets primaried by a Puerto Rican?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Verily on July 02, 2011, 12:50:05 PM It's not a tiny part population-wise. And I think it makes perfect sense to draw Troy with Albany. Whoops, I meant Washington County, not Rensselaer County. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 06, 2011, 04:06:37 PM Andrew Cuomo says “I will veto a plan that is not independent or a plan that is partisan." (http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2011/07/06/cuomo-still-wants-independent-redistricting/)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 06, 2011, 09:28:34 PM Well Pat Quinn also said that he wanted a fair map.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on July 07, 2011, 12:34:02 AM Well Pat Quinn also said that he wanted a fair map. Vetoing a Republican gerrymander of the State Senate should be a no-brainer, though. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Landslide Lyndon on July 07, 2011, 10:00:07 AM Well Pat Quinn also said that he wanted a fair map. So did Mitch Daniels. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 07, 2011, 10:21:29 AM I guess he could pull a McDonnell and pretend that only the Republican map is gerrymandered.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on July 08, 2011, 07:58:08 PM Well Pat Quinn also said that he wanted a fair map. Cuomo was much more specific, saying that he would veto a map not drawn by an independent commission. Could be a bargaining move though with the legislature Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on July 12, 2011, 01:54:40 PM http://online.wsj.com/article/APebf21da02e004c39b6246aea765a06f8.html
NEW YORK — The diverse congressional district that Anthony Weiner vacated in the midst of a sexting scandal has become the latest battleground for a Latino organization that is laboring to increase the political clout of Hispanics in Congress. LatinoJustice PRLDEF, which is involved in redistricting fights in 10 jurisdictions throughout the Northeast and in Florida, is proposing that New York's 9th Congressional District be dissolved as the nation's political map is redrawn to reflect population shifts based on new census data. But such a proposal could irk Democratic leaders and even residents of Weiner's former district themselves. I guess they figure that Velazquez's 12th is the only other target if the 9th survives. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Dan the Roman on July 13, 2011, 12:17:00 AM I guess he could pull a McDonnell and pretend that only the Republican map is gerrymandered. I suspect he will imitate McDonnell in rejecting the initial GOP Map and forcing them to draw one that protects only their current incumbents, which given Grisenti's position, all but guarantees the Democrats the majority. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: whaeffner1 on August 12, 2011, 09:30:18 PM In Dave's Redistricting App, I actually created a Republican district that went for McCain in the South of Brooklyn while keeping Michael Grimm's Republican leaning district. As soon as I can get a screenshot, I'll put it up.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 12, 2011, 09:37:36 PM You aren't the first. The problem is such would probably elect a Democrat in most circumstances. McCain got a lot of votes from Orthadox jews that usually vote pretty straight ticket D, downballot.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on August 13, 2011, 10:05:53 PM Quote You aren't the first. The problem is such would probably elect a Democrat in most circumstances. McCain got a lot of votes from Orthadox jews that usually vote pretty straight ticket D, downballot. only if the Republican's put up a stupid candidate (we voted for Paladino at around a 50% rate and if he would not have been portrayed as a "Crazy Carl" he would have got at least in the 70%) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on August 14, 2011, 04:01:02 AM But the Democrat running there wouldn't be Andrew Cuomo, but a Jewish candidate with ties to the community.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 14, 2011, 07:18:07 AM It isn't exactly the same, but Carl Kruger holds a State Senate district that's 55-45 McCain.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on August 14, 2011, 11:42:38 AM Quote It isn't exactly the same, but Carl Kruger holds a State Senate district that's 55-45 McCain. and when was the last time the Republicans put up any Challenger against Kruger much less a good candidate (since at least 2004 the only challengers he ever got were on the conservative line with the last one being a 19 year old kid who got a record for the highest anyone ever got only on the Conservative line)Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Lunar on August 25, 2011, 11:30:42 PM In Dave's Redistricting App, I actually created a Republican district that went for McCain in the South of Brooklyn while keeping Michael Grimm's Republican leaning district. As soon as I can get a screenshot, I'll put it up. I think someone already created such a thing earlier on in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129756.msg2927069#msg2927069 Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 09, 2011, 04:08:55 PM Well, if Turner bags Weprin, and assuming the Pubbies are willing to push NY-03 into the lean GOP column from reasonably safe, and make that worthless creature and one-time IRA symp Peter King work harder, if I were the NY Pubbies, I would drive a hard bargain with the Dems. The map below was drawn without my ever looking at partisan numbers until it was finished. It is the map that I think a court might well draw. Given the VRA, it sort of draws itself, with NY-12 and NY-09 becoming filler CD's stuck between the minority CD's. NY-04 disappears; good bye Carolyn McCarthy, the lady who jump started her career running against guns, and has had an undistinguished career ever since.
The Dem margin in NY-12 collapses (but still safe Dem), Ackerman in NY-05 now has a lean Dem CD, and will have to really sweat to hold on to it, or become more moderate, and yes, NY-09 becomes a reasonably safe GOP district. As a lagniappe for the Pubbies, NY-02 changes from lean Dem to a true toss up CD. Crowley (NY-07) and Velazquez (NY-12) will need to swap CD's. I did everything possible to get NY-06 to 50% black VAP, but after doing everything, the best I could do was 49.7% black VAP, so that should hold up. There are no more blacks in the neighborhood. It is all a really beautiful thing really. On a really good day, the Pubbies could have a six pack representing Long Island and NYC. Imagine that! Sure if the courts draw the lines, the Pubbies will lose 1 or 2 CD's upstate (but The bottom line is that the VRA really F's - and F's bad, the Dems in the Big Apple metro area; that and the geography of the territory, which limits were CD's can go, without looking ridiculous. I didn't even look at the old map. It was and is just an erose mess and deserves to be thrown into the garbage, never to be seen again. It is interesting that Charlie Rangel's CD (NY-15) will end up being only about 25% black. It won't be any higher, because they are no blacks nearby (or otherwise available) for that CD to reach out and pick up. Rather the CD needs to pick up more of the white upper west side. Meanwhile Harlem itself is steadily bleaching towards white. The real estate is just too valuable. () () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2011, 05:59:53 PM Don't you mean, "Hinchey"? :P
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 09, 2011, 06:08:48 PM Don't you mean, "Hinchey"? :P Ya, him. Hinckley (sp) gained fame in another venue. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on September 09, 2011, 08:10:57 PM Well, if Turner bags Weprin, and assuming the Pubbies are willing to push NY-03 into the lean GOP column from reasonably safe, and make that worthless creature and one-time IRA symp Peter King work harder, if I were the NY Pubbies, I would drive a hard bargain with the Dems. The map below was drawn without my ever looking at partisan numbers until it was finished. It is the map that I think a court might well draw. Given the VRA, it sort of draws itself, with NY-12 and NY-09 becoming filler CD's stuck between the minority CD's. NY-04 disappears; good bye Carolyn McCarthy, the lady who jump started her career running against guns, and has had an undistinguished career ever since. The Dem margin in NY-12 collapses (but still safe Dem), Ackerman in NY-05 now has a lean Dem CD, and will have to really sweat to hold on to it, or become more moderate, and yes, NY-09 becomes a reasonably safe GOP district. As a lagniappe for the Pubbies, NY-02 changes from lean Dem to a true toss up CD. Crowley (NY-07) and Velazquez (NY-12) will need to swap CD's. I did everything possible to get NY-06 to 50% black VAP, but after doing everything, the best I could do was 49.7% black VAP, so that should hold up. There are no more blacks in the neighborhood. It is all a really beautiful thing really. On a really good day, the Pubbies could have a six pack representing Long Island and NYC. Imagine that! Sure if the courts draw the lines, the Pubbies will lose 1 or 2 CD's upstate (but The bottom line is that the VRA really F's - and F's bad, the Dems in the Big Apple metro area; that and the geography of the territory, which limits were CD's can go, without looking ridiculous. I didn't even look at the old map. It was and is just an erose mess and deserves to be thrown into the garbage, never to be seen again. It is interesting that Charlie Rangel's CD (NY-15) will end up being only about 25% black. It won't be any higher, because they are no blacks nearby (or otherwise available) for that CD to reach out and pick up. Rather the CD needs to pick up more of the white upper west side. Meanwhile Harlem itself is steadily bleaching towards white. The real estate is just too valuable. () () Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on September 09, 2011, 08:30:06 PM I highly doubt a court would draw a 9th district like that. Rest of it looks more or less reasonable.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on September 09, 2011, 11:48:37 PM Just drew a very nice looking Republican district in Brooklyn. It's 50-48 Mccain and the 13th is 49-48 Mccain.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 10, 2011, 01:03:24 AM I highly doubt a court would draw a 9th district like that. Rest of it looks more or less reasonable. NY-09 is boxed between geography and minority CD's. To my mind, there is nowhere else it can go. You can change it some, but it will dilute the black percentage in NY-10 or NY-11. It tracks the Brooklyn-Queens line to the east of NY-10. On its east side next to NY-06, that line is defined by trying to max the black percentage in NY-06, which is still below 50% as it is. What does your version look like, sbane? Can you post it? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on September 10, 2011, 01:38:14 AM ()
(all racial stats are in VAP) CD-1 Obama 51.9-47.1 80% White CD-2 Obama 52.6-46.5 69.1% White CD-3 Obama 51.5-47.8 71.7% White CD-5 Obama 54.4-44.8 62.1% White CD-6 Obama 80.5-19.1 49.9% Black, 21.8% White, 18.6% Hispanic CD-7 (Brown) Obama 84.6-14.9 53.8% Hispanic, 14.5% White, 14.2% Black, 15.4% Asian CD-8 Obama 81-18.1 74.1% White CD-9 Mccain 50.7-48.6 58.9% White, 19% Asian, 16.2% Hispanic CD-10 Obama 94-5.6 Black 54.9%, 21% Hispanic, 17.9% White CD-11 Obama 88.8-10.9 Black 53.7%, 21.7% Hispanic, 11.7% White CD-12 Obama 66.3-32.9 White 38.2%, 29.9% Asian, 24.1% Hispanic CD-13 Mccain 49.9-49.2 White 63.9% White CD-14 Obama 85.8-13.2 White 53%, Hispanic 20.9%, 17.8% Asian CD-15 Obama 95.6-4 Hispanic 46.9%, Black 35.7%, 11.8% White CD-16 (pink) Obama 87.2-12.2 Hispanic 57.7%, White 18.6%, Black 17.7% Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 10, 2011, 04:07:20 AM Well, if Turner bags Weprin, and assuming the Pubbies are willing to push NY-03 into the lean GOP column from reasonably safe, and make that worthless creature and one-time IRA symp Peter King work harder Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 10, 2011, 12:46:43 PM Interesting map Sbane. That bifurcation of NY-03 however is a bit radical, and it looks like you didn't quite follow county, borough and city lines quite as much. In any event, the Pubbies would be fools to give away a shot for another seat in Brooklyn. It is more an accident of geography given the polarized ethnic voting patterns, and where the blacks and Hispanics live, and all the water around, but there you go.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on September 10, 2011, 01:26:47 PM Interesting map Sbane. That bifurcation of NY-03 however is a bit radical, and it looks like you didn't quite follow county, borough and city lines quite as much. In any event, the Pubbies would be fools to give away a shot for another seat in Brooklyn. It is more an accident of geography given the polarized ethnic voting patterns, and where the blacks and Hispanics live, and all the water around, but there you go. Yes, NY-3 looks a little odd, but it has to be done to keep NY-6 about 50% VAP Black. Though we might be overestimating the need for that Black of a district. Even a 46-47% VAP district would probably be good enough and that would make NY-3 look nice. Also, yes I did not care much for city lines, but it only affects NY-1,2,3 and 5. The minority districts have to be drawn in that particular fashion. So if there is any change it would be where I disregarded city lines where those districts border each other. I doubt it will change the election stats much. That is why I undertook this project, to see whether a fair map would result in a Republican Brooklyn district, and it looks like it will. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 10, 2011, 01:30:41 PM I don't think the law would require a 50% black VAP NY-06 given the non voting Hispanics and Asians in it, and because it requires pawing through some white neighborhoods to get to blacks ones, and so forth. 49.7% black VAP should certainly be sufficient to get a black elected there.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on September 10, 2011, 01:59:54 PM Made a few changes. I put Baldwin Harbor in NY-3 as well as southern Freeport. These were the areas that made NY-3 discontinuous (only had 17,000 odd residents). And surprisingly I found some precincts to the north of NY-6 that had more Black residents than the areas I took out, so now my NY-6 is 50% VAP instead of 49.9%.
I evened out the city splits, but to my surprise it wasn't so bad to begin with. I just didn't care about reducing city splitting last night. Too tired, and drunk. Anyways, now only Hicksville is split between CD-3 and CD-5. East Massapequa is split between CD-3 and 2. And Oakdale is split between CD-1 and 2. The partisan stats are still the same for all the districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 10, 2011, 03:01:50 PM In the meantime, by making NY-06 a bit more erose, I got it up to 50% black VAP (finally!), which changed the numbers a bit in 6 other CD's, including making NY-03 a tad more GOP, and NY-09 discernibly more GOP. NY-05 gets a couple of tenths of a point more Dem. That is how the cookie crumbled.
As to upstate, I just blew up the old map that had next to nothing to recommend it, and started over. There will be some highly competitive CD's up there. Scozzafava, Gibson and Hinchey are all put under more pressure, particularly Hinchey who I don't think could survive. Buerkle (R) joins McCarthy as having no CD to run in really. I guess she could fight it out with Scozzafava in a primary to see who faces a Dem in a marginal CD, with a slight Dem tilt. So with a court map as I drew it, the GOP gets NY-08 (formerly NY-09), one Dem and one GOP CD disappear, and Ackerman (D) gets but a lean DEM CD, along with King (R). Other CD's are pushed into the weak safe category. The Dem who won that special election in the most GOP CD in the state in the lower tier counties of upstate NY and wrapping around Rochester to the west (that big red CD) is put under more pressure too. He's probably toast. Not bad. Oh, Louise Slaughter will have to act less crazy up there in Rochester, or she might be gone too. () () And here is an upstate map that shows the county chops, which were minimized: () () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 10, 2011, 10:29:47 PM Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this? because it's not anti semtic like the current one is (something the democrats are officially against) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Napoleon on September 10, 2011, 10:47:37 PM Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this? because it's not anti semtic like the current one is (something the democrats are officially against) Protecting Jewish incumbents does not make a map anti-Semitic. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 10, 2011, 11:39:11 PM Ah, Torie, last I checked Scozzafava isn't in Congress, nor will she be anytime soon. :P
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 10, 2011, 11:42:06 PM Just because Torie dislikes him doesn't mean the GOP would be willing to throw King under the bus (I must note he is by far the most senior Republican in New York's delegation.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 10, 2011, 11:55:15 PM Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this? because it's not anti semtic like the current one is (something the democrats are officially against) Protecting Jewish incumbents does not make a map anti-Semitic. dividing one Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in to 5 Congressional districts is Anti Semitic (only 2 out of those 5 were jewish 10 years ago and both Jews values are despised by many in the district even 10 years ago, they couldn't be elected dog catcher if there was an ungerrymandered district) I have a Orthodox jewish neighborhood that's divided into 5 Congressional Districts try to find any neighborhood besides this in the country that's divided in to 4 Congressional Districts (you can't because it doesn't exist). If that's not anti semtic I guess there was no need for the voting rights act. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 11, 2011, 08:46:52 AM Yes, Shelly Silver is such an antisemite.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on September 11, 2011, 09:35:38 AM Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this? because it's not anti semtic like the current one is (something the democrats are officially against) This guy is either 12 years old or a sock. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 11, 2011, 09:48:22 AM No, just 12 years old or fairly insular and not that bright.
I don't see how anyone can doubt he's from the place and community he posts about. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on September 11, 2011, 10:10:38 AM No, just 12 years old or fairly insular and not that bright. I don't see how anyone can doubt he's from the place and community he posts about. Perhaps being raised Jewish just outside NYC, albeit not Orthodox, gives me a sense of what seems authentic to me and what sounds like a kosher version of CoburnFan. I would like to think people don't throw around the word "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Semtic" this loosely, to me that rings true of someone pretending to be a certain minority, to play up accusations that real people know have to be deployed carefully. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 11, 2011, 10:46:58 AM Meh.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 10:50:50 AM Ah, Torie, last I checked Scozzafava isn't in Congress, nor will she be anytime soon. :P All these Newbies. I just get so confused, and I even googled it. But I was impaired. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on September 11, 2011, 10:53:03 AM Ah, Torie, last I checked Scozzafava isn't in Congress, nor will she be anytime soon. :P One can dream..... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 10:55:36 AM Just because Torie dislikes him doesn't mean the GOP would be willing to throw King under the bus (I must note he is by far the most senior Republican in New York's delegation.) It depends on how much the Pubbies are willing to pay to prop up King. Sure, if they want to play the prop up Israel, and maybe Ackerman, in exchange for bleaching out King's CD some more game, OK. If the price is to give up a new GOP seat in Brooklyn, particularly one held by a newly elected Turner, that is just dumb. If I were the NY Pubbies, I would just give the Dems my map, and say here is what we think is the default option. This is "the court" on which we are going to play. Deal with it. I fixed my chart above btw, making it even more complicated and confusing. :P I estimate that a court drawn map will cause the Dems to absorb net both the seats lost to NY, with the Pubbies breaking even. Or depending on how you view it, the Pubbies lose a half seat from redistricting if you view NY-26 as unaffected by redistricting, but given that Hochul remains in danger since she was not helped enough by the new lines, the Pubs still come out even. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 01:27:32 PM No, just 12 years old or fairly insular and not that bright. I don't see how anyone can doubt he's from the place and community he posts about. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 01:46:29 PM No, just 12 years old or fairly insular and not that bright. I don't see how anyone can doubt he's from the place and community he posts about. This sort of stuff belongs in the US Discussion Board. That is where all this backbiting should go. That is why we have two moderators there to rather fruitlessly try to herd the feral cats. Muon2 wants his board to stay on topic. And while he does not give out death points, he is not shy about deleting posts. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 01:47:38 PM No, just 12 years old or fairly insular and not that bright. I don't see how anyone can doubt he's from the place and community he posts about. I might be a complete idiot but here are the facts (please interpret it for me) 1. there is 1 neighborhood in the country that has 5 Congressional Districts 2. this just so happens to be one of the most Orthodox neighborhoods in the country 3. there is no neighborhoods in the country that has 4 Congressional Districts 4. this same Neighborhood has 6 Assembly districts (arguably 7 depending on how you want to define neighborhoods) 5. I can't find another Neighborhood in the state that has 5 Assembly districts 6. There is 1 neighborhood in NY state that has 5 state Senate districts 7. this happens to be the neighborhood that has the highest percentage of Orthodox Jews in any city in the conutry 8. explain to me why Jewish Williamsburg population has been split in half (not along the BQE either in some of them) on every level of government (except on the Congressional level where the vote is negligible compared to the size of the district) 9. explain to me why the jewish community in Monsey is split into 2 Assembly seats (it's upstate so it should be easier to not disect communities) 10. explain to me why they even though the Orthodox Jewish population is one of the fastest growing communities in the state we had more Orthodox seats before the last redistricting process and even more in the one before that . Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 01:51:40 PM It is probably due to the VRA and for partisan reasons, not for Orthodox Jew qua Orthodox Jew reasons don't you think?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 01:58:33 PM in regards to the voting rights act
there are plenty of ways to do it with out getting in trouble with the voting rights act. There is no excuse for Nadler being in Borough Park and Flatbush. in regards to the partisan I guess gerrymandering black areas during Jim Crow wasn't racist it was partisan politics. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 02:12:28 PM in regards to the voting rights act there are plenty of ways to do it with out getting in trouble with the voting rights act. There is no excuse for Nadler being in Borough Park and Flatbush. in regards to the partisan I guess gerrymandering black areas during Jim Crow wasn't racist it was partisan politics. To make your case, you would need to do it on an individual district basis (with maps), and show that there are no reasonable motives other than animus against Orthodox Jews as to why the lines were drawn the way they were drawn. The Dems have controlled state assembly seat redistricting since rocks cooled, and of course are trying to max their numbers, while hewing to the VRA, just the way the Pubs have done for the NY state senate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 02:47:37 PM in regards to the voting rights act there are plenty of ways to do it with out getting in trouble with the voting rights act. There is no excuse for Nadler being in Borough Park and Flatbush. in regards to the partisan I guess gerrymandering black areas during Jim Crow wasn't racist it was partisan politics. To make your case, you would need to do it on an individual district basis (with maps), and show that there are no reasonable motives other than animus against Orthodox Jews as to why the lines were drawn the way they were drawn. The Dems have controlled state assembly seat redistricting since rocks cooled, and of course are trying to max their numbers, while hewing to the VRA, just the way the Pubs have done for the NY state senate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 02:52:26 PM in regards to the voting rights act there are plenty of ways to do it with out getting in trouble with the voting rights act. There is no excuse for Nadler being in Borough Park and Flatbush. in regards to the partisan I guess gerrymandering black areas during Jim Crow wasn't racist it was partisan politics. To make your case, you would need to do it on an individual district basis (with maps), and show that there are no reasonable motives other than animus against Orthodox Jews as to why the lines were drawn the way they were drawn. The Dems have controlled state assembly seat redistricting since rocks cooled, and of course are trying to max their numbers, while hewing to the VRA, just the way the Pubs have done for the NY state senate. please explain 39th City Council district and the 41 Assembly district and the 8th congressional district Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 11, 2011, 03:46:05 PM Once again, how exactly does Silver (who I understand is not an entirely powerless figure within the NY legislature) fit in with this antisemitic conspiracy?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 03:55:05 PM Once again, how exactly does Silver (who I understand is not an entirely powerless figure within the NY legislature) fit in with this antisemitic conspiracy? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 11, 2011, 03:57:35 PM Once again, how exactly does Silver (who I understand is not an entirely powerless figure within the NY legislature) fit in with this antisemitic conspiracy? That would explain why he might (lol, might) indulge in gerrymandering for nakedly partisan reasons. It doesn't explain why he'd be part of an antisemitic conspiracy. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 04:04:52 PM NY Jew, you would need to put up maps. I don't know any of this obviously. Anyway, hearing what you said, and examining again my lines in Brooklyn and parts of Queens, and bearing in mind the VRA, I jiggled them a bit. NY-08 now becomes the most GOP CD in the state. One of the reasons I did it, is that in my judgment, Park Slope fits better with lower Manhattan (NY-07), then Sunset Park does, so Sunset Park goes into NY-10, and it loses Park Slope (except for some somewhat black precincts), to NY-07. (The way I drew the lines in Sunset Park between NY-12 and NY-10 is driven by trying to keep the rather large Asian community (where are they from I wonder?) in the hood as much as possible together with Asians in some adjacent areas, and in NY-12; NY-10 gets mostly the Hispanics in Sunset Park, who maybe work the docks perhaps.) NY-12 gets a bit more Dem because of the few precincts it needs to take in Sunset Park, while losing much of Bensonhurst to NY-08. I think the map looks better. The parks in the area help to define the lines along with the Queens-Brooklyn border on the east. The rather jagged line between NY-08 and NY-10 on NY-10's southwest side is driven by black precinct percentages. They fall off like a cliff as one moves to the SW.
I also cleaned up NY-06, and to a lessor extent NY-09 and NY-10. They needed a bit of work. I think they look better now, and the minority percentages are upped a bit. I also tried to cut back the jut of NY-08 up to the north a bit to the extent I could, given other constraints, that I think a court might well care about. I must say that this part of the world is really racially segregated. It's not like SoCal at all. Flatbush (the neighborhood in which my Dad was born (yes 100 years ago Flatbush had a considerable number of WASPS in it - it was an exurb), and to which I must go someday to see the home in which he lived until they ran out of money in 1918) I see has very few whites in it these days. Since the housing stock is still pretty good (at least the part my Dad lived in), that is good in the sense that it suggests a fair number of blacks have entered the lower middle class. () () () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on September 11, 2011, 05:00:39 PM It's worth noting here that the current districts were negotiated at a time when gay marriage was pretty much off the radar of mainstream politics, 9/11 had not yet occurred, one could still claim coherently to support both the actually existing government of Israel and a negotiated end to the occupation in the near future, and the Vice President of the administration that had signed DOMA had just run with Joseph Lieberman and dominated the Jewish vote of all levels of religiosity against a ticket that showed every sign of replicating the old Reagan/Bush Sr. lens on middle east policy in which the highest priority was the Saudi alliance.
The assumption that Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews constitute radically different voting blocs at the federal level is mostly a product of events after this period. Strange as it seems now, putting Boro Park with Jerry Nadler actually did seem like it made more sense both politically and demographically (though not of course geographically) than putting it with Vito Fossella. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 05:15:46 PM NY Jew, you would need to put up maps. /Screenshot2011-09-11at25007PM.png[/img] Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 11, 2011, 06:46:51 PM It's worth noting here that the current districts were negotiated at a time when gay marriage was pretty much off the radar of mainstream politics, 9/11 had not yet occurred, one could still claim coherently to support both the actually existing government of Israel and a negotiated end to the occupation in the near future, and the Vice President of the administration that had signed DOMA had just run with Joseph Lieberman and dominated the Jewish vote of all levels of religiosity against a ticket that showed every sign of replicating the old Reagan/Bush Sr. lens on middle east policy in which the highest priority was the Saudi alliance. The assumption that Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews constitute radically different voting blocs at the federal level is mostly a product of events after this period. Strange as it seems now, putting Boro Park with Jerry Nadler actually did seem like it made more sense both politically and demographically (though not of course geographically) than putting it with Vito Fossella. Orthodox Jews rejected Solarz back in the 80's over Social Issues, remember Noach Dears opposition to the 1986 gay rights bill (one of his main reasons, which retrospect shows he was right that this will lead to gay marriage) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 11, 2011, 11:10:24 PM NY Jew, you would need to put up maps. /Screenshot2011-09-11at25007PM.png[/img] You need to create a link to the maps that you want that make your case. If you tell me where the maps are, and which ones you want, I will put them up for you. The issue is what were the motives for the way the maps were created. Was it just due to Orthodox Jew animus, or can it be explained by other motives? The maps that you think show animus, without any other reasonable explanation, are the maps that you want put up I would think. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 01:02:23 AM NY Jew, you would need to put up maps. /Screenshot2011-09-11at25007PM.png[/img] Here's the map which you requested that I put up: () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 12, 2011, 04:29:53 AM Where did Velazquez' district go, Torie? :P
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 10:38:19 AM Where did Velazquez' district go, Torie? :P NY-06. It's 52.7% Hispanic. Crowley (now NY-11) and Velaquez need to swap CD's. Nice try. :P The courts need to draw the lines. It's a beautiful thing. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 12, 2011, 01:01:12 PM that's not even close to true (any district that has Borough Park and Greenwich Village is by far the most gerrymandered district in the country) Haha. Even if you want to maintain partisan outrage, you can still look at the North Carolina and Maryland maps to see how laughable this statement is. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 12, 2011, 01:14:28 PM That's Crowley's district, Torie. If he gets challenged there, it's from the Bronx. It's not as if you're getting Crowley a majority white seat anyhow.
If a court draws the lines, it goes by legislative intent. That means it will view and treat the 12th as a protected district... even though it's not majority Hispanic, by the way. The 9th, not protected, in between everything, barely more contiguous than the outrageous 12th, doesn't stand a chance in that setting. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 01:35:04 PM That's Crowley's district, Torie. If he gets challenged there, it's from the Bronx. It's not as if you're getting Crowley a majority white seat anyhow. If a court draws the lines, it goes by legislative intent. That means it will view and treat the 12th as a protected district... even though it's not majority Hispanic, by the way. The 9th, not protected, in between everything, barely more contiguous than the outrageous 12th, doesn't stand a chance in that setting. Actually, the new NY-06 is much like the old NY-12. Just its number has changed. Moreover, even if it wasn't essentially the same CD (and it is essentially the same, just adjusted to get the Hispanic VAP up), the law is clear that one minority district can be canned, if another is created. It is just a numbers game. I learned that from that guy lecturing to the redistricting commission in AZ about the voting rights act. Below is a map of the old NY-12 and new NY-06. Crowley's CD was chopped to bits. But there is an open seat for him as it were in NY-11 if he can win the primary. The tan area was in the old NY-12. The "N" areas are added to it, and the "L" areas were cut from it. It didn't change much. Lewis I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. :) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 12, 2011, 01:37:47 PM that's not even close to true (any district that has Borough Park and Greenwich Village is by far the most gerrymandered district in the country) Haha. Even if you want to maintain partisan outrage, you can still look at the North Carolina and Maryland maps to see how laughable this statement is. is there any CD in NC or MD that has 2 contiguous areas with 50,000+ people 1 of which voted for McCain at a 90%+ rate and the other that voted for Obama at a 90%+ rate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 12, 2011, 01:39:37 PM Just because Torie dislikes him doesn't mean the GOP would be willing to throw King under the bus (I must note he is by far the most senior Republican in New York's delegation.) It depends on how much the Pubbies are willing to pay to prop up King. Sure, if they want to play the prop up Israel, and maybe Ackerman, in exchange for bleaching out King's CD some more game, OK. If the price is to give up a new GOP seat in Brooklyn, particularly one held by a newly elected Turner, that is just dumb. If I were the NY Pubbies, I would just give the Dems my map, and say here is what we think is the default option. This is "the court" on which we are going to play. Deal with it. I fixed my chart above btw, making it even more complicated and confusing. :P I estimate that a court drawn map will cause the Dems to absorb net both the seats lost to NY, with the Pubbies breaking even. Or depending on how you view it, the Pubbies lose a half seat from redistricting if you view NY-26 as unaffected by redistricting, but given that Hochul remains in danger since she was not helped enough by the new lines, the Pubs still come out even. () If it goes to court I think the Latinos will object loudly a map that only has one CD over 55% HVAP. I agree that black districts can elect candidates of choice with less than 50% BVAP - especially in areas with Latino population, but Latinos can readily shoaw that something approaching 60% HVAP is what they need. That's what drove me towards this map early in the summer after the Weiner story broke. So with a little squeezing I can make the districts neater. The LI black districts are now all a whisker over 50%. CD 12 gave up a few tenths as well. There is still a piece of CD 6 in Nassau, but it is small. Without it the best I could do is 49.2% black for CD 6. Here's the new map and revised table (changes in green). () CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 59.8% Obama CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 58.3% Obama CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 38.5%, Asian VAP 31.4% CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.2% CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6% CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6% CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 50.4% CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 50.1% CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 58.9% CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3% CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7% CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5% CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4% The three black districts on LI form a wall pushing the core Orthodox areas with Staten Is. Velazquez' district is ugly, but at almost 59% HVAP it will elect the Latino population's candidate of choice, my guess is that I could and would draw it over 60% with block-level mapping. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 02:01:18 PM Muon2, that is one ugly map! :P
I doubt a court would ever draw that. Would it change your mind as to what a court might do, if you were aware that the current NY-12, which elects an Hispanic as it is (Velaquez), is only 46.8% Hispanic, and as redrawn it is bumped up to 52.7% Hispanic? It could be made higher by poaching some Hispanics from NY-15, which is 64.8% Hispanic (the two CD's would trade some precincts), but I doubt a court will do that. I wouldn't as the judge. Hispanics were able to elect a "candidate of their choice" at only 46.8%, so a fortiori they will be able to do so with 52.7% VAP. My NY-06 is also 15.4% Asian, who also vote lightly in this area, which helps push the Hispanic percentage who actually vote up. Blacks and whites only make up 30% of the VAP. It is not like Texas, where there is an Anglo/Hispanic competition, with next to no other players in much of Texas, and where the Anglos just don't vote for Hispanics unless they are Pubbies. :) NYC by contrast is much more of a Dem machine operation, where the power brokers have a lot to say about who gets nominated. I assume all of the above was why Velaquez was nominated and won the Dem primary in the first instance. Hopefully a judge is not going to be influenced by politics, and just follow the VRA, and try to connect communities of interest in reasonably compact districts that follow where possible appropriate jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. I think my CD boundaries try faithfully to do that. I gave it a lot of thought. I may have made some errors of course. I don't claim to intimately know the Big Apple, but I think I know it reasonably well. Make sense? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 02:45:59 PM Vote dilution does not by itself make a gerrymandered. Do you know how the term came to be?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 12, 2011, 03:17:03 PM Muon2, that is one ugly map! :P I doubt a court would ever draw that. Would it change your mind as to what a court might do, if you were aware that the current NY-12, which elects an Hispanic as it is (Velaquez), is only 46.8% Hispanic, and as redrawn it is bumped up to 52.7% Hispanic? It could be made higher by poaching some Hispanics from NY-15, which is 64.8% Hispanic (the two CD's would trade some precincts), but I doubt a court will do that. I wouldn't as the judge. Hispanics were able to elect a "candidate of their choice" at only 46.8%, so a fortiori they will be able to do so with 52.7% VAP. My NY-06 is also 15.4% Asian, who also vote lightly in this area, which helps push the Hispanic percentage who actually vote up. Blacks and whites only make up 30% of the VAP. It is not like Texas, where there is an Anglo/Hispanic competition, with next to no other players in much of Texas, and where the Anglos just don't vote for Hispanics unless they are Pubbies. :) NYC by contrast is much more of a Dem machine operation, where the power brokers have a lot to say about who gets nominated. I assume all of the above was why Velaquez was nominated and won the Dem primary in the first instance. Hopefully a judge is not going to be influenced by politics, and just follow the VRA, and try to connect communities of interest in reasonably compact districts that follow where possible appropriate jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. I think my CD boundaries try faithfully to do that. I gave it a lot of thought. I may have made some errors of course. I don't claim to intimately know the Big Apple, but I think I know it reasonably well. Make sense? Chicago is also a machine operation (perhaps more than any other), and testimony from MALDEF made it clear that they weren't going to rely on the machine to nominate their candidates. There are court decisions that say that just because someone from the minority group was elected, it doesn't guarantee that the minority group is able to elect the candidate of their choice. And then there's the question of which election data to use. It's the primary that matters, not the general, in a city like Chicago. I would view NYC the same way. Primaries in IL can be quite polarized, and MALDEF asked for 65% total Hispanic in a district to believe it would elect a candidate of choice. That usually works out to HVAP around or just under 60%. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 03:27:16 PM OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course. I am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above. That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it. I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 12, 2011, 04:19:48 PM Vote dilution does not by itself make a gerrymandered. Do you know how the term came to be? yes but that is not how the term is used today, not to mention Nadler's district is drawn very weird with the most diluted vote in the country which even using the word from 150 years ago this would be in the running. doesn't mention salamander like districts either Websters dictionary transitive verb 1 : to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible 2 : to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group <gerrymander a school district> Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 12, 2011, 10:16:11 PM OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course. I am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above. That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it. I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15. But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. I do think that what she wants will matter a lot to the national Latino groups. That's why much of my CD-12 is from her current district, as bad as that shape is. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 12, 2011, 11:59:53 PM OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course. I am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above. That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it. I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15. But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. I do think that what she wants will matter a lot to the national Latino groups. That's why much of my CD-12 is from her current district, as bad as that shape is. No per the map I drew, it has almost all of her old territory. Only its CD number changed! Please look at the map I drew for Lewis making this very point. Thanks. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 13, 2011, 05:24:02 AM OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course. I am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above. That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it. I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15. But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. I do think that what she wants will matter a lot to the national Latino groups. That's why much of my CD-12 is from her current district, as bad as that shape is. No per the map I drew, it has almost all of her old territory. Only its CD number changed! Please look at the map I drew for Lewis making this very point. Thanks. Now I'm confused. I thought this was your map: () () () If so, then I read your CD-06 as a district similar to the current NY-07. Velazquez' NY-12 is primarily along the Queens-Brooklyn border with parts stretching south along the East River. Her district seems to be divided between CDs 7, 11 and 13 in the map above. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 13, 2011, 09:28:15 AM Yikes! I thought that was Crowley's CD! LOL. My oh my. OK, thanks muon2. CD-09 is going to have to cross the border into Queens alas to pick up whites instead of Hispanics north of Broadway. Man, I didn't realize there were that many Hispanics around. In fact there are so many, that the issue becomes whether to create two solid Hispanic CD's, or one solid and two more marginal perhaps. I see the fix. It will mess up the map a bit, but not too much. The existing CD's are such a mess that it just got me confused. I thought that when I created a majority Hispanic CD by just giggling the lines a bit, and having looked at the existing Hispanic percentages in Velaquez's CD, that it must have been hers. The percentages just "fit" to well. My bad. :P
So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. That dog won't hunt. In any event, Crowley is going to end up with a very Hispanic CD after fixing generating the Velaquez CD with the Brooklyn-Queens border bisecting so that it has a sliver in Queens and a sliver in Kings, and then go and pick up the Hispanics near LaQuardia (sp) airport in Queens (that portion will be new to her). NYC is segregation city isn't it? () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 13, 2011, 09:49:30 AM Yikes! I thought that was Crowley's CD! LOL. My oh my. OK, thanks muon2. CD-09 is going to have to cross the border into Queens alas to pick up whites instead of Hispanics north of Broadway. Man, I didn't realize there were that many Hispanics around. In fact there are so many, that the issue becomes whether to create two solid Hispanic CD's, or one solid and two more marginal perhaps. I see the fix. It will mess up the map a bit, but not too much. The existing CD's are such a mess that it just got me confused. I thought that when I created a majority Hispanic CD by just giggling the lines a bit, and having looked at the existing Hispanic percentages in Velaquez's CD, that it must have been hers. The percentages just "fit" to well. My bad. :P So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. That dog won't hunt. In any event, Crowley is going to end up with a very Hispanic CD after fixing generating the Velaquez CD with the Brooklyn-Queens border bisecting so that it has a sliver in Queens and a sliver in Kings, and then go and pick up the Hispanics near LaQuardia (sp) airport in Queens (that portion will be new to her). NYC is segregation city isn't it? () Ethnic not segregated (it's way more then just white), black, Hispanic, and Asian (which is the whole point I was trying to say in the 9th Congressional district)) you have Irish Neighborhoods, Italian Neighborhoods (once was subdivided in to where in Italy you came from not sure if it still is), Jewish Neighborhoods (further subdivided in to many different areas based on different types places of origin and type of Judaism you practice (and I mean diffrent types of Orthodoxy are clustered in different areas of the city)), African American Neighborhoods, Haitian Neighborhoods, Porto Rican Neighborhoods, Dominican Neighborhoods, gay Neighborhoods, hipster Neighborhoods, Yuppy Neighborhoods, Chinese Neighborhoods, Korean Neighborhoods, Jamaican Neighborhoods ext. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 13, 2011, 01:04:04 PM OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course. I am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above. That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it. I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15. But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 13, 2011, 01:11:11 PM So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. You don't need 60% or even over 50% Hispanic in New York city by the way... provided that the remainder is atomized. (Except in trying to prove that one more district than the state is willing to draw must be drawn, but we're talking about either a court-drawn or a compromise map here.) A 45% Hispanic, 20% White, 15% Asian, 15% Black seat is an utterly safe Hispanic seat. The bottom line is this, Torie. Forget this first draft existed. Go back to the drawing board. Start with bringing the minority-held districts up to population without changing their composition far to the adverse. Then do 4 Long Island seats, without bringing King's share down, with McCarthy's extending into New York City. Then draw what you have to from what's left. That's what a court would actually feel it had little choice but to do. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 13, 2011, 09:35:39 PM Yikes! I thought that was Crowley's CD! LOL. My oh my. OK, thanks muon2. CD-09 is going to have to cross the border into Queens alas to pick up whites instead of Hispanics north of Broadway. Man, I didn't realize there were that many Hispanics around. In fact there are so many, that the issue becomes whether to create two solid Hispanic CD's, or one solid and two more marginal perhaps. I see the fix. It will mess up the map a bit, but not too much. The existing CD's are such a mess that it just got me confused. I thought that when I created a majority Hispanic CD by just giggling the lines a bit, and having looked at the existing Hispanic percentages in Velaquez's CD, that it must have been hers. The percentages just "fit" to well. My bad. :P So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. That dog won't hunt. In any event, Crowley is going to end up with a very Hispanic CD after fixing generating the Velaquez CD with the Brooklyn-Queens border bisecting so that it has a sliver in Queens and a sliver in Kings, and then go and pick up the Hispanics near LaQuardia (sp) airport in Queens (that portion will be new to her). NYC is segregation city isn't it? () Now you see why ny CD-12 was so bad. I took the existing district for VRA purposes and added the area near LaGuardia to bring the pop up. You may choose to drop the southern tail, but otherwise I expect you'll have something like the district I drew. In drawing CD-12 the way I did I was going for two solid Hispanic districts plus one simple majority Hispanic district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 13, 2011, 11:50:10 PM So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. You don't need 60% or even over 50% Hispanic in New York city by the way... provided that the remainder is atomized. (Except in trying to prove that one more district than the state is willing to draw must be drawn, but we're talking about either a court-drawn or a compromise map here.) A 45% Hispanic, 20% White, 15% Asian, 15% Black seat is an utterly safe Hispanic seat. The bottom line is this, Torie. Forget this first draft existed. Go back to the drawing board. Start with bringing the minority-held districts up to population without changing their composition far to the adverse. Then do 4 Long Island seats, without bringing King's share down, with McCarthy's extending into New York City. Then draw what you have to from what's left. That's what a court would actually feel it had little choice but to do. We shall see. I have a draft of the Velaquez CD up to 56% Hispanic or so (it still needs some work on the Bradlee utility is slow on my mac as opposed to a PC for some reason, so it take more time). It does not affect the balance of my map much. It just makes things more erose. I don't understand your McCarthy point at all. What does that have to do with Hispanic CD's? I will have to study Muon2's map some more. I find his light maps hard to read. Muon2 why can't you make them brighter? Take screen shots damn it! Do it my way. Please! :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 11:19:48 AM It has nothing to do with Hispanic districts, but it has everything to do with simulating a reasonably likely outcome. (I'm not saying you absolutely can't move any of Nassau into Meeks' district, which is why I said to draw the minority seats first. But use as little as you feel possible and then excise another five precincts.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 11:29:31 AM It has nothing to do with Hispanic districts, but it has everything to do with simulating a reasonably likely outcome. (I'm not saying you absolutely can't move any of Nassau into Meeks' district, which is why I said to draw the minority seats first. But use as little as you feel possible and then excise another five precincts.) I don't understand your few precincts comment. Yes, Meeks' CD must go into Nassau to get to 50% black VAP. The alternative to getting it to 50% creates a ludicrous mess. Why would a court do that? One problem is that the blacks and Hispanics are in competition for some precincts. To get the Hispanic percentage up in the Velaquez seat, the black percentage in NY-10 needs to go down. Another problem is that it appears that at least two snakes, and maybe three will be needed to link disparate minority neighborhoods, while allowing NY-13 to get at a bunch of white and Asian voters that are in sort of an island in the middle of Queens, forcing the Velaquez CD to cut north to its west, rather than the more natural route to its east. I am working on that, but it may be unavoidable. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 11:52:13 AM You still don't get it, do you? You're not drawing a partisan gerrymander that doesn't fail any of the (in minority-heavy areas, many, in others, none) explicit constitutional hurdles for them. You're drawing either half of a compromise map nobody of import will sue against, or a court-drawn map (that would have to pass some sort of SC scrutiny... but really just checking whether it's not outrageously partisan.) 50.1% is not as important as avoiding the creation of additional snakes. Not where the remainder is fractured.
And going into Nassau (except possibly heavily Black areas directly bordering heavily Black areas in Queens; even that, preferrably not though yeah, I know what the numbers look like, so probably it will happen) will feel like a snake to New Yorkers and Long Islanders even if it doesn't look it. In Ohio, if R's were going to pass a disgusting map they had to do the black snake to Akron. That's not because the law actually demanded it - the law as its interpretation now stands technically doesn't demand any Black seat in Ohio at all: Any seat that stays in Cuyahoga fails the Gingles test because it's under 50.1 and any that head out to Akron fail the Gingles test because they do not represent a community of interest. Catch-22. It's because D's were going to use any easyish tangent to sue against an R gerrymander, and its existence puts the them in the Catch. These considerations don't apply here. One consideration does apply both here and in Ohio: the map doesn't need to be precleared. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 12:21:06 PM I have some trouble understanding some of the content of your posts, Lewis. Story. Maybe it is a sign of incipient senile dementia. If your comments are all about my taking precincts out of Nassau to put in the Meeks CD, yes, they have significant black percentages, and are right next to the CD, and are not snakes at all. The snakes to which I was referring involve the shape of the Velaquez CD potentially to get its Hispanic percentage up. I am seeing if there is a way to minimize them some more.
I should look again at Muon2's map again, to see what he did, but it is more fun to do my own work, and then see if Muon2 had some insight that I missed that makes sense to me (I am amazed that he said he created a third 50% Hispanic CD; I am not near that at all with the Crowley CD at present). In any event, my effort is solely based on what I think a court might do that is trying to be fair and follow the law, and so forth. You might think my judgment sucks, but such is life. More detailed comments as to specific flaws would in any event be more helpful. I agree that appending Akron to Cleveland is probably not legally necessary, but that is not for certain, and appending it eliminates a legal risk, albeit perhaps not a huge one. I so posted elsewhere. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 12:30:58 PM I agree that appending Akron to Cleveland is probably not legally necessary, but that is not for certain, and appending it eliminates a legal risk, albeit perhaps not a huge one. I so posted elsewhere. I just expounded on the situation for contrast. None of these kind of tactical questions pertain to what you are (claiming to be) drawing here. Then it got too long. Anyways, going into Nassau is going to feel unnatural to people. It is going to be perceived as, at least somewhat, snaking even if it is not. And it is going to actually be snaking long before it starts to look like a snake at first glance - before the length you went to on your first draft, for instance, or so I think. I may not be entirely right here, but, basically, just bear in mind that Nassau Blacks are to be used with caution because that will be the case if at least one of the decision-making folks is from the geographical island of Long Island. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 14, 2011, 12:32:58 PM So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. You don't need 60% or even over 50% Hispanic in New York city by the way... provided that the remainder is atomized. (Except in trying to prove that one more district than the state is willing to draw must be drawn, but we're talking about either a court-drawn or a compromise map here.) A 45% Hispanic, 20% White, 15% Asian, 15% Black seat is an utterly safe Hispanic seat. The bottom line is this, Torie. Forget this first draft existed. Go back to the drawing board. Start with bringing the minority-held districts up to population without changing their composition far to the adverse. Then do 4 Long Island seats, without bringing King's share down, with McCarthy's extending into New York City. Then draw what you have to from what's left. That's what a court would actually feel it had little choice but to do. We shall see. I have a draft of the Velaquez CD up to 56% Hispanic or so (it still needs some work on the Bradlee utility is slow on my mac as opposed to a PC for some reason, so it take more time). It does not affect the balance of my map much. It just makes things more erose. I don't understand your McCarthy point at all. What does that have to do with Hispanic CD's? I will have to study Muon2's map some more. I find his light maps hard to read. Muon2 why can't you make them brighter? Take screen shots damn it! Do it my way. Please! :P Screen shots you want? Darker colors? I expect you want a zoom into CD 12, too! Despite the artistic license in my maps, I am a very accommodating individual. :P () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 12:33:55 PM It won't look like that, either.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 03:34:41 PM Oh my! Moving right along, why don't you guys pick apart this map. I did some "minor" surgery. LOL. One things leads to another thing, which leads to another thing, and then an insight, and on and on it goes. Remember, we are talking about a court drawn map here. Racial gerrymandering is just so much fun. But this puppy I think is really coming together - finally! :)
Please be specific as to the flaws. Thanks. Yes, I know, NY-05 goes into Nassau. Lewis doesn't like it. I do. We shall just agree to disagree as to what a court will do there. What are the reasonable alternatives? None in my judgement. I did get rid of that one little spike jutting off to the NE, just to annoy Lewis, taking away one of his silly little bullets that he thinks is made of silver. I love when that happens! :P If this map is now the very embodiment of perfection, I think I may give it to the Pubbies to "help" them bargain with the Dems. Why not? Life is beautiful. Yes, NY-14 could probably be made majority Hispanic, if some court wants to screw the blacks. I doubt that will happen. But it is easy to do. Just switch out the blacks for the Hispanics in the Bronx. It might not quite get there, but it should be fairly close. () ()() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 14, 2011, 05:19:42 PM Oh my! Moving right along, why don't you guys pick apart this map. I did some "minor" surgery. LOL. One things leads to another thing, which leads to another thing, and then an insight, and on and on it goes. Remember, we are talking about a court drawn map here. Racial gerrymandering is just so much fun. But this puppy I think is really coming together - finally! :) Please be specific as to the flaws. Thanks. Yes, I know, NY-05 goes into Nassau. Lewis doesn't like it. I do. We shall just agree to disagree as to what a court will do there. What are the reasonable alternatives? None in my judgement. I did get rid of that one little spike jutting off to the NE, just to annoy Lewis, taking away one of his silly little bullets that he thinks is made of silver. I love when that happens! :P If this map is now the very embodiment of perfection, I think I may give it to the Pubbies to "help" them bargain with the Dems. Why not? Life is beautiful. Yes, NY-14 could probably be made majority Hispanic, if some court wants to screw the blacks. I doubt that will happen. But it is easy to do. Just switch out the blacks for the Hispanics in the Bronx. It might not quite get there, but it should be fairly close. () ()() That certainly looks better for the Hispanics, but Velazquez will still be unhappy. I believe she lives in South Brooklyn, somewhere near Red Hook. Your new district for her starts half a borough away and crosses way into the Bronx. It's that piece in the Bronx you gave to her that I put with Rangel instead. That's how I got 3 Latino majority CDs. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 05:52:53 PM OK. Thanks Muon2 for your comments.
If I were a judge, I would disregard incumbents' little problems. She can move. There is some merit where possible and reasonable for constituents staying together rather than being moved around every ten years, but I don't feel that way about where incumbents live. Heck in NY you don't even need to live in the CD to represent it. Her existing CD is a mess, and may well have been drawn that way because ten years ago that was the only way to get the Hispanic percentage as high as it was. If I were a judge I would have no interest in maintaining that excrescence. (Heck it even wanders into Park Slope (probably as a population equalizer), which isn't even Hispanic, after picking up maybe 50,000 Hispanics next to the docks who are an isolated Hispanic island, and you have to wade through a ton of whites to get there. No thanks; there are plenty of Hispanics elsewhere for her.) The guts of her CD along the Brooklyn/Queens line have been maintained. It is just the a bunch of white precincts that were excised along with that wandering tail that goes down to the docks picking up white Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope en route, plus a few Hispanic precincts next to NY-10 that were put in NY-10 to up the black percentage a bit (because NY-11 already has enough Hispanics). As to the latter, it was a balancing test between NY-10 and NY-11. That is my reasoning anyway. I also think it unwise to dump a black incumbent for an Hispanic, which may or may not happen if you get the Hispanic percentage that high in NY-14. On that one however, I would listen to what the blacks and Hispanics have to say. It can go either way. The Pubbies certainly will not care much, although I suspect they would prefer to deal with Rangel than most of the minority congresspersons around in New York. He is a pretty savvy and realistic guy - and certainly genial. Perhaps a compromise is to pick up some of each in the Bronx, which would get rid of that little blue NY-16 indentation there jutting to the west at the NW corner, that is packed with Hispanics. By the way, the Dem PVI as it happened went way down now in NY-06 (I corrected my matrix chart which had some errors), and given last night (all those Orthodox Jewish precincts in current NY-09 Queens), and if the Pubbies are able someday to make an effective play for Asians, that CD might potentially be put in play at some point. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on September 14, 2011, 08:04:33 PM Unfortunately my old laptop is sufficiently on the fritz that it doesn't seem to be able to handle large states in the App anymore without taking about eight years to fill in each precinct, but: given that the black population in Brooklyn goes to the water on the SE side but not on any other side, why wouldn't a court just bring the Brooklyn whites up the west side of the black districts, combining the Orthodox Jews with Park Slope, Williamsburg, etc?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 08:34:15 PM Unfortunately my old laptop is sufficiently on the fritz that it doesn't seem to be able to handle large states in the App anymore without taking about eight years to fill in each precinct, but: given that the black population in Brooklyn goes to the water on the SE side but not on any other side, why wouldn't a court just bring the Brooklyn whites up the west side of the black districts, combining the Orthodox Jews with Park Slope, Williamsburg, etc? Because NY-10 needs them (i.e. Williamsburg) to keep its black percentage up. There is a minority percentage of blacks there. The white CD in Brooklyn could potentially take Park Slope, but it really fits better with the Manhattan CD. There are direct subway lines and a bridge, and the place is more cosmopolitan. Heck, Lunar lived there. :) It also would force NY-13 to jut more into Queens which creates its own problems, although NY-07 could move farther up the Hudson River, and force NY-14 to take more of the Bronx I suppose. But then where does NY-16 go? It might have to cross into Queens, and that dog won't hunt. It was really a very tricky map to draw, with very tight constraints. There are walls everywhere as it were - ethnic walls, and water walls, and state line walls. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 15, 2011, 11:22:58 AM Be that as it
OK. Thanks Muon2 for your comments. If I were a judge, I would disregard incumbents' little problems. She can move. There is some merit where possible and reasonable for constituents staying together rather than being moved around every ten years, but I don't feel that way about where incumbents live. You also need to get your intentions clear - do you want to simulate what is most likely to happen, or do you want to prove that Turner's district could conceivably survive? Your current maps would be good enough, minor corrections aside, to serve the second purpose - but then it hardly needed proving; I would have happily agreed to that immediately. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 15, 2011, 11:33:50 AM OK, I jiggled stuff around a bit, and shoved up the Hispanic percentage in NY-14 by a couple of percent, so that it is now about a point higher than it is in the existing CD. The black percentage goes up 6 points. The lines look a bit better too. NY-07 finally gets to the southern edge of Columbia University. I think I will go with this fix.
()()() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 15, 2011, 12:07:18 PM Be that as it OK. Thanks Muon2 for your comments. If I were a judge, I would disregard incumbents' little problems. She can move. There is some merit where possible and reasonable for constituents staying together rather than being moved around every ten years, but I don't feel that way about where incumbents live. You also need to get your intentions clear - do you want to simulate what is most likely to happen, or do you want to prove that Turner's district could conceivably survive? Your current maps would be good enough, minor corrections aside, to serve the second purpose - but then it hardly needed proving; I would have happily agreed to that immediately. Yes, this exercise is all about guessing what a reasonable non partisan court would do. I understand that you think my efforts are incompetent. No problem. We will just have to disagree with what a court might reasonably do. You can put up your own map. I did do the minority CD's first actually. It was just that I got mixed up with the Velaquez CD,thinking it was the Crowley CD because its Hispanic percentage was so low. I just screwed up. Stuff happens. It didn't help that the salient that you like so much is only about 30% Hispanic overall, which is in part why the Hispanic percentage in the CD was so low. I discussed with Muon2 why I didn't go down to the Hispanic island next to the docks. As to the balance, below is what you are talking about. There are maybe 20,000 majority Hispanics to pick up in Manhattan. I don't think a court will go there, hopping the East River to pick up these 5 or 6 precincts, particularly since it needs to cut through a few rather low percentage Hispanic precincts. As to the balance, below is what you are talking about. Maybe 30,000 Hispanics are involved in the precincts that are majority Hispanic. So this is not going to upset any apple cart. However, I do see a few very heavy Hispanic precincts to pick up in Williamsburg that I missed because I was drawing the black CD, and went through there to pick up a couple of precincts with a substantial black precentage (15%-20% or so), and was not focusing on the Hispanic percentages not realizing that it was an existing "Hispanic" CD. So I will correct that. Thank you for your comments Lewis. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 15, 2011, 12:28:39 PM I just screwed up. Now you're scurrying about like a cat in a litterbox trying to not have to fix it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 15, 2011, 12:29:01 PM Why did i even bother replying.
Oh well. Won't any further. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 15, 2011, 01:13:12 PM I just screwed up. Now you're scurrying about like a cat in a litterbox trying to not have to fix it. LOL. I thought I did, but missed a few precincts, because I was focused on blacks. Thank you for pointing that out. Have a great day Lewis. Actually, an idea occurs to me. I am going to see if I can find some Pubbie NYC politician to look at my map when I finally get it right, and see what he or she thinks about it from the standpoint of what a court might do. At the rate we're going, you might soon have me on ignore. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 16, 2011, 12:09:14 AM The exercise in racial gerrymandering has reached its max. The clockwise turn cannot go any further. Every white precinct in Manhattan has been stripped from NY-14, and that to me is a hard wall. NY-14 can't be stripped any further. To do more, would require crossing into Manhattan from Queens to grab six precincts, sucking up 4 white ones on the way, and so forth, that I don't think any court would do. White cosmopolitan Park Slope is bisected between two black CD's, but such is life. That is the reality of geography and racial gerrymandering. None of the partisan numbers change much. The Hispanic percentages in NY-11 and NY-14 do go up some more, due to emphasizing drawing lines based on racial considerations. Sad, but that is the world in which we live. I hate it!
I will put up the numbers later. () ()() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 08:12:04 AM At the rate we're going, you might soon have me on ignore. :P Anyways, maxing the racial gerry is a fun exercise I can relate to, but is not of course compatible with trying to simulate what a court might do (and also doesn't mix with retreating the 12th out of Manhattan... not that it affects the basic outline at this point). And there must be a five-digit number of further residents of white precincts in your NY-14, btw. All along the Hudson is white, pretty much. EDIT: Meh, that estimate is probably a bit high. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 09:07:40 AM I thought that when I created a majority Hispanic CD by just giggling the lines a bit, and having looked at the existing Hispanic percentages in Velaquez's CD, that it must have been hers. The percentages just "fit" to well. 2000: NY-7 40% Hispanic, 28% White, 19% Black, 13% Asian. A multiracial district that may go Hispanic eventually, but is safe for its White incumbent for the time being, thanks in part to being a political machine boss first and a Washington rep second. NY-12 49% Hispanic, 23% White, 16% Asian, 11% Black. Safely Hispanic, also picking up as many Asians as can be along the way. (It was then the second most Asian district in the city, and they were - still are - at the Manhattan and Queens ends.) 2010: NY-7 44% Hispanic, 21% White, 20% Black, 16% Asian. White flight. Crowley's still safe, but only because he's Crowley. NY-12 45% Hispanic, 27% White, 18% Asian, 11% Black. Gentrification apace, and not along the edges but in the district's centerpiece, the undivided , but racially mixed neighborhoods of Williamsburg (never really "mixed". Micro-segregated is more like it) and Greenpoint. And suddenly the 12th looks like the White district. The 11th and 15th also had their White populations increase notably. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 10:55:10 AM Yeah, I played with the DRA a bit until it crashed on me.
A few things I noticed: The "Non-Hispanic Origin Black Only" figures of the DRA are really misleading for the Brooklyn-Queens Black districts. CD-6 is currently 54.8% Black, alone or in combination. The DRA has it 5.5 points lower. VAP or Total makes not much difference. It's certainly not necessary to cross into Long Island at all to keep it over 50%... but I guess it's allowable to use the little majority-black cluster muon also used. Williamsburg is actually split under the current map too. I never noticed that, lol. The landbridge in the middle of CD-9 will have to go Black. There is quite literally nowhere else the Brooklyn Black CDs can conceivably go once its accepted that NY-12 will be viewed as a minority seat by a court (that is, nowhere of sufficient population; Park Slope Whites alone won't help you). Even the nearest Hispanic-majority cluster for CD12 to expand into is ... the northernmost part of that bridge. You can't bring NY-12 much higher than 45% Hispanic VAP (plus a slight increase in the Asian population) without major amendations... so I guess it will look closer to what muon envisaged than I at first thought likely. At that point, I wondered "why bother, then. Muon's nailed that much"... and just then my pc crashed. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 16, 2011, 11:46:13 AM What does DRA mean? I am confused as to what point you are making regarding the two black Brooklyn CD's. I am also having trouble understanding your points about what is currently NY-12. but I take it that you don't think a court will take what is currently NY-12 into the Bronx. Is that correct? If so, why? If NY-12 does not go into the Bronx, while it can be made a bit over 50% Hispanic, it can't get anywhere near the 61% that I have it now. And then the issue is where does the current NY-09 go. Does it just have a sliver to get it into Queens? By the way, Park Slope is about 7% black or so. There are no blacks in the current NY-09 land bridge, so you have a dilution issue. It also crosses borough lines. Everything of course is a balancing test.
I just can't image that a court will draw Muon2's erose mess, putting white communities together that have nothing in common, and long slivers everywhere. It really is quite disgusting. But of course it is all speculation. What I drew is what I would do a judge based on what I now know. But obviously, I don't know everything! :) I kind of hope that the parties deadlock, so that we can find out what a court does to settle our little spats. That would be just grand. I tried to find the map the court drew 10 years ago, based on which the parties cut their own deal to prop up incumbents, but was unable to find anything on the net. Pity that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 12:06:35 PM DRA is Dave's Redistricting App, of course. The Brooklyn districts have similar (somewhat smaller) discrepancies to the 6th.
There is no way any court will draw the 12th up to 61% Hispanic - given voting patterns, that kind of packing is possibly illegal even for the legislature (in a noncompact district). And there is no legislative intent of a max pack of Hispanics. There is legislative intent to have a weird hybrid of historic Williamsburg / North Brooklyn district and a Hispanic snakey thing. You don't have a dilution issue - the districts remain majority Black. It's also not as if there were more Blacks in other directions (except Long Island, but Long Island is Long Island and New York City is New York City. And it's not as if there were any segregated Black neighborhoods in that part of Long Island. Though who knows. It's unlikely but not impossible.) The current NY-9 district is the district that gets abolished. Probably. The most likely candidate by a mile or so, but not the only one. What's left in the north goes into the fifth, mostly (you might argue it's more a case of them being merged). What's left in the south goes into the 8th I guess... ugh, that's ugly. Oh yeah. After drawing the 6th, 10th, 11th and 12th, I had a pocket of 9th territory in between (the whitest part of the landbridge...) so had to rework the Brooklyn Black districts so as to swallow that. They have the Blackness to spare for that, of course. (They were still both over 50% even in DRA figures, but I had to transfer some wholly Black territory from the one to the other for that.) Have you seen my map back in the thread where I created an Asian plurality district in Queens? :D Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 12:19:50 PM I guess they figure that Velazquez's 12th is the only other target if the 9th survives. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 12:22:03 PM () 5th 40% Asian, 36% White, 16% Hispanic, 64.2% Obama. And open, apparently, at least til Weiner's successor has been chosen. Plurality Asian on VAP as well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 16, 2011, 12:26:56 PM Muon2 thinks Hispanic CD's ideally should be 65% Hispanic. :P
When it comes to redistricting, there is no statutory guidance or "legislative intent" other than the VRA. 61% is certainly not packing for an Hispanic CD with low voter turnout and non citizens, particularly if it is not really possible to create another Hispanic CD. Whether a court does it is another matter (Muon2 thinks the Hispanics will be pushing for a high percentage but who knows?), but it is certainly legal in my opinion. My white Brooklyn CD certainly does combine communities of interest, and that counts - even for whites. To me it is much more natural to dump the Carolyn Maloney seat (current NY-04). However, if I am representing the Pubbies in the legislature, and you the Dems, one thing that I do know. We will get a court drawn map! We don't seem to agree on much at all, and just "coincidentally" what you think will happen is a Dem wet dream, and what I think will happen is a quite a Pubbie one (although maybe not quite as much wet as yours is for the Dems). So we won't be able to agree on a map given our totally disparate views of the default option, and thus our "negotiation" will be very short, before we just shake hands, and file our lawsuits, and so forth. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 12:40:59 PM Muon2 thinks Hispanic CD's ideally should be 65% Hispanic. :P Quote When it comes to redistricting, there is no statutory guidance or "legislative intent" other than the VRA. Huh? Yes there is. It doesn't override the VRA, but it's a basic principle courts need to follow. It's why the court-drawn Texas map post-2000 was still a bit of a Dem gerry. Quote My white Brooklyn CD certainly does combine communities of interest, and that counts - even for whites. To me it is much more natural to dump the Carolyn Maloney seat (current NY-04). But you scrapped the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 12th and created several new districts. Oh, and we're not discussing what I would draw as a judge at all if I'm allowed to choose my own definition - that's actually something like the map I just quoted. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 16, 2011, 02:12:30 PM The court Texas map was drawn by a Dem judge who had improper contacts with Dem politicians, and the map was dumped and he was removed from the case. I don't know the "principles" to which you refer that a court "should" follow, but what I think I know is that a fair court will have no interest in maintaining some bipartisan incumbent protection erose gerrymandered monster. That map should be tossed into the garbage. I certainly hope it is. The principles of which I am aware are compactness, respect for communities of interest and jurisdictional boundaries, and that sort of thing, except to the extent the VRA forces a violation of those principles.
You don't seriously think the Pubs will agree to your map do you at this point? That dog just isn't going to hunt. The Pubs would be nutter to agree to tossing their new CD in Brooklyn into the dust bin without a fight. We shall see what happens. If the Dems think like you, I would be amazed if this doesn't go to court. Oh, and Muon2 tossed out the 65% number in the context of NYC redistricting - not Texas redistricting. Do you think the turnout figures for Hispanics in NYC are that much higher than in Texas? Sure they might be some, but by how much? There are a lot of new Hispanics who are not Puerto Rican in the neighborhood. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on September 16, 2011, 02:27:54 PM You, like, understand that Puertoricans are citizens and a lot of New York whites are not citizens, right? And quite a few New York blacks neither, btw? Lewis, I don't understand why your tone toward Torie is so disproportionately hostile on this board. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on September 16, 2011, 02:43:19 PM You, like, understand that Puertoricans are citizens and a lot of New York whites are not citizens, right? And quite a few New York blacks neither, btw? Lewis, I don't understand why your tone toward Torie is so disproportionately hostile on this board. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on September 16, 2011, 08:08:14 PM My version was not intended to be what a court would draw, but rather what a court would accept. It was based in a June worldview which meant that NY-9 was on the chopping block, and would make an easy place for the two parties to come to agreement.
I assumed that the Brooklyn reps would largely want their own minority districts as is but with enough new pop to make them whole. As Lewis noted, I found that keeping the basic shape of the current CD-12 intact makes a formidable wall for the black districts, especially if CD-6 can't go far into Nassau. With my self-imposed constraints those four districts along with a much more GOP Staten Island CD pretty much wrote themselves. Of course that was when it seemed in the GOP's interest to negotiate an end to NY-9 in exchange for much safer holdings for King and Grimm. In principle they could still do that, but they would need substantial control over the upstate map in exchange. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 16, 2011, 08:08:37 PM Muon2 thinks Hispanic CD's ideally should be 65% Hispanic. :P When it comes to redistricting, there is no statutory guidance or "legislative intent" other than the VRA. 61% is certainly not packing for an Hispanic CD with low voter turnout and non citizens, particularly if it is not really possible to create another Hispanic CD. Whether a court does it is another matter (Muon2 thinks the Hispanics will be pushing for a high percentage but who knows?), but it is certainly legal in my opinion. My white Brooklyn CD certainly does combine communities of interest, and that counts - even for whites. To me it is much more natural to dump the Carolyn Maloney seat (current NY-04). However, if I am representing the Pubbies in the legislature, and you the Dems, one thing that I do know. We will get a court drawn map! We don't seem to agree on much at all, and just "coincidentally" what you think will happen is a Dem wet dream, and what I think will happen is a quite a Pubbie one (although maybe not quite as much wet as yours is for the Dems). So we won't be able to agree on a map given our totally disparate views of the default option, and thus our "negotiation" will be very short, before we just shake hands, and file our lawsuits, and so forth. :) McCarthy. Carolyn McCarthy. Why are you hating on NY delegation so much? :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 16, 2011, 08:11:29 PM Ya, I got the two dumb blonds mixed up there. My bad! :)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 17, 2011, 04:36:49 AM You, like, understand that Puertoricans are citizens and a lot of New York whites are not citizens, right? And quite a few New York blacks neither, btw? Lewis, I don't understand why your tone toward Torie is so disproportionately hostile on this board. Let's move on. I'm not angry now. :) In principle they could still do that, but they would need substantial control over the upstate map in exchange. And yeah... what I had needs work. I do recall my initial response to muon's version of the seat. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 17, 2011, 01:30:57 PM My version was not intended to be what a court would draw, but rather what a court would accept. It was based in a June worldview which meant that NY-9 was on the chopping block, and would make an easy place for the two parties to come to agreement. I assumed that the Brooklyn reps would largely want their own minority districts as is but with enough new pop to make them whole. As Lewis noted, I found that keeping the basic shape of the current CD-12 intact makes a formidable wall for the black districts, especially if CD-6 can't go far into Nassau. With my self-imposed constraints those four districts along with a much more GOP Staten Island CD pretty much wrote themselves. Of course that was when it seemed in the GOP's interest to negotiate an end to NY-9 in exchange for much safer holdings for King and Grimm. In principle they could still do that, but they would need substantial control over the upstate map in exchange. It will be hard to avoid a loss of a GOP seat upstate. It would have to be a rather hideous gerrymander really, and might still leave stuff pretty marginal for the Pubbies up there. I would be surprised if that is the deal. And given the big news of the Turner upset, to dump him when he has a natural CD, would cause a lot of Pubbies to be upset I would think. I would think a Pubbie representing a heavily Jewish district would help facilitate further GOP inroads among Jews in general over time. But politicians do do things which I find inexplicable I must admit. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 17, 2011, 01:32:10 PM Smug snake? ???
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on September 18, 2011, 03:35:54 AM In Ohio, if R's were going to pass a disgusting map they had to do the black snake to Akron. That's not because the law actually demanded it - the law as its interpretation now stands technically doesn't demand any Black seat in Ohio at all: Any seat that stays in Cuyahoga fails the Gingles test because it's under 50.1 and any that head out to Akron fail the Gingles test because they do not represent a community of interest. Catch-22. It's because D's were going to use any easyish tangent to sue against an R gerrymander, and its existence puts the them in the Catch. These considerations don't apply here. One consideration does apply both here and in Ohio: the map doesn't need to be precleared. I think you would have a hard time convincing the DOJ or a judge that a district in Queens has no impact on districts drawn across the Queens/Kings border. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 18, 2011, 04:32:11 AM Bronx, New York (Manhattan), and Kings (Brooklyn) counties are required to preclear (those bad old liberals had a literacy test, and Blacks didn't vote in as large numbers) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on September 18, 2011, 04:54:49 AM The court Texas map was drawn by a Dem judge who had improper contacts with Dem politicians, and the map was dumped and he was removed from the case. As soon as the apportionment numbers came out in 2000, the Dems started suing because Texas didn't have 32 congressional districts. They sued in both State court and in federal court. They sued in Travis County so they could get a Democrat state judge, and they filed in the Eastern District in federal court because they thought they could get more favorable judges (one was Ann Richards' Secretary of State back when she was comparing redistricting to hog butchering and suggesting that federal judges would be better suited to a high chair than an elevated bench), and they didn't like the decisions from the Southern District where the 1990s litigation had happened (in 2011, the Western District gets the honors). After the legislature failed to redistrict, and there was no indication that a special session would be called, the state court took jurisdiction, and the federal court said they would defer until a certain date in 2001 that was would allow them to act before the filing period, which begins in December preceding an election year. The trial was actually held before both the state and federal court. The State judge drew an extremely reasonable map, and then announced that he would be making a few minor tweaks before announcing his opinion, in response to some requests from the then Speaker of the House Pete Laney (who though a Democrat would be presumed to be representing the House). It probably was not unlawful for him to have contact with the judge. The state judge then came out with a drastically redrawn map. This got appealed to the Texas Supreme Court who ruled that the judge had violated due process because he had never held hearings on his proposed order, and they then remanded it back to the district court. The federal court then decided even if the state judge who had just been slapped around got around to holding new hearings, it would be too late, and they took over. While State courts may exercise some political and legislative judgement in redistricting matters, federal courts are only expected to do the minimum necessary to remedy a map (this is why in 1996 they left all the weird boundaries that were found to be political gerrymanders, while removing all the weird district boundaries that were found to be racial gerrymanders. The federal court decided their job was only to equalize population and draw two new districts. While they took a lot of kinks out of the map, they left the general outlines of the map which included packs of Republican areas. In effect, they were preserving the legislative intent of the 1991 Democrat legislature. They specifically told the lawyer for the Texas NAACP Morris Overstreet (who had been a Texas appeals court judge) that no matter how sympathetic they were to his case, they did not have authority to draw a Black majority district in southwest Houston, and should petition the Texas legislature. Clearly the 1st Amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances does not exist for a short time window every 10 years, and so when Morris Overstreet and like-minded Texans like Tom Delay petitioned the Texas legislature to draw congressional districts in 2003, the legislature drew new boundaries. The 2001 federal court drawn boundaries were only remedial and intended to permit the 2002 election be held, but they preserved the 1990s Martin Frost gerrymander. All the decisions from 2003 onward made it clear that the Texas legislature was fully entitled to replace the court-drawn plan from 2001 (which had preserved the 1990s Democrat gerrymander) and this "mid-decade redistricting" claim was nonsense. It was the same federal court that drew the 2001 boundaries that approved the 2003 boundaries (one judge had died and was replaced). The reason that the case took so long for the Supreme Court to rule on was that they had remanded it back to the district court after the Jubilier decision. So the district court and 5th Circuit had approved the Texas map twice, along with the DOJ, before the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision decided they didn't like fajita strip districts. I don't know the "principles" to which you refer that a court "should" follow, but what I think I know is that a fair court will have no interest in maintaining some bipartisan incumbent protection erose gerrymandered monster. That map should be tossed into the garbage. I certainly hope it is. The principles of which I am aware are compactness, respect for communities of interest and jurisdictional boundaries, and that sort of thing, except to the extent the VRA forces a violation of those principles. Clearly the New York legislature has never considered compactness, communities of interest, or jurisdictional boundaries as a basis for drawing districts. What right does a federal court have to impose California sensibilities on New York? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 18, 2011, 05:18:58 AM Yeah. What of the map can be preserved must be. When changing things at all, they're obviously not allowed to gerry.
However, the more I look at it... I guess the 9th can in fact be preserved and the 12th pretty much cannot without getting ever more erose. And that is indeed something a federal court should not be interested in. So I guess Torie wins that part. His Long Island stuff though is right out, obviously. I wonder if a merger of the 9th and 8th Brooklyn parts' isn't in the pipeline. To put another way: When drawing the minority seats first, it was a grave mistake to begin with the Black ones - a mistake comparable to Torie's ignoring the 12th at all... oh dear. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 18, 2011, 10:21:08 AM While federal courts generally follow the "least change" rule, state courts do not is my understanding. And state courts generally handle this task unless you get that incredible saga that jimrtex described in Texas. I believe a state court drew the NY map in 2001. It was not a least change map is my recollection - at all. No, it was a sensible map. And then the legislature cut a deal and drew its monstrosity to protect incumbents. I think I know what a state judge would do with the existing map - kill it! :)
As I said before, I hope a state judge does draw a map just like last time. That will be the only way to find out of course just whose cyrstal ball is more accurate. In any event, I'm happy with my map now, even if Lewis is not. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 18, 2011, 02:31:58 PM Yeah, so I arrive at something not too dissimilar in the parts that really matter, except I did it the hard way. :P A district for Turner in Southwest Brooklyn (and a little bit of Queens) does indeed make sense.
I'm not running the Queens-Brooklyn (now very much Queens) district up into the Bronx, though. Nosirree. And adding McCarthy's district to the stew is not necessary for VRA compliance, is disruptive to old districts/disregarding legislative intent, is not going to be popular with anybody, and - and this is a new argument - it doesn't even help the Republicans, either! :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 18, 2011, 04:13:57 PM Yeah, so I arrive at something not too dissimilar in the parts that really matter, except I did it the hard way. :P A district for Turner in Southwest Brooklyn (and a little bit of Queens) does indeed make sense. I'm not running the Queens-Brooklyn (now very much Queens) district up into the Bronx, though. Nosirree. And adding McCarthy's district to the stew is not necessary for VRA compliance, is disruptive to old districts/disregarding legislative intent, is not going to be popular with anybody, and - and this is a new argument - it doesn't even help the Republicans, either! :P No, it doesn't really, but it's right. It hews nicely to jurisdictional lines and maximized compactness. It is the CD that should be tossed by a court in my opinion. Deal with it Lewis! :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on September 18, 2011, 04:18:23 PM But why!?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 18, 2011, 04:22:15 PM I just told you why Lewis. I understand that you don't agree. That is why we have courts damn it.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 18, 2011, 04:27:40 PM That is why we have courts damn it. I thought that was just a make-work scheme to keep you and your kind off the streets? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on September 18, 2011, 04:28:58 PM That is why we have courts damn it. I thought that was just a make-work scheme to keep you and your kind off the streets? :P Man those wigs your barristers wear are expensive! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 18, 2011, 04:32:50 PM That is why we have courts damn it. I thought that was just a make-work scheme to keep you and your kind off the streets? :P Man those wigs your barristers wear are expensive! I once read that judge's wigs are made from billy goats beards, though I don't know if that's actually true. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on September 18, 2011, 11:06:36 PM While federal courts generally follow the "least change" rule, state courts do not is my understanding. And state courts generally handle this task unless you get that incredible saga that jimrtex described in Texas. I believe a state court drew the NY map in 2001. It was not a least change map is my recollection - at all. No, it was a sensible map. And then the legislature cut a deal and drew its monstrosity to protect incumbents. I think I know what a state judge would do with the existing map - kill it! :) As I said before, I hope a state judge does draw a map just like last time. That will be the only way to find out of course just whose cyrstal ball is more accurate. In any event, I'm happy with my map now, even if Lewis is not. :P I think federal courts will defer to State courts after the tanning the federal district judge in Minnesota received during the 2000s redistricting. Of course he not only had ignored the Minnesota court, he had enjoined it from doing anything. My understanding is that State courts are exercising legislative authority on behalf of their States, and the federal courts would just as soon not get involved in interpreting State constitutions for the States. And in some States, the state courts are given specific authority in redistricting matters (eg California). This gives the State courts more of a legislative authority, and so they can more actively draw lines. A map drawn by a state judge in New York would have to be pre-cleared. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on September 26, 2011, 10:29:36 PM Folks, I'd bet quite a lot of money that both sides will come to some agreement under the table that benefits the strongest party bosses of each side, and that, most likely, takes away one Dem seat and one GOP seat (relatively speaking). That's the way things tend to work in NY. If a court gets to it, it likely means that the end of the world is at hand.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 09, 2011, 07:24:46 PM My dream NYC map.
() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/nyc1.png/) Red: Long Island district for McCarthy Yellow: Queens/Bronx district for Crowley Slate Green: Queens district for Meeks Aqua Green: Downtown/Midtown district for Nadler Bright Blue: Brooklyn/Queens district for Turner Pink: Brooklyn district for Towns Lime Green: Brooklyn district for Clarke Pale Blue: Queens/Brooklyn district for Velazquez Peach: Staten Island district for Grimm Gold: collection of liberal whites for Maloney Orange: Bronx/Manhattan district for Rangel or primary Bright Green: Bronx district for Serrano Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 09, 2011, 08:59:43 PM Does all that comport with the VRA?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 09, 2011, 09:11:17 PM Well, it maintains 50% black districts in Brooklyn (10, 11), 47% black district in Queens (6), and the 3 Hispanic districts (12, 15, 16).
Swapping precincts between 4 and 6 doesn't change much. So, more or less My goal was to equalize districts across the boroughs, and to cut down on borough crossings. Manhattan now has 3 districts for 2 districts worth of population which comes at the expense of the other boroughs. In my plan Brooklyn gets 3 districts, Queens gets 3 districts, Staten Island gets its 1, Manhattan gets 2.5, and the Bronx gets 1.5, based on the dominant source of population of each district. I don't like the 14th crossing 3 boroughs but I think there's a theme to that at least. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 04:37:04 AM I guess you could disentangle the 3rd/4th just a wee bit? And same with the (former) 9th Brooklyn part? Oh, and why is Maloney extended to the West Side?
Otherwise... if Nadler and Rangel agree, as they probably should, this is where it's probably heading. Basically merging Crowley and Ackerman and letting Velazquez pick up their most Hispanic Queens bits. Maloney taking Greenpoint and parts of Williamsburg is what it takes to keep Velazquez' recognizable while pushing her above 50%, is it? Oh well, so be it then. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 10, 2011, 08:01:15 AM Well, 3 and 4 are merely gerrymandered to put all the Republicans in Peter King's district. And the 9th is very carefully selected into Queens to pluck out Republicans as well; push it anywhere else and you start adding 100k 80% Obama voters. I could probably add Sunset Park and be ok...but Velazquez I think lives there. Hence the awful shape of the 12th.
I shoved Maloney up to Columbia and the other university up there, and general white dominated precincts...could probably give it to Nadler. But I didn't think Nadler should extend from Battery Park all the way to Uptown. I'm not convinced that Greenpoint fits here well, but I suppose it fits nowhere; Astoria does though as it seems is becoming a cheaper extension of the Upper East Side. Rangel has already issued the 'over my dead body' proclamation on this. He's demanding they keep that district in Manhattan and push it down the Upper West Side...basically taking Maloney's territory both from the north, and the south (if they condense Nadler like this). Crowley should be thrilled as I gave him a white dominated district. I left the 4 core VRA districts (Meeks, Towns, Clarke, Serrano) exactly the same too. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 10:20:18 AM Well, it maintains 50% black districts in Brooklyn (10, 11), 47% black district in Queens (6), and the 3 Hispanic districts (12, 15, 16). Swapping precincts between 4 and 6 doesn't change much. So, more or less My goal was to equalize districts across the boroughs, and to cut down on borough crossings. Manhattan now has 3 districts for 2 districts worth of population which comes at the expense of the other boroughs. In my plan Brooklyn gets 3 districts, Queens gets 3 districts, Staten Island gets its 1, Manhattan gets 2.5, and the Bronx gets 1.5, based on the dominant source of population of each district. I don't like the 14th crossing 3 boroughs but I think there's a theme to that at least. Is Velasquez going to be happy with a 50% Hispanic CD? Is Meeks going to be happy with 47% black? Those two issues explain most of the major differences between my "court drawn" map and your map, putting aside the Long Island gerry. The walls are so strong in NYC, that somethings don't change much no matter who is drawing what and why. :) I doubt a court will do some of the things that you are doing. But that is nit picking. Well done. If I were a Pubbie I would still let the courts do it, because it generates a lot more Dems in marginal CD's, or semi marginal, that can be possibly knocked off in 2012. You saw my matrix chart. It could be very sanguinary for the Dems in 2012 with that kind of map. And the idea of electing more moderate to semi-moderate Pubbies gets me particularly all hot and bothered. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 10:50:54 AM Well, 3 and 4 are merely gerrymandered to put all the Republicans in Peter King's district. Quote And the 9th is very carefully selected into Queens to pluck out Republicans as well; push it anywhere else and you start adding 100k 80% Obama voters. 100k of them? Are you sure? Just how Republican is your version? Quote I shoved Maloney up to Columbia and the other university up there, and general white dominated precincts...could probably give it to Nadler. That is what I would do.Quote Rangel has already issued the 'over my dead body' proclamation on this. He's demanding they keep that district in Manhattan and push it down the Upper West Side...basically taking Maloney's territory both from the north, and the south (if they condense Nadler like this). ;DQuote Crowley should be thrilled as I gave him a white dominated district. Crowley doesn't care whether he gets Whites or Hispanics, as long as it's not, say, 60% or whatever of them. Crowley decides who Queens Democrats get to vote for.Is Velasquez going to be happy with a 50% Hispanic CD? Is Meeks going to be happy with 47% black? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 10:53:01 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 10:54:51 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 10:57:41 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 10, 2011, 11:11:59 AM Well, 3 and 4 are merely gerrymandered to put all the Republicans in Peter King's district. Quote And the 9th is very carefully selected into Queens to pluck out Republicans as well; push it anywhere else and you start adding 100k 80% Obama voters. 100k of them? Are you sure? Just how Republican is your version? Quote I shoved Maloney up to Columbia and the other university up there, and general white dominated precincts...could probably give it to Nadler. That is what I would do.Quote Rangel has already issued the 'over my dead body' proclamation on this. He's demanding they keep that district in Manhattan and push it down the Upper West Side...basically taking Maloney's territory both from the north, and the south (if they condense Nadler like this). ;DQuote Crowley should be thrilled as I gave him a white dominated district. Crowley doesn't care whether he gets Whites or Hispanics, as long as it's not, say, 60% or whatever of them. Crowley decides who Queens Democrats get to vote for.Is Velasquez going to be happy with a 50% Hispanic CD? Is Meeks going to be happy with 47% black? Here is brooklyn by partisan breakdown. () (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/brooklyn.png/) Now, I presume the Staten Island District gets first pickings, so it takes Bay Ridge and some of Bensonhurst. Then I removed all the nonminorities (ie Republicans) from districts 8, 10, 11, and gave them to 9. () (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/511/newyork9.png/) That's 580k people, at 58% McCain, leaving about 140k to go. Where else can you route that district? You can't add the Brooklyn blacks to the north. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 10, 2011, 11:19:39 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. A big problem with yanking Nassau county blacks out of the 4th is that it makes it, well, not vulnerable, but not a snoozefest either. This drops it to 57% Obama. () (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/ny4.png/) Not in a million years will that district go to Hempstead (imo). The GOP is certainly better off if Peter King is not heavily packed, but now that Israel is DCCC chair... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 11:20:34 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 11:57:18 AM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no. IC. And nobody knows how the courts will count them I presume. Do they vote as blacks or Hispanics? Or is it not possible to tell? And isn't the black or Hispanic thing just self identification in the census? In other words, the black Hispanic can - and must - pick one or the other? Or does the census provide for picking both? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:07:34 PM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no. IC. And nobody knows how the courts will count them I presume. Do they vote as blacks or Hispanics? Or is it not possible to tell? And isn't the black or Hispanic thing just self identification in the census? In other words, the black Hispanic can - and must - pick one or the other? Or does the census provide for picking both? And the courts count them as Blacks for Black-opportunity districts and as Hispanic for Hispanic-opportunity districts. As they should. (They also count the people who check multiple races including Black. New York just is the only place where it makes more than a percentage point or so of difference. At least on a level as far up as congressional districts.) The Census asks two questions (as you should know since you recently filled one out) - which and how many of these races do you identify with? Black, White, Native, etc? And secondly and independently, are you of Hispanic Origin? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on October 10, 2011, 12:16:19 PM Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black. A big problem with yanking Nassau county blacks out of the 4th is that it makes it, well, not vulnerable, but not a snoozefest either. This drops it to 57% Obama. () (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/ny4.png/) Not in a million years will that district go to Hempstead (imo). The GOP is certainly better off if Peter King is not heavily packed, but now that Israel is DCCC chair... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 12:17:53 PM I have zero memory as to what was on the census form. :P
Thanks for the reply. That was very informative Lewis. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:18:48 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 12:26:08 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th Back to the Hispanic black thing one more time. I take it that the DRA then is counting the black Hispanics in the Meek CD as Hispanic, even though the courts would count them as black (cuz it's a black "opportunity" CD). If so, that is not good! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:30:13 PM I have zero memory as to what was on the census form. :P Thanks for the reply. That was very informative Lewis. :) The DRA figures are set up the way they are because nobody can make up heads or tails on why which Hispanics identify as White or Other. Obviously Latin American Whites, that Anglos would recognize as White, identify as White. But so do many Mexican Mestizos... and people who're probably European but look swarthy enough for Anglos to class them as "Browns" (think Ciro or Grijalva). While others of the same color identify as Other. So the White (Hispanic or Not) figure is quite useless wherever there are many Hispanics around, and doesn't correspond to a reality on the ground. Meanwhile, where there are Dominicans or Afro-Cubans or also on some southwestern reservations, what the DRA does creates a problem as it makes it appear as if the people who check Hispanic origin are not Black / Native. (On most Southern Arizona reservations, there are more people checking both Native and Hispanic than there are who check neither. In many of these places, Spanish was used as the lingua franca to communicate with the surrounding anglo world for several generations, and Spanish skills are still very widespread even though English skills are near-universal now.) Meanwhile, the question is set up the way it is on the Census because when Hispanic is considered a "race" (or called something else but asked in the same breath anyways) Latin American Whites don't check it, and hey presto, there's far fewer Hispanics in the US than there really is. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on October 10, 2011, 12:39:24 PM That would not explain why the DRA calls Hispanics who checked "black" Hispanic rather than black. Or visa versa. The only problem with the the DRA is that it is not subtle enough to call black Hispanics in existing black opportunity CD's "black," while calling the very same black Hispanic folks in Hispanic opportunity CD's "Hispanic." In any event, the DRA could have had a subcategory of black Hispanics separate from just Hispanic or black alone, and that way the map makers could add the two-fer category to either the Hispanic or black group as appropriate.
Make sense? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:44:46 PM There's a census data set of "Hispanic; and not Hispanic by race". Dave just seems to have used that. Obviously you could include layers of information about what different races Hispanics and mixed-race people checked... but I guess nobody's pointed the issue out to Dave in time, and it would be a fair bit of work to implement now.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on October 10, 2011, 12:45:58 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:47:34 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 10, 2011, 12:49:57 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th So half of them have to pay the city tax, and half of them don't. Interesting. The other option I tried mapping is placing Maloney in a wholly Manhattan district that stretches from Midtown up to Washington Heights. But half that territory would be Rangel's and I imagine she would pitch a fit, and anyone that high on Financial Services will likely get what they want. I still would have liked to place Maloney entirely in Manhattan, Rangel almost entirely in the Bronx, and Crowley entirely in Queens. Alas it is unlikely to be. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2011, 12:54:35 PM Whatever became of Charlie's ethic troubles btw?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on October 10, 2011, 12:54:44 PM That would not explain why the DRA calls Hispanics who checked "black" Hispanic rather than black. Or visa versa. The only problem with the the DRA is that it is not subtle enough to call black Hispanics in existing black opportunity CD's "black," while calling the very same black Hispanic folks in Hispanic opportunity CD's "Hispanic." In any event, the DRA could have had a subcategory of black Hispanics separate from just Hispanic or black alone, and that way the map makers could add the two-fer category to either the Hispanic or black group as appropriate. Make sense? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on October 10, 2011, 01:03:06 PM if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on October 10, 2011, 01:49:17 PM Whatever became of Charlie's ethic troubles btw? He was censured and I think it ended there. Of course if they push that district into the Bronx he will get primaried. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: DrScholl on October 10, 2011, 03:12:57 PM I assume that most of the Hispanics that also identify as black are in the Bronx, as you have large blocs of mixed Black-Hispanic precincts there.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on October 10, 2011, 10:43:41 PM I know this is rather aesthetic, but in your gerrymander, can you please put Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens back together. It's an annoyance I have with the present gerrymander and it doesn't change much of anything (makes Velasquez a bit less Hispanic and Clarke/Meeks more minority, but I doubt anyone cares). Basically, you make the boundary of Velasquez's district Court Street/Cadman Plaza West (two blocks to the east) instead of Henry St. east of 278.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on October 11, 2011, 12:26:22 PM I assume that most of the Hispanics that also identify as black are in the Bronx, as you have large blocs of mixed Black-Hispanic precincts there. Yes. As in, even more of them than in the areas discussed so far. Bronx 53.5% Hispanic incl. 21.6% Puerto Rican, 17.4% Dominican, 5.1% Mexican (easily the largest three groups anywhere except in Queens) 36.5% Black alone, 39.1% Black alone or in combination 30.1% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 30.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination Manhattan 25.4% Hispanic incl. 9.8% Dominican, 6.8% Puerto Rican, 2.6% Mexican 15.6% Black alone, 17.2% Black alone or in combination 13.0% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 13.7% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination Brooklyn 19.8% Hispanic incl. 7.0% Puerto Rican, 3.8% Mexican, 3.5% Dominican 34.3% Black alone, 35.8% Black alone or in combination 31.9% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 32.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination Queens 27.5% Hispanic incl. 4.6% Puerto Rican, 4.2% Mexican, 3.9% Dominican... 4.4% Ecuadorian, 3.2% Colombian. This (along with the age of the Hispanic communities' existence, but that is related) explains why there's Hispanic representatives from Brooklyn and the Bronx but not from Queens, of course. 19.1% Black alone, 20.7% Black alone or in combination 17.7% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 18.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination Now let's have a look by (current) district... Ackerman's 25.6% Hispanic incl. 5.2% Mexican, 5.2% Ecuadorian, 3.9% Dominican 4.8 / 5.5 / 4.1 / 4.3 (Black alone, Black alone or in combination, nhb alone, nhb alone or in combination) Meeks' 19.0% Hispanic incl. 4.6% Puerto Rican, 3.2% Dominican, rest is sort of scattered with Ecuadorian and Did Not State tied for third at 1.6% 51.8 / 54.8 / 49.5 / 51.9 The sizable non-Hispanic part-Black population here is also Caribbean I think. Haitian maybe - I know many of them check "Black" and "Other" in Florida? (Yet another source of non-Hispanic Other Races in South Queens are the Arabs.) Crowley's 44.4% Hispanic incl. 15.8% Puerto Rican, 7.0% Dominican, 5.7% Mexican, 4.5% Ecuadorian 19.8 / 21.5 / 16.3 / 17.0 Towns' 17.2% Hispanic incl. 7.8% Puerto Rican, 3.7% Dominican 62.1 / 64.0 / 58.4 / 59.6 Clarke's 13.2% Hispanic incl. 4.1% Puerto Rican, 2.6% Mexican, 1.8% Dominican 56.1 / 58.0 / 53.1 / 54.4. Clarke herself is the daughter of Jamaican parents rather than from the Southern US like Towns (born in NC) or her predecessor Owens (born in TN) or Charlie Rangel (born in Harlem, mother born in VA). No idea where Meeks' (also born in Harlem) people came to NY from. Velazquez' 44.6% Hispanic incl. 15.5% Puerto Rican, 9.2% Dominican, 7.8% Mexican, 4.5% Ecuadorian 10.9 / 12.4 / 8.2 / 8.8 Rangel's 46.1% Hispanic incl. 21.9% Dominican, 9.9% Puerto Rican, 4.9% Mexican 31.8 / 34.6 / 26.4 / 27.4 Serrano's 66.5% Hispanic incl. 24.9% Dominican, 23.3% Puerto Rican, 6.9% Mexican 35.9 / 39.0 / 27.9 / 28.6 Almost 30% of South Bronx Blacks are Hispanic Blacks! :D And that, of course, is assuming full reporting. Engel's 25.6% Hispanic incl. 8.6% Puerto Rican, 6.8% Dominican, 3.1% Mexican 32.7 / 34.6 / 30.0 / 31.0 Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Joe Republic on February 10, 2012, 06:19:05 PM I haven't been following closely enough to know if this news is already out of date, but...
Quote from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/i-rep-carolyn-mccarthy-district-chopping-block-article-1.1019514?localLinksEnabled=false Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s Long Island district is on the chopping block as state leaders begin redrawing congressional boundaries, the Daily News has learned. State Senate and Assembly negotiators are looking at merging McCarthy’s Nassau County district into a Nassau-Queens district now held by fellow Dem Gary Ackerman, sources close to the planning said. McCarthy’s current district “collides” with Ackerman’s, making it a perfect candidate for merger, insiders said. The lines are expected to be drawn in a way that favors Ackerman in a potential primary. [...] If McCarthy’s district is eliminated, an upstate Republican district is expected to be axed as well to even out the partisan bloodletting. Insiders say a decision on which Republican would go has not been made, but would likely result from the slicing up of the sprawling district belonging to Ulster County Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, who is retiring. One likely target is Republican Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, whose central and western New York seat could be redrawn to include Democrat-heavy Ithaca, which currently falls in Hinchey’s district, insiders said. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 11, 2012, 02:58:47 PM I told you Lewis that McCarthy's CD was the one to go. You see, I am right once in awhile. :)
I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2012, 03:05:03 PM I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want. How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 11, 2012, 03:12:59 PM I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want. How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party. I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive! :) It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence. I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 11, 2012, 03:31:20 PM Ho hum. Totally pointless to chop McCarthy's district. As pointless as McCarthy's very existence.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2012, 05:12:09 PM I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want. How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party. I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive! :) Yes, I would expect something like that to occur and that is of course just fine by me. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on February 11, 2012, 05:26:31 PM I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want. How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party. I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive! :) It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence. I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise. I think you m ean NY-26, not NY-29. NY-26 was a gerrymander to help Tom Reynolds hold the seat and vote like a Southern conservative. Any reasonable court drawn map would confine that district to Buffalo. A court drawn map would also likely end the career of Michael Grimm and possibly Richard Hanna and Nan Hayworth if those districts pick up parts of NY-22. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 11, 2012, 06:02:02 PM If NY-26 is the CD that a Dem nabbed in a special election, then yes, that CD could be converted to a Dem one. It might get a bit ugly however to get it over to Ithaca. NY-29 is more convenient for that task. I suppose it could dip into Buffalo, and the Buffalo CD could take Ithaca to keep it safe for the Dems.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 11, 2012, 07:55:52 PM I don't think Buffalo to Ithaca is tenable without an unusually gerrymandered map. It's also an awkward combination of Dems.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 11, 2012, 10:40:18 PM I don't think Buffalo to Ithaca is tenable without an unusually gerrymandered map. It's also an awkward combination of Dems. I certainly cannot gainsay what you said, but that has not slowed down the partisan hacks in NY before, when they cut their deal. This map needs some work still, and maybe Syracuse and Rochester could be combined, but there is but one option if one wants to make Dem safe two Buffalo based CD's. As I said, NY just begs for a non partisan court to draw the map. Granted, I am skeptical such a beast exists in NY. Everything is partisan in NY, including the courts, is my impression. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 12, 2012, 01:29:24 AM You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Napoleon on February 12, 2012, 01:44:30 AM Love the sig BRTD.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 09:48:26 AM An Ithaca-Binghamton-Syracuse district would have at least 40,000 undergraduates from Syracuse, Cornell, SUNY-Binghamton, and Ithaca College.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 12, 2012, 10:01:41 AM Love the sig BRTD. It was Phil's idea actually. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: © tweed on February 12, 2012, 10:09:12 AM An Ithaca-Binghamton-Syracuse district would have at least 40,000 undergraduates from Syracuse, Cornell, SUNY-Binghamton, and Ithaca College. very few vote. or relatively few. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 12:17:10 PM You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state. I did that (NY-26 took the black neighborhoods mostly in Buffalo), but the problem is that it dilutes the other Buffalo CD down too much, so NY-27 needs to make up for the lost Dems by going to Ithaca. Both CD's are about 57% Obama, and NY-26 is 52.5% average Dem based on some formula, and NY-27 is 54.5% average Dem. Actually Buffalo can be fairly volatile, so anything less than these figures means the CD's are not safe Dem. As they are, they are only weak safe Dem. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 12, 2012, 01:05:41 PM Buffalo is "volatile"? More like fiercely loyal to its incumbents no matter what party they're from.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 01:39:12 PM You can not get 3 safe Dem seats out of western NY, but shifting parts of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and possibly Monroe Cty from Slaughter to Hochul, Monroe county suburbs from Reed to Slaughter, and toxic Republican areas from Hochul to Reed provides a very satisfactory outcome for Dems without wasting the Ithaca votes to make a Strong Lean Dem seat into Safe.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 03:46:02 PM You can not get 3 safe Dem seats out of western NY, but shifting parts of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and possibly Monroe Cty from Slaughter to Hochul, Monroe county suburbs from Reed to Slaughter, and toxic Republican areas from Hochul to Reed provides a very satisfactory outcome for Dems without wasting the Ithaca votes to make a Strong Lean Dem seat into Safe. Well, the idea was a compromise map, not a Dem gerry. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 12, 2012, 05:02:58 PM Does Hochul really need 55%+ or would 50% Obama or so be enough?
Also, what are discussions pertaining to Bob Turner's district? Have their been any leaks in that regard? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 12, 2012, 05:08:37 PM Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though? True, that map is no more gerrymandered for the Democrats in Western NY than the status quo is gerrymandered for the Republicans. Slaughter's current district is a pretty bad gerrymander to waste Democratic votes. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 05:11:22 PM Does Hochul really need 55%+ or would 50% Obama or so be enough? As long as her district is kept within Buffalo and Niagara counties, Hochul should do fine, even without a partisan advantage. Why is that? And presumably the Obama percentage overstates the inherent Dem strength by a bit anyway. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 05:21:22 PM Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though? A compromise map saves Turner, and loses a GOP seat upstate. I consider the Hochul seat a GOP seat, even though a Dem sits in it at the moment. In a compromise map, the whole state is gerrymandered actually. And the existing map is a compromise map, which both parties signed off on. A court is unlikely to give Hochul anything much better than she has now in any event. A court would likely make the Syracuse seat a Dem seat, and flush the Hinchey seat, and the rest of the upstate CD's from a partisan standpoint would not change much, except that the Buffalo seat would get much more Dem, since it was drawn to help out the Pub Quinn, now long gone, and the Rochester seat much more Pub, almost to the point where Slaughter might have some trouble, who has zero cross over appeal, and is basically an embarrassment. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 12, 2012, 05:27:09 PM Slaughter had no issues representing an exclusively Rochester-based seat until 2002.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 05:30:54 PM "both parties signed off on it" but as with the Illinois and California 2001-2002 maps, it was an incumbent-protection map that defended Republican advantages and piled up Dem votes in wasted piles. The compromise helped Dems on Long Island, helped Republicans upstate, and served Republican purposes by ensuring that the guy who lost his R seat was a left-leaning Republican in swing district (Gilman).
Don't forget, the Pubbies had the governor's seat and an active VP as well as the state senate. There was a thumb on the scale. P.S. Yes, CA Dems had issues with non-citizens and non-voters, so it's not a perfect analogy. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 05:33:26 PM Slaughter had no issues representing an exclusively Rochester-based seat until 2002. That was a much smaller district - and the most Democratic parts of it have lost population. It would not be much of a difference. She represented a Monroe County district in the past and by rights she should represent a Monroe County district now. The county's population is almost exactly 1 CD in population and would be Likely D in a normal election. She represented a district like that for well over a decade before Dick Cheney drew her into a hyper-Dem district to kick out LaFalce and protect Reynolds. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 12, 2012, 05:33:36 PM Plus ultra safe seats tend to dum down incumbents and make them less strong politically.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 05:35:06 PM Slaughter is very old at this point, too.
Also, Rochester has both trended D and is incumbent friendly. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 05:37:33 PM If you pull in Ithaca, you can do it; I wasn't including that in my terms for western NY for what I meant. But granted, Rochester to Ithaca is not a ridiculous stretch.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 05:42:50 PM I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically.
With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 06:11:32 PM I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically. With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul. Yes, that is the natural thing to do, and what I think a court would do, but no, it won't help Hochul much. In my "court drawn" map above (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129756.msg3017648#msg3017648), the partisan make-up of Hochul's seat stays about the same (51.7% McCain, 50 basis points more Dem than it is now). The earmuffs gerrymander is almost strictly a Buffalo v Rochester CD affair, involving just those two CD's. Hochul's CD just takes up the land bridge between the muffs is all along the lake, which is GOP territory. All the territory around Hochul's CD is GOP actually. If the Dems want to make it more Dem, they will have to pay for it. Nothing is for free. Or they can leave it alone, but then the odds are two incumbents will go down, one Pub (Buerkle), and Hochul, with Owens always kind of vulnerable, and the former Hinchey CD marginal, along with the CD running from Albany down to Dutchess County, now held by a Pub. Presumably in a party deal map, the latter two CD's would cease to be marginal, with the Albany to Dutchess Pub getting a better CD, and the former Hinchey CD made more Dem. Upstate NY is not a good place for the Dems, in part because the Buffalo CD gets a lot more Dem right out of the box, sucking up Dems there, and in part because Slaughter is so weak, and in part because the Hinchey CD is so ridiculous. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2012, 06:44:17 PM I don't understand why the earmuffs should be considered off-limits to Hochul. She represents suburban Buffalo. In the previous iteration, LaFalce had Niagara Falls and half of Buffalo. Why shouldn't the courts create a district based on Rochester and two districts based on Erie-Niagara? Especially when that is exactly what we had in the 1990s?
Your court-drawn map makes Hochul a dead duck by creating a 60% Obama district in Buffalo. Such and outcome is not impossible. But I don't see why it's more probable than restoring the 1990s map with allowances for population loss now that Hinchey has conveniently removed an obstacle to eastward expansion. And yes, there can indeed be a free lunch when so very, very many Dem votes are currently wasted in the earmuffs district. Pay for it that way. There's plenty in the bank! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on February 12, 2012, 08:23:01 PM You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state. I did that (NY-26 took the black neighborhoods mostly in Buffalo), but the problem is that it dilutes the other Buffalo CD down too much, so NY-27 needs to make up for the lost Dems by going to Ithaca. Both CD's are about 57% Obama, and NY-26 is 52.5% average Dem based on some formula, and NY-27 is 54.5% average Dem. Actually Buffalo can be fairly volatile, so anything less than these figures means the CD's are not safe Dem. As they are, they are only weak safe Dem. At 57% Obama, they would be safe Dem. Higgins won 61% in 54% Obama NY-27 in 2010, which was the worst year for Democrats since 1894. 57% Obama would make them safe districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on February 12, 2012, 08:26:16 PM Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though? A compromise map saves Turner, and loses a GOP seat upstate. I consider the Hochul seat a GOP seat, even though a Dem sits in it at the moment. In a compromise map, the whole state is gerrymandered actually. And the existing map is a compromise map, which both parties signed off on. A court is unlikely to give Hochul anything much better than she has now in any event. A court would likely make the Syracuse seat a Dem seat, and flush the Hinchey seat, and the rest of the upstate CD's from a partisan standpoint would not change much, except that the Buffalo seat would get much more Dem, since it was drawn to help out the Pub Quinn, now long gone, and the Rochester seat much more Pub, almost to the point where Slaughter might have some trouble, who has zero cross over appeal, and is basically an embarrassment. Chopping up Hinchey's seat would make NY-24 and NY-19 more Dem and would probably cause Hanna and Hayworth to lose as they just barely won in a GOP wave year. Slaughter represented a strongly GOP district from 1987 to 1991 that split Rochester and connected it with some heavily Republican rural counties. She will be fine in a 59% Obama district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on February 12, 2012, 08:30:58 PM I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically. With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul. Yes, that is the natural thing to do, and what I think a court would do, but no, it won't help Hochul much. In my "court drawn" map above (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129756.msg3017648#msg3017648), the partisan make-up of Hochul's seat stays about the same (51.7% McCain, 50 basis points more Dem than it is now). The earmuffs gerrymander is almost strictly a Buffalo v Rochester CD affair, involving just those two CD's. Hochul's CD just takes up the land bridge between the muffs is all along the lake, which is GOP territory. All the territory around Hochul's CD is GOP actually. If the Dems want to make it more Dem, they will have to pay for it. Nothing is for free. Or they can leave it alone, but then the odds are two incumbents will go down, one Pub (Buerkle), and Hochul, with Owens always kind of vulnerable, and the former Hinchey CD marginal, along with the CD running from Albany down to Dutchess County, now held by a Pub. Presumably in a party deal map, the latter two CD's would cease to be marginal, with the Albany to Dutchess Pub getting a better CD, and the former Hinchey CD made more Dem. Upstate NY is not a good place for the Dems, in part because the Buffalo CD gets a lot more Dem right out of the box, sucking up Dems there, and in part because Slaughter is so weak, and in part because the Hinchey CD is so ridiculous. Hinchey's district is not "marginal". Obama got 59% there and even John Kerry got 54% there. Hinchey only got 53% in 2010 because it was an epic GOP wave year and there was very low Democratic turnout and independents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes. NY-22 doesnt need to be made any more Dem. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 12, 2012, 10:26:57 PM The new Hinchey seat that I guesstimated a court would draw is marginal. Click on my link in the post above. Sure, as long as Owen keeps his skirts clean, he should be OK, as long as he tacks moderate from time to time.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2012, 10:52:23 AM I decided to take a simple look at the upstate districts natural partisan leanings. To do so, I took whole counties and grouped them into areas of one or more districts such that the population was within 4K of the ideal size. Then those areas with more than one district were divided keeping counties intact as much as possible and splitting no towns, such that the districts were within 0.5% of the ideal size. This is the map I got for the upstate 9 (the tenth with Ulster, Orange and Putnam is about 66 K short).
() Next I used the Atlas data to get the actual PVIs for these districts. CD 19: D+5 (pink) Albany CD 20: R+1 (green) Schenectady CD 21: R+2 (blue) Utica CD 22: D+4 (cyan) Syracuse CD 23: D+4 (lilac) Binghampton CD 24: R+5 (beige) Niagara Falls CD 25: D+4 (gold) Rochester CD 26: R+6 (purple) Elmira CD 27: D+11 (grey) Buffalo On paper it should be a very competitive area. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 13, 2012, 11:24:24 AM I don't understand why the earmuffs should be considered off-limits to Hochul. She represents suburban Buffalo. In the previous iteration, LaFalce had Niagara Falls and half of Buffalo. Why shouldn't the courts create a district based on Rochester and two districts based on Erie-Niagara? Especially when that is exactly what we had in the 1990s? Your court-drawn map makes Hochul a dead duck by creating a 60% Obama district in Buffalo. Such and outcome is not impossible. But I don't see why it's more probable than restoring the 1990s map with allowances for population loss now that Hinchey has conveniently removed an obstacle to eastward expansion. And yes, there can indeed be a free lunch when so very, very many Dem votes are currently wasted in the earmuffs district. Pay for it that way. There's plenty in the bank! The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on February 13, 2012, 01:03:11 PM The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda. They may be taking incumbent protection into account. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 13, 2012, 01:26:27 PM The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda. They may be taking incumbent protection into account. If a court did that, it would be a disgrace. The NY court did not do that last time. It drew a fair map. Then the parties cut a deal, to make marginal CD's less marginal. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 13, 2012, 02:28:06 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2012, 04:42:16 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 13, 2012, 06:24:53 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2012, 07:02:59 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage. Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 14, 2012, 03:07:38 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage. Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year. So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. :P In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting. Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 14, 2012, 03:09:58 PM And the answer would depend on how well either option works out for the Erie districts.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Devils30 on February 14, 2012, 04:45:55 PM Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2012, 05:23:55 PM A federal judge is calling for a three judge panel to determine whether to appoint a special master to draw the congressional map (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-calls-pecial-master-redraw-state-legislative-congressional-district-boundaries-article-1.1022140) (and reportedly, the legislative map, too). The Second Circuit appointed the three judge panel today. Time is supposedly of the essence now that a federal judge has forced New York to hold its federal primaries in June instead of September to comply with federal military absentee requirements. I'm not sure how that applies to the legislative maps, which are already out and for which primaries need not be held until September.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 14, 2012, 05:41:45 PM Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state. And why on earth would the GOP agree to that? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 14, 2012, 05:56:29 PM I hope Cuomo stands firm against both parties. Doesn't he have every incentive to kick it to the courts if the lines aren't to his liking?
How hard is it to amend the state constitution in NY? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2012, 06:10:21 PM I hope Cuomo stands firm against both parties. Doesn't he have every incentive to kick it to the courts if the lines aren't to his liking? How hard is it to amend the state constitution in NY? It is very hard to amend the NY state constitution. Doing so requires passage by two consecutive legislatures and voter approval. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 14, 2012, 06:19:45 PM The voter approval is the easy part. It is getting the corrupt idiots in Albany to vote away their job security insurance.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 14, 2012, 06:55:14 PM Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state. And why on earth would the GOP agree to that? Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty. (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_95/Delayed_New_York_Map_Creates_Heartburn-212380-1.html?pos=hftxt) Quote Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map. The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany. “They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.” Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Miles on February 14, 2012, 07:19:30 PM Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state. And why on earth would the GOP agree to that? Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty. (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_95/Delayed_New_York_Map_Creates_Heartburn-212380-1.html?pos=hftxt) Quote Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map. The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany. “They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.” Exactly. The NY Republicans are like the LA Democrats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on February 14, 2012, 08:13:03 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage. Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year. So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. :P In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting. Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo. The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping. Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution. Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Napoleon on February 14, 2012, 08:32:27 PM Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state. And why on earth would the GOP agree to that? Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty. (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_95/Delayed_New_York_Map_Creates_Heartburn-212380-1.html?pos=hftxt) Quote Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map. The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany. “They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.” Exactly. The NY Republicans are like the LA Democrats. And every other party in any other state... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 15, 2012, 06:56:30 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage. Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year. So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. :P In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting. Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo. The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping. Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution. Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate? I wasn't saying that it was the result of a bipartisan agreement. I said that it such relies on a bipartisan agreements to produce "fair" results, and even when such is the case, my point is I don't really trust say Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver in 2001 to produce a reasonably "fair" result. Certainly a commission would have strict standards, that is the only way such a commission would work. My point is, they are more likely to do a better job than a legislative body. I merely mentioned the differences in your maps in passing. Both are essentially the same with regards to this issue. I am not really concerned with what gave Obama 50% versus 70% or whatever here. The issue regards a CA style remap and they don't consider such variables, unless I am mistaken. The difference between Niagara and say Utica is this. Buffalo is considerably short of a district's population, as a city. Any such remap, as I am asking about, would start the district by including all of Buffalo, since there is no reason to split it other than political considerations of yore. Niagara Falls is right there, has many similarities and if avoiding county splits isn't that big of a concern when other more pressing issues occur, it stands to reason that putting it in with Buffalo would be a logical move should the local officials and community meetings reveal such a desire as being prevalent. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 15, 2012, 09:31:50 PM In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county? Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP. I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts. Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage. Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year. So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. :P In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting. Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo. The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping. Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution. Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate? I wasn't saying that it was the result of a bipartisan agreement. I said that it such relies on a bipartisan agreements to produce "fair" results, and even when such is the case, my point is I don't really trust say Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver in 2001 to produce a reasonably "fair" result. Certainly a commission would have strict standards, that is the only way such a commission would work. My point is, they are more likely to do a better job than a legislative body. I merely mentioned the differences in your maps in passing. Both are essentially the same with regards to this issue. I am not really concerned with what gave Obama 50% versus 70% or whatever here. The issue regards a CA style remap and they don't consider such variables, unless I am mistaken. The difference between Niagara and say Utica is this. Buffalo is considerably short of a district's population, as a city. Any such remap, as I am asking about, would start the district by including all of Buffalo, since there is no reason to split it other than political considerations of yore. Niagara Falls is right there, has many similarities and if avoiding county splits isn't that big of a concern when other more pressing issues occur, it stands to reason that putting it in with Buffalo would be a logical move should the local officials and community meetings reveal such a desire as being prevalent. You have a point SNCY, and one can either focus on uniting inner metro areas or political jurisdictions, where they come into conflict, but I don't think Niagara Falls is in play as part of a Buffalo metro CD in any event. It's separated by an empty zone from the Buffalo metro area (empty Grand Island), and I don't the folks in Niagara Falls would want to be subsumed by a Buffalo CD in any event. If any town in Niagara County would be joined to a Buffalo metro CD, it would be North Towanada. I have depicted an all Erie County Buffalo metro CD, and one that pick up North Towanada in Niagara County as an alternative, to illustrate that in no event is the city of Niagara Falls in play really. They are closer in more densely populated places in Erie County nearer to Buffalo to pick up first. () () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 27, 2012, 06:05:53 PM According to the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/dems_in_feud_over_new_rangel_district_lBF3Rg2EoFRakAIMirwDiI), New York Democrats are reportedly feuding over the shape of Charlie Rangel's district. One plan has the district sprawling from Harlem to Westchester, presumably picking up African-American majority parts of the North Central Bronx and at least Mount Vernon. That could be drawn as a majority black VAP district. Another plan has the district becoming a Hispanic majority district in Manhattan and the Bronx.
Republicans also might be refusing to name the Upstate Republican seat to axe. Assembly leader Sheldon Silver thinks its possible that no agreement would be reached this week, leaving the courts to draw the map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 27, 2012, 06:30:59 PM I wouldn't mind a court-drawn map, since it would probably threaten more upstate Republicans than downstate Democrats (the downstate Democratic seats Torie is salivating over are basically cases where the seat is currently in the 60s for Obama and would go to "only" high 50s or so. More legitimately Republican winnable seats downstate would also mean the possible end of Peter King.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on February 27, 2012, 08:22:55 PM According to the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/dems_in_feud_over_new_rangel_district_lBF3Rg2EoFRakAIMirwDiI), New York Democrats are reportedly feuding over the shape of Charlie Rangel's district. One plan has the district sprawling from Harlem to Westchester, presumably picking up African-American majority parts of the North Central Bronx and at least Mount Vernon. That could be drawn as a majority black VAP district. Another plan has the district becoming a Hispanic majority district in Manhattan and the Bronx. It'll be interesting to compare the result to this thread started a year and a half ago. Politico posted a story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40618.html) this week about a problem for Rangel and Waters unrelated to their ethics charges. The demographic changes in their districts are replacing blacks with Hispanics, and neither live in majority-black districts anymore. Quote The two House Democrats represent districts that were once iconic centers of African-American culture and history — Harlem and Watts — that have changed dramatically since they were first elected. Rangel’s home base and Waters’s district — now known as South Central — have undergone radical change as blacks now account for one-third of their local population, and each district is at or close to majority Hispanic. Those demographic shifts have not posed reelection problems for either Rangel or Waters, who have used their local popularity as the foundation to exercise major clout on Capitol Hill. But what happens in those districts after Waters, 71, and Rangel, 80, step down is an open question, as the urban areas come to terms with the political impact of Latino immigration and family growth over the past four decades. The redrawing of district boundaries after the 2010 census — and the passing of the torch from a civil rights generation of leaders to a more modern, diverse set of candidates — could bring change to these congressional seats. Back in January I looked at majority-minority districts in NYC and LA. I see the same changes reported by Politico, though both districts could be preserved at the expense of other areas. In Manhattan, I found a district similar to Rangel's would be about 51% hispanic. To make that district black either requires cutting into Long Island, or going into the Bronx. I did the latter, and had to include Mount Vernon in Westchester as well to get a district that is 54% black (CD 15). It was easy to make two hispanic districts with over 60% (CD 7, 14) with the remaining area in those two boroughs less a small part to connect white districts from upstate to NYC. The yellow district at the bottom of the picture is a majority-asian district. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 27, 2012, 09:25:40 PM I wouldn't mind a court-drawn map, since it would probably threaten more upstate Republicans than downstate Democrats (the downstate Democratic seats Torie is salivating over are basically cases where the seat is currently in the 60s for Obama and would go to "only" high 50s or so. More legitimately Republican winnable seats downstate would also mean the possible end of Peter King.) Where on earth are you getting your numbers BRTD? My "fair and balanced" court drawn map had the numbers below, and it ain't Obama "high 50's" baby. But be happy anyway BRTD. Think of all those green marginal seats that Atlasians can speculate about and game theory on for hours on end. It would just be fabulous BRTD. And you know it is good right to have marginal CD's don't you, from a public policy perspective right? So the court will just be doing the Lord's work, assuming it draws my map, rather than some weird Lewis fantasy (although in the end I think I finally beat him down some in a protracted "war" of attrition). :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 28, 2012, 04:34:58 AM On Turner's district? Nah, the numbers beat me, not you.
On the LI carve? Nah. Nobody ever thought it implausible, no one but you will ever think it remotely reasonable. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 28, 2012, 03:29:21 PM NYS Senate Republicans are going to release a Congressional map tomorrow (http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/28/senate-republicans-to-release-congressional-maps-tomorrow/). Whether that map is solely their map or a compromise map with Assembly Democrats remains to be seen.
Either way, it is a reaction to the federal court order (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/117651/federal-judge-seizes-congressional-redistricting/) that the legislature quickly provide a map by Wednesday, with objections to be heard by Friday. The Congressional map is on a fast track. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on February 28, 2012, 03:48:31 PM I think most plausible court-drawn maps would be on balance a mild net positive for the Democrats, though of course most of the incumbents in both parties would be absolutely livid.
Anyway, here's what I'd do if I was a court drawing the maps. All districts within 1000 of ideal; no towns split north of Westchester/Rockland, and both town and village splits are minimized as much as practical downstate; obviously county splits are kept low as well. I gave very little consideration to most incumbents here, and it shows. I guess you could say that Turner and Gibson are the casualties here, but in the case of NYC it's a lot messier than that. Gibson is pretty clearly axed though. All racial stats are by VAP, of course; I'm not bothering with them outside of NYC. On Long Island: () District 1: 52.0% Obama, 54.7% Dem. Not much you can or should do with Tim Bishop's district, which remains swingy. It does take parts of Islip instead of Smithtown; Islip's a huge town so I feel more comfortable splitting it instead. District 2: 53.6% Obama, 55.3% Dem. Now entirely within Suffolk County. In fact, it's the rest of Suffolk save for a couple villages in Babylon- Amityville, Copiague, and Lindenhurst, a stub of what used be a huge South Shore cutout. Cleaning up the lines, especially between 2 and 3, make this district a lot swingier, and Israel will have to fight for re-election, though he's still favored most years. District 3: 50.3% Obama, 52.9% Dem. The flip side of a weaker NY-2 is a weaker NY-3, as Peter King now has to represent what on paper is just R+1 if that. In addition to all of Oyster Bay, King also takes in all of D-leaning North Hempstead from Ackerman, parts of Hempstead (some of which he had already), and a silver of NYC for population equality. However, he'll probably still win most years. District 4: 57.2% Obama, 58.5 Dem. I really don't get why everyone wants to axe McCarthy, as it makes more sense to keep her in a district entirely within the town of Hempstead. Okay, and Long Beach. ... Onto NYC! () District 5: 64.9% Obama, 68.8 Dem; 35% White/17.8% Hispanic/40.1% Asian. This is basically the Queens portions of both Ackerman's and Turner's districts; it's probably more recognizable to Ackerman and he'd likely win both the Dem primary and the general if he moved here from Long Island. However, it's also drawn to be Asian-plurality (the only such district outside the West Coast), and could hopefully elect an Asian at some point. District 6: 84% Obama, 85.5 Dem; 17.2% White/45.5% Black/17.1% Hisp./12.8% Asian. Meeks' district has to expand, and it's impossible to keep it AA-majority and also entirely within Queens. It's my opinion that crossing all sorts of jurisdictions to keep that magic 50%+1 shouldn't be required, especially as Meeks is no danger anyway. Enough of the whites are Republican, and enough of the Hispanics and Asians don't vote, that this remains a rock-solid AA district in both the primary and general. The primary axis of expansion is to unite the Rockaways all in one district, further contributing to the breakup of NY-9. District 7: 76.9% Obama. 78.8% Dem; 25.8% White/51.9% Hispanic/13.7% Asian. This seems like Velasquez's district, containing the core of her old district (Bushwick etc.) and upping it a few points by replacing the horrible gerrymander to Sunset Park with the much more nearby Jackson Heights/Corona area… except that Joe Crowley lives here (and it's not like he has anywhere else to run) and Velasquez doesn't. Both of them will be super pissed. To which I say too bad, this is a fair map. District 8: 87.0% Obama, 85..2% Dem; 54.8% White/19.0% Hispanic/15.8% Asian. Jerry Nadler gets a compact, sensible district entirely within Manhattan, as Boro Park is broken off and given to a Brooklyn district. Along with Carolyn Maloney, he's the only NYC rep without at least a little bit of a complaint. District 9: 75.4% Obama, 78.3% Dem; 52.8% White/23.5 % Hispanic/15.9% Asian. This district is entirely new, though I guess like NY-7 its main lineage is Velasquez's old district. Stretching from Greenpoint and Williamsburg in the north to Sunset Park, Chinatown (the Brooklyn version), and Boro Park in the south, it could best be described by the three "H"s of Williamsburg: hipsters, Hispanics, and Hasidics, and it also unites historic Brownstone Brooklyn (Park Slope, BoCoCa, Brookyn Heights, etc.) Also grabs a tiny bit of the Lower East Side for population equality. Despite the low Hispanic percentage Velasquez could run here anyway; this might also give Turner his best chance but really he's screwed. Having spent a lot of time in Brooklyn over the past couple years, I can tell you from experience that a district like this deserves to exist. District 10: 85.7% Obama, 86.8% Dem; 24.6% White/51.0% Black/16.7% Hispanic. The two black districts in Brooklyn need to expand, and where they go is south. So now Ed Towns has a bunch of Russian immigrants stuck at the southern end of his district. Oh well. District 11: 82.2% Obama, 84.4% Dem; 28.9% White/51.7% Black/11.5% Hispanic. Unlike just about everywhere else on the map, I somewhat deferred to the old lines where drawing the boundary between 10 and 11, as that preserves the Carribean/West Indes population in 11. This district completes the dismantling of Turner's district, withdrawing from Park Slope in order to go south, with its eventual destination the minority-heavy precincts in Coney Island. District 12: 49.2% Obama, 52.4% Dem. 63.9% White/14.3 Hispanic/14.4% Asian. Very little change for Grimm, just cleaning up some lines around Bensonhurst. This district was already sensible. Remains swingy but tilt-R most years. District 13: 80.6% Obama, 76.8% Dem. 61.1% White/17.7% Hispanic/11.6% Asian. Again, little change for Maloney beyond cleaning up some lines, and pushing north into Spanish Harlem because something needs to push north. It doesn't threaten the VRA status of the next two districts, so it ought to be kosher. District 14: 90.9% Obama, 91.5% Dem. 14.5% White/27.1% Black/52.6% Hispanic. You can't make Rangel's district anything but majority-Hispanic without making it incredibly ugly. Here I try to preserve Central Harlem at least, and draw in such as way as let Serrano's district go east without diluting it too much. The lines in this part of the map may need to be fiddled with for VRA purposes, oh well. District 15: 90.7% Obama, 91.6% Dem. 28.5% Black/59.2% Hispanic. Serrano's core remains in the South Bronx, but this district also soaks up much of Crowley's territory in the Bronx. I really didn't like that crossing, and would hope that a court would like it much either. Upstate in the next post. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on February 28, 2012, 03:50:03 PM And now we start heading upstate. The NYC suburbs:
() District 16: 66.6% Obama, 68.8% Dem. 46.8% White/25.1% Black/20.8% Hispanic. Engel's district basically retains its Bronx-to-Yonkers-to-Rockland shape, and it's a weird gerrymandered shape that you'd expect to be dismantled in a court map, but it allows for the remainder of Westchester to entirely fill a district, so I say it stays. A couple towns are split here, but the village lines are followed as exactly as DRA will let me. District 17: 63.2% Obama, 61.6% Dem. An all-Westchester district for Lowey. Nan Hayworth lives here but she'd run in 18 for sure. District 18: 50.0% Obama, 53.0% Dem. Orange, Putnam, and the more rural portions of both Rockland and Duchess. This is a natural swingy exurbs district which is more Republican than its neighbors to both the south and the north. Hayworth doesn't live here, but she'd run here. I'd expect this district to be fiercely-contested every single cycle. ... And finally, Upstate proper. No towns are split here at all. () District 19: 56.2% Obama, 55.9% Dem. Hinchey's old district sort of made sense except for the finger to Ithaca, so it excises that, and pushes further north and east to become a Hudson Valley-Catskills district that only goes as far out as Binghamton. All of Columbia, Greene, Ulster, and Sullivan; also incudes the river portions of Duchess (such as Poughkeepsie), and most of Broome and Delaware, just leaving little cuts for population equality. This district remains lean-D but it's a good deal swingier. Chris Gibson actually lives here, but I suspect his best bet would be to challenge Owens in the new NY-21. District 20: 57.6% Obama, 59.4% Dem. Tonko pushes east to take all of Rensselaer and the southern tip of Saratoga instead of Montgomery, which makes the district even more clearly Albany-centric. Doesn't change PVI much I don't think. District 21: 52.5% Obama, 54.7% Dem. Yes, the North County district needs to expand. And the cleanest place for it to expand is Saratoga/Glens Falls, which is very much the gateway to the Adirondacks. All of Clinton, Franklin, Lawrence, Essex, Warren, Washington, Lewis, Jefferson; most of Saratoga and one town in Herkimer which both equalizes population and makes the lines much neater. This district is probably tilt-D now; Owens should be favored but he'll have to fight (and stay moderate); Gibson could try to move and run here as this district has much of his territory. District 22: 47.4% Obama, 50.1% Dem. The lines change a bunch but this is still Hanna's Mowhawk Valley district and he's even a bit safer if anything. Oswego, Oneida, Madison, Chenango, Fulton, Montgomery, Otsego, almost all of Herkimer and a sliver of Delaware. Could fall in a wave but it's pretty solidly R. District 23: 59.3% Obama, 59.7% Dem. I don't see any good reason not to do the Syracuse-to-Ithaca district. Onondaga, Cayuga, Cortland, Tompkins, and the rest of Broome. This configuration also has the benefit of creating a four-district West NY group that breaks off cleanly with no county splits. Buerkle was probably a goner already, but now she's extra-goner; this is the safest Upstate district by Dem %. District 24: 45.9% Obama, 45.8% Obama. Finger Lakes and the Southern Tier, includes Chautaqua, Cattarugas, Allegany, Steuben, Chemung, Tioga, Schuyler, Yates, Seneca, Wayne, portions of Ontario and one town in Livingston. I'd rather not split two counties between this and 26 but I couldn't find another good way to do it within my population tolerance. Reed is safe here, this is the one R district that won't even fall in a heavy wave. District 25: 58.5% Obama, 59.3% Dem. Every single "fair" map has a district which is basically just 95 percent of Monroe County, and this is no exception. Down with the earmuffs! Should be reliably Dem for Slaughter and/or whoever replaces her. Though they'd have to work a bit in bad years, oh no. District 26: 46.8% Obama, 44.7% Dem. The rest of Monroe, Livingston, and Ontario, all of Wyoming, Genesee, Orleans, and Niagara, and a few towns in Erie. This district is not actually much more R than Hochul's current setup (as it helpfully adds Niagara Falls), but I've still managed to screw her over by putting her Amherst home in 27. It wasn't on purpose, that's just how the population math worked out. District 27: 60.8% Obama, 55.6% Dem. Higgins will be more than fine in this compact all-Erie district, which no longer splits Buffalo. So… if we assume that Crowley takes the Hispanic Queens district meant for Velasquez, and Velasquez takes the white-majority Brooklyn district where her home is… the body count is thus: Hochul and Buerkle are screwed and replaced by the opposite party, Turner and Gibson are just screwed, several other districts are made swingier but their general lean stays the same (ex-Hinchey, Israel, King). So, basically it's just as if both axed districts are Republican, but more Dems are endangered in wave years as compensation. Sounds fair to me. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 28, 2012, 04:06:39 PM It's not clear to me that the court isn't going to just pick a map from competing Assembly and Senate proposals instead of trying to draw its own. Time is tight. Everything needs to be completed in the next two weeks or so because the petitioning process for the primaries begins March 20. That's because another federal court moved up the federal primaries to late June in order to comply with military absentee requirements.
According to media reports (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/117661/latfor-lawyer-theres-nothing-non-partisan-about-it/), the special master asked if there was any non-partisan staff on LATFOR, the joint NY Assemby-Senate task force responsible for redistricting. She was told that there is no non-partisan person on staff. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 28, 2012, 06:21:47 PM Ah, machine states!
Promoting establishment power at the espense of the people, on a bipartisan basis, for 200 years. ::) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 29, 2012, 08:27:13 AM District 6: 84% Obama, 85.5 Dem; 17.2% White/45.5% Black/17.1% Hisp./12.8% Asian. Meeks' district has to expand, and it's impossible to keep it AA-majority and also entirely within Queens. You've become yet another victim of the distinction between Black and non-Hispanic Black Only. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: TJ in Oregon on February 29, 2012, 11:39:31 AM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? The Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn form a pretty clear community of interest. If anything a fair map would unsplit the Jewish pockets instead of cracking them.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on February 29, 2012, 01:39:21 PM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 03:15:32 PM The Senate and Assembly are filing separate plans with the court today.
The Senate Republicans' plan eliminates Hinchey and Ackerman's districts. Charlie Rangel's district becomes a Hispanic majority district, likely solely in Manhattan and the Bronx. 44 counties are kept whole. The Assembly Democrats' plan also carves up Hinchey's district. It combines Turner with a Democrat - or Democrat-leaning areas. The exact mechanism is unclear, combining various Queens and Nassau districts, as is what happens to Rangel's district. No maps yet, just two media blog entries here (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/02/gop-targets-ackerman-hinchey-and-rangel-districts) and here (http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/29/silver-hinchey-seat-eliminated-in-assembly-redistricting-plan/). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 03:28:45 PM The federal court is accepting maps from the public (http://www.politicker.com/2012/02/29/new-york-state-will-accept-your-redistricting-proposal/). The deadline is Friday.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on February 29, 2012, 04:07:36 PM The federal court is accepting maps from the public (http://www.politicker.com/2012/02/29/new-york-state-will-accept-your-redistricting-proposal/). The deadline is Friday. It's a federal court eh? That means we are in for a "least change" map, subject to the VRA. It will be interesting to see just how that is applied in the context of having to get rid of two seats. It might be fun to take a crack at it, since in this exercise where practicable, you pay your respects to the existing gerrymander. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 06:58:41 PM The map proposed by Assembly
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Linus Van Pelt on February 29, 2012, 07:42:39 PM The map proposed by Assembly Democrats is here (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6718821.1.pdf). It seems New York legislators believe it should take us as long to download the map as it took them to draw it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 08:14:37 PM The map proposed by Assembly Democrats is here (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6718821.1.pdf). It seems New York legislators believe it should take us as long to download the map as it took them to draw it. It's probably the court's website straining to send out a 9MB file. I made a mistake. This is a map proposed by Assembly REPUBLICANS, not Democrats. Strange map. Rangel's district adds on parts of Queens currently represented by Maloney. The rest of Maloney's district seems to be combined with Nadler's, which only includes Manhattan. I'm not sure where she's supposed to run. One Queens African-American majority district sprawls into Nassau. Westchester is split four ways, with the Sound Shore put in a minority coalition district that includes the Bronx and Queens. Hayworth's old NY-19 adds Poughkeepsie and Newburgh. The new Southern Tier/Utica district gets custody of Ithaca. The earmuffs are gone and Rochester gets its own district. County splits seem minimized Upstate. It would be interesting to see the partisan breakdowns. DRA isn't working for New York for me. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 08:50:17 PM Here's the Assembly Republicans' proposal:
Upstate () Long Island () NYC () The Assembly Democrat and Senate Republican proposals are still not available. Senate Democrats aren't going to make a proposal. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on February 29, 2012, 09:14:33 PM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? Here's a redo of South Brooklyn that would maximally concentrate Orthodox voting power: () The Orthodox district (which isn't actually all Orthodox at all- there's also the Russian immigrants, minority areas in Coney Island, and Italian/Asian areas in New Utrecht) is 44.2% Obama, 54.2% Dem. If I had left the SI district alone (which I could have but it felt wrong to strand Sunset Park like that) it would be just over 47% Obama instead. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on February 29, 2012, 09:16:13 PM The Assembly Democrat and Senate Republican proposals are still not available. Senate Democrats aren't going to make a proposal. Not surprising since New York State Senate Democrats may be the most incompetent group of politicians ever. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on February 29, 2012, 09:22:38 PM Here's the Assembly Republicans' proposal: Upstate is actually pretty alright except for the Ithaca finger; I suspect NY-19 is about equidistant between Gibson and Hinchey's current PVIs, which should make for a fun, competitive district that's going to flip frequently. NYC, on the other hand, is an abomination. NY-12 carving out Hell's Kitchen? Queens-to-Rye for NY-16??! They better not be serious. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 09:46:46 PM This is a map of the Unity proposal, filed by various Hispanic and Asian legal defense type groups. Note that the map is only of the NYC area. They didn't even bother redistricting Upstate:
() This plan literally axes Turner's NY-09. There is no NY-09 on the map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 29, 2012, 10:24:20 PM Those districts that span Manhattan and Brooklyn always look awful.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on February 29, 2012, 11:10:44 PM Plaintiff-Intervenor Map, perhaps the strangest so far:
Upstate, LI: () NYC Inset: () This map seems to preserve the worst of the current gerrymandering with even newer oddly shaped features. Rochester gets custody of Ithaca in a bizarrely-shaped district. The Binghamton area is split into two CDs. Utica gets combined into the North Country District. And the Long Island districts are totally reworked, with a North Shore and South Shore district crossing county lines. Hinchey's district is obviously dismantled. What they eliminate downstate is less clear. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on February 29, 2012, 11:53:26 PM Plaintiff-Intervenor Map, perhaps the strangest so far: Seems obviously like something drawn with a least-change mandate, except around Rochester of course. Again, upstate is less "Hinchey dismantled" and more "Hinchey/Gibson combined". In NYC it's actually crystal clear that Crowley and Turner's district are the two which get combined, which is actually pretty reasonable. Upstate is actually not that bad either, except for the 23/26/27 troika. I continue to hate that all of these maps want to preserve the Velasquez gerrymander and Nadler's Brooklyn portion... but the downstate portions are better than the Assembly Republican proposal at least. The Unity map is a bit better than this one except for the reliance on water contiguity in NY-7. I think if I had to choose between these three proposals, all of which mostly suck in different ways, I'd take the Plaintiff-Intervenor's Long Island, Unity's NYC, and the Assembly R's Upstate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 01, 2012, 12:08:10 AM The NYS Senate Republicans' map:
() Syracuse gets custody of Ithaca. The Albany district gets part of Ulster County in the Hinchey Carve-Up. As we already knew, Ackerman faces off against McCarthy. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 01, 2012, 12:26:36 AM The NYS Senate Republicans' map: This is the first one where I think you can actually say for sure it's Hinchey's district that gets eliminated. And the results are predictably bad- but then they balance it out by having the best West NY we've seen so far. As for NYC... they've managed to make South Brooklyn even uglier than the current map. Good job! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 01:54:06 AM Senate Republicans' Albany district is really astoundingly awful.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 01, 2012, 10:54:41 AM The NYS Senate Republicans' map: () Syracuse gets custody of Ithaca. The Albany district gets part of Ulster County in the Hinchey Carve-Up. As we already knew, Ackerman faces off against McCarthy. Looks like Nadler condenses into Manhattan? The assembly map seems to try to preserve a district for Buerkhle. The Senate map seems to just write it off by putting Cornell there. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 01, 2012, 01:43:24 PM The Assembly Dems' proposal isn't showing up on the docket list, but it can be found here:
https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/11-5632/party/ Separated into four maps (LI, NYC, Rockland/Westchester/Upstate) and an document explaining/justifying the districts. Executive summary: Crowley and Turner are combined in an all-Queens district, Meeks stays entirely within Queens, Ackerman is basically told to move out of Long Island and represent a Queens-Bronx combo, the rest of NYC is minimal change. The most quote-heavy portions of the explanation, of course, are those which say that a) both Brooklyn and Manhattan's Chinatown need to be together in Velasquez's district, and b) all the rabbis in Boro Park and seniors in Coney Island love themselves some Jerry Nadler. Upstate, Hinchey is the obvious victim, but a lot of other congresscritters up there probably wouldn't like this map. Hayworth takes in most of Ulster and all of Duchess, and withdraws from the non-river portions of Orange, sure looks to me like she's being targeted. Gibson moves south and stays marginal. Owens is not particularly shored up but instead takes on Utica/Rome, as the Owens-Hanna line moves to a roughly northwest-southeast configuration- I think that's the oddest part of this map actually. Syracuse gets Ithaca, of course, and the Monroe district also takes in most of Ontario County for reasons I don't quite fathom. The one incumbent upstate who would be doing backflips and jumping jacks is Hochul, who is given the black areas of Buffalo which were part of the earmuffs before. Again, lots of quotes in support of that move. All in all, somewhat similar to Plaintiff-Intervenor. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 01:50:16 PM This has a really strange 20th. The 25th is also pretty weird.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 01, 2012, 02:01:30 PM The Assembly Dems' proposal isn't showing up on the docket list, but it can be found here: Screenshots for those who don't want to download the map: () () () () As with all the others, some good features but probably more bad ones. If we assume that Velasquez's district has to stay as is (since every map has done so), then NYC is pretty good in this proposal; I'm a big fan of this NY-6 in particular. But there's no earthly reason that NY-20 should exist, or why NY-25 can't just stay all in Monroe. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 01, 2012, 02:13:16 PM I can see why Ruben Diaz was upset about the assembly map.
The Bronx only gets 1 Rep guaranteed there while Manhattan gets 3. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 03:54:12 PM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? The Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn form a pretty clear community of interest. If anything a fair map would unsplit the Jewish pockets instead of cracking them. because the judge is a democrat appointee who lives in one of the most liberal parts of Brooklyn and probably hates orthodox jews with a passion. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 01, 2012, 04:13:49 PM All of these maps are terrible, in my opinion.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on March 01, 2012, 05:36:16 PM All of these maps are terrible, in my opinion. I thoroughly agree Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 06:58:12 PM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? The Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn form a pretty clear community of interest. If anything a fair map would unsplit the Jewish pockets instead of cracking them. because the judge is a democrat appointee who lives in one of the most liberal parts of Brooklyn and probably hates orthodox jews with a passion. How does the last point follow from the first two even remotely? There are reasons to not want Bob Turner representing the district that he represents that have nothing to do with Jews, Orthodox or otherwise. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 01, 2012, 07:15:47 PM I can see why Ruben Diaz was upset about the assembly map. The Bronx only gets 1 Rep guaranteed there while Manhattan gets 3. The Bronx would still have two reps- Serrano and Engel. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 07:49:08 PM Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King? The Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn form a pretty clear community of interest. If anything a fair map would unsplit the Jewish pockets instead of cracking them. because the judge is a democrat appointee who lives in one of the most liberal parts of Brooklyn and probably hates orthodox jews with a passion. How does the last point follow from the first two even remotely? There are reasons to not want Bob Turner representing the district that he represents that have nothing to do with Jews, Orthodox or otherwise. there are enough jews in Southern Brooklyn to create a majority conservative (Orthodox+Russian) jewish district the fact that they don't want to make one and make this the most gerrymandered neighborhood in the country (the neighborhood jews call Flatbush which has 5 Congressional seats is the only neighborhood in the country that has even 4 Congressional seats). Any fair redistricting would not nullify the orthodox vote (the district I made would kick both Grimm and Turner out of Jewish Brooklyn). The Republican plan gave The biggest parts of the jewish community to both Grimm and Turner to maximize their vote. and the democrat anti Semites in the assembly and (self hating Jew at the lead (everyone in the Orthodox jewish community knows this)) divided us in to minced meat so we have no say. And most likely the liberal judge would have no objections to politically destroying the orthodox community. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 08:12:43 PM Again, I'm really not sure it's because you guys are Jewish. It sounds more like it's because you lean conservative. Do you really think it would be any different if you were some other religion/ethnicity with the same political leanings?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 09:17:30 PM Again, I'm really not sure it's because you guys are Jewish. It sounds more like it's because you lean conservative. Do you really think it would be any different if you were some other religion/ethnicity with the same political leanings? besides how would this line come across "I'm not racist but I just divided up black neighborhoods at unprecedented rates because they vote democrat" Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 09:23:24 PM It would come across as cynically and shamelessly partisan and venal but I wouldn't view it as motivated by racism in particular, no.
What I'm interested in is why would the New York Democratic Party, much of which is Jewish if the Jewish Democratic US Senator, five Jewish Democratic US Representatives, and Orthodox Jewish Democratic Assembly Speaker are any indication, be motivated by anti-Semitism, and if it's a question, as I suspect it partially is at least to you, of internal friction within Judaism as a religion and Jews as a people, then how on Earth is that anti-Semitic? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 01, 2012, 09:26:31 PM 5 districts? NY Jew, have you seen what they did to Austin?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 09:37:35 PM It would come across as cynically and shamelessly partisan and venal but I wouldn't view it as motivated by racism in particular, no. What I'm interested in is why would the New York Democratic Party, much of which is Jewish if the Jewish Democratic US Senator, five Jewish Democratic US Representatives, and Orthodox Jewish Democratic Assembly Speaker are any indication, be motivated by anti-Semitism, and if it's a question, as I suspect it partially is at least to you, of internal friction within Judaism as a religion and Jews as a people, then how on Earth is that anti-Semitic? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 09:40:48 PM 5 districts? NY Jew, have you seen what they did to Austin? Espchilly considering the whole city (not just a neighborhood a neighborhood that has a fraction of Austin's population and size) has only 3 CDs Brooklyn was added to the voting rights act because the black community which was bigger was divided in to 5 CDs at a time when NY had more CDs and each one had much less people. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 09:47:35 PM More then liberal jews hate liberal christians they hate Conservative and even more Orthodox Jews. This is, on several levels, one of the strangest sentences I've ever read, and I study Japanese serial fiction from the 1920s. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 09:58:51 PM More then liberal jews hate liberal christians they hate Conservative and even more Orthodox Jews. This is, on several levels, one of the strangest sentences I've ever read, and I study Japanese serial fiction from the 1920s. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 10:11:14 PM More then liberal jews hate liberal christians they hate Conservative and even more Orthodox Jews. This is, on several levels, one of the strangest sentences I've ever read, and I study Japanese serial fiction from the 1920s. No, it wasn't semantic clarity that the sentence lacked. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 01, 2012, 10:12:30 PM A most excellent point. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 10:23:50 PM A most excellent point. attack my content not spelling (since all you can attack is my spelling, I guess I can assume that the only flaw you have with what I had to say was based on spelling and you agree with me 100% on everything else.) just for you 5 districts? NY Jew, have you seen what they did to Austin? Especially considering the whole city (not just a neighborhood a neighborhood that has a fraction of Austin's population and size) has only 3 CDs Brooklyn was added to the voting rights act because the black community which was bigger was divided in to 5 CDs at a time when NY had more CDs and each one had much less people. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 10:29:37 PM More then liberal jews hate liberal christians they hate Conservative and even more Orthodox Jews. This is, on several levels, one of the strangest sentences I've ever read, and I study Japanese serial fiction from the 1920s. No, it wasn't semantic clarity that the sentence lacked. Liberal jews hate jews who vote Republican Liberal jews hate right wing Christians Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate other jews who vote Republican . Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate right wing Christians. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 01, 2012, 10:30:14 PM Again, I'm really not sure it's because you guys are Jewish. It sounds more like it's because you lean conservative. Do you really think it would be any different if you were some other religion/ethnicity with the same political leanings? besides how would this line come across "I'm not racist but I just divided up black neighborhoods at unprecedented rates because they vote democrat" Staten Island was kept whole for the same reason the Republicans in PA kept Bucks County whole: for whatever reason, there's a tradition that this one area has to be all together, and you can gerrymander the heck out of the rest of the map but not there. Also, "Flatbush" is a pretty huge area, probably at least a dozen neighborhoods many of which have their own name to begin with- and most of it is African-American, not Orthodox. I'd consider the Orthodox areas to be separate neighborhoods south and east of Flatbush. I mean, I guess you could consider Midwood to be part of Flatbush, okay. Unite all of "Flatbush" in one Congressional district- and it mostly is so already- and I guarantee you Yvette Clarke will be its representative. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 01, 2012, 10:31:41 PM Once again, NY-9 is hardly a Tel Aviv West or whatever as Al keeps pointing out. If there even is a "Jewish district" in NYC it'd be Nadler's.
And I suspect Borough Park's carving is a deliberate attempt to prevent someone like Dov Hikind getting the say over who its representative is, something that wouldn't sit well with either party. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 10:34:28 PM More then liberal jews hate liberal christians they hate Conservative and even more Orthodox Jews. This is, on several levels, one of the strangest sentences I've ever read, and I study Japanese serial fiction from the 1920s. No, it wasn't semantic clarity that the sentence lacked. Liberal jews hate jews who vote Republican Liberal jews hate right wing Christians Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate other jews who vote Republican . Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate right wing Christians. I said the problem wasn't one of clarity. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 10:41:15 PM Again, I'm really not sure it's because you guys are Jewish. It sounds more like it's because you lean conservative. Do you really think it would be any different if you were some other religion/ethnicity with the same political leanings? besides how would this line come across "I'm not racist but I just divided up black neighborhoods at unprecedented rates because they vote democrat" Staten Island was kept whole for the same reason the Republicans in PA kept Bucks County whole: for whatever reason, there's a tradition that this one area has to be all together, and you can gerrymander the heck out of the rest of the map but not there. Also, "Flatbush" is a pretty huge area, probably at least a dozen neighborhoods many of which have their own name to begin with- and most of it is African-American, not Orthodox. I'd consider the Orthodox areas to be separate neighborhoods south and east of Flatbush. I mean, I guess you could consider Midwood to be part of Flatbush, okay. Unite all of "Flatbush" in one Congressional district- and it mostly is so already- and I guarantee you Yvette Clarke will be its representative. in regards to point 2 the Orthodox Jewish community calls anywhere from Ave H to U between McDonald and Flatbush Ave (except for Marine Park and a few small areas) Flatbush. In fact if you would ask the avg person (under a certain age) about most of the neighborhoods names (Manhattan Terrace, Madison ext. in fact most never heard of Gravesend) you see on a map most would have no clue where you are talking about unless they happen to know a Young Israel that has that name. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 01, 2012, 10:42:11 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women...
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 10:50:07 PM Once again, NY-9 is hardly a Tel Aviv West or whatever as Al keeps pointing out. If there even is a "Jewish district" in NYC it'd be Nadler's. And I suspect Borough Park's carving is a deliberate attempt to prevent someone like Dov Hikind getting the say over who its representative is, something that wouldn't sit well with either party. have you ever been to Brooklyn If I would unite the Jewish communities in Southern Brooklyn there would probably be 350,000 Jews there. Southern Brooklyn probably has more synagogues then Tel Aviv. Flatbush (colloquially) has around the same number of Jews that Borough Park (colloquially) has and Turner now represents more then a 3rd of them. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 10:53:42 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... you don't know the first thing about Borough Park. though you probably would fit in perfectly in Berlin circa 1942. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 01, 2012, 10:54:42 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... you don't know the first thing about Borough Park. though you probably would fit in perfectly in Berlin circa 1942. I don't have a problem with Jews. I have a problem with cultists who admire people like Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein. Wasn't Goldstein actually from Borough Park? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 11:16:13 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... you don't know the first thing about Borough Park. though you probably would fit in perfectly in Berlin circa 1942. I don't have a problem with Jews. I have a problem with cultists who admire people like Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein. Wasn't Goldstein actually from Borough Park? Kahane and Goldstein were both from Brooklyn anyway. Not sure of the neighborhoods. Coincidentally a friend of mine, who has traveled to and fro between Boston and Jerusalem quite a bit, was just ranting about Kahanism the other day. Seriously, uh, weird stuff. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 11:16:38 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... you don't know the first thing about Borough Park. though you probably would fit in perfectly in Berlin circa 1942. I don't have a problem with Jews. I have a problem with cultists who admire people like Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein. In regards to Zionism Borough Park is anything but monolithic BP has a huge Satmar population amongst other orthodox anti Zionist (the type that, unlike you aren't anti Semites who the planet would be better off with out) groups. In fact the groups you blasted for being anti woman are also more likely to be anti Zionist. I guess you want to make America Judenrein as Sweden was until 1718. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 11:18:09 PM Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous ad hominem.
BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 11:21:04 PM Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous and paranoid ad hominem. BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 11:22:48 PM Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous and paranoid ad hominem. BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Those question marks are unnecessary, it was certainly ignorant and I'm glad you explained some of the distinctions to him, and it still doesn't mean that one should use ridiculous ad hominems just because other people are. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 01, 2012, 11:25:40 PM I'm talking about how they vote. That the creepy monolithicism.
Dov Hikind runs the BP political machine. It's well known that he is an open supporter of Kahane, in addition to being a homophobic, racist and anti-Christian bigot (he led protests against The Passion of the Christ claiming it to be an anti-Semitic film, lol.) What happens to natives of BP who go on to accept Christ? I have a feeling they are probably completely ostracized and shunned. Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous and paranoid ad hominem. BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Those question marks are unnecessary, it was certainly ignorant and I'm glad you explained some of the distinctions to him, and it still doesn't mean that one should use ridiculous ad hominems just because other people are. What the hell is Kahanism if not fascism? It's Zionist ultra-nationalism and is basically what parties like the British National Party and Front Nationale promote if you change the targets of the rhetoric. Hell it's so extreme even Israel banned it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 11:31:37 PM What the hell is Kahanism if not fascism? It's Zionist ultra-nationalism and is basically what parties like the British National Party and Front Nationale promote if you change the targets of the rhetoric. Hell it's so extreme even Israel banned it. Borough Park has, as you said, creepy machinist Kahanist tendencies but it's not totally defined culturally by that. There are things to be admired in the culture there in the senses in which it does not directly intersect with Dov Hikind and his amazing sugoi majokko political machine. It's just that Dov Hikind and his amazing sugoi majokko political machine are...well, very there. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 11:46:34 PM Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous and paranoid ad hominem. BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Those question marks are unnecessary, it was certainly ignorant and I'm glad you explained some of the distinctions to him, and it still doesn't mean that one should use ridiculous ad hominems just because other people are. just as a side point Baruch Goldstein went to one of the (if no the) most left wing (religious wise) "Yeshivas" in Brooklyn (Now it is much more right wing but is still very left wing) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 11:51:13 PM All right. Since you're Jewish and I'm only vaguely culturally Jewish through one grandparent (not my maternal grandmother), I'll respect that you probably are greater attuned to anti-Semitic language than I am. But I still don't think his opinion of the political machine in Borough Park is anti-Semitic in character. I assume you disagree.
I agree with the point that it seems you're making in your second paragraph in that I doubt that the various things the matter with Baruch Goldstein and Meir Kahane can be attributed in any sense to their education, which from what I know of Jewish education in this country seems to have been pretty anodyne. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 02, 2012, 12:05:10 AM in regards to point 1 SI could also be connected with Lower Manhattan like it used to be in regards to point 2 the Orthodox Jewish community calls anywhere from Ave H to U between McDonald and Flatbush Ave (except for Marine Park and a few small areas) Flatbush. In fact if you would ask the avg person (under a certain age) about most of the neighborhoods names (Manhattan Terrace, Madison ext. in fact most never heard of Gravesend) you see on a map most would have no clue where you are talking about unless they happen to know a Young Israel that has that name. Yeah, if I was doing a partisan gerrymander without regard for incumbents I'd definitely link SI and Manhattan; I get the sense Nadler would actually prefer to have south Brookyn instead. I'd definitely refer to the area you're describing as mostly Midwood with a bit of Gravesend and Marine Park as well. I guess you can call that Flatbush if you want, but when I hear Flatbush I definitely think of the areas north of that: the area around Brooklyn College, South Midwood (which is confusingly enough north of Midwood proper), Ditmas Park, Prospect Park South, and a bunch more neighborhoods on the other side of Flatbush Ave. I'm less familiar with. Kensington is probably too far west to count. I'll make this simple Liberal jews hate jews who vote Republican Liberal jews hate right wing Christians Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate other jews who vote Republican . Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate right wing Christians. This is so inaccurate I don't know where to begin. Except to say that my SO is a liberal Jew (who coincidentally lives in what's actually Flatbush) and she certainly does not "hate" any of the groups you listed. Though right wing Christians do scare her sometimes. (he led protests against The Passion of the Christ claiming it to be an anti-Semitic film, lol.) I don't agree with Hikind on much... but he's right on this one. The Passion of the Christ was at least bordering on anti-Semitic, if not outright so. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 12:24:50 AM this post has so many flaws in it)
I'm talking about how they vote. That the creepy monolithicism. Dov Hikind runs the BP political machine. It's well known that he is an open supporter of Kahane, in addition to being a homophobic, racist and anti-Christian bigot (he led protests against The Passion of the Christ claiming it to be an anti-Semitic film, lol.) The BP vote is based on many different types of jews voting based on their interest and values that more often then not agree with each other.[/quote] What happens to natives of BP who go on to accept Christ? I have a feeling they are probably completely ostracized and shunned. so I guess you combine both types of antisemitism old and new. Your explanation was good up until the ridiculous and paranoid ad hominem. BRTD, he actually is right that Orthodox Jews are far from monolithic. Even if some of the differences seem arcane to Gentiles they're very tempting to miss and very rewarding not to. Those question marks are unnecessary, it was certainly ignorant and I'm glad you explained some of the distinctions to him, and it still doesn't mean that one should use ridiculous ad hominems just because other people are. What the hell is Kahanism if not fascism? It's Zionist ultra-nationalism and is basically what parties like the British National Party and Front Nationale promote if you change the targets of the rhetoric. Hell it's so extreme even Israel banned it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 12:35:45 AM I'll make this simple Liberal jews hate jews who vote Republican Liberal jews hate right wing Christians Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate other jews who vote Republican . Liberal jews hate Orthodox jews more then they hate right wing Christians. This is so inaccurate I don't know where to begin. Except to say that my SO is a liberal Jew (who coincidentally lives in what's actually Flatbush) and she certainly does not "hate" any of the groups you listed. Though right wing Christians do scare her sometimes. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 12:43:30 AM in regards to point 1 SI could also be connected with Lower Manhattan like it used to be in regards to point 2 the Orthodox Jewish community calls anywhere from Ave H to U between McDonald and Flatbush Ave (except for Marine Park and a few small areas) Flatbush. In fact if you would ask the avg person (under a certain age) about most of the neighborhoods names (Manhattan Terrace, Madison ext. in fact most never heard of Gravesend) you see on a map most would have no clue where you are talking about unless they happen to know a Young Israel that has that name. I'd definitely refer to the area you're describing as mostly Midwood with a bit of Gravesend and Marine Park as well. I guess you can call that Flatbush if you want, but when I hear Flatbush I definitely think of the areas north of that: the area around Brooklyn College, South Midwood (which is confusingly enough north of Midwood proper), Ditmas Park, Prospect Park South, and a bunch more neighborhoods on the other side of Flatbush Ave. I'm less familiar with. Kensington is probably too far west to count. Just to give you an idea of what I mean look at this headline www.lakewoodlocal.com/2012/02/05/harav-asher-kalmanowitz-rosh-yeshiva-mir-flatbush-addresses-alumni-melava-malka-in-lakewood/ the school in question is on Ave R and Ocean Parkway. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 12:49:01 AM It would come across as cynically and shamelessly partisan and venal but I wouldn't view it as motivated by racism in particular, no. What I'm interested in is why would the New York Democratic Party, much of which is Jewish if the Jewish Democratic US Senator, five Jewish Democratic US Representatives, and Orthodox Jewish Democratic Assembly Speaker are any indication, be motivated by anti-Semitism, and if it's a question, as I suspect it partially is at least to you, of internal friction within Judaism as a religion and Jews as a people, then how on Earth is that anti-Semitic? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/nyregion/andrew-w-cooper-74-pioneering-journalist.html Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 02, 2012, 12:59:12 AM I, uh...we went over this before?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 01:44:17 AM I'm talking about how they vote. That the creepy monolithicism. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 01:44:54 AM I, uh...we went over this before? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Devils30 on March 02, 2012, 02:41:17 AM The Democratic NY-26 is roughly 55% Obama using Dave's App. Would certainly shore up Hochul
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 02, 2012, 03:10:06 AM I, uh...we went over this before? I didn't say that. I don't see why there's any particular need for Jews (or just Orthodox Jews? You're not being very clear) to be included in the VRA and I also don't think there's any particular reason for Jews not to be included in the VRA. It's not something I'm inclined to be up in arms about considering that, among other things, Congress is much more Jewish than the country as a whole even without the, what, one or two plurality-Jewish districts it's possible to draw? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Devils30 on March 02, 2012, 03:11:45 AM NY-18 (old NY-19 would be 54% Obama), NY-19 (Part of old NY-20,22 would be 51% Obama) , NY-22 would be 59% Obama
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 03:42:35 AM I, uh...we went over this before? I didn't say that. I don't see why there's any particular need for Jews (or just Orthodox Jews? You're not being very clear) to be included in the VRA and I also don't think there's any particular reason for Jews not to be included in the VRA. It's not something I'm inclined to be up in arms about considering that, among other things, Congress is much more Jewish than the country as a whole even without the, what, one or two plurality-Jewish districts it's possible to draw? and most Jewish Representative are people that are very high on our list of people who we wish were out of congress. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 02, 2012, 03:57:39 AM I, uh...we went over this before? I didn't say that. I don't see why there's any particular need for Jews (or just Orthodox Jews? You're not being very clear) to be included in the VRA and I also don't think there's any particular reason for Jews not to be included in the VRA. It's not something I'm inclined to be up in arms about considering that, among other things, Congress is much more Jewish than the country as a whole even without the, what, one or two plurality-Jewish districts it's possible to draw? and most Jewish Representative are people that are very high on our list of people who we wish were out of congress. Well that's just tough. The Voting Rights Act does not and should not be contorted to guarantee representation by specific members of a minority group who other members of that minority group happen to like. Political ideology does not incur status as a protected minority for purposes of elections. That is why we have elections in this country. Do you think I approve of every Episcopalian or every Italian-American or Russian-American in Congress? Do you think I feel the need to? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 02, 2012, 04:16:48 AM No map yet?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 05:14:49 AM I, uh...we went over this before? I didn't say that. I don't see why there's any particular need for Jews (or just Orthodox Jews? You're not being very clear) to be included in the VRA and I also don't think there's any particular reason for Jews not to be included in the VRA. It's not something I'm inclined to be up in arms about considering that, among other things, Congress is much more Jewish than the country as a whole even without the, what, one or two plurality-Jewish districts it's possible to draw? and most Jewish Representative are people that are very high on our list of people who we wish were out of congress. Well that's just tough. The Voting Rights Act does not and should not be contorted to guarantee representation by specific members of a minority group who other members of that minority group happen to like. Political ideology does not incur status as a protected minority for purposes of elections. That is why we have elections in this country. Do you think I approve of every Episcopalian or every Italian-American or Russian-American in Congress? Do you think I feel the need to? This is not based on political interests but the fact that a minority of a minority group (that is the most visible form of the demographic that currently ranks as the group that has the most hate crimes against is) that has enough representation for it's own district is being gerrymandered at a rate that's worse then the deep south at the height of the Jim crow era. and is represented by 1 congress member for example that is putting in drastic danger the lives of the immediate relatives many of the people who live in the said should be district. Just for the record there isn't a single Orthodox Jew in the house. Though based on the proportion of Orthodox jews in the country there should be 1. While you might not be an anti semite you would sell us down the river for a dollar. the fact that many democrats have your attitude or worse is why most Orthodox Jews rightly feel the democratic party is the party of anti semites. If this was any other minority group you (this is colloquially I don't know your positions enough to say this on you) would be up in arms. (please don't side track on this next point and I think you can infer my position from how I phrased the question) Please answer this question lets assume the situation was reversed and there was gay neighborhood (which I believe you feel is a true minority) that was divided in to 5 districts (remember there is no other neighborhood that has even 4 CDs) (1 majority Orthodox, 2 majority Evangelical and 1 Mormon and 1 that was mixed so depending on the year they could get representation). If you combine this gay neighborhood with surrounding neighborhoods there would be enough gays to form the nations only gay district. In addition these neighborhood are the most gerrymandered neighborhoods on every singe level of government in that state (and they constitutionally vote for things like constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in that state). And on the Congressional level you get 4 congressmen who try to overturn Lawrence v. Texas by a constitutional amendment. In addition the other gay neighborhoods in that state are frequently split in half at rates more then any other demographic group. In addition to this they are the only demographic in the state that for much of the past 30 years that truly couldn't care less about party (and only voted based on a few very important issues) (up until a few years ago) and before 30 years ago regularly voted Republican at very high rates. And finally even though the gay neighborhoods are growing at rates higher then every single other demographic group in the state for the past 3 redistricting overall the gay community in that state got less and less political power in each process due to gerrymandering till the point where most people saw no reason to vote. This in turn led the community to have had lower turnout rates then areas where many of the residents weren't citizens. Then by some freak occurrence there was a special election for congress where do to the freak political climate there was an opportunity to vote your conscience and the Republican party put up a candidate that not only voted against gay marriage but said he was doing this to help gays everywhere. and you finally were heard somewhat by coming out with unprecedented turnouts to win one of those right wing seats. Then in the next redistricting cycle the Republicans once again gerrymandered you where they had control and the democrats finally tried to give you your own seat in the senate. Then the Republicans suggested in the court process to decide the seat before a Republican appointee not only kept take away that seat was just won but they still left the gay neighborhoods with 5 CDs and not a chance to win any representation of that district. do you still say this? Quote Well that's just tough. The Voting Rights Act does not and should not be contorted to guarantee representation by specific members of a minority group who other members of that minority group happen to like. Political ideology does not incur status as a protected minority for purposes of elections. That is why we have elections in this country. Do you think I approve of every Episcopalian or every Italian-American or Russian-American in Congress? Do you think I feel the need to? if you do say this you are clearly not an anti semite (this means Jews who follow Judaism) (though I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you because of what I said above about selling us down the river). if you don't unless I'm missing something logically here (it's after 5:00 AM) (and this could only be on a subconscious level (unlike the other guy I feel is quite conscious of his hate)) I'll say you are a anti semite on some level. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 02, 2012, 10:55:47 AM Perhaps we could start a separate thread where NY Jew could talk about how Jews, seculars, etc. persecute and hate him and then we can reserve this thread for US House Redistricting in the state of New York.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 02, 2012, 10:56:30 AM I'll say you are a anti semite on some level. Please don't throw around terms like that lightly. Thanks. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 02, 2012, 11:18:35 AM I can see why Ruben Diaz was upset about the assembly map. The Bronx only gets 1 Rep guaranteed there while Manhattan gets 3. The Bronx would still have two reps- Serrano and Engel. What are the population breakdowns of Engel's district there? A sizable portion of that district appears to be outside the Bronx and he could eventually be replaced by a suburban Rep. Manhattan of course still dominates 3 districts with 2 districts of population either way. So that 1 district has to come from somewhere. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 02, 2012, 01:18:20 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'.
Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 02, 2012, 01:41:09 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 02, 2012, 02:55:18 PM I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) You said "You are a anti-semite (on some level.)" Ok, so you're not accusing him of anti-Semitism, just saying he's an anti-semite. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 02, 2012, 04:07:53 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. All right, fine. I'll take a crack at doing a New York redistricting and we'll see if the resulting district makes sense. My prediction is that I can get it up to about 40-42% Jewish before it starts getting ridiculous. Quote I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) The reasons why I'm not immensely fond of Borough Park and 'Flatbush' have nothing to do with the religion of the people there, even if I take your word for it that the gerrymander does. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 02, 2012, 04:19:05 PM I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 02, 2012, 04:23:34 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. All right, fine. I'll take a crack at doing a New York redistricting and we'll see if the resulting district makes sense. My prediction is that I can get it up to about 40-42% Jewish before it starts getting ridiculous. Quote I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) The reasons why I'm not immensely fond of Borough Park and 'Flatbush' have nothing to do with the religion of the people there, even if I take your word for it that the gerrymander does. The population of Brooklyn only has enough blacks for 1 full district. If one operates under the assumption that they get 2 districts, obviously, 1 has to come at the expense of something else. The 11th district was 74% black after the 1990 redistricting, 71% black in 2000, 60% black after the 2002 redistricting, and about 58% black now. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 02, 2012, 04:39:43 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. All right, fine. I'll take a crack at doing a New York redistricting and we'll see if the resulting district makes sense. My prediction is that I can get it up to about 40-42% Jewish before it starts getting ridiculous. Quote I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) The reasons why I'm not immensely fond of Borough Park and 'Flatbush' have nothing to do with the religion of the people there, even if I take your word for it that the gerrymander does. The population of Brooklyn only has enough blacks for 1 full district. If one operates under the assumption that they get 2 districts, obviously, 1 has to come at the expense of something else. The 11th district was 74% black after the 1990 redistricting, 71% black in 2000, 60% black after the 2002 redistricting, and about 58% black now. Brooklyn is about 3 and a half CDs with about 32% black population. The natural division would be for 1 black-majority CD. However with 25% of the population of NYC (with 11.4 CDs), one would reasonably expect there to be 3 black-majority CDs citywide. Brooklyn and Queens are the best places to put them, so that implies 2 Brooklyn-based black-majority CDs. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 02, 2012, 06:22:31 PM Brooklyn is about 3 and a half CDs with about 32% black population. The natural division would be for 1 black-majority CD. However with 25% of the population of NYC (with 11.4 CDs), one would reasonably expect there to be 3 black-majority CDs citywide. Brooklyn and Queens are the best places to put them, so that implies 2 Brooklyn-based black-majority CDs. Well, I guess that's true given the current Demographics. But given population shifts, and NY probably losing another 2 districts next census, the better location for a 3rd black district seems to be the Rangel one stretching to Mt. Vernon that can better pick up suburban black flight precincts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 02, 2012, 06:32:08 PM I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time? The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight. The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 02, 2012, 06:44:54 PM I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time? The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight. The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too. Is the judge drawing the lines really a Dem hack? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 02, 2012, 07:20:02 PM I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time? The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight. The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too. Is the judge drawing the lines really a Dem hack? The judge referred the case to a magistrate who hired a Columbia professor as a special master. So even if the judge is a Democratic hack, she's really not the person immediately deciding the case. The court asked LATFOR to give the special master relevant redistricting data in a format for a particular computer program, specifying it be absent any partisan data and information about the location of incumbents' homes. So the special master may be drawing his own map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 02, 2012, 08:16:40 PM I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time? The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight. The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too. Is the judge drawing the lines really a Dem hack? The judge referred the case to a magistrate who hired a Columbia professor as a special master. So even if the judge is a Democratic hack, she's really not the person immediately deciding the case. The court asked LATFOR to give the special master relevant redistricting data in a format for a particular computer program, specifying it be absent any partisan data and information about the location of incumbents' homes. So the special master may be drawing his own map. I'm fairly sure that a lot of the people here could draw a pretty effective gerrymanders without any "partisan data" entered into the program. It is probably the case that including partisan data has become a crutch. Real gerrymandering artists wouldn't need it. Look at what happened in Illinois. The amateurs here started with packs, and evened out the Democratic areas. The pros shuffled every Republican's district in the process. They didn't chase the gradient, they placed an equal emphasis on shuffling. The partisan data just allowed them to fine tune their map. Noone drew a map like the final product. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 02, 2012, 10:42:08 PM You know the funny thing is NY Jew has attacked far more Jews in this thread than anyone else for all his accusations of anti-Semitism.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 03, 2012, 12:17:48 AM You know the funny thing is NY Jew has attacked far more Jews in this thread than anyone else for all his accusations of anti-Semitism. Well, welll.... Talk about self hatred :))) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on March 03, 2012, 02:19:42 AM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... One of most idiotic statements i've read on this forum... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 03, 2012, 09:10:26 AM You know the funny thing is NY Jew has attacked far more Jews in this thread than anyone else for all his accusations of anti-Semitism. Well, welll.... Talk about self hatred :))) True story. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Landslide Lyndon on March 03, 2012, 11:56:05 AM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... One of most idiotic statements i've read on this forum... Obviously you haven't read JJ's analysis of the Bradley effect. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on March 03, 2012, 12:13:41 PM Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... One of most idiotic statements i've read on this forum... Obviously you haven't read JJ's analysis of the Bradley effect. is there a link? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 03, 2012, 03:01:39 PM There was one other map that is mentioned in some of the court filings, though I don't see it in the docket. It is the Common Cause New York "Reform" Map. It radically changes many current districts, pitting many incumbents together. And because they used EDs as the basis for district lines, maximum deviation is much greater than 1.
The map with explanation is available here (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/CCNY%20CONGRESSIONAL%20GUIDE%20--FEB%202012%20--%20FULLY%20REVISED.PDF). Or, you can see the map on Newsday's DRA-lke mapping page (http://ec2-50-17-31-215.compute-1.amazonaws.com/redistricting/NewsdayRedistricting.aspx), from which I took these screenshots of the plan: State: () NYC Metro: () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 03, 2012, 03:39:41 PM I had hoped to put together a plan for submission last night, but my DRA hung at about 10:30 when I was checking the districts prior to creating a file. But I can still share my work here.
I based my plan on the same model I used in the CA exercise. I started with regions of whole counties that were nearly equal to a whole number of districts: Southern NY (CD 1-19, +1398) Northern NY (CD 20-22, -702) Western NY (CD 23-27, -695) The regions were divided based on nearly whole counties with at most one town split in a county. Splits were used to get all deviations under 0.1% at the precinct level, and all but two districts are under 300 deviation. This is the resulting map for the state: () Within the NYC area districts were grouped to fit counties as well: LI (CD 1-4, -37,948) Queens (CD 5-7, +77,600) Brooklyn/SI (CD 8-11, +102,600) Manhattan/Bronx (CD 12-15, +100,151) Lower Hudson (CD 16-19, -241,005) Shifts and additional county breaks were made to get 3 Black-majority districts and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. The NYC area map look like this: () Here are the demographics including VAPs over 20%. Estimated PVIs are based on the 2008 Pres using Torie's spreadsheet factor. LONG ISLAND CD 1 (Smithtown) W 80.1% [R+2] CD 2 (Islip) W 66.2% [D+1] CD 3 (Hicksville) W 71.2% [R+1] CD 4 (Hempstead) W 64.2% [D+1] QUEENS CD 5 (Flushing) W 43.4%, A 33.9% [D+9] CD 6 (S Jamaica) B 50.4% [D+33] CD 7 (Corona) H 59.4% [D+30] BROOKLYN/STATEN ISLAND CD 8 (Borough Park) W 55.7% A 23.4% [R+5] CD 9 (Staten Island) W 67.1% [R+5] CD 10 (East NY) W 23.6%, B 50.2% [D+38] CD 11 (Flatbush) W 30.6%, B 50.3% [D+38] MANHATTAN/BRONX CD 12 (Manhattan) W 64.2% [D+31] CD 13 (Harlem) B 28.2%, H 52.1% [D+40] CD 14 (Triboro) W 54.1%, H 23.8% [D+24] CD 15 (South Bronx) B 29.3%, H 63.1% [D+41] LOWER HUDSON CD 16 (Yonkers) W 41.3%, B 29.0%, H 23.3% [D+18] CD 17 (White Plains) W 67.9% [D+5] CD 18 (Newburgh) W 75.1% [D+1] CD 19 (Albany) W 77.3% [D+5] NORTHERN NY CD 20 (Schenectady) W 90.0% [R+1] CD 21 (Utica) W 90.2% [R+2] CD 22 (Syracuse) W 85.8% [D+3] WESTERN NY CD 23 (Binghampton) W 88.9% [D+0] CD 24 (Niagara Falls) W 91.6% [R+6] CD 25 (Rochester) W 76.0% [D+6] CD 26 (Elmira) W 93.1% [R+8] CD 27 (Buffalo) W 76.5% [D+9] Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 03, 2012, 03:51:45 PM That map is very well done, Mike - considerably better than the maps the Pubs submitted, even though yours is a quite Pub friendly map obviously. Did you find it as difficult as I to find a good map of the town lines in Nassau County (clearly you did find such a map)? (Nassau has 3 towns and 2 cities, the rest being villages, I now find out.) The towns do not appear on the DRA maps.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 03, 2012, 04:05:33 PM That map is very well done, Mike - considerably better than the maps the Pubs submitted, even though yours is a quite Pub friendly map obviously. Did you find it as difficult as I to find a good map of the town lines in Nassau County (clearly you did find such a map)? (Nassau has 3 towns and 2 cities, the rest being villages, I now find out.) The towns do not appear on the DRA maps. Thanks, I can only wonder what the special master would have made of my work. Unfortunately there was no time other than Friday for me to put a plan together, and when DRA hung at the end of the day, I had no chance to get all the parts in. Alas. :( I have town maps, but there is a way to get it directly on DRA. The first two digits of a VTD in NY are the town code. When you hover over a VTD in DRA the VTD ID is at the top of the box. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Devils30 on March 03, 2012, 04:21:16 PM That map gives the Dems a good chance to win Peter King's seat once he retires (currently not the case).
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 03, 2012, 04:37:16 PM That map is very well done, Mike - considerably better than the maps the Pubs submitted, even though yours is a quite Pub friendly map obviously. Did you find it as difficult as I to find a good map of the town lines in Nassau County (clearly you did find such a map)? (Nassau has 3 towns and 2 cities, the rest being villages, I now find out.) The towns do not appear on the DRA maps. Newsday's DRA-like mapper (http://ec2-50-17-31-215.compute-1.amazonaws.com/redistricting/NewsdayRedistricting.aspx) has a layer that shows town lines instead of villages and whatever else DRA uses (census designated areas, perhaps). The Plaintiffs and other parties would have made the same argument about muon2's map as they did Common Cause's - it pits incumbents against each other and is not a least change map from current lines. It also doesn't have exact population equality (in this case, largely due to limitations in the DRA software). The racial grievance groups would have attacked the map because it eliminates the awful NY-12, putting Chinatown and Sunset Park in separate districts, diluting the Chinese vote. That seems to be a big bugaboo with the Asian legal defense group. Too bad muon2 missed the deadline. The order wanted public submissions to include a block equivalency file. Does DRA even do that? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 03, 2012, 04:57:25 PM That map is very well done, Mike - considerably better than the maps the Pubs submitted, even though yours is a quite Pub friendly map obviously. Did you find it as difficult as I to find a good map of the town lines in Nassau County (clearly you did find such a map)? (Nassau has 3 towns and 2 cities, the rest being villages, I now find out.) The towns do not appear on the DRA maps. Newsday's DRA-like mapper (http://ec2-50-17-31-215.compute-1.amazonaws.com/redistricting/NewsdayRedistricting.aspx) has a layer that shows town lines instead of villages and whatever else DRA uses (census designated areas, perhaps). The Plaintiffs and other parties would have made the same argument about muon2's map as they did Common Cause's - it pits incumbents against each other and is not a least change map from current lines. It also doesn't have exact population equality (in this case, largely due to limitations in the DRA software). The racial grievance groups would have attacked the map because it eliminates the awful NY-12, putting Chinatown and Sunset Park in separate districts, diluting the Chinese vote. That seems to be a big bugaboo with the Asian legal defense group. Too bad muon2 missed the deadline. The order wanted public submissions to include a block equivalency file. Does DRA even do that? You can save a DRA plan as a csv. It has the VTD equivalencies instead of blocks, but it can be reconstructed. This was used for public submissions for WA. The plan is to suggest districts to the special master. The master will provide a final plan, so if the suggestion is not exact in population, the master can make the necessary adjustments. In any case I assume that the population used by the special master is LATFOR data and is adjusted from the raw census data. Any submission that was not LATFOR would need to be corrected by the master. The Asian objections are noted, but there is no VRA protection since there is not a compact 50% AVAP district available. Both compact neighborhoods are kept intact. My plan improves on the current CD 12 by making CD 7 more Hispanic than 12 is now and better able to elect a candidate of choice. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 09:30:36 PM If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups. It's clearly intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group. Here's the evidence there is 1 neighborhood in the country that has 5 Congressional seats and 0 that have exactly 4 districts. This group is also gerrymandered in other neighborhoods on every single level of government. What is the likelihood that the demographic that is the most visible of the demographic that has the most hate crimes against them in the country is divided for totally honest reasons. (when Bed Stuy was similarly divided they added Brooklyn to the voting Rights Act) if you truly believe what you just said I now realize there's a third possibility your blind. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 09:31:58 PM I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) You said "You are a anti-semite (on some level.)" Ok, so you're not accusing him of anti-Semitism, just saying he's an anti-semite. this is what I wrote Quote if you do say this you are clearly not an anti semite (this means Jews who follow Judaism) (though I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you because of what I said above about selling us down the river). here's the definition of conditionalQuote imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms: conditional acceptance. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 09:43:11 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. All right, fine. I'll take a crack at doing a New York redistricting and we'll see if the resulting district makes sense. My prediction is that I can get it up to about 40-42% Jewish before it starts getting ridiculous. according to the UJA in 2002 Southern Brooklyn had 333,600 jews (that is more then half of a Congressional district in 2002 redistricting) for example according to the 2000 census the current 8th Congressional district 654,360 people. Quote Quote I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) The reasons why I'm not immensely fond of Borough Park and 'Flatbush' have nothing to do with the religion of the people there, even if I take your word for it that the gerrymander does. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 09:45:17 PM I don't take kindly to insinuations that I'm prejudiced against elements of my own ethnic and cultural background. Also 'anti-Semite' does not mean 'prejudiced against Jews who practice what NY Jew considers 'acceptable' Judaism'. It means 'prejudiced against Jews'. Why do you assume I would 'sell you down the river for a dollar'? I have no interest in keeping Borough Park and Flatbush split as they are. Almost every aspect of the division of New York City at present is absurd. There is a difference between wanting a more reasonable split and insisting that a specifically Orthodox Jewish district be created just because you personally don't like the Jews currently in the US House, which is frankly ridiculous. It is not equivalent to insisting that an LGBT district be created (which is absurd anyway. If it looked like it was being intentionally split up to dilute representation of a specific group and not other groups that would be one thing, but in this case almost the entire City of New York looks like grass script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_script) and there are plenty of other pissed-off groups, I assure you) but rather to saying that even though LGBT people are in Congress at several times the rate of their preponderance in the population (which they are not, for what it's worth), they're the wrong kind of LGBT people and the VRA needs to be exercised to ensure representation of specific interest groups within that set of people. This is certainly a horrible and uncalled-for gerrymander, but it's political, not ethnic or religious. The things that you're complaining about and feel persecuted based on are political in character. What you're asking for isn't ridiculous or even particularly unreasonable but it hasn't got terribly much to do with the VRA and the way you're going about asking for it is...well, yeah. I can try to draw a district for you of the sort that you'd want (it actually might be a lot of fun looking over demographic stats to see how the 'white' areas of southern Brooklyn break down ethnically), but I'd like an apology first. All right, fine. I'll take a crack at doing a New York redistricting and we'll see if the resulting district makes sense. My prediction is that I can get it up to about 40-42% Jewish before it starts getting ridiculous. Quote I'm to rushed now to deal with the rest of statement (and just for the record I didn't accuse of antisemitism (it was conditional) just aiding and abetting it) The reasons why I'm not immensely fond of Borough Park and 'Flatbush' have nothing to do with the religion of the people there, even if I take your word for it that the gerrymander does. The population of Brooklyn only has enough blacks for 1 full district. If one operates under the assumption that they get 2 districts, obviously, 1 has to come at the expense of something else. The 11th district was 74% black after the 1990 redistricting, 71% black in 2000, 60% black after the 2002 redistricting, and about 58% black now. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 03, 2012, 09:53:37 PM ...Jews have the most hate crimes against them in the country? Where are you getting these statistics? Is this reported hate crimes, convicted hate crimes, accused hate crimes, or suspected hate crimes? Is it absolute or per capita? Because...I mean, I don't think you're lying, but I'd appreciate more specificity and some sources because I have a difficult time believing that some of these categories aren't dominated by Mexicans by a country mile.
All right, fine. It's a gerrymander by somebody who wants to dilute the voting power of Orthodox Jews. It took a while because I couldn't understand why exactly that would be the case but you've convinced me of that; congratulations. I never said I supported the current state of affairs in Brooklyn and I still don't. I also still don't know that there would be an inherent anti-Semitic, rather than political, motivation for the gerrymander, considering the Judaism of many of the people doing the gerrymander. If it's internal friction within the Jewish community, which I actually think is quite likely considering the differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews in New York, fine, but calling that anti-Semitic is somewhat nonsensical. It's certainly unfair to the Orthodox Jewish community, but I don't think it can be fairly described as inherently anti-Semitic even if some of the people doing it are, because there are also people involved in doing it who far from being anti-Semitic are Jews, just not a kind who your kind of Jews likes or is liked by. Or, rather, the process can perhaps be described that way but not all of the people doing or supporting it can be. The numbers of Jews in South Brooklyn you're quoting are enough for somewhere in the low forties if we don't do a total pack, high forties if we do, which is an Orthodox-opportunity district and in which the Orthodox community could probably elect the candidate of their choice in most years (the only exceptions would be if all the non-Orthodox parts of the district supported someone else or if the Orthodox community was itself split), but not Orthodox-majority. The ideal size for a CD in New York has risen to about 717,000. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 10:16:20 PM ...Jews have the most hate crimes against them in the country? Where are you getting these statistics? Is this reported hate crimes, convicted hate crimes, accused hate crimes, or suspected hate crimes? Is it absolute or per capita? Because...I mean, I don't think you're lying, but I'd appreciate more specificity and some sources because I have a difficult time believing that some of these categories aren't dominated by Mexicans by a country mile. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses now figure out the rates per capita (though this most likely will lead to a discussion of what% of Americans have had homosexual relations) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 10:22:22 PM The numbers of Jews in South Brooklyn you're quoting are enough for somewhere in the low forties if we don't do a total pack, high forties if we do, which is an Orthodox-opportunity district and in which the Orthodox community could probably elect the candidate of their choice in most years (the only exceptions would be if all the non-Orthodox parts of the district supported someone else or if the Orthodox community was itself split), but not Orthodox-majority. The ideal size for a CD in New York has risen to about 717,000. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 03, 2012, 10:29:07 PM ...Jews have the most hate crimes against them in the country? Where are you getting these statistics? Is this reported hate crimes, convicted hate crimes, accused hate crimes, or suspected hate crimes? Is it absolute or per capita? Because...I mean, I don't think you're lying, but I'd appreciate more specificity and some sources because I have a difficult time believing that some of these categories aren't dominated by Mexicans by a country mile. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses now figure out the rates per capita (though this most likely will lead to a discussion of what% of Americans have had homosexual relations) This seems to be reported. A lot of hate crimes against Mexicans are unreported. It's also the overwhelming majority of religiously-motivated hate crimes, which are a minority of all hate crimes, but it does seem like per capita you're probably right. That surprises me a little (and upsets, since a quarter of my family and probably a greater proportion of my friends and colleagues are Jewish). Thanks for citing the source. (Being gay can be measured so many different ways and is so much easier for people to not tell the truth about when asked that that's really not a conversation I'm interested in having, especially since the numbers that you and I would probably quote are actually the opposite, relatively speaking, of the ones that would help our respective cases.) if I pack to make a Jewish majority district in Southern Brooklyn (by the way my southern Brooklyn numbers didn't include bay Ridge) it would be the 2nd most compact district in the state after Serrano (keep in mind that the Jewish demographics here live very close to one another and there are blocks that may be 100% jewish) Try it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. I'm skeptical that you can get it over 50%, especially if we're using VAP, but I'd definitely like to see. When I tried to eyeball a compact South Brooklyn CD earlier, I was using DRA so it wasn't clear how much of 'white' was Jewish, and also I ended up having to include more Democratic parts of Brooklyn in Grimm's district such that it actually shifts several points Democratic, so it seems likely to me that were you to successfully create the district that you're talking about we'd still end up with only the one Republican CD in the city most years (possibly zero if some hawkish, religiously conservative Jewish Democrat got elected from the hypothetical district that we are discussing). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 10:47:39 PM (Being gay can be measured so many different ways and is so much easier for people to not tell the truth about when asked that that's really not a conversation I'm interested in having) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 11:05:28 PM Try it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. I'm skeptical that you can get it over 50%, especially if we're using VAP, but I'd definitely like to see. When I tried to eyeball a compact South Brooklyn CD earlier, I was using DRA so it wasn't clear how much of 'white' was Jewish, and also I ended up having to include more Democratic parts of Brooklyn in Grimm's district such that it actually shifts several points Democratic, so it seems likely to me that were you to successfully create the district that you're talking about we'd still end up with only the one Republican CD in the city most years (possibly zero if some hawkish, religiously conservative Jewish Democrat got elected from the hypothetical district that we are discussing). the key is to move Grimm out of Brooklyn and towards the Rockways Grimm would be +2 and the New Jewish district would be +9 and in regards to weather or not the there was a Democrat or a Republican though I would prefer a Republican I would vote for someone like Noach Dear, or Dov Hikind way before I would vote for most NY state Republicans. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 03, 2012, 11:11:04 PM That's still a couple points more marginal than the current NY-13 but using the Rockaways is an interesting idea. I hadn't considered that. Do you route him through Coney Island or something?
ETA: Oh. Water contiguity through Raritan Bay. I didn't know state waters went out far enough for that. Interesting. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 03, 2012, 11:33:38 PM Try it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. I'm skeptical that you can get it over 50%, especially if we're using VAP, but I'd definitely like to see. When I tried to eyeball a compact South Brooklyn CD earlier, I was using DRA so it wasn't clear how much of 'white' was Jewish, and also I ended up having to include more Democratic parts of Brooklyn in Grimm's district such that it actually shifts several points Democratic, so it seems likely to me that were you to successfully create the district that you're talking about we'd still end up with only the one Republican CD in the city most years (possibly zero if some hawkish, religiously conservative Jewish Democrat got elected from the hypothetical district that we are discussing). the key is to move Grimm out of Brooklyn and towards the Rockways Grimm would be +2 and the New Jewish district would be +9 and in regards to weather or not the there was a Democrat or a Republican though I would prefer a Republican I would vote for someone like Noach Dear, or Dov Hikind way before I would vote for most NY state Republicans. If you are looking for the Orthodox precincts in DRA, use the option to color by election. They will show up as strongly McCain compared to everything else. Though I was motivated by geography and the black-majority districts, I suspect it would look similar to CD 8 in my map above (reposted here). () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 03, 2012, 11:45:24 PM muon, about what's the PVI on your NY-09?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 03, 2012, 11:52:27 PM Try it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. I'm skeptical that you can get it over 50%, especially if we're using VAP, but I'd definitely like to see. When I tried to eyeball a compact South Brooklyn CD earlier, I was using DRA so it wasn't clear how much of 'white' was Jewish, and also I ended up having to include more Democratic parts of Brooklyn in Grimm's district such that it actually shifts several points Democratic, so it seems likely to me that were you to successfully create the district that you're talking about we'd still end up with only the one Republican CD in the city most years (possibly zero if some hawkish, religiously conservative Jewish Democrat got elected from the hypothetical district that we are discussing). the key is to move Grimm out of Brooklyn and towards the Rockways Grimm would be +2 and the New Jewish district would be +9 and in regards to weather or not the there was a Democrat or a Republican though I would prefer a Republican I would vote for someone like Noach Dear, or Dov Hikind way before I would vote for most NY state Republicans. If you are looking for the Orthodox precincts in DRA, use the option to color by election. They will show up as strongly McCain compared to everything else. Though I was motivated by geography and the black-majority districts, I suspect it would look similar to CD 8 in my map above (reposted here). () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 03, 2012, 11:56:04 PM The thing is, I'm not sure how you can keep NY-13 R+[non-zero] if you do that. The district that I'm making right now is partway between muon's and what you seem to be describing. I had to use Mill Basin and Coney Island to keep NY-13 Republican. I'll keep trying, though; I might just run NY-13 further up through Queens to see if I can make it go to Parkside or thereabouts. How wedded are you to Bay Ridge?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 12:00:36 AM The thing is, I'm not sure how you can keep NY-13 R+[non-zero] if you do that. The district that I'm making right now is partway between muon's and what you seem to be describing. I had to use Mill Basin and Coney Island to keep NY-13 Republican. I'll keep trying, though; I might just run NY-13 further up through Queens to see if I can make it go to Parkside or thereabouts. How wedded are you to Bay Ridge? I also include Dyker Heights, Bayridge and Bath Beach (which have almost no jews) in Grimm this map is closer to what I had in mind for the Jewish district Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 12:11:27 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 04, 2012, 12:19:04 AM muon, about what's the PVI on your NY-09? Both 8 and 9 are R+5 as drawn on my map. I wanted to have a road connection from SI to the Rockaways. The greater gains for 8 on my map are to pick up Mill Island and Bergen Beach from CD 11 in exchange for Hispanic areas along the harbor. I can increase the McCain percent by 2 without changing my CD 9. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 12:29:20 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews. that I put Bensonhurst along crosby ave (there are 2 Orthodox Nursing homes there so that can have a major effect) in Grimm's district that make's my map less Jewish then it should be, though I probably have more Jews then you in Kensingston and Borough Park. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 01:22:26 AM NY Jew, would you happen to know anything about southern Williamsburg? Is that heavily Orthodox also? I ask because it's an incongruous patch of McCain territory in North Brooklyn on the maps I'm looking at
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 01:54:50 AM NY Jew, would you happen to know anything about southern Williamsburg? Is that heavily Orthodox also? I ask because it's an incongruous patch of McCain territory in North Brooklyn on the maps I'm looking at also the patch of light red in Crown Heights is also Orthodox 99% Chabad. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 04, 2012, 03:07:34 AM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 03:44:02 AM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. That's boringly easy, though. All you have to do is connect it with Flatbush and East Flatbush. I also don't think specifically trying to piss somebody else off is something you should be endeavoring to do right after church. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 08:12:54 AM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 04, 2012, 09:55:23 AM Who knows what a court will do if they get to do the map, but you can guarantee that since this is New York, some money will be slipped under the table at some point or some promise made...
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 04, 2012, 11:59:19 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews. "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. I continue to maintain that "hipsters" are a coherent CoI which keeps getting unfairly sliced and diced in all of these maps. There are plenty of white liberals in Brooklyn, why don't they have a seat? :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 04, 2012, 12:52:28 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 02:09:26 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 04, 2012, 02:35:20 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Why are you so sure it is animated by Jew hatred as opposed to securing partisan advantage? How can you be so confident about the motives of people? Sure one can hypothesize until the cows come home, but to make a flat out assertion is not something that well, a lawyer would do, because the facts just don't support making a clear and convincing case that the motive is in fact based on ethnic animus rather than what is typically the case, which is about getting as many of your team elected as possible. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 04, 2012, 02:46:09 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Why are you so sure it is animated by Jew hatred as opposed to securing partisan advantage? How can you be so confident about the motives of people? Sure one can hypothesize until the cows come home, but to make a flat out assertion is not something that well, a lawyer would do, because the facts just don't support making a clear and convincing case that the motive is in fact based on ethnic animus rather than what is typically the case, which is about getting as many of your team elected as possible. Right. When people pack and crack minorities to reduce their voting power, it may be born of callousness or indifference, but it hardly implies hatred. And when you consider the abuses caused by anti-Semitism in the last century alone, the burden of proof is on you as to explain why the fracturing of an Orthodox Jewish (which seems to be how you define "Jewish" here, although no definition of anti-Semitism I know of makes an exception for secular, reform, or conservative Jews, all of whom were targeted by Hitler) community in Brooklyn is an act of hatred rather than one of political alienation, callousness, or simple partisan advantage. You have to understand, anti-Semitism is such a powerful accusation that we, as Jews (even if you define me out of it, that's fine, I don't care) have a responsibility not to play that card freely when there are plenty of other explanations. Even more so in this case where there's no evidence or even plausibility to your claim. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 04, 2012, 03:05:18 PM "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. The real reason why is because Nydia's residence is in the tiny Hispanic enclave near the harbor by Sunset Park. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 04, 2012, 03:15:35 PM "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. The real reason why is because Nydia's residence is in the tiny Hispanic enclave near the harbor by Sunset Park. Is she that compelled to live in the district she represents? Gutierrez hasn't been living in his IL-4 district for some years now, though the new map puts him back within his district boundaries. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 04, 2012, 03:17:35 PM Isn't the special master drawing the maps deliberately being kept in the dark per the judge's order as to where incumbents live?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 03:17:48 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Why are you so sure it is animated by Jew hatred as opposed to securing partisan advantage? How can you be so confident about the motives of people? Sure one can hypothesize until the cows come home, but to make a flat out assertion is not something that well, a lawyer would do, because the facts just don't support making a clear and convincing case that the motive is in fact based on ethnic animus rather than what is typically the case, which is about getting as many of your team elected as possible. this answer your question Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... everything this guy has ever said on this forum regarding Jews screams he's an anti semite. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 04, 2012, 03:24:04 PM Isn't the special master drawing the maps deliberately being kept in the dark per the judge's order as to where incumbents live? This is New York. I wouldn't make a sizable bet on that one. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 04, 2012, 03:25:11 PM "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. The real reason why is because Nydia's residence is in the tiny Hispanic enclave near the harbor by Sunset Park. Is she that compelled to live in the district she represents? Gutierrez hasn't been living in his IL-4 district for some years now, though the new map puts him back within his district boundaries. The residency laws here are really lax, but if you've met Velasquez a number of times, as I have, you would discover that she's as stubborn as a mule (and looks kinda like one too). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 04, 2012, 03:25:52 PM Isn't the special master drawing the maps deliberately being kept in the dark per the judge's order as to where incumbents live? That's the way I read the order. No political data or incumbent addresses. Seeing that I drew my map the same way, and I only looked at political data afterwards. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 04, 2012, 03:29:51 PM "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. The real reason why is because Nydia's residence is in the tiny Hispanic enclave near the harbor by Sunset Park. Is she that compelled to live in the district she represents? Gutierrez hasn't been living in his IL-4 district for some years now, though the new map puts him back within his district boundaries. The residency laws here are really lax, but if you've met Velasquez a number of times, as I have, you would discover that she's as stubborn as a mule (and looks kinda like one too). For Congress the only rule is that they live in the state unless NY believes they can make more stringent conditions than the US Constitution. IL has no congressional residency statutes at all, but we do have members like Rush who have a history of wanting their residence in the district and all possible opponents out. Perhaps Velasquez is from the Rush school of residency. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 04, 2012, 03:31:57 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Why are you so sure it is animated by Jew hatred as opposed to securing partisan advantage? How can you be so confident about the motives of people? Sure one can hypothesize until the cows come home, but to make a flat out assertion is not something that well, a lawyer would do, because the facts just don't support making a clear and convincing case that the motive is in fact based on ethnic animus rather than what is typically the case, which is about getting as many of your team elected as possible. this answer your question Mind you by the way I don't have a problem carving up Borough Park either since it's basically the most fascist place in America. A place that votes similar to Iraqi "elections" under Saddam Hussein that is mostly populated by zealots who salivate over murdered Palestinian children and want to massacre Iranians? Terrible terrible place. And that's not even getting started on their views on women... everything this guy has ever said on this forum regarding Jews screams he's an anti semite. Oh, well that reflects the opinion of one poster about the political and social opinions one one small segment of the Jewish population. That poster posts similar things about Dutch-Americans in their enclaves, and the LDS, and any other group whose opinions in high percentages he finds execrable. It is not about their ethnicity, it is about their opinions. Is he being perhaps excessively intolerant about that, using hyperbolic language in some instances? Of course in my opinion. But it's not Jew hatred qua Jew hatred. Let's move on, if we possibly can. Thanks. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 04, 2012, 04:45:54 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. Please don't throw that word around so lightly. Thank you. Why are you so sure it is animated by Jew hatred as opposed to securing partisan advantage? How can you be so confident about the motives of people? Sure one can hypothesize until the cows come home, but to make a flat out assertion is not something that well, a lawyer would do, because the facts just don't support making a clear and convincing case that the motive is in fact based on ethnic animus rather than what is typically the case, which is about getting as many of your team elected as possible. As I understand his argument: The white population in South Brooklyn, which composes of slightly more than a Congressional district, was cracked into 5 (8, 9, 10, 11, 13) when they used to vote Democrat. At the time the current mapping was drawn Al Gore won the area handily. I wouldn't call it partisanship; rather, there are currently 13 districts in New York City and more than 13 communities that want districts to themselves. So, they picked one to hose. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 04, 2012, 06:27:38 PM Tomorrow after church I think I'll draw and post the ultimate map to piss off NY Jew: Keep all of Borough Park together but put it into a black majority seat. That's boringly easy, though. All you have to do is connect it with Flatbush and East Flatbush. I also don't think specifically trying to piss somebody else off is something you should be endeavoring to do right after church. Well I was kind of being playful there just due to how he's acting over it (as evidenced by the latest reaction as well), just pointing out that it's possible not carve it up and yet still eliminate its influence in voting. Something obviously that many Jewish Democratic leaders in New York wouldn't mind doing obviously. For the record it's even easier to do that with the Russians, that obviously doesn't make such a map an anti-Russian map, or my plan to put Staten Island in a Democratic seat by adding Park Slope an anti-Italian map. The poster in question has also complained about and attacked far more Jews than I have, though he resorts to a sort of No True Scotsman in his definition of anti-Semitism. Anyway that map is coming up anyway. Though I know it would never pass since many current Democratic incumbents wouldn't like it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 06:50:10 PM Well, I didn't even get to church this morning because I have a bad head cold and stayed up all night doing homework, so you're probably marginally more right with God than I am at the moment anyway. :P I'm planning to go to Nones on Wednesday instead.
I was playing around with upstate and it's actually possible to make every district along the eastern border pretty likely Democratic most years assuming Bill Owens doesn't get complacent. You just have to make clever use of Westchester, Poughkeepsie, and the Capital District. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 04, 2012, 06:56:29 PM Well, I didn't even get to church this morning because I have a bad head cold and stayed up all night doing homework, so you're probably marginally more right with God than I am at the moment anyway. ;P I'm planning to go to Nones on Wednesday instead. I was playing around with upstate and it's actually possible to make every district along the eastern border pretty likely Democratic most years assuming Bill Owens doesn't get complacent. You just have to make clever use of Westchester, Poughkeepsie, and the Capital District. That's why the old map is not a Democratic gerrymander overall even though the downstate portion is somewhat (see pages of argument about Orthodox Jews). The old upstate map is quite friendly to Republicans in many places, in particular the areas around the earmuffs. From my perspective, New York politics is perhaps too strange of an animal for me to even be able to determine what a safe district for each party is upstate, but it certainly looks more like a Republican gerrymander upstate to me. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 04, 2012, 07:04:33 PM So it turns out you don't even need the black areas, you can connect it to Park Slope and the area is already 62% Obama at less than 200k residents. I should draw that one too. By the line of argument being used here though Nadler's district is an anti-Semitic one since it's basically the same principle in neutralizing the areas in Brooklyn, though it does so in a rather ugly way.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 07:06:14 PM That's why the old map is not a Democratic gerrymander overall even though the downstate portion is somewhat (see pages of argument about Orthodox Jews). The old upstate map is quite friendly to Republicans in many places, in particular the areas around the earmuffs. From my perspective, New York politics is perhaps too strange of an animal for me to even be able to determine what a safe district for each party is upstate, but it certainly looks more like a Republican gerrymander upstate to me. Upstate politics is highly personal (see Carl Paladino approaching or breaking sixty per cent pretty much everywhere west of the Finger Lakes while losing almost two-to-one statewide) and if somebody, especially an incumbent, gets a district that's just a few PVI points towards his or her party he or she is pretty much impossible to expunge except in wave years. Districts that are considered 'safe' in upstate New York have PVIs around 5 or 6. The only non-Westchester upstate district with a PVI greater than 6 in either direction is the earmuffs. BRTD, if you want to challenge yourself, you should also be using the Orthodox areas in Midwood and points south for this exercise. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 04, 2012, 07:09:39 PM Ah well that too probably isn't too hard. Actually if Velazquez lives where Sam says she does she'd probably end up representing this district and it could even be Hispanic majority (though I'd prefer to keep it in Brooklyn, I really don't like the districts that spill all around multiple boroughs, especially since this is often done for no real discernible reason.)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 04, 2012, 07:32:33 PM OK here is a combination of hasids, hipsters, Hispanics and some Asians. Though the Hispanics probably won't like it since it probably won't elect a Hispanic once Velázquez retires, (26.4% Hispanic VAP now) but it's 66% Obama and obviously still safe D. I even got the hasids in Williamsburg who whine about female cyclists in:
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 04, 2012, 10:33:52 PM OK here is a combination of hasids, hipsters, Hispanics and some Asians. Though the Hispanics probably won't like it since it probably won't elect a Hispanic once Velázquez retires, (26.4% Hispanic VAP now) but it's 66% Obama and obviously still safe D. I even got the hasids in Williamsburg who whine about female cyclists in: () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 05, 2012, 12:09:39 AM He is from the Bronx, so no.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 05, 2012, 12:17:06 AM He is from the Bronx, so no. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 05, 2012, 12:21:37 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews. "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. I continue to maintain that "hipsters" are a coherent CoI which keeps getting unfairly sliced and diced in all of these maps. There are plenty of white liberals in Brooklyn, why don't they have a seat? :P Hmph. Would you attach them to the east side, the west side, or to Astoria? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 05, 2012, 12:25:13 AM He is from the Bronx, so no. Is there any such notable person in the district? I have a tough time seeing them get the hipsters' vote. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 05, 2012, 12:33:50 AM He is from the Bronx, so no. Is there any such notable person in the district? I have a tough time seeing them get the hipsters' vote. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 05, 2012, 03:39:34 AM I'm almost done with a pretty interesting map:
-Borough Park, Midwood and the really conservative areas in Gravesend (though I understand the Jews there aren't Hasids) in a majority black seat. -The conservative Russian areas in a plurality black seat. -Staten Island actually in a Democratic-leaning seat. -The long awaited Brooklyn white liberals seat, though it's actually a Brooklyn/Queens mixture with some distinctly non-liberal parts in Queens. -A left overs seat which is also Hispanic plurality and Velazquez probably wouldn't mind. Now here's the crazy thing, the white liberal seat that is majority white VAP also has the highest Obama % out of all of those except the Hispanic plurality leftovers seat that has few blacks. You can draw some crazy things in NYC. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 08:49:12 AM Source from within the Cuomo administration on current proposed lines: "If they are drafting now then they are drafting for a veto." Source (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/New-legislative-lines-stuck-on-a-new-snag-3381373.php) It appears that Cuomo is looking for a constitutional change to redistricting in the future in exchange for his support of a map this cycle. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 05, 2012, 08:55:28 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews. "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. I continue to maintain that "hipsters" are a coherent CoI which keeps getting unfairly sliced and diced in all of these maps. There are plenty of white liberals in Brooklyn, why don't they have a seat? :P Hmph. Would you attach them to the east side, the west side, or to Astoria? NOTA. A "hipster" district would be pretty similar to what I already proposed as the Ninth District here: though it would withdraw somewhat from South Brooklyn to take in (the whiter areas of) Fort Greene, Ditmas Park, and more of East Village/Alphabet City- the one part of Manhattan that does belong there. There would be various ripple effects, but the surrounding districts could mostly be kept as is. I suppose Long Island City could also be a reasonable addition. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 09:29:31 AM I have NY-13, which is about tied or R+1, take in only Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, and the Rockaways, Howard Beach, and some of Ozone Park in Queens. Dyker Heights and Bath Beach are in the Jewish district, which is hence probably a little less Jewish than yours, but it means that I was able to get it all the way up to what I'm pretty sure is R+11. I might switch some of Dyker Heights and Bath Beach into the Grimm district and put whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is in with the Jews. "Whatever that Asian area just north-east of Bay Ridge is" is Brooklyn's Chinatown (also sort-of considered part of Sunset Park), and it's arguably the main reason for the continued existence of Velasquez's district: they will raise holy hell if they're not in a district with Manhattan's Chinatown as well, and they seem to prefer being part of an Asian-Hispanic coalition district with Velasquez. I continue to maintain that "hipsters" are a coherent CoI which keeps getting unfairly sliced and diced in all of these maps. There are plenty of white liberals in Brooklyn, why don't they have a seat? :P Hmph. Would you attach them to the east side, the west side, or to Astoria? NOTA. A "hipster" district would be pretty similar to what I already proposed as the Ninth District here: though it would withdraw somewhat from South Brooklyn to take in (the whiter areas of) Fort Greene, Ditmas Park, and more of East Village/Alphabet City- the one part of Manhattan that does belong there. There would be various ripple effects, but the surrounding districts could mostly be kept as is. I suppose Long Island City could also be a reasonable addition. What are the BVAPs on your CD 6, 10, and 11? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 05, 2012, 09:38:50 AM What are the BVAPs on your CD 6, 10, and 11? 45.5, 51.0, 51.7. Enough voters in Meeks' district are either black Hispanics being counted as Hispanic, or "Other" voters from the Caribbean, such that in actuality he might be over 50%. And if he isn't, I would be surprised and dismayed if it was required to take him into Nassau to hit a magic number when that seat will safely elect an AA anyway. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 10:07:40 AM What are the BVAPs on your CD 6, 10, and 11? 45.5, 51.0, 51.7. Enough voters in Meeks' district are either black Hispanics being counted as Hispanic, or "Other" voters from the Caribbean, such that in actuality he might be over 50%. And if he isn't, I would be surprised and dismayed if it was required to take him into Nassau to hit a magic number when that seat will safely elect an AA anyway. It's an interesting issue. The "Other" category is unusually large in that district, but I don't know if there are any cases that say that they should count as black or as a coalition partner for purposes of electing a black candidate of choice. The difference matters for voting rights purposes, but I suspect that Meeks would take your district if it was helping make other districts lean more D. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on March 05, 2012, 11:33:45 AM Any map that eliminates Bob Turner's seat is unacceptable. If we have to bend over backward to draw Hispanic and black seats, they can keep two Republican seats.
() () This shouldn't be that hard, and the map shouldn't look like a piece of garbage, esp in NYC Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 05, 2012, 11:43:06 AM Any map that preserves the earmuffs and makes them even more urban is a gerry, IMO. Those suburban towns in Monroe County you shed in order to make it more of a D vote sink include Louise Slaughter's home town of Fairport.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 05, 2012, 12:15:07 PM Any map that eliminates Bob Turner's seat is unacceptable. If we have to bend over backward to draw Hispanic and black seats, they can keep two Republican seats. Any map that: a) keeps the earmuffs b) splits the North Country like that c) goes down to only one AA district in Brooklyn does things WAY worse than dismantling Turner. You could very easily make the case for a fair map that eliminates one of Crowley/Ackerman/McCarthy downstate and Gibson upstate, and turns Turner's district in the Orthodox South Brooklyn seat. Fine, I'd be willing to accept that. But the map you have is a total non-starter for so many reasons. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 05, 2012, 12:45:25 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 05, 2012, 02:26:18 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed. The earmuffs are terrible, but would you like the capital district to look like? TimothyinMD's map looks pretty much the same as muon's in that area. Pretty much all of them are ugly in some way around there. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 05, 2012, 02:47:34 PM Any map that preserves the earmuffs and makes them even more urban is a gerry, IMO. Those suburban towns in Monroe County you shed in order to make it more of a D vote sink include Louise Slaughter's home town of Fairport. The court is likely to draw a least-change map, meaining the earmuffs might actually end up staying. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 02:51:04 PM Any map that eliminates Bob Turner's seat is unacceptable. If we have to bend over backward to draw Hispanic and black seats, they can keep two Republican seats. () () This shouldn't be that hard, and the map shouldn't look like a piece of garbage, esp in NYC I have the same question about minority VAPs in the minority districts. What did you get for yours? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 02:55:07 PM Any map that preserves the earmuffs and makes them even more urban is a gerry, IMO. Those suburban towns in Monroe County you shed in order to make it more of a D vote sink include Louise Slaughter's home town of Fairport. The court is likely to draw a least-change map, meaining the earmuffs might actually end up staying. It will be interesting to see since the court is not using political data or incumbent addresses. Much of the current upstate shape is precisely due to those factors. If they aren't there at best they can use communities of interest as a proxy. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 05, 2012, 03:16:36 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed. The earmuffs are terrible, but would you like the capital district to look like? TimothyinMD's map looks pretty much the same as muon's in that area. Pretty much all of them are ugly in some way around there. You know, the Albany CD does not have to be an ugly duckling. :) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 05, 2012, 03:56:51 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed. The earmuffs are terrible, but would you like the capital district to look like? TimothyinMD's map looks pretty much the same as muon's in that area. Pretty much all of them are ugly in some way around there. You know, the Albany CD does not have to be an ugly duckling. :) () My Albany district is similar: All of Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer, optionally Schoharie, and then finish up with the bottom tip of Saratoga. It's not that hard to make a good district there! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 05, 2012, 04:08:20 PM ()
From way up when in this thread. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 04:16:57 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed. The earmuffs are terrible, but would you like the capital district to look like? TimothyinMD's map looks pretty much the same as muon's in that area. Pretty much all of them are ugly in some way around there. You know, the Albany CD does not have to be an ugly duckling. :) () My Albany district is similar: All of Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer, optionally Schoharie, and then finish up with the bottom tip of Saratoga. It's not that hard to make a good district there! Yes, I did split the Capital Region, but I did so with justification. The two districts covering the region are each nearly whole counties. The four counties including Albany are under population by 3698 and the six counties with Schenectady are over by only 510, and very little population was shifted accordingly. As a bonus both districts have the potential to be competitive in the right year. () CD 19 (Albany) W 77.3% [D+5] CD 20 (Schenectady) W 90.0% [R+1] Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 05, 2012, 04:26:02 PM No Muon, that this is quite unjustifiedly bizarre. Quite frankly everything from 18 to 23 there is Wrong with a capital W.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 05, 2012, 04:39:54 PM No Muon, that this is quite unjustifiedly bizarre. Quite frankly everything from 18 to 23 there is Wrong with a capital W. Muon2 gives high salience to minimizing county splits (I had one more in the Albany area than Muon2 because I wanted to keep the Albany metro area together). It was interesting that the Minnesota court gave pretty high salience to minimizing county splits too, messing with the prior court drawn lines to cut territory from MN-04 that it had before to kick it out of Dakota County (territory that are inner-burbs tied to the hip to St. Paul), and having it take most of Washington County instead. That was sort of a surprise. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 05, 2012, 04:42:39 PM I stopped paying it serious attention as soon as I saw what was done to the Capital District and that the earmuffs still existed. The earmuffs are terrible, but would you like the capital district to look like? TimothyinMD's map looks pretty much the same as muon's in that area. Pretty much all of them are ugly in some way around there. My preferred type of district in that area would take in Albany, more of Rennselaer, and as close to all of Schenectady as can be managed. If more population is needed it should go up into Saratoga or down into Greene or Schoharie. muon's isn't great (quite frankly none of muon's upstate map appeals to me except maybe Western New York, though I love his NYC and Long Island), but including Greene makes it a bit less ugly. traininthedistance and Torie have done the best upstate maps so far. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on March 05, 2012, 05:09:45 PM Rationale for my proposal:
1. Buff/Roch are similar cities and combined in one district keep from overpowering the suburban/rural portions of western NYS. 2. Making that a solid D allows all the surrounding seats to be highly competitive. Same with combining D areas into the Albany seat. 3. Where is it written in stone that St Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton be in the same district? 4. I have no care or regard for incumbents' locations. One doesn't have to live in a district to run in it 5. Racial stats are irrelevant. Aside from Grimm and Turner, every other seat in NYC will elect a far left liberal Democrat who will vote the same way no matter what race they are. To me they aren't whites, blacks, hispanics. They're Democrats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 05, 2012, 05:26:34 PM Rationale for my proposal: 1. Buff/Roch are similar cities and combined in one district keep from overpowering the suburban/rural portions of western NYS. Try making this argument to somebody from one of them. They are entirely separate urban areas almost a hundred miles apart. Quote 2. Making that a solid D allows all the surrounding seats to be highly competitive. Same with combining D areas into the Albany seat. In other words, a partisan gerrymander. Quote 3. Where is it written in stone that St Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton be in the same district? It's its own area called the North Country. It's a community of interest. Making a Sand Lake-to-Canada district while Malone is separated from Plattsburgh and lumped in with Utica makes about as much sense as Dutch Ruppersberger's district even if it doesn't look as horrible. Quote 4. I have no care or regard for incumbents' locations. One doesn't have to live in a district to run in it traininthedistance's upstate map, which I think is the best I've seen so far, puts Hochul's and Higgins's homes in the same district, as well as Hayworth's and Lowey's and I'm not sure but I think maybe Gibson's and Tonko's. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 05, 2012, 05:37:40 PM Chopping Buffalo is just as partisan as it was 10 years ago. This time its merely proposed for the opposite party.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on March 05, 2012, 05:41:30 PM I make no claim that my proposal is "non partisan" or gerrymander free. It is expressly to help elect as many Republicans as possible.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 05, 2012, 06:11:28 PM I make no claim that my proposal is "non partisan" or gerrymander free. It is expressly to help elect as many Republicans as possible. Oh, okay. In that case and for that purpose it's actually a pretty damn good map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 05, 2012, 06:45:46 PM There was a hearing today. According to the Albany Times-Union (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/119133/during-hearing-mann-ponders-if-incumbency-matters/), the judge seemed largely interested in to what extent she should take incumbency into account when drawing her map. The judge's map should be released by next Monday.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 05, 2012, 07:47:32 PM Buffalo and Rochester are very different cities with different economies and politics. That would be like linking Raleigh-Durham and Winston-Salem, or saying Baltimore and Washington D.C. are basically the same. Rochester is built on knowledge industries and engineering while Buffalo is rust belt.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 05, 2012, 08:08:36 PM Buffalo and Rochester are very different cities with different economies and politics. That would be like linking Raleigh-Durham and Winston-Salem, or saying Baltimore and Washington D.C. are basically the same. Rochester is built on knowledge industries and engineering while Buffalo is rust belt. Parts of Buffalo and Rochester are currently in the same congressional district. Legislators thought them sufficiently similar to include in the same district in 2002. If the judge goes with a least-change map, they might still be linked in the same district, ugliness notwithstanding. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 08:40:08 PM Both the earmuffs and Higgin's distict are ridiculous when you can draw districts entirely within Monroe and Erie counties. I hope they don't go with a least change map. The loss of two seats should preclude that entirely. ::)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 08:42:53 PM Rationale for my proposal: 1. Buff/Roch are similar cities and combined in one district keep from overpowering the suburban/rural portions of western NYS. 2. Making that a solid D allows all the surrounding seats to be highly competitive. Same with combining D areas into the Albany seat. 3. Where is it written in stone that St Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton be in the same district? 4. I have no care or regard for incumbents' locations. One doesn't have to live in a district to run in it 5. Racial stats are irrelevant. Aside from Grimm and Turner, every other seat in NYC will elect a far left liberal Democrat who will vote the same way no matter what race they are. To me they aren't whites, blacks, hispanics. They're Democrats. The rules do care about that, though. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 08:54:07 PM No Muon, that this is quite unjustifiedly bizarre. Quite frankly everything from 18 to 23 there is Wrong with a capital W. Muon2 gives high salience to minimizing county splits (I had one more in the Albany area than Muon2 because I wanted to keep the Albany metro area together). It was interesting that the Minnesota court gave pretty high salience to minimizing county splits too, messing with the prior court drawn lines to cut territory from MN-04 that it had before to kick it out of Dakota County (territory that are inner-burbs tied to the hip to St. Paul), and having it take most of Washington County instead. That was sort of a surprise. I was raised in MN. Perhaps that's where I get that predilection. ;) Truthfully it shows up in many other states as a priority as well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 05, 2012, 08:58:14 PM The application of the least change rules, where the number of CD's is changed, may be a case of first impression. And I am not sure if for federal courts, it is mandatory or not in any event. And does it matter whether the old map was a bipartisan one (albeit a bipartisan gerrymander), which it was in NY, or a one party partisan gerrymander, in which event, that one party gerrymander would go on forever unless the other party captured the power trifecta, or it got into state court. Just how things end up in federal or state court is another mystery.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 05, 2012, 09:05:11 PM No Muon, that this is quite unjustifiedly bizarre. Quite frankly everything from 18 to 23 there is Wrong with a capital W. Muon2 gives high salience to minimizing county splits (I had one more in the Albany area than Muon2 because I wanted to keep the Albany metro area together). It was interesting that the Minnesota court gave pretty high salience to minimizing county splits too, messing with the prior court drawn lines to cut territory from MN-04 that it had before to kick it out of Dakota County (territory that are inner-burbs tied to the hip to St. Paul), and having it take most of Washington County instead. That was sort of a surprise. I was raised in MN. Perhaps that's where I get that predilection. ;) Truthfully it shows up in many other states as a priority as well. It most certainly does! :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2012, 09:37:59 PM The application of the least change rules, where the number of CD's is changed, may be a case of first impression. And I am not sure if for federal courts, it is mandatory or not in any event. And does it matter whether the old map was a bipartisan one (albeit a bipartisan gerrymander), which it was in NY, or a one party partisan gerrymander, in which event, that one party gerrymander would go on forever unless the other party captured the power trifecta, or it got into state court. Just how things end up in federal or state court is another mystery. In the case of the MN state courts in 2002 there was little regard for the traditional 4-corners plan, and they switched to a 5 and 3 plan. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 05, 2012, 09:39:47 PM Buffalo and Rochester are very different cities with different economies and politics. That would be like linking Raleigh-Durham and Winston-Salem, or saying Baltimore and Washington D.C. are basically the same. Rochester is built on knowledge industries and engineering while Buffalo is rust belt. Parts of Buffalo and Rochester are currently in the same congressional district. If the judge goes with a least-change map, they might still be linked in the same district, ugliness notwithstanding. Sorry, I should have quoted the line I was responding too which said that Buffalo and Rochester were pretty much the same. I'm not disputing that they're in the same district now blah blah least change. Quote Legislators thought them sufficiently similar to include in the same district in 2002. That doesn't follow. Legislators accepted a map drawn that was as a partisan compromise that froze Republican incumbent advantages upstate, and this was a gerrymander included to make that happen. It does not follow that Rochester and Buffalo are similar. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 05, 2012, 09:52:59 PM The application of the least change rules, where the number of CD's is changed, may be a case of first impression. And I am not sure if for federal courts, it is mandatory or not in any event. And does it matter whether the old map was a bipartisan one (albeit a bipartisan gerrymander), which it was in NY, or a one party partisan gerrymander, in which event, that one party gerrymander would go on forever unless the other party captured the power trifecta, or it got into state court. Just how things end up in federal or state court is another mystery. Well, the main argument that the parties are having is over whether the magistrate judge need to take incumbency into account, with the political parties arguing she must because the legislature usually has done so and Common Cause and some intervenors arguing that she need not because the NYS Constitution and law does not include incumbency protection as a factor and the legislature hasn't passed a map. A second argument made by Plaintiff-Intervenors is that the map should be a least-change one, meaning the Common Cause map should be thrown out. FWIW, the expert university professor special master here was the special master in the Connecticut Supreme Court's recent redistricting case, which ultimately resulted in a least-change map. Here, he was proposed by the Democrats and clerked for a Democrat appointed federal judge. The magistrate is a Clinton appointee. Today, the judge ordered LATFOR to send a shapefile with the current CDs along with a file showing racial density in those districts for all 4 groups. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 06, 2012, 02:37:10 AM Are there any hipsters in Queens? Bands from there tend to be either pop punk, "tough guy" hardcore, or metalcore.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 07:27:11 AM Are there any hipsters in Queens? Bands from there tend to be either pop punk, "tough guy" hardcore, or metalcore. LIC and Astoria have some. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 07:57:27 AM Are there any hipsters in Queens? Bands from there tend to be either pop punk, "tough guy" hardcore, or metalcore. LIC and Astoria have some. Yeah, that's why I suggested you add those to Williamsburg. I'll take another look at your Brooklyn district and see how many Hispanics/Conservative whites you added to your hipster district. Your map obviously drowns out South Brooklyn whites. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2012, 08:35:46 AM The special master has posted a proposed plan. Comments due by Wednesday.
State and Regional maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.1.pdf) District maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.2.pdf) Demographics (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.3.pdf) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 08:42:22 AM once again we get an anti Semitic map that Destroys NYC's Jewish voice.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on March 06, 2012, 08:52:39 AM In the case of the MN state courts in 2002 there was little regard for the traditional 4-corners plan, and they switched to a 5 and 3 plan. The proposal by Governor Ventura was so logical it could not be ignored. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 09:00:10 AM The special master has posted a proposed plan. Comments due by Wednesday. State and Regional maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.1.pdf) District maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.2.pdf) Demographics (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.3.pdf) Surprisingly non-horrible. The only things I find particularly objectionable are a) Velasquez's district continuing to snake down to Sunset Park rather than Jackson Heights (also W'burg and Greenpoint really ought to be together), but I knew that was going to happen, and b) drowning Ithaca in the Southern Tier district. I do wish NY-5 could just stay within Queens, but I recognize that may not actually be allowed- at least they united the Rockaways. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 06, 2012, 09:02:04 AM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 09:05:20 AM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn? I'm certain 8 is still AA majority, and 9 probably is as well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 09:08:53 AM Also: I bet Steve Israel and Peter King are both absolutely furious right now. Long Island just got a hell of a lot more competitive.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 09:23:26 AM Also: I bet Steve Israel and Peter King are both absolutely furious right now. Long Island just got a hell of a lot more competitive. Certainly both of them can lobby the legislature to give them a legislative map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2012, 09:45:24 AM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn? I'm certain 8 is still AA majority, and 9 probably is as well. There are three BVAP majority districts, but only one HVAP majority, with two plurality. I'm not sure why the Latinos would be happy with that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 09:54:30 AM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn? I'm certain 8 is still AA majority, and 9 probably is as well. There are three BVAP majority districts, but only one HVAP majority, with two plurality. I'm not sure why the Latinos would be happy with that. I think you missed Rangel's district- there are two HVAP majority (Rangel and Serrano), and two HVAP plurality (Crowley and Velasquez). Also of interest: NY-6 (which is presumably where Ackerman would move to, but also where Rory Lancman probably wants to run) appears to be plurality Asian, but whites have a higher VAP? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2012, 10:14:07 AM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn? I'm certain 8 is still AA majority, and 9 probably is as well. There are three BVAP majority districts, but only one HVAP majority, with two plurality. I'm not sure why the Latinos would be happy with that. I think you missed Rangel's district- there are two HVAP majority (Rangel and Serrano), and two HVAP plurality (Crowley and Velasquez). Also of interest: NY-6 (which is presumably where Ackerman would move to, but also where Rory Lancman probably wants to run) appears to be plurality Asian, but whites have a higher VAP? Thanks, that makes more sense. I was getting up the post and missed the new 13. I wonder if 55% HVAP is considered high enough to elect a candidate of choice? NY-6 would still be plurality white VAP: NHWVAP 39.9%, AVAP 38.8%. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 10:19:59 AM The special master has posted a proposed plan. Comments due by Wednesday. State and Regional maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.1.pdf) District maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.2.pdf) Demographics (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.3.pdf) Surprisingly non-horrible. The only things I find particularly objectionable are a) Velasquez's district continuing to snake down to Sunset Park rather than Jackson Heights (also W'burg and Greenpoint really ought to be together), but I knew that was going to happen, and b) drowning Ithaca in the Southern Tier district. I do wish NY-5 could just stay within Queens, but I recognize that may not actually be allowed- at least they united the Rockaways. Please defend Yevvete Clarke and Nadler getting the Orthodox Jewish Community and Towns getting the Russian Jewish Community. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 10:28:56 AM The special master has posted a proposed plan. Comments due by Wednesday. State and Regional maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.1.pdf) District maps (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.2.pdf) Demographics (https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/docs/cv/324457/1.11.cv.5632.6729180.3.pdf) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 06, 2012, 12:06:50 PM Are there any hipsters in Queens? Bands from there tend to be either pop punk, "tough guy" hardcore, or metalcore. LIC and Astoria have some. Oh yeah I once bought a record on ebay from someone in Astoria. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 06, 2012, 12:14:22 PM First impressions:
-Yes, the earmuffs are gone. -Staten Island's district is now much safer for Grimm, though that was probably to be expected, it figured it'd head toward Gravesend instead of Park Slope. -That might also be the price we pay for getting rid of Turner, who had the core of that seat ripped up and put in the black majority 8th. -I don't have enough tough time to run the numbers in Long Island now, but is King in danger? Possibly looks that way... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 12:25:46 PM Obama McCain numbers:
27: 44.5%-53.9% Hochul 26: 63.5%-35.0% Higgins 25: 58.8%-39.9% Slaughter 24: 56.2%-42.0% Buerkhle 23: 49.5%-48.8% Reed 22: 49.1%-49.1% Hanna 21: 51.6%-46.8% Owens 20: 58.3%-39.8% Tonko 19: 52.8%-45.4% Gibson 17: 58.0%-41.2% Lowery 18: 52.1%-46.8% Hayworth 4: 55.3-43.9% McCarthy 1: 51.4-47.6 Bishop 2: 51.2-47.9 King 3: 53.5-45.6 Israel I still suspect that King/Israel will get their districts redone. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 12:42:10 PM Obama McCain numbers: 27: 44.5%-53.9% Hochul 26: 63.5%-35.0% Higgins 25: 58.8%-39.9% Slaughter 24: 56.2%-42.0% Buerkhle 23: 49.5%-48.8% Reed 22: 49.1%-49.1% Hanna 21: 51.6%-46.8% Owens 20: 58.3%-39.8% Tonko 19: 52.8%-45.4% Gibson 17: 58.0%-41.2% Lowery 18: 52.1%-46.8% Hayworth 4: 55.3-43.9% McCarthy 1: 51.4-47.6 Bishop 2: 51.2-47.9 King 3: 53.5-45.6 Israel I still suspect that King/Israel will get their districts redone. Do we have numbers for 11 (Grimm)? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Devils30 on March 06, 2012, 12:49:57 PM from my standpoint i dont mind this...a lot of competitive districts
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Miles on March 06, 2012, 01:15:55 PM I don't like the special master's map because it screws Hochul.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 01:27:12 PM http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/06/1071680/-NY-Special-Master-Map-statistics?via=sidebytagfeed
Full data. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 01:28:49 PM Yes, Turner is flushed. That is the bad news for the Pubs. The good news however on Long Island, is that while King is made more marginal, he should hang on, while it is not clear whether Israel can hang on with his CD having a lot of new territory. His CD is now close to dead even from a partisan baseline standpoint. McCarthy's CD is now but weak lean or tilt Dem, and she may have trouble too. She is no dominatrix, and also has a lot of new territory, although not as much as Israel. All in all, the 4 Long Island CD's give me a warm fuzzy feeling from a partisan standpoint. They're all pretty marginal, and the obnoxious and irritating King (why do Pubs in Congress named King seem to annoy me so?) no longer has a free ride (but should be in better shape than either McCarthy or Israel), while Israel and McCarthy may have a struggle. Israel in particular is going to need to get more moderate in a hurry. Perfecto!
Upstate looks pretty good for the Pubs too. Hinchey is flushed, and Burkle should have a fighting chance to hang on, although I have not drawn anything but the 4 Long Island CD's. The map is not exact, but it is close enough for government work. I drew it in a hurry. If Krazen's numbers are from a published source, my bad I guess to the extent I am off. Hey Lewis, the Meeks CD butted into Nassau County in almost the exact way that I previously drew it. :P ()() () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 01:58:20 PM Ackerman stakes his claim on the 6th. I guess he didn't want Crowley getting there first.
Schumer won all 27 districts. Gillibrand won 26. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 02:06:08 PM I don't like the special master's map because it screws Hochul. It was a Pub CD before, and Hochul just had a temporary lease on it due to special circumstances. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 02:13:36 PM That's kind of exciting. Like California. Are there two AA districts in Brooklyn? I'm certain 8 is still AA majority, and 9 probably is as well. There are three BVAP majority districts, but only one HVAP majority, with two plurality. I'm not sure why the Latinos would be happy with that. I think you missed Rangel's district- there are two HVAP majority (Rangel and Serrano), and two HVAP plurality (Crowley and Velasquez). Also of interest: NY-6 (which is presumably where Ackerman would move to, but also where Rory Lancman probably wants to run) appears to be plurality Asian, but whites have a higher VAP? Thanks, that makes more sense. I was getting up the post and missed the new 13. I wonder if 55% HVAP is considered high enough to elect a candidate of choice? Lol, so he cut into Long Island without screwing McCarthy in the process? Hilarious. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 02:19:06 PM I note he went with exactly what I at first thought inevitable in Brooklyn, before I noticed how unhispanic Velazquez' district was and that it was trending White and how ugly a map it forced to preserve it (the Nadler Hipster Earmuff as well as the Jewish Slashup).
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Miles on March 06, 2012, 02:19:17 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress)
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 02:30:12 PM I note he went with exactly what I at first thought inevitable in Brooklyn, before I noticed how unhispanic Velazquez' district was and that it was trending White and how ugly a map it forced to preserve it (the Nadler Hipster Earmuff as well as the Jewish Slashup). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 02:33:08 PM Oh god, no. Velazquez lives there, kiddo. Not everything revolves around you.
Mind you, I agree with you that it should have been undone. Preserving it is more trouble than it's worth by far. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 06, 2012, 02:38:01 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 02:38:28 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 02:46:32 PM Oh god, no. Velazquez lives there, kiddo. Not everything revolves around you. Mind you, I agree with you that it should have been undone. Preserving it is more trouble than it's worth by far. The reason that happened was because the jewish community voted against Solarz (he won the overall election) and all of a sudden in the next redistricting the seat was gone. look at this map and you'll see what it used to look like https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_03_02_11_11_09_04.png Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 02:48:22 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) You think McCarthy and Israel are safe eh Lewis? OK. See you on the other side. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 03:04:03 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) You think McCarthy and Israel are safe eh Lewis? OK. See you on the other side. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:04:20 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 06, 2012, 03:04:34 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. As one could also figure out, all four seats are marginal should they open, with McCarthy's being the least (but still a problem).
Grimm gets slightly safer I believe. I have to look with a careful eye at upstate, but Gibson and Hayworth get a point or two more Dem for absorbing Hinchey. Gibson gets the worst of the two. Hanna gets a point more GOP. I think Buerkle is dead meat, as the center of the CD switches from Rochester to Syracuse. Reed gets slightly more Dem, but probably not enough to dislodge him absent a wave. Hochul is going to run far away from that CD, unless she likes living life dangerously. All in all, should be -1, -1, but Gibson, Buerkle and Hochul are the real question marks. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 06, 2012, 03:04:55 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? The Carl Kruger seat. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 03:06:49 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:07:25 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) You think McCarthy and Israel are safe eh Lewis? OK. See you on the other side. :) We will see if the Pubs target McCarthy I guess. I think she is baggable with the right well financed candidate myself. She's basically a nebbish. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 03:07:46 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) You think McCarthy and Israel are safe eh Lewis? OK. See you on the other side. :) Nan Hayworth doesn't look safe to me either. Favored, probably, but by no means safe. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2012, 03:09:54 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. The Democrats have about 15 or so long term influential incumbents to yell at Sheldon Silver to cut a deal. The GOP has 1. An important one of course. I don't see any possible way this map stands. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 03:15:41 PM Owens may be saved again. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/19424/20120305/hoffman-considering-another-run-for-congress) All the other incumbents just get safe seats. Bar Hochul, of course. Brian Higgins must be partying tonight (though maybe he needs to beat Hochul in the primary first?) You think McCarthy and Israel are safe eh Lewis? OK. See you on the other side. :) We will see if the Pubs target McCarthy I guess. I think she is baggable with the right well financed candidate myself. She's basically a nebbish. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 03:19:40 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? around 60 rabbis have forbade voting for Fidler because he voted for a marriage redefinition like bill. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:28:34 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. As one could also figure out, all four seats are marginal should they open, with McCarthy's being the least (but still a problem). Grimm gets slightly safer I believe. I have to look with a careful eye at upstate, but Gibson and Hayworth get a point or two more Dem for absorbing Hinchey. Gibson gets the worst of the two. Hanna gets a point more GOP. I think Buerkle is dead meat, as the center of the CD switches from Rochester to Syracuse. Reed gets slightly more Dem, but probably not enough to dislodge him absent a wave. Hochul is going to run far away from that CD, unless she likes living life dangerously. All in all, should be -1, -1, but Gibson, Buerkle and Hochul are the real question marks. Buerkle's CD, old NY-25, now NY-24, didn't change much, either in geography (except to expand), or in partisan coloration. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:32:59 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? around 60 rabbis have forbade voting for Fidler because he voted for a marriage redefinition like bill. Oh, tell me more. What is the partisan makeup of the district? How is it being handicapped? When is the election? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:42:41 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. The Democrats have about 15 or so long term influential incumbents to yell at Sheldon Silver to cut a deal. The GOP has 1. An important one of course. I don't see any possible way this map stands. The Pubs had better demand getting Turner back in exchange for propping up the Long Island Dems, and other assorted and sundry incumbents (except for Hochul) or I will join NYJew in howling myself. :P If I were a Pub in the NY legislature, I would refuse to abandon this map absent something pretty succulent. I quite like this map, the Turner issue aside. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 03:43:49 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? around 60 rabbis have forbade voting for Fidler because he voted for a marriage redefinition like bill. Oh, tell me more. What is the partisan makeup of the district? How is it being handicapped? When is the election? not sure what you mean by handicapped? March 20th (this was decided before the court decision) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 06, 2012, 03:45:20 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. As one could also figure out, all four seats are marginal should they open, with McCarthy's being the least (but still a problem). Grimm gets slightly safer I believe. I have to look with a careful eye at upstate, but Gibson and Hayworth get a point or two more Dem for absorbing Hinchey. Gibson gets the worst of the two. Hanna gets a point more GOP. I think Buerkle is dead meat, as the center of the CD switches from Rochester to Syracuse. Reed gets slightly more Dem, but probably not enough to dislodge him absent a wave. Hochul is going to run far away from that CD, unless she likes living life dangerously. All in all, should be -1, -1, but Gibson, Buerkle and Hochul are the real question marks. Buerkle's CD, old NY-25, now NY-24, didn't change much, either in geography (except to expand), or in partisan coloration. () Um, that picture is really kind of misleading, as it cuts off a nearly 100,000-person strong section of the old NY-25 in Monroe County. The district's center may not have been near Rochester, but it definitely contained more Rochester suburbs than it does now. Plugging in DRA, it appears the part Buerkle lost is about 97,000 people who voted for Obama 51-48, whereas she gains 142K voters who were slightly more Dem, 54-44 Obama. So it moves a point to the left, probably. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:46:28 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? around 60 rabbis have forbade voting for Fidler because he voted for a marriage redefinition like bill. Oh, tell me more. What is the partisan makeup of the district? How is it being handicapped? When is the election? not sure what you mean by handicapped? March 20th (this was decided before the court decision) It means what do the odds makers think as to the likelihood of one guy or the other winning. If you handicap a race, that means you are placing odds on it, just like betting on the horses at the race track. It sounds like a pretty Pub friendly district. Why was a Dem representing it? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 03:47:15 PM Oh god, no. Velazquez lives there, kiddo. Not everything revolves around you. Mind you, I agree with you that it should have been undone. Preserving it is more trouble than it's worth by far. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/09/nyregion/solarz-will-run-in-district-tailored-as-a-hispanic-seat.html Quote The district, which includes only about 20 percent of Mr. Solarz's current base, is 54 percent Hispanic, 18 percent black and about 12 percent Asian. Mr. Solarz's current Brooklyn district, the 13th, is heavily Jewish. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 03:49:31 PM Because it's the Jewish Parts of Brooklyn and while Republicans can get 90% there they can also get 0%.
But won't in this election, of course. Ought to be an R pickup. Buerkle would have needed her district to get a good more R to have anything like even odds of not having a Democrat in there by 2016 til the end of the decade. Staying the same wouldn't have helped her much. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 03:52:37 PM Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election. What special election? around 60 rabbis have forbade voting for Fidler because he voted for a marriage redefinition like bill. Oh, tell me more. What is the partisan makeup of the district? How is it being handicapped? When is the election? not sure what you mean by handicapped? March 20th (this was decided before the court decision) It means what do the odds makers think as to the likelihood of one guy or the other winning. If you handicap a race, that means you are placing odds on it, just like betting on the horses at the race track. It sounds like a pretty Pub friendly district. Why was a Dem representing it? the Republicans haven't put up a candidate in at least 8 years. In the last election a 19 year old Orthodox kid got 27% on less then 1000$ running only on the Conservative line. At first all the political pundits thought Fidler (the democrat) was a shoein but after Orthodox Jews turned marriage redefinition into a issue Fidler has tried to use everysingle dirty trick in the book to win this seat (trying to link a Storobin (a Russian Jew) to Neo Nazi's and now trying to link him to defending pedophiles) Though there are 60 or so rabbis from all different backgrounds who signed different letters forbidding voting for Fidler. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:56:15 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. As one could also figure out, all four seats are marginal should they open, with McCarthy's being the least (but still a problem). Grimm gets slightly safer I believe. I have to look with a careful eye at upstate, but Gibson and Hayworth get a point or two more Dem for absorbing Hinchey. Gibson gets the worst of the two. Hanna gets a point more GOP. I think Buerkle is dead meat, as the center of the CD switches from Rochester to Syracuse. Reed gets slightly more Dem, but probably not enough to dislodge him absent a wave. Hochul is going to run far away from that CD, unless she likes living life dangerously. All in all, should be -1, -1, but Gibson, Buerkle and Hochul are the real question marks. Buerkle's CD, old NY-25, now NY-24, didn't change much, either in geography (except to expand), or in partisan coloration. () Um, that picture is really kind of misleading, as it cuts off a nearly 100,000-person strong section of the old NY-25 in Monroe County. The district's center may not have been near Rochester, but it definitely contained more Rochester suburbs than it does now. Plugging in DRA, it appears the part Buerkle lost is about 97,000 people who voted for Obama 51-48, whereas she gains 142K voters who were slightly more Dem, 54-44 Obama. So it moves a point to the left, probably. Yes, I didn't notice the Monroe salient, so I understand Sam's point now, except that Buerkle lives in Syracuse, not Monroe County, so maybe I still don't understand it. Her CD got 55 basis points (.55%) more Dem to be exact. The Obama share of the two party vote went up from 56.7% to 57.2%. Yes of course she is vulnerable, unless she is in the mensch category. But she is hardly "dead meat" it seems to me. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 03:58:15 PM Because it's the Jewish Parts of Brooklyn and while Republicans can get 90% there they can also get 0%. But won't in this election, of course. Ought to be an R pickup. Buerkle would have needed her district to get a good more R to have anything like even odds of not having a Democrat in there by 2016 til the end of the decade. Staying the same wouldn't have helped her much. Yes, Lewis, that goes without saying. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 06, 2012, 04:00:54 PM Here's the only question worth asking, folks - do the State Senate Republicans get a Senate map where they still have a good opportunity at holding the majority. If so, then these will be the maps, for 2012 at least.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 04:05:04 PM Here's the only question worth asking, folks - do the State Senate Republicans get a Senate map where they still have a good opportunity at holding the majority. If so, then these will be the maps, for 2012 at least. Seems like the right question to ask doesn't it? :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2012, 04:06:33 PM Here's the only question worth asking, folks - do the State Senate Republicans get a Senate map where they still have a good opportunity at holding the majority. If so, then these will be the maps, for 2012 at least. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 06, 2012, 04:26:18 PM Here's the only question worth asking, folks - do the State Senate Republicans get a Senate map where they still have a good opportunity at holding the majority. If so, then these will be the maps, for 2012 at least. As of right now, the special master isn't drawing the State Legislature maps. They are going through a second draft at the legislative level. Governor Cuomo has threatened to veto them unless done in a nonpartisan manner, which these maps clearly are not. But he might let them pass if he gets a constitutional amendment to make redistricting non-partisan in the future as part of the bargain. The gerrymandering in the state plans is superb. If gerrymandering were an art, the State Senate plan would be a classic. It continues the overrepresentation of Upstate and breaks up areas in Westchester and Long Island in order to keep or make Republican seats. The Assembly map is not as blatant, but still a good job of gerrymandering. The first draft of the state maps are here: http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/ Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 06, 2012, 04:45:46 PM Lewis that cat pic in your signature looks exactly like the best cat I ever had when I was a teenager, Tawny. She was part Maine Coon cat, and at once affectionate, playful (she would even fetch), and take walkies with you. I felt very sad when I had to abandon her when I left home for college. I still miss her. :(
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 05:15:56 PM Here's the only question worth asking, folks - do the State Senate Republicans get a Senate map where they still have a good opportunity at holding the majority. If so, then these will be the maps, for 2012 at least. As of right now, the special master isn't drawing the State Legislature maps. They are going through a second draft at the legislative level. Governor Cuomo has threatened to veto them unless done in a nonpartisan manner, which these maps clearly are not. But he might let them pass if he gets a constitutional amendment to make redistricting non-partisan in the future as part of the bargain. The gerrymandering in the state plans is superb. If gerrymandering were an art, the State Senate plan would be a classic. It continues the overrepresentation of Upstate and breaks up areas in Westchester and Long Island in order to keep or make Republican seats. The Assembly map is not as blatant, but still a good job of gerrymandering. The first draft of the state maps are here: http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/ actually the Senate map stunk for example if they wanted to they could easily win a third seat in Brooklyn. but they put some of the most Conservative parts of Brooklyn in either Savino or Sampson. they could have had a chance for a seat in Northern Queens if they would have attached it to the Bronx (they also put some of the more conservitive parts of Forest Hills in a democrat district). and they could have picked up a seat if they wanted to in Rockland County. The map just looks like a good job of gerrymandering because they made weird lines just for the sake of making weird lines (a few of which were counter productive). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 06, 2012, 07:28:10 PM Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map. Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010. The Democrats have about 15 or so long term influential incumbents to yell at Sheldon Silver to cut a deal. The GOP has 1. An important one of course. I don't see any possible way this map stands. The meme has been that Republicans in the Senate are so desperate to pass their own map they will sell out Congressional Republicans. Perhaps, we will see 15 long term influential Democratic Congressional incumbents pressuring the Democrats in the state House to go along with the Republican Senate gerrymander for what is at best a balanced Congressional map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 06, 2012, 10:45:40 PM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 06, 2012, 11:06:30 PM Numbers were crunched on DKE. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/06/1071680/-NY-Special-Master-Map-statistics?via=sidebytagfeed)
Kind of a crappy map for the Democrats. The immediate casualties are split (Hochul and the Hincheymander for the Dems, Turner and Buerkle for the Republicans), but it puts Israel and McCarthy in marginal (albeit Dem-leaning) districts. Yes, it does improve the Dem performance in most of the upstate districts held by Republicans, but it's not enough to hurt any of them except for Gibson and maybe Hayworth. Plus it doesn't help out Owens at all. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 07, 2012, 12:54:26 AM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 07, 2012, 01:27:53 AM The most acceptable map so far. I very much like that they ended both of the partisan gimmicks in Western NY (Earmuffs and Buffalo split) and they restored Chautauqua to the Southern Tier seat like it has been for decades prior (maybe even a century, I now it was in the 1940's, though there were two Southern Tier seats at that point with the region divided east and west).
I like what they did with Hotchul seat. They made Buerkle's seat more of a Syracuse metro seat with all of Cayuga. It would have been even better to have found a way to pull it out of all or part of Wayne and give it either Cortland or Seneca. I tried experimenting with that the other day and it messed up my preffered Southern Tier seat. So I guess I approve. They way they split up the Hincheymander is okay. I tried to make a non gerrymander seat out of the same basic area but the numbers and the boundaries just wouldn't come out right. And contributed to my usuall problem when I draw NY of trying to do too many things at once. Then you get downstate... I agree that the Senate GOP should pass a map containing a Jewish dominated South Brooklyn seat even if it is just to score points in the Senate special. That is the one big fail on this court map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 07, 2012, 01:43:56 AM Numbers were crunched on DKE. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/06/1071680/-NY-Special-Master-Map-statistics?via=sidebytagfeed) Kind of a crappy map for the Democrats. The immediate casualties are split (Hochul and the Hincheymander for the Dems, Turner and Buerkle for the Republicans), but it puts Israel and McCarthy in marginal (albeit Dem-leaning) districts. Yes, it does improve the Dem performance in most of the upstate districts held by Republicans, but it's not enough to hurt any of them except for Gibson and maybe Hayworth. Plus it doesn't help out Owens at all. Agreed, they should be able to get better. Wasting Ithaca's votes by putting it together with the most Republican part of the state is obnoxious. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2012, 02:01:23 AM Numbers were crunched on DKE. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/06/1071680/-NY-Special-Master-Map-statistics?via=sidebytagfeed) Kind of a crappy map for the Democrats. The immediate casualties are split (Hochul and the Hincheymander for the Dems, Turner and Buerkle for the Republicans), but it puts Israel and McCarthy in marginal (albeit Dem-leaning) districts. Yes, it does improve the Dem performance in most of the upstate districts held by Republicans, but it's not enough to hurt any of them except for Gibson and maybe Hayworth. Plus it doesn't help out Owens at all. Buerkle got the best district possible that she could hope for if you keep Onondaga County together, especially considering that the Senate GOP majority map threw her under the bus. There's talk she might run in the North Country district against Owens, anyway. The Conservative Party chairman likes her and would back her. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 07, 2012, 03:35:30 AM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. toss the super majority Jewish part of Far Rockway into district 4 would do a lot more for the black majority Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 07, 2012, 05:50:01 AM Lewis that cat pic in your signature looks exactly like the best cat I ever had when I was a teenager, Tawny. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 07, 2012, 11:45:51 AM That Senate map is hideous. Look at the butchering of Ithaca. Hasn't Cuomo already said he's vetoing it no matter what?
Are any of the ex-incumbents showing any interest in running? Hall would certainly have a pretty good chance against Hayworth in that district considering how he did in 2010 and so would Murphy against Gibson. BTW I don't see how the new NY-4 could be vulnerable, it's true that McCarthy is an idiot but the issue she's an idiot about isn't exactly toxic in Long Island, the GOP isn't going to win a 55% Obama district there by running on gun rights. Israel should be fine too if he could still win by double digits in 2010, just shifting his seat a few points to the right isn't going to do him in. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 07, 2012, 06:03:41 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County
LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 07, 2012, 06:12:16 PM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. toss the super majority Jewish part of Far Rockway into district 4 would do a lot more for the black majority No, you can't get to 50% black VAP for NY-05 without it sneaking into Nassau County. I tried. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 07, 2012, 06:13:23 PM That Senate map is hideous. Look at the butchering of Ithaca. Hasn't Cuomo already said he's vetoing it no matter what? Are any of the ex-incumbents showing any interest in running? Hall would certainly have a pretty good chance against Hayworth in that district considering how he did in 2010 and so would Murphy against Gibson. BTW I don't see how the new NY-4 could be vulnerable, it's true that McCarthy is an idiot but the issue she's an idiot about isn't exactly toxic in Long Island, the GOP isn't going to win a 55% Obama district there by running on gun rights. Israel should be fine too if he could still win by double digits in 2010, just shifting his seat a few points to the right isn't going to do him in. Neither had serious opponents in 2010. They just weren't targeted. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 07, 2012, 06:17:08 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 07, 2012, 06:26:02 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2012, 07:04:59 PM The Republican Assembly Minority had no objection to the court's proposed redistricting plan. The inept Democratic Senate Minority wrote a letter to the judge stating they have no comment, as did the Democratic Assembly Majority. The court warned the Assembly Majority that failure to object now might constitute a waiver to the three-judge panel ultimately responsible for redistricting.
The Republican Senate Majority objected to the orientation of the Long Island districts, carving up Turner's district, carving up the Jewish and Russian population of Southern Brooklyn, taking the northern counties away from Gibson's NY-19 and some minor technical changes to certain CD boundaries. The Rose Intervenors complained that they weren't given enough time to respond and objected to some aspects of CDs 3, 4, 17, 21, 25, and 26. The Hispanic groups generally approved of the plan but objected to certain Brooklyn neighborhoods being moved into Maloney's district. Other intervenors had largely minor technical comments. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 07, 2012, 07:21:03 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 07, 2012, 07:43:42 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. Probably not NY-04, but rather NY-27 (Hochul). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 07, 2012, 09:23:16 PM Republicans could pick up 4 districts if we see 2010 happen again and they line up great challengers and we don't count them losing Turner, and Dems could pick up multiple districts if we see 2006 happen again and we line up great challengers and we don't count our losing Hinchey and Hochul. The map makes many districts more competitive and given that the Republican Senate translates into a bench in a lot of D-held districts, Skelos would boast. However, given how miserably NY legislators seem to do when they run for Congress, he might be cautious. I'm not sure I see Caesar Trunzo unseating Steve Israel in 2012...
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 07, 2012, 10:07:38 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. We are not happy with it, she said. They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca. She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on March 07, 2012, 10:18:22 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 07, 2012, 10:32:54 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent. The product of serving in a gerry in the 2000's is that she is less capable of performing so well in a not gerry'd seat. Think of Lungren's diminishing returns as an extreme example of a candidate who is less and less effective at wining voters. It does happen as you can see. And putting a candidate in a safe seat for 10 years and letting her adapt, then taking it form her, is another way of producing such a transformation of candidate quality. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on March 07, 2012, 10:43:35 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent. The product of serving in a gerry in the 2000's is that she is less capable of performing so well in a not gerry'd seat. Think of Lungren's diminishing returns as an extreme example of a candidate who is less and less effective at wining voters. It does happen as you can see. And putting a candidate in a safe seat for 10 years and letting her adapt, then taking it form her, is another way of producing such a transformation of candidate quality. I don't know if Lungren is a good example. Maybe Dick Lehman who represented a district that connected the inner city areas from Stockton and Fresno via the Sierras in the 80s would be a better example. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 07, 2012, 11:03:40 PM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? not necessarily true. She represented a district entirely within Monroe county in the 1990s. Even in 1994, she still got a solid 56 percent. The product of serving in a gerry in the 2000's is that she is less capable of performing so well in a not gerry'd seat. Think of Lungren's diminishing returns as an extreme example of a candidate who is less and less effective at wining voters. It does happen as you can see. And putting a candidate in a safe seat for 10 years and letting her adapt, then taking it form her, is another way of producing such a transformation of candidate quality. I don't know if Lungren is a good example. Maybe Dick Lehman who represented a district that connected the inner city areas from Stockton and Fresno via the Sierras in the 80s would be a better example. People are more apt to know a current congressman then someone from the 1980's. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 07, 2012, 11:06:50 PM Slaughter's seat in that map is around 59% Obama. How many 59% Obama seats are held by Republicans? The only one I can think of is that one in Illinois that was barely held in 2010 against a horrible twice loser candidate and is in Illinois so Obama's margin is obviously inflated.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2012, 11:25:18 PM Slaughter's seat in that map is around 59% Obama. How many 59% Obama seats are held by Republicans? The only one I can think of is that one in Illinois that was barely held in 2010 against a horrible twice loser candidate and is in Illinois so Obama's margin is obviously inflated. Slaughter is the one who doesn't like her new district for whatever reason. Perhaps she's worried about representing a district that's over 60% new territory. That's a recipe to get primaried down the road. (There's going to be virtually no time in between the time these maps are adopted and the petition period this cycle.) And she's going from a very safe district to one that is a little more marginal, albeit safe most cycles. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 07, 2012, 11:29:01 PM Slaughter's seat in that map is around 59% Obama. How many 59% Obama seats are held by Republicans? The only one I can think of is that one in Illinois that was barely held in 2010 against a horrible twice loser candidate and is in Illinois so Obama's margin is obviously inflated. Gerlach and Reichert hold comparable districts. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 07, 2012, 11:33:15 PM Those are around 56-57% Obama.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on March 08, 2012, 12:09:53 AM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage. Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost. Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage. NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd). King is in more danger than Israel with the current map. NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 08, 2012, 12:17:04 AM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage. Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost. Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage. NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd). King is in more danger than Israel with the current map. NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate Um, the GOP holds all nine state Senate seats in suburban Long Island. The new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are more Republican than suburban Long Island as a whole. Tell us again how a Republican can't win in those districts? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 08, 2012, 12:19:48 AM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage. Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost. Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage. NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd). King is in more danger than Israel with the current map. NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate Considering the margin, any such infighting was likely a critical factor. Between Israel's skill as a candidate and the amount of changes made, they did enough to put it beyond reach. Four was within reach with the right candidate in the right year because of McCarthy. I don't really concern myself with King's political future. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on March 08, 2012, 01:33:28 AM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage. Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost. Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage. NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd). King is in more danger than Israel with the current map. NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate Um, the GOP holds all nine state Senate seats in suburban Long Island. The new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are more Republican than suburban Long Island as a whole. Tell us again how a Republican can't win in those districts? First off State Senate Seats and Congressional districts have a very different dynamic, the GOP is more electable on the local level than nationally. The fact the GOP drew all of those districts last time does help quite a bit. None of those districts are strongly GOP, but drawn in ways with the state dynamics it can stay GOP leaning for the most part. Not to mention the biggie of Incumbency, most of the Senators on LI have been in those seats for much of my lifetime (and I'm in my late 20's) Anyway back to the Congressional races, if they can't knock off Bishop in the heavily GOP year of 2010 with someone who outspent him by $1.5 million, I don't see them being able to knock him off. Now if Bishop decides to retire it will be competitive, (considering he is 61 I don't see that happening soon), but outside of that its going to be very difficult for the GOP to peal it off. Israel is just way too entrenched (even with getting a bunch of new territory) for the GOP to knock him off under any circumstances. His name was thrown around for Senate when Clinton's seat opened up, but unless that happens again he is going nowhere (he is 53). Israel is the chair of the DCCC. Not to mention the GOP has no bench at all in the district. The GOP is very strong in the Town of Oyster Bay, but virtually all of it is in the southern half of the down (King's portion), and have absolutely nothing in the Town of Huntington and North Hempstead. I never said they wouldn't hold the new 2nd (current 3rd, King's district) hell I live here. The GOP does have a solid bench in the district, so even if he retires I think the GOP should be in good shape of holding it (unless it happens in a heavy Dem year). The Dems have a decent based (most of which is in Babylon), but with Bellone just winning the Suffolk Co Exec job that takes the strongest one out of the mix. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on March 08, 2012, 01:44:37 AM http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now. I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore. Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.” She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing. Why is she saying this publically? Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best. How about that? Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map. Dean Skelos is calling their bluff. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week. Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan. Which districts? If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up. The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage. Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost. Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage. NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd). King is in more danger than Israel with the current map. NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate Considering the margin, any such infighting was likely a critical factor. Between Israel's skill as a candidate and the amount of changes made, they did enough to put it beyond reach. Four was within reach with the right candidate in the right year because of McCarthy. I don't really concern myself with King's political future. I agree with you on Israel. The incumbent protection map (which is what the last redistricting basically was) helped both Israel and King, but may have even had more impact on King. As far as the 4th, it never really was within reach. The district was always Democratic enough it would have been hard for the GOP to do anything there. The GOP bench there was pretty much wiped out with the collapse of the Nassau GOP machine in the late 90's/ early 2000's. The machine is still very strong in the Town of Hempstead, but Murray (The Town Supervisor) lives in Levittown (King). Not to mention the recent demographic changes. Basically the only possibility the GOP could have had is if 2002 was a stronger GOP year and the party didn't collapse 10-12 years ago and even that would have been a huge stretch. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 08, 2012, 03:11:03 AM The 4th even in the new form strikes me as a fool's gold type of seat, it's obviously not a seat where there is a 0% or even 1% chance of ever electing a Republican, but drawing up those circumstances is really difficult and kind of contrived. Kind of like the Republicans winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts, just because it's obviously possible for a charismatic hyped up candidate to win a special election during a wave of backlash against a terrible opponent running a terrible campaign there doesn't mean you can expect it to happen. It certainly takes more than the incumbent being kind of stupid, especially when she's stupid about an issue that most people in the district agree with her on, even if it's not high on their priority list, McCarthy may not be an effective gun control advocate but the Republicans aren't going to win a Long Island seat on a gun rights campaign. Slaughter even moreso.
Besides in either case, who is going to run against beat either one? Obviously someone quite a few notches above "generic Republican" would be needed to make the race even on the radar. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 08, 2012, 06:24:49 AM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. toss the super majority Jewish part of Far Rockway into district 4 would do a lot more for the black majority No, you can't get to 50% black VAP for NY-05 without it sneaking into Nassau County. I tried. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 08, 2012, 07:12:10 AM Slaughter is 82 years old. Not sure I understand the Republican bloodlust against her. She will retire soon enough.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 08, 2012, 07:25:12 AM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. toss the super majority Jewish part of Far Rockway into district 4 would do a lot more for the black majority No, you can't get to 50% black VAP for NY-05 without it sneaking into Nassau County. I tried. The alternative to Inwood is to cross into Brooklyn as I did on my map. Even then I split the Rockaways to get the needed 50%. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 08, 2012, 07:58:14 AM any one have a non antisemitic reason why the Jewish Community in Far Rockway is not united with the community in the 5 Towns (in district 4). But Inwood is put in to district 5. Inwood was put in NY-05 for VRA reasons, being cautious. Jews are not part of the VRA game. Jews are white. toss the super majority Jewish part of Far Rockway into district 4 would do a lot more for the black majority No, you can't get to 50% black VAP for NY-05 without it sneaking into Nassau County. I tried. The alternative to Inwood is to cross into Brooklyn as I did on my map. Even then I split the Rockaways to get the needed 50%. Isn't the whole official purpose of this map to unite communities of interest. If Inwood is united with Queens there's zero excuse for not uniting Far Rockway with the 5 Towns. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 08, 2012, 08:06:28 AM Slaughter is 82 years old. Not sure I understand the Republican bloodlust against her. She will retire soon enough. It has to do with her extreme proabortion views. That said, Slaughter is interesting mostly because her comments regarding Ithaca are very funny! Skelos should be pushing Torie's solution to earmuff into Syracuse. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM Please, people. 50% on DRA is not 50%. That's 53%. Get.that.into.your.heads.
What you probably cannot do is get to actual 50% without crossing into Nassau while also uniting Rockaway, drawing a clear northern line rather than cherrypicking precincts down to the very last Black resident, and giving Woodhaven to Velazquez. As for Inwood, it was probably done because he felt it a better fit or something. And/or enabled cleaner lines for Israel in Queens and for the McCarthy/Israel line. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 08, 2012, 08:49:40 AM Please, people. 50% on DRA is not 50%. That's 53%. Get.that.into.your.heads. What you probably cannot do is get to actual 50% without crossing into Nassau while also uniting Rockaway, drawing a clear northern line rather than cherrypicking precincts down to the very last Black resident, and giving Woodhaven to Velazquez. As for Inwood, it was probably done because he felt it a better fit or something. And/or enabled cleaner lines for Israel in Queens and for the McCarthy/Israel line. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on March 08, 2012, 03:47:44 PM Slaughter is 82 years old. Not sure I understand the Republican bloodlust against her. She will retire soon enough. It has to do with her extreme proabortion views. most democrats, including most blue dogs, support abortion rights. What's the big deal? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 08, 2012, 03:52:00 PM Slaughter is 82 years old. Not sure I understand the Republican bloodlust against her. She will retire soon enough. It has to do with her extreme proabortion views. most democrats, including most blue dogs, support abortion rights. What's the big deal? Statements like this. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-louise-slaughter-gop-freshmen-came-washington-kill-women And legislation like this. http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2502&Itemid=100065 Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 08, 2012, 03:57:31 PM Well there is chatter that a Constitutional deal (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Whispers-of-a-backroom-deal-3390380.php) is in the works, that will effectively make it impossible for there to be a Dem gerrymander in NY ever. If one party controls both houses, it takes a two thirds majority to pass a map. Otherwise it goes to a commission. If power is split, then it takes just a simple majority, and bi-partisan gerrymanders can go on and on - forever and ever, which is just the way NY politicians like it. They want to represent sinecure like seats, not competitive ones. So the specter of the GOP losing the Senate at the wrong time, and being shut out of the state the way the Pubs are in Mass, has had a stake put in its heart. That Pub nightmare will no longer interfere with their sleeping restfully at night.
The Dems are acting very curiously all in all, to say the least. If I were a Dem in NY, I would be furious. How can they stand to be represented by this passel of wall-to-wall hacks? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 08, 2012, 04:03:23 PM This would be easy to circumvent. If Dems ever come to power in the NYS Senate, a group of them is delegated to form a Working Families faction, meaning that no party technically has a majority. At that point, a map is passed w/ a simple majority, after which the 2/3 Dem majority in both chambers is hardwired into the system. What could be simpler?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 08, 2012, 10:33:00 PM Slaughter is 82 years old. Not sure I understand the Republican bloodlust against her. She will retire soon enough. Yeah I don't get it. She's an uninteresting backbencher too. But hey if Republican donors want to sink about a million against her instead of to vulnerable Republicans or Mitt Romney's SuperPACs, go ahead. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on March 09, 2012, 12:24:57 PM What I hoped to find: Solid information about the new New York map and what to expect this fall
A separate thread for discussion on Jewish voting in NY (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150498.0) has been created. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 09, 2012, 07:36:41 PM Now Nancy Pelosi chimes in, whining (http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/source-pelosi-gets-involved-in-ny-redistricting/) for a bi-partisan gerrymander. She is concerned about Hochul of course, but also guess who - Louise Slaughter! Bring back the ear muffs! She is not too happy about Lowey's CD either. She seems sexist by worrying just about the females, rather than the guys on Long Island, but I digress.
The Pubs should make the Dems pay a high price to get what they want. We shall see just how good the Pubs are as negotiators. When the Dems are doing this in public, you know they seem willing to open their wallets. The Pubs should empty them - or tell the Dems to keep their money. I guess we will find out soon just how hackish the Pubs in NY are. My suggestion is to let NYJew draw the Pub CD in Brooklyn and Queens. That way everybody will be happy. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: edtorres04 on March 10, 2012, 08:32:17 AM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 10, 2012, 10:43:53 AM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 10, 2012, 10:47:09 AM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Would you like their heads on a platter? :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 10, 2012, 10:59:32 AM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Would you like their heads on a platter? :) Hey it is not that bad. The bottom line is that the Dems take the hit for both CD's that are gone, rather than each party taking one loss (well maybe .6 for the Pubs and 1.4 for the Dems since the Buerkle is but lean Dem since she is the incumbent), and you count the fluke Hochul seat as Pub anyway, with Hochul just a bench warmer. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 10, 2012, 04:05:10 PM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Would you like their heads on a platter? :) Hey it is not that bad. The bottom line is that the Dems take the hit for both CD's that are gone, rather than each party taking one loss (well maybe .6 for the Pubs and 1.4 for the Dems since the Buerkle is but lean Dem since she is the incumbent), and you count the fluke Hochul seat as Pub anyway, with Hochul just a bench warmer. Any deal where the Dems take the hit for both seats is a rotten one and I wouldn't accept it. Both parties losing one is the only fair way to do it. If I'm negotiating for the Dems, I offer to redraw LI to shore up Israel and King, and honestly that might be all I'd do. Maybe swap Ithaca for Rochester suburbs to boost Slaughter and Reed as well. Hochul I am willing to write off, as long as Buerkle's seat gets no redder than it is right now. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 10, 2012, 05:14:57 PM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Would you like their heads on a platter? :) Hey it is not that bad. The bottom line is that the Dems take the hit for both CD's that are gone, rather than each party taking one loss (well maybe .6 for the Pubs and 1.4 for the Dems since the Buerkle is but lean Dem since she is the incumbent), and you count the fluke Hochul seat as Pub anyway, with Hochul just a bench warmer. Any deal where the Dems take the hit for both seats is a rotten one and I wouldn't accept it. Both parties losing one is the only fair way to do it. If I'm negotiating for the Dems, I offer to redraw LI to shore up Israel and King, and honestly that might be all I'd do. Maybe swap Ithaca for Rochester suburbs to boost Slaughter and Reed as well. Hochul I am willing to write off, as long as Buerkle's seat gets no redder than it is right now. That dog won't hunt at all. It isn't Christmas, with Santa giving presents just to Dems. So if that is the Dem position (which is such a non starter that I doubt that it is if they are serious about dealing), we just go with the court map with which the Pubs are quite happy about on balance, and the Dems less happy. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 10, 2012, 06:57:44 PM Torie, every time you take the field for the Republicans, the Dems collapse and sign up for some terrible bargain that gives them 10% of the loaf.
Unhappiness with the court map seems to be focused on the idiosyncratic case of Slaughter losing a safe district and Pelosi making a cameo on her behalf, and some new risk to entrenched Dems on LI. Does anyone really believe the Pubbies are happy with Turner getting vaporized, Buerkle getting no support and on her way out, and Gibson unexpectedly being endangered? This map gives both parties more opportunity for growth, but make no mistake, it's not a win for the Pubbies. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 10, 2012, 07:06:22 PM Well there is chatter that a Constitutional deal (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Whispers-of-a-backroom-deal-3390380.php) is in the works, that will effectively make it impossible for there to be a Dem gerrymander in NY ever. If one party controls both houses, it takes a two thirds majority to pass a map. Otherwise it goes to a commission. If power is split, then it takes just a simple majority, and bi-partisan gerrymanders can go on and on - forever and ever, which is just the way NY politicians like it. They want to represent sinecure like seats, not competitive ones. So the specter of the GOP losing the Senate at the wrong time, and being shut out of the state the way the Pubs are in Mass, has had a stake put in its heart. That Pub nightmare will no longer interfere with their sleeping restfully at night. The Dems are acting very curiously all in all, to say the least. If I were a Dem in NY, I would be furious. How can they stand to be represented by this passel of wall-to-wall hacks? Oh yes indeed, regardless of the situation, the worst possible result is a plan that actually benefits the people the most, instead of the honerable and distinguished gentlemen of the chamber in Albany. They are after all far more important and should take priority. Fairness only aids the little people, which are as stated, little. As result their consider shall be proportional to their relevance. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 10, 2012, 07:25:39 PM Torie, if I were the pubs, I would demand a new set of Rochester to Syracuse earmuffs to shore up Burkle and Slaughter. Indeed. And the Pubs Gibbs and Nan are propped up, along with Lowey (D), and three of the marginal Long Island seats are made less marginal (2 Dems and 1 Pub King), NY-01 is left alone (marginal - Bishop D), and the Pubs get the Brooklyn-Queens CD back for Turner, made more Pub. The rest of upstate is left alone. That is the deal that I would demand. Otherwise the court map stays - take it or leave it. Would you like their heads on a platter? :) Hey it is not that bad. The bottom line is that the Dems take the hit for both CD's that are gone, rather than each party taking one loss (well maybe .6 for the Pubs and 1.4 for the Dems since the Buerkle is but lean Dem since she is the incumbent), and you count the fluke Hochul seat as Pub anyway, with Hochul just a bench warmer. Any deal where the Dems take the hit for both seats is a rotten one and I wouldn't accept it. Both parties losing one is the only fair way to do it. If I'm negotiating for the Dems, I offer to redraw LI to shore up Israel and King, and honestly that might be all I'd do. Maybe swap Ithaca for Rochester suburbs to boost Slaughter and Reed as well. Hochul I am willing to write off, as long as Buerkle's seat gets no redder than it is right now. That dog won't hunt at all. It isn't Christmas, with Santa giving presents just to Dems. So if that is the Dem position (which is such a non starter that I doubt that it is if they are serious about dealing), we just go with the court map with which the Pubs are quite happy about on balance, and the Dems less happy. Well in that case I will just take the court map, and insist that the court draws the State Senate map, too. With *equal population*, none of this systematic 10-percent deviance, which I'm sure the Republicans will be just thrilled about. Then, if I'm feeling like playing hardball, raise the possibility of mid-decade redistricting after the inevitable happens. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 10, 2012, 07:27:52 PM Torie, every time you take the field for the Republicans, the Dems collapse and sign up for some terrible bargain that gives them 10% of the loaf. Unhappiness with the court map seems to be focused on the idiosyncratic case of Slaughter losing a safe district and Pelosi making a cameo on her behalf, and some new risk to entrenched Dems on LI. Does anyone really believe the Pubbies are happy with Turner getting vaporized, Buerkle getting no support and on her way out, and Gibson unexpectedly being endangered? This map gives both parties more opportunity for growth, but make no mistake, it's not a win for the Pubbies. I have a bias for competitive seats I admit. Other than Turner, I like the map because Buerkle faired unexpectedly well, and I like the way Long Island turned out. I really don't think King is in danger, and I think Israel and McCarthy might be. I don't think any of the other Pubs are in real danger, except in a bad election year, and Hochul is out. I think Slaughter might be vulnerable as well, but the Pubs shouldn't spend too much money on it, because to hold the seat will be a chore absent some quite talented Pub representing it, and hey, I don't want to move to Rochester! :P Anyway, if you two guys are representing the Dems, and I the Pubs, the negotiation would be very short, before we just wrap it up, and shake hands, and go have a beer. The court map will be the map. As to the interim post above, if the Dems were really interested in the court drawing the legislative seats (no the court won't just draw the Senate seats, while the Pubs vote for the assembly Dem gerrymander), then the parties would not have already essentially cut a deal on that, with both now negotiating against Cuomo. The parties seem to view the Congressional seats, and legislative seats, as on two separate tracks. The Dems in short, are not holding the Senate map up as hostage for getting something they like better in a Congressional map. I understand how in the abstract that is a very good plan, but the problem is that it inconveniences too many Dem incumbents short term, and we can't have that. As I said, NY politicians of both parties tend to be self interested hacks, more than is normal for the political species. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 10, 2012, 09:11:23 PM I have a bias for competitive seats I admit. Other than Turner, I like the map because Buerkle faired unexpectedly well, and I like the way Long Island turned out. I really don't think King is in danger, and I think Israel and McCarthy might be. I don't think any of the other Pubs are in real danger, except in a bad election year, and Hochul is out. I think Slaughter might be vulnerable as well, but the Pubs shouldn't spend too much money on it, because to hold the seat will be a chore absent some quite talented Pub representing it, and hey, I don't want to move to Rochester! :P Anyway, if you two guys are representing the Dems, and I the Pubs, the negotiation would be very short, before we just wrap it up, and shake hands, and go have a beer. The court map will be the map. As to the interim post above, if the Dems were really interested in the court drawing the legislative seats (no the court won't just draw the Senate seats, while the Pubs vote for the assembly Dem gerrymander), then the parties would not have already essentially cut a deal on that, with both now negotiating against Cuomo. The parties seem to view the Congressional seats, and legislative seats, as on two separate tracks. The Dems in short, are not holding the Senate map up as hostage for getting something they like better in a Congressional map. I understand how in the abstract that is a very good plan, but the problem is that it inconveniences too many Dem incumbents short term, and we can't have that. As I said, NY politicians of both parties tend to be self interested hacks, more than is normal for the political species. Of course the Assembly map would have to be court-drawn as well, NY politicians being self-interested hacks means it probably won't happen even if it's the right thing to do. The court map is full of competitive seats, and that's definitely why the both of us are broadly okay with it. It was more favorable to the Republicans than I'd prefer, sure, but the only really egregious thing is the placement of Ithaca. (I'd prefer Niagara Falls in Hochul's district, even if it's a lost cause anyway, and more of Saratoga in Owens, but those are small potatoes). I also suspect you're a bit too optimistic about McCarthy (she's not in any real danger) and Gibson (he is). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 10, 2012, 09:18:04 PM Look at it this way - a reasonably competent incumbent, particularly in NY, garners you about a 3% to 5% tailwind over the partisan PVI baseline. Israel is reasonably competent, but too liberal, and in particular too high profile out front partisan, for his new CD. McCarthy I don't consider reasonably competent. Is Gibson reasonably competent? And Slaughter isn't reasonably competent at all.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 10, 2012, 10:17:29 PM Look at it this way - a reasonably competent incumbent, particularly in NY, garners you about a 3% to 5% tailwind over the partisan PVI baseline. Israel is reasonably competent, but too liberal, and in particular too high profile out front partisan, for his new CD. McCarthy I don't consider reasonably competent. Is Gibson reasonably competent? And Slaughter isn't reasonably competent at all. Gibson was basically a wave wash in who has almost no crossover appeal. He would very likely lose in the new district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on March 10, 2012, 10:19:34 PM Look at it this way - a reasonably competent incumbent, particularly in NY, garners you about a 3% to 5% tailwind over the partisan PVI baseline. Israel is reasonably competent, but too liberal, and in particular too high profile out front partisan, for his new CD. McCarthy I don't consider reasonably competent. Is Gibson reasonably competent? And Slaughter isn't reasonably competent at all. I don't see Israel or McCarthy in much danger under the new lines. The GOP has no bench whatsoever in either district. The demographics in McCarthy's district are only going to become even more favorable for her as western Nassau has become much more diverse and will continue to do so. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 10, 2012, 10:31:11 PM Torie, every time you take the field for the Republicans, the Dems collapse and sign up for some terrible bargain that gives them 10% of the loaf. Unhappiness with the court map seems to be focused on the idiosyncratic case of Slaughter losing a safe district and Pelosi making a cameo on her behalf, and some new risk to entrenched Dems on LI. Does anyone really believe the Pubbies are happy with Turner getting vaporized, Buerkle getting no support and on her way out, and Gibson unexpectedly being endangered? This map gives both parties more opportunity for growth, but make no mistake, it's not a win for the Pubbies. The GOP held the Syracuse district for a long time before Maffei. Kind of like Turner's district in that regard. In any case, the GOP got relatively hosed in 2002, losing 2 upstate seats (technically, Lafalce was eliminated but they got Jack Quinn's district 2 years later. This time around the Democrats are effectively losing 2 seats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 11, 2012, 09:36:37 AM Gibson was basically a wave wash in who has almost no crossover appeal. He would very likely lose in the new district. Really? My sense has always been that he's relatively moderate. I think that he's vulnerable, but he has an impressive background. The Democrats would need a strong candidate to beat him, even in the proposed district. I really wonder how much opportunity he's had to carve out a defined persona. He was elected in 2010 because it was a great Republican year and if he's reelected in 2012 it will be because it's not a great Dem year, IMO. Is his voting record markedly different from that of, say, Spencer Bachus or John Fleming on anything significant? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on March 11, 2012, 08:20:22 PM Is his voting record markedly different from that of, say, Spencer Bachus or John Fleming on anything significant? He's a member of the Main Street Partnership... I also vaguely remember he and Rep. Hanna not siding with most Republicans on a couple of votes, though I can't recall which. He's definitely not a Buerkle. (And his MoV in 2010 was nearly 10%.) correct, Gibson is a good fit for this district. Remember, this is a district who used to elect wingnut Gerald B.H. Solomon every two years. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 11, 2012, 08:28:28 PM Is his voting record markedly different from that of, say, Spencer Bachus or John Fleming on anything significant? He's a member of the Main Street Partnership... I also vaguely remember he and Rep. Hanna not siding with most Republicans on a couple of votes, though I can't recall which. He's definitely not a Buerkle. (And his MoV in 2010 was nearly 10%.) correct, Gibson is a good fit for this district. Remember, this is a district who used to elect wingnut Gerald B.H. Solomon every two years. That was the district--it's gotten more Democratic with the remap. Also, the national party has gone way to the right and exerts much more discipline than in the past on its foot soldiers. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 09:16:16 PM Is his voting record markedly different from that of, say, Spencer Bachus or John Fleming on anything significant? He's a member of the Main Street Partnership... I also vaguely remember he and Rep. Hanna not siding with most Republicans on a couple of votes, though I can't recall which. He's definitely not a Buerkle. (And his MoV in 2010 was nearly 10%.) correct, Gibson is a good fit for this district. Remember, this is a district who used to elect wingnut Gerald B.H. Solomon every two years. That was the district--it's gotten more Democratic with the remap. Also, the national party has gone way to the right and exerts much more discipline than in the past on its foot soldiers. NY-19 still has a GOP PVI, around GOP +1%. I was working on putting up a complete matrix chart, when I got distracted by yet another gay marriage fire fight, which was and is quite a barn burner (you might want to check it out, and assess how well I (and others) performed for "the cause"). And now it's Miller Time. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 11, 2012, 11:18:36 PM We seem to be missing the point. The smart members of the state GOP (i.e. the State Senate and its Congressmen) are looking towards two things only:
1) shoring up incumbents insofar as they can be shored up (and they will compare to prior congressional incumbents and State Senate incumbents in Long Island and upstate NY in that regard, which is the correct, though as you can imagine, risky, measure, but considering they've had great success in the past 25 years amidst really bad, and continually worsening returns upballot, it's the correct model). 2) getting as many potentially competitive seats as possible using the above congressional incumbent/State Senate incumbent measure that are either competitive now or certainly could be under circumstances (i.e. retirement, wave). Let's break this down... Given Republican exploits in the past decade, that means a CD of D+3 PVI or less, I suspect, though it might be extended to D+5 in upstate, but to be cautious, let's say the former. In the 2000 map, the number of those seats is 10 out of 29, of which Republicans hold 9. If we extend it to D+5, we add 3 more (Higgins, Turner and Israel), of which Republicans now hold 1. I would need to get exact numbers to calculate PVI for the proposed court map, but it is almost certain that NY-1 through NY-3 are D+3 PVI or less (NY-1 and NY-2 will both be about R+1, NY-3 about D+0 or D+1), and it is likely that NY-4 is D+3, maybe D+4, but my suspicion is the former. Sure King is a good bit less safe, and could be in trouble if a wave hit, but let's remember he did get 56% in 2006 and 64% in 2008. Obviously, it becomes a greater problem if he retires, but that's the tradeoff. The State GOP will likely view all four as potentially competitive under the above standard. NY-9 is dead. NY-11 remains about R+4, maybe R+5. NY-17 (Lowey) is probably pushed down to D+6, but it might be D+5. The State GOP may view this as competitive is vacant, but let's say for theoretical purposes they don't. I'm almost certain that NY-18 (Hayworth) has a GOP PVI (probably R+1), but NY-19 (Gibson) is probably right at even, not going to make guesses there. At any rate, these are two more competitive CDs. NY-20 (Tonko) should stay at D+6. NY-21 (Owens) did not get any help, and will be at R+1, I'm almost certain. That's another four competitive seats for the NY GOP. Continuing further, Hanna really gets favorable treatment in NY-22 - his CD is probably R+3 now or R+4. To benefit Hanna, Reed in NY-23 is probably now about R+3 also. Buerkle in NY-24 looks roughly the same as before, but may lose a point to D+4. The NY GOP is likely to consider that potentially competitive, given Republican strength in years past - I tend to agree with those who say that this view is probably right, just not with Buerkle. Slaughter is complaining in NY-25 because she's going to get a D+6 or D+7 district. I don't see how this one is going to be viewed as competitive by the NY GOP, but obviously she's concerned about something (whether real or imagined). NY-26 (Higgins) becomes safe, and NY-27 (Hochul) is probably about R+8 or so in an area that typically acts more Republican than that downballot. Good luck to her. So, four more seats for the state GOP to view as potentially competitive. So, we have 12 seats that the state GOP is going to view as potentially competitive under possibly my measure (D+3) vs. 10 seats in the 2000 map (D+3). Even if I'm wrong about NY-4 and NY-24, such that they're outside the D+3 measure, that's still 10 vs. 10. Going with the broader measure of D+5, it is certainly 12 vs. 13, which again means that the GOP didn't really lose anything. Going further than that, the 2000 map had 3 D+6 seats, whereas this map also has three seats that will probably be such. Given this evaluation, why would the smart people in the GOP ever voice any opposition to what the Court is doing, other than to ask for a little help for Gibson and King's districts? Sure, they'd like to play games to constitute a Turner/NY Jew district, but they don't hold all the cards, obviously... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 11:38:34 PM Yes, the Pubs have had good times lately. We shall see if it holds, but 2012 particularly in NY, looks rather promising absent some surprise, in a certain Pub primary, but I digress. :P Anyway, here is the start of the matrix chart, which I meant to, but didn't, finish tonight. Most of the seats don't move much from what they were before, except for the ones chatted about a lot here. Lowey however is indeed possibly within range, if the Jews get angry enough at Obama maybe. Her CD moved quite a bit.
Anyway, I thought the numbers for the Pubs in Long Island were really just about as good as they could get really. I would have drained King by just about as much in any Pub gerrymander I might draw. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 10:18:02 AM The hacks were busy this weekend, and apparently (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/03/redistricting-bill-coming-out-pension-progress-made) have reached agreement on legislative lines, and won't reach an agreement on Congressional lines, as was anticipated. So it looks like the court map will be the map. I suspect the appellate panel will make no changes at all to the lines. Why would they?
Quote There still is no deal on the reworking of the congressional lines and it looks more likely the decision, including which two House seats from New York are eliminated, will rest with a panel of federal judges, the sources said. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 12:45:58 PM Here is the complete matrix chart which illustrates why one party is probably considerably happier with the court map than the other party. In a Pub tsunami, the delegation would be 15 (R) - 12 (D). Of course, with the reverse, it would be 1 (R) - 26 (D). Notice how in general things get more competitive, with the more extreme partisan colors moving towards something less so in many instances (the Buffalo seat being the spectacular exception as the earmuffs were undone). That is what happens when you unravel a prior bi-partisan gerrymander. New York should be a fun place for the next decade. :)
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Miles on March 12, 2012, 12:58:41 PM A Republican delegation from NY? Thats a thought. I think Slaughter would still be safe in a 59% Obama district though.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 12, 2012, 01:00:24 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 01:03:45 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Tonko isn't going anywhere. Action there would require both an open seat and unusual circumstances. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 12, 2012, 01:16:11 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Tonko isn't going anywhere. Action there would require both an open seat and unusual circumstances. I think Lowey should be able to moderate a little if need be, at least rhetorically, and I don't really see too many Jews in this particular area turning against Obama (the Jews over in Rockland and Orange are another story, even some of the non-Orthodox ones, which is part of why I think Hayworth would likely, unfortunately, hold on under these lines absent a very strong opponent). Tonko's actually from everything I've heard about him a fantastic constituency Congressman. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 01:20:08 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Tonko isn't going anywhere. Action there would require both an open seat and unusual circumstances. I think Lowey should be able to moderate a little if need be, at least rhetorically, and I don't really see too many Jews in this particular area turning against Obama (the Jews over in Rockland and Orange are another story, even some of the non-Orthodox ones, which is part of why I think Hayworth would likely, unfortunately, hold on under these lines absent a very strong opponent). Tonko's actually from everything I've heard about him a fantastic constituency Congressman. Lowey has all of Rockland (packed with orthodox Jews), and she lost Jewish, secular, liberal and rich Scarsdale. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 12, 2012, 01:22:58 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Tonko isn't going anywhere. Action there would require both an open seat and unusual circumstances. I think Lowey should be able to moderate a little if need be, at least rhetorically, and I don't really see too many Jews in this particular area turning against Obama (the Jews over in Rockland and Orange are another story, even some of the non-Orthodox ones, which is part of why I think Hayworth would likely, unfortunately, hold on under these lines absent a very strong opponent). Tonko's actually from everything I've heard about him a fantastic constituency Congressman. Lowey has all of Rockland (packed with orthodox Jews), and she lost Jewish, secular, liberal and rich Scarsdale. ...she picked up Rockland? Ah. Crap. Yeah, I wouldn't call her entirely safe in that case. I thought it was still with Engel. Honestly, I think it was probably time for Slaughter to retire last cycle. Yes, I know it was a Republican wave, but the earmuffs were D+15 and I'm sure there are Democrats in Rochester who'd be better primed to hold the district going forward now. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 01:24:23 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Tonko isn't going anywhere. Action there would require both an open seat and unusual circumstances. I think Lowey should be able to moderate a little if need be, at least rhetorically, and I don't really see too many Jews in this particular area turning against Obama (the Jews over in Rockland and Orange are another story, even some of the non-Orthodox ones, which is part of why I think Hayworth would likely, unfortunately, hold on under these lines absent a very strong opponent). Tonko's actually from everything I've heard about him a fantastic constituency Congressman. Lowey has all of Rockland (packed with orthodox Jews), and she lost Jewish, secular, liberal and rich Scarsdale. ...she picked up Rockland? Ah. Crap. Yeah, I wouldn't call her entirely safe in that case. I thought it was still with Engel. Honestly, I think it was probably time for Slaughter to retire last cycle. Yes, I know it was a Republican wave, but the earmuffs were D+15 and I'm sure there are Democrats in Rochester who'd be better primed to hold the district going forward now. Here's Nita's new CD for you. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 12, 2012, 01:31:16 PM Yeah, ouch. She should still be able to hold that most years but she probably will have to moderate a bit and might actually have to--well--campaign. On the other hand, I'm sure Engel is pleased as punch.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 12, 2012, 02:07:24 PM We seem to be missing the point. The smart members of the state GOP (i.e. the State Senate and its Congressmen) are looking towards two things only: 1) shoring up incumbents insofar as they can be shored up (and they will compare to prior congressional incumbents and State Senate incumbents in Long Island and upstate NY in that regard, which is the correct, though as you can imagine, risky, measure, but considering they've had great success in the past 25 years amidst really bad, and continually worsening returns upballot, it's the correct model). 2) getting as many potentially competitive seats as possible using the above congressional incumbent/State Senate incumbent measure that are either competitive now or certainly could be under circumstances (i.e. retirement, wave). Let's break this down... Given Republican exploits in the past decade, that means a CD of D+3 PVI or less, I suspect, though it might be extended to D+5 in upstate, but to be cautious, let's say the former. In the 2000 map, the number of those seats is 10 out of 29, of which Republicans hold 9. If we extend it to D+5, we add 3 more (Higgins, Turner and Israel), of which Republicans now hold 1. I would need to get exact numbers to calculate PVI for the proposed court map, but it is almost certain that NY-1 through NY-3 are D+3 PVI or less (NY-1 and NY-2 will both be about R+1, NY-3 about D+0 or D+1), and it is likely that NY-4 is D+3, maybe D+4, but my suspicion is the former. Sure King is a good bit less safe, and could be in trouble if a wave hit, but let's remember he did get 56% in 2006 and 64% in 2008. Obviously, it becomes a greater problem if he retires, but that's the tradeoff. The State GOP will likely view all four as potentially competitive under the above standard. NY-9 is dead. NY-11 remains about R+4, maybe R+5. NY-17 (Lowey) is probably pushed down to D+6, but it might be D+5. The State GOP may view this as competitive is vacant, but let's say for theoretical purposes they don't. I'm almost certain that NY-18 (Hayworth) has a GOP PVI (probably R+1), but NY-19 (Gibson) is probably right at even, not going to make guesses there. At any rate, these are two more competitive CDs. NY-20 (Tonko) should stay at D+6. NY-21 (Owens) did not get any help, and will be at R+1, I'm almost certain. That's another four competitive seats for the NY GOP. Continuing further, Hanna really gets favorable treatment in NY-22 - his CD is probably R+3 now or R+4. To benefit Hanna, Reed in NY-23 is probably now about R+3 also. Buerkle in NY-24 looks roughly the same as before, but may lose a point to D+4. The NY GOP is likely to consider that potentially competitive, given Republican strength in years past - I tend to agree with those who say that this view is probably right, just not with Buerkle. Slaughter is complaining in NY-25 because she's going to get a D+6 or D+7 district. I don't see how this one is going to be viewed as competitive by the NY GOP, but obviously she's concerned about something (whether real or imagined). NY-26 (Higgins) becomes safe, and NY-27 (Hochul) is probably about R+8 or so in an area that typically acts more Republican than that downballot. Good luck to her. So, four more seats for the state GOP to view as potentially competitive. So, we have 12 seats that the state GOP is going to view as potentially competitive under possibly my measure (D+3) vs. 10 seats in the 2000 map (D+3). Even if I'm wrong about NY-4 and NY-24, such that they're outside the D+3 measure, that's still 10 vs. 10. Going with the broader measure of D+5, it is certainly 12 vs. 13, which again means that the GOP didn't really lose anything. Going further than that, the 2000 map had 3 D+6 seats, whereas this map also has three seats that will probably be such. Given this evaluation, why would the smart people in the GOP ever voice any opposition to what the Court is doing, other than to ask for a little help for Gibson and King's districts? Sure, they'd like to play games to constitute a Turner/NY Jew district, but they don't hold all the cards, obviously... NY-20(Tonko) is not a competitive seat. No Republican is ever going to win a seat where half of the votes come from Albany county. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 12, 2012, 02:28:16 PM Color me surprised, again, that Owens and Bishop survived the tsunami of 2010 given these stats.
Lowey and Tonko are not losing to Republicans in this decade absent a scandal. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 02:33:01 PM Color me surprised, again, that Owens and Bishop survived the tsunami of 2010 given these stats. Lowey and Tonko are not losing to Republicans in this decade absent a scandal. Why are you so confident Lowey? She took a big hit, with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote, has not had to campaign much for years, and is presumably somewhat too liberal for her CD now. Sure, she is no Slaughter. I just see it as a potentially interesting situation to watch. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: DrScholl on March 12, 2012, 02:49:30 PM Lowey's new seat is D+4, which is out of reach for an Republican except in an open seat, 2010, poor Democratic opponent situation and even with all that, it's still a stretch.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 03:27:08 PM I wonder if Hochul might try to primary Slaughter. As you can see, in her current district is a pretty good chunk of western and southwestern Monroe County (in that lime green color), which has been moved into Slaughter's CD.
() Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 12, 2012, 03:28:15 PM I wonder if Hochul might try to primary Slaughter. As you can see, in her current district is a pretty good chunk of western and southwestern Monroe County which has been moved into Slaughter's CD. () She's from the Buffalo area, so likely not. Pelosi will see that she lands somewhere comfy in Obama's administration, I guess. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 12, 2012, 03:36:18 PM If Slaughter lost that would be like the second strongest Obama district in the country held by a Republican even after 2010 (the only other one I know of stronger for Obama as mentioned was that guy in Illinois), and if Lowey lost that would be like the fourth or fifth probably. Neither should be too worried.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 12, 2012, 03:54:46 PM We seem to be missing the point. The smart members of the state GOP (i.e. the State Senate and its Congressmen) are looking towards two things only: 1) shoring up incumbents insofar as they can be shored up (and they will compare to prior congressional incumbents and State Senate incumbents in Long Island and upstate NY in that regard, which is the correct, though as you can imagine, risky, measure, but considering they've had great success in the past 25 years amidst really bad, and continually worsening returns upballot, it's the correct model). 2) getting as many potentially competitive seats as possible using the above congressional incumbent/State Senate incumbent measure that are either competitive now or certainly could be under circumstances (i.e. retirement, wave). Let's break this down... Given Republican exploits in the past decade, that means a CD of D+3 PVI or less, I suspect, though it might be extended to D+5 in upstate, but to be cautious, let's say the former. In the 2000 map, the number of those seats is 10 out of 29, of which Republicans hold 9. If we extend it to D+5, we add 3 more (Higgins, Turner and Israel), of which Republicans now hold 1. I would need to get exact numbers to calculate PVI for the proposed court map, but it is almost certain that NY-1 through NY-3 are D+3 PVI or less (NY-1 and NY-2 will both be about R+1, NY-3 about D+0 or D+1), and it is likely that NY-4 is D+3, maybe D+4, but my suspicion is the former. Sure King is a good bit less safe, and could be in trouble if a wave hit, but let's remember he did get 56% in 2006 and 64% in 2008. Obviously, it becomes a greater problem if he retires, but that's the tradeoff. The State GOP will likely view all four as potentially competitive under the above standard. NY-9 is dead. NY-11 remains about R+4, maybe R+5. NY-17 (Lowey) is probably pushed down to D+6, but it might be D+5. The State GOP may view this as competitive is vacant, but let's say for theoretical purposes they don't. I'm almost certain that NY-18 (Hayworth) has a GOP PVI (probably R+1), but NY-19 (Gibson) is probably right at even, not going to make guesses there. At any rate, these are two more competitive CDs. NY-20 (Tonko) should stay at D+6. NY-21 (Owens) did not get any help, and will be at R+1, I'm almost certain. That's another four competitive seats for the NY GOP. Continuing further, Hanna really gets favorable treatment in NY-22 - his CD is probably R+3 now or R+4. To benefit Hanna, Reed in NY-23 is probably now about R+3 also. Buerkle in NY-24 looks roughly the same as before, but may lose a point to D+4. The NY GOP is likely to consider that potentially competitive, given Republican strength in years past - I tend to agree with those who say that this view is probably right, just not with Buerkle. Slaughter is complaining in NY-25 because she's going to get a D+6 or D+7 district. I don't see how this one is going to be viewed as competitive by the NY GOP, but obviously she's concerned about something (whether real or imagined). NY-26 (Higgins) becomes safe, and NY-27 (Hochul) is probably about R+8 or so in an area that typically acts more Republican than that downballot. Good luck to her. So, four more seats for the state GOP to view as potentially competitive. So, we have 12 seats that the state GOP is going to view as potentially competitive under possibly my measure (D+3) vs. 10 seats in the 2000 map (D+3). Even if I'm wrong about NY-4 and NY-24, such that they're outside the D+3 measure, that's still 10 vs. 10. Going with the broader measure of D+5, it is certainly 12 vs. 13, which again means that the GOP didn't really lose anything. Going further than that, the 2000 map had 3 D+6 seats, whereas this map also has three seats that will probably be such. Given this evaluation, why would the smart people in the GOP ever voice any opposition to what the Court is doing, other than to ask for a little help for Gibson and King's districts? Sure, they'd like to play games to constitute a Turner/NY Jew district, but they don't hold all the cards, obviously... NY-20(Tonko) is not a competitive seat. No Republican is ever going to win a seat where half of the votes come from Albany county. Lowery is also not going anywhere. Population losses of course are bleeding upstate NY cities and rurals; its tough to say where those seats are going over 10 years. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 12, 2012, 04:13:11 PM The Orthodox Jews in her district will be easy enough to please and won't swing against her on an anti-Obama vote the way that garden variety grumpy old Jews in Florida swung against him. She's an incumbent and she will very easily be able to nail down their vote. I don't see any evidence for the rest of the assessment of her weakness.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 12, 2012, 04:14:32 PM Yeah I really hope GOP donors get excited about beating Lowey and Slaughter and pour millions into their opponents instead of the GOP incumbents upstate/vulnerable Republicans in other states and Mitt Romney's superPACs. Reminds me of the idiots who gave millions to Christine O'Donnell instead of Sharron Angle or Ken Buck (or even Joe Miller).
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 04:41:03 PM If Slaughter lost that would be like the second strongest Obama district in the country held by a Republican even after 2010 (the only other one I know of stronger for Obama as mentioned was that guy in Illinois), and if Lowey lost that would be like the fourth or fifth probably. Neither should be too worried. Sure, they are long shots. It just depends on the circumstances. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 12, 2012, 04:43:25 PM Not quite, that's a 55% Obama district.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 04:43:58 PM Not quite, that's a 55% Obama district. Yes, I just deleted that line after doubling checking myself. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Bacon King on March 12, 2012, 05:01:42 PM Here is the complete matrix chart which illustrates why one party is probably considerably happier with the court map than the other party. In a Pub tsunami, the delegation would be 15 (R) - 12 (D). Of course, with the reverse, it would be 1 (R) - 26 (D). Notice how in general things get more competitive, with the more extreme partisan colors moving towards something less so in many instances (the Buffalo seat being the spectacular exception as the earmuffs were undone). That is what happens when you unravel a prior bi-partisan gerrymander. New York should be a fun place for the next decade. :) So over half of the state's Congressional districts can be fairly described as competitive, and the district boundaries are actually pretty reasonable, too? Whoever this special master was, he's my hero. They should let him draw the maps everywhere forever. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 12, 2012, 06:59:28 PM Here is the complete matrix chart which illustrates why one party is probably considerably happier with the court map than the other party. In a Pub tsunami, the delegation would be 15 (R) - 12 (D). Of course, with the reverse, it would be 1 (R) - 26 (D). Notice how in general things get more competitive, with the more extreme partisan colors moving towards something less so in many instances (the Buffalo seat being the spectacular exception as the earmuffs were undone). That is what happens when you unravel a prior bi-partisan gerrymander. New York should be a fun place for the next decade. :) () Out of curiosity, what is your source of McCain/Obama numbers? I've drawn up the entire map on DRA and differ by 0.1% here and there. Here's your corrected table: () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 07:19:31 PM Muon2, I got the numbers from Daily Kos (oh whatever that left wing blog is called), which were linked above somewhere. :P
If you have mapped the state, Mike, and have different ones, I will use those. Knowing you, I trust you more than Daily Kos! The prior CD figures I got from Barone's Almanac, and used raw numbers, so they should be precisely accurate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 12, 2012, 07:24:27 PM Some NY Republicans are calling on Bob Turner to challenge Gillibrand if he isn't left with a winnable district: http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/brooklyn-gop-chair-pushes-turner-for-congress/ Good luck. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 12, 2012, 07:47:40 PM Muon2, I got the numbers from Daily Kos (oh whatever that left wing blog is called), which were linked above somewhere. :P If you have mapped the state, Mike, and have different ones, I will use those. Knowing you, I trust you more than Daily Kos! The prior CD figures I got from Barone's Almanac, and used raw numbers, so they should be precisely accurate. They may have a block-level program, but I suspect not. My CDs all are within 1000 of the ideal pop :). Here's my table (updated to the recommended plan of 3-12): CD 1: O 51.4, M 47.6 CD 2: O 51.2, M 47.9 CD 3: O 53.5, M 45.7 CD 4: O 55.4, M 43.9 CD 5: O 86.2, M 13.4 CD 6: O 63.2, M 36.0 CD 7: O 84.3, M 15.0 CD 8: O 86.0, M 13.7 CD 9: O 84.3, M 15.2 CD 10: O 75.6, M 23.4 CD 11: O 48.3, M 50.9 CD 12: O 80.2, M 18.9 CD 13: O 93.3, M 6.2 CD 14: O 76.1, M 23.2 CD 15: O 94.6, M 5.2 CD 16: O 73.0, M 26.4 CD 17: O 58.0, M 41.2 CD 18: O 52.1, M 46.8 CD 19: O 53.0, M 45.3 CD 20: O 58.3, M 39.8 CD 21: O 51.6, M 46.7 CD 22: O 49.1, M 49.1 (McCain by 92 votes 8) ) CD 23: O 49.6, M 48.8 CD 24: O 56.2, M 42.0 CD 25: O 58.8, M 39.9 CD 26: O 63.5, M 35.0 CD 27: O 44.5, M 53.9 Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 12, 2012, 09:31:48 PM The hacks were busy this weekend, and apparently (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/03/redistricting-bill-coming-out-pension-progress-made) have reached agreement on legislative lines, and won't reach an agreement on Congressional lines, as was anticipated. So it looks like the court map will be the map. I suspect the appellate panel will make no changes at all to the lines. Why would they? Quote There still is no deal on the reworking of the congressional lines and it looks more likely the decision, including which two House seats from New York are eliminated, will rest with a panel of federal judges, the sources said. Ugh, if the Democrats are going to implicitly agree to this crappy Congressional map, they should force someone other than the Republicans in the State Senate to draw the State Senate districts. So there'd probably be some Democrats in the state Assembly who lose re-election with a map they didn't draw. Small price to pay. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 12, 2012, 09:50:00 PM OK, Muon2, I revised the matrix above to match your numbers. You might delete the errant matrix from your post least it cause confusion. :)
We both made errors with NY-27. I mis-entered the Obama percentage (the McCain percentage was OK), and you used the average party numbers rather than the Obama-McCain numbers. I know because I drew NY-26 and NY-27 to find out. :P Regarding the tenths thing, do you know if the DRA rounds the tenths, or just drops the 4th digit? If it just drops it, that might explain a lot of the tenths action vis a vis the Kos percentages. Unless of course even if the DRA does drop the fourth digit, you cranked the raw numbers to find out how to round properly. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 12, 2012, 10:03:07 PM OK, Muon2, I revised the matrix above to match your numbers. You might delete the errant matrix from your post least it cause confusion. :) We both made errors with NY-27. I mis-entered the Obama percentage (the McCain percentage was OK), and you used the average party numbers rather than the Obama-McCain numbers. I know because I drew NY-26 and NY-27 to find out. :P Regarding the tenths thing, do you know if the DRA rounds the tenths, or just drops the 4th digit? If it just drops it, that might explain a lot of the tenths action vis a vis the Kos percentages. Unless of course even if the DRA does drop the fourth digit, you cranked the raw numbers to find out how to round properly. :) Thanks, I've made the correction. I also note that you don't show the swap of numbers for NY-2 and NY-3 that I would have guessed given the number of VTDs from the old districts in each. Obviously the PVIs match better the way you have it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 13, 2012, 04:31:43 AM [with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 09:25:57 AM [with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote The appropriate inference to draw from the text is that I assume that there is a potential for there being a cohort of orthodox Jews, along with some other Jews perhaps, who voted for Obama last time, who won't this time in disproportionate numbers, such that with this cohort, it will not only swing to the GOP, but also trend that way. This, despite Lowey being Jewish herself. Thank you. :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 13, 2012, 10:57:09 AM [with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote The appropriate inference to draw from the text is that I assume that there is a potential for there being a cohort of orthodox Jews, along with some other Jews perhaps, who voted for Obama last time, who won't this time in disproportionate numbers, such that with this cohort, it will not only swing to the GOP, but also trend that way. This, despite Lowey being Jewish herself. Thank you. :) Looking at FL-22 and NY-9 data from 2000 through 2004 through 2008, it appears that group already trended that way once. I don't know how much further they have to trend (given that everyone expects Obama to underperform 2008 anyway) and, more, importantly, if they're going to take it out on the senior Jewish lady (born: 1937) who is their representative and meets with them individually. Recall that if Hillary hadn't run in 2000, Lowey was the front-runner to succeed Pat Moynihan. Nebbishes and people who are legends in their own mind only don't generally get plum nominations like that. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 13, 2012, 11:04:05 AM [with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote The appropriate inference to draw from the text is that I assume that there is a potential for there being a cohort of orthodox Jews, along with some other Jews perhaps, who voted for Obama last time, who won't this time in disproportionate numbers, such that with this cohort, it will not only swing to the GOP, but also trend that way. This, despite Lowey being Jewish herself. Thank you. :) Looking at FL-22 and NY-9 data from 2000 through 2004 through 2008, it appears that group already trended that way once. I don't know how much further they have to trend (given that everyone expects Obama to underperform 2008 anyway) and, more, importantly, if they're going to take it out on the senior Jewish lady (born: 1937) who is their representative and meets with them individually. Recall that if Hillary hadn't run in 2000, Lowey was the front-runner to succeed Pat Moynihan. Nebbishes and people who are legends in their own mind only don't generally get plum nominations like that. (mostly do to systematic anti semtic redistricting for the past 40 years so on a local level our vote is mostly nullified.) If we ever got fully involved in politics more dems will drop Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 11:06:58 AM [with more potential for an even larger one embedded (but not reflected in the 2008 voting stats), in the orthodox Jewish vote The appropriate inference to draw from the text is that I assume that there is a potential for there being a cohort of orthodox Jews, along with some other Jews perhaps, who voted for Obama last time, who won't this time in disproportionate numbers, such that with this cohort, it will not only swing to the GOP, but also trend that way. This, despite Lowey being Jewish herself. Thank you. :) Looking at FL-22 and NY-9 data from 2000 through 2004 through 2008, it appears that group already trended that way once. I don't know how much further they have to trend (given that everyone expects Obama to underperform 2008 anyway) and, more, importantly, if they're going to take it out on the senior Jewish lady (born: 1937) who is their representative and meets with them individually. Recall that if Hillary hadn't run in 2000, Lowey was the front-runner to succeed Pat Moynihan. Nebbishes and people who are legends in their own mind only don't generally get plum nominations like that. Yes, Lowey is certainly no nebbish, and yes, you ask the right question as to whether or not the orthodox (along with perhaps some more moderate/secular but not liberal Jews angry about Obama's mid east policies), almost in toto abandoned Obama in 2008, so whatever is left, if anything, would be merely a swing, rather than a trend. I don't pretend to know really. By the way, "nebbish" was O'Reilly's word of the day last week, so that word may start getting more play in the gentile community. Life is beautiful. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 13, 2012, 11:08:54 AM Hmmm... don't know about turnout. But as to the Republican vote share among Orthodox Jews in Rockland County... "maxed out" is a word that comes to mind.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 11:10:52 AM Hmmm... don't know about turnout. But as to the Republican vote share among Orthodox Jews in Rockland County... "maxed out" is a word that comes to mind. I guess it would be useful to take a tour de horizon of the applicable precincts wouldn't it? You might be right. Rockland seems to be polarization city. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 13, 2012, 11:18:45 AM Bob Turner tosses in for NY Senate...hope he has fun.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 13, 2012, 11:27:53 AM Hmmm... don't know about turnout. But as to the Republican vote share among Orthodox Jews in Rockland County... "maxed out" is a word that comes to mind. I guess it would be useful to take a tour de horizon of the applicable precincts wouldn't it? You might be right. Rockland seems to be polarization city. There might be more, sort of orthodox but not ultra-observant (you know, not wearing the clothes, not living in uniform enclaves) Jews elsewhere in the county that might vote Democratic and be swingable, I don't know. It's possible. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 13, 2012, 11:28:58 AM Bob Turner tosses in for NY Senate...hope he has fun. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 11:40:57 AM In other news, Judge Mann just tweaked (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/120483/in-second-draft-mann-adjust-lines-in-brooklyn/) her map. The changes in Brooklyn are between two minority CD's, so that has no partisan meaning, and if the Finger Lakes changes move anything by even a tenth of a point, color me surprised. So now we wait until Thursday to see what the Appellate Court does - which will probably be nothing.
And indeed, no partisan change to NY-25, NY-27 and NY-23. The change to NY-25, expanding it by a tad (maybe a couple of hundred residents), into a precinct which was already split (up there near Orleans County along the lake - it took me a long time to find that tiny jut), may be a population equalizer. The other change I assume was to avoid a split of Livingston County, and keep just Ontario County split, so a bit of territory was excised in Livingston from NY-23, and NY-23 picked up about 1,500 more folks in Ontario from NY-27 instead. Judge Mann apparently is about as fond of county splits as Muon2. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 13, 2012, 12:00:12 PM Hmmm... don't know about turnout. But as to the Republican vote share among Orthodox Jews in Rockland County... "maxed out" is a word that comes to mind. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 13, 2012, 04:14:41 PM In other news, Judge Mann just tweaked (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/120483/in-second-draft-mann-adjust-lines-in-brooklyn/) her map. The changes in Brooklyn are between two minority CD's, so that has no partisan meaning, and if the Finger Lakes changes move anything by even a tenth of a point, color me surprised. So now we wait until Thursday to see what the Appellate Court does - which will probably be nothing. And indeed, no partisan change to NY-25, NY-27 and NY-23. The change to NY-25, expanding it by a tad (maybe a couple of hundred residents), into a precinct which was already split (up there near Orleans County along the lake - it took me a long time to find that tiny jut), may be a population equalizer. The other change I assume was to avoid a split of Livingston County, and keep just Ontario County split, so a bit of territory was excised in Livingston from NY-23, and NY-23 picked up about 1,500 more folks in Ontario from NY-27 instead. Judge Mann apparently is about as fond of county splits as Muon2. :P Indeed, there was no change to the upstate percentages when I adjusted my map. NY-8 and NY-9 roughly swapped their percentages due to the differences between Ft Greene (now in 8) and Sheepshead Bay (now in 9). My post on the previous page is now updated as well. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: danny on March 13, 2012, 05:20:17 PM Hmmm... don't know about turnout. But as to the Republican vote share among Orthodox Jews in Rockland County... "maxed out" is a word that comes to mind. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on March 13, 2012, 08:18:03 PM Numbers aside, I tend to think Tonko and Lowey are safer than Slaughter, because they're just better representatives for the most part than she is. Yes of course. Lowey just has to worry about a Jewish rebellion against Obama, and that she might be a tad liberal for the CD now. Lowey's lifetime ADA rating is like 94. It's very difficult to maintain a rating that high for more than 20 years. Of the congressman who have served a similar amount of years, only Barney Frank, Ed Markey and George Miller have higher lifetime ADA scores than her. A Ben Gilman esque Republican could possibly defeat her. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2012, 08:56:21 PM Life is beautiful. Fail. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 10:22:25 PM Life is beautiful. Fail. You took that out of context. Naughty! :) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 13, 2012, 11:43:20 PM Democratic bickering seems to be preventing a deal.
http://blogs.buffalonews.com/politics_now/2012/03/silver-dismisses-idea-of-congressional-redistricting-deal.html Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos late this afternoon said he wants to negotiate a congressional deal with Silver, but that the Assembly leader has “internal political problems.’’ He said those problems involve a battle between three Democratic county chairman – the leaders of the party organizations in Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx. Yep. At a guess Skelos is fairly content with the Upstate and Long Island lines, while Silver can't figure out how do deal with Rangel, the Latinos, and everyone else bickering. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 13, 2012, 11:58:23 PM There might be more, sort of orthodox but not ultra-observant (you know, not wearing the clothes, not living in uniform enclaves) Jews elsewhere in the county that might vote Democratic and be swingable, I don't know. It's possible. Isn't that basically what Joe Lieberman is? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 14, 2012, 04:58:53 AM I dunno, I figure Joe may have voted for McCain, but otherwise he fits the description.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: timothyinMD on March 14, 2012, 10:04:21 AM For you race-obsessed Democrats:
() 2 majority black districts and 2 Republican districts in Brooklyn. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 14, 2012, 06:07:02 PM http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/03/breaking-news-deals-near-on-everything-updatedx3
BREAKING NEWS: Deals Near On Everything Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 14, 2012, 06:37:24 PM http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/03/breaking-news-deals-near-on-everything-updatedx3 BREAKING NEWS: Deals Near On Everything While it's not entirely clear from the article, "everything" probably only includes the state Senate and Assembly redistricting, not the US House map. Democrats are supposedly fighting too much among themselves to compromise on the House map. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 14, 2012, 09:53:44 PM Why compromise on the Senate map? Better to just bottle it up and get a court-drawn map that'll no doubt end several GOP incumbents (Obviously the Democrats will probably take it anyway even with the current gerrymandered monstrosity in the next decent Dem year but better to secure that).
BTW I actually have worked on what a court-drawn Senate map might look like, should upload it. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 10:05:09 PM Why compromise on the Senate map? Better to just bottle it up and get a court-drawn map that'll no doubt end several GOP incumbents (Obviously the Democrats will probably take it anyway even with the current gerrymandered monstrosity in the next decent Dem year but better to secure that). BTW I actually have worked on what a court-drawn Senate map might look like, should upload it. Because Assembly Dems don't want to be inconvenienced by a concomitant court drawn Assembly map, even if it leaves the Dems with a secure majority in the Assembly. It has nothing to do with larger Dem objectives to gain more Congressional seats down the road silly. This is New York! It doesn't work that way. Plus the partisan divide when you cut through the BS is more muted in NY. Politics is a business, and an individual career, and it is far more about looking out for number one. Ideology sucks. That is the mindset. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 14, 2012, 10:11:40 PM Well I'm going to post my map anyway after tweaking a few things.
Fun fact: My church's "Leap of Faith 2012" packet advises on Tuesdays during the season to "worship through creativity" "doing something creative that connects you to God" then mentioning "Write, journal, draw, sing, dance, sew, paint, build, whatever comes to mind". So I did this by...drawing maps on DRA. :) And some primary prediction county maps in MS Paint. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on March 14, 2012, 10:31:07 PM I'm really have a tough time following all the twists and turns of this byzantine redistricting proces. Can someone inform me if this very basic summary is right-
Dems and Reps cannot agree on map Cuomo is pissed and an agreement is hammered out by both parties to have an independent Judge draw up a map Craven career politicians on both sides get scared and decide to cooperate to perpetuate their power Cuomo throws up his hands and punts 10 years for change in state Constit. ???- Lost on where things stand now. I know their will be several different Republican primaries and I'm looking to see even what districts I will be in. Any links to updates would be appreciated. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 14, 2012, 10:36:32 PM ()
() () () () Analysis coming up... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on March 14, 2012, 10:53:58 PM BRTD, that district with the Rockaway peninsula, what looks like could be South Jamaica and SW Nassau is GROSS :)
And if anyone could respond to my previous post, Id greatly appreciate it. I have no clue what the current status is. I'm just trying to piece it together for forum posts and a few NYTimes articles. Thanks. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 14, 2012, 10:58:43 PM I'm really have a tough time following all the twists and turns of this byzantine redistricting proces. Can someone inform me if this very basic summary is right- Dems and Reps cannot agree on map Cuomo is pissed and an agreement is hammered out by both parties to have an independent Judge draw up a map Craven career politicians on both sides get scared and decide to cooperate to perpetuate their power Cuomo throws up his hands and punts 10 years for change in state Constit. ???- Lost on where things stand now. I know their will be several different Republican primaries and I'm looking to see even what districts I will be in. Any links to updates would be appreciated. The Assembly passed the state Senate and Assembly redistricting plans tonight 93-43. The State Senate just passed it 36-0 with most Democrats leaving the chamber because debate was cut off after 2.5 hours. The Senate then passed the constitutional amendment creating an independent redistricting commission in 2020. Because constitutional amendments require passage by two successive legislatures, there's some sort of hammer provision that takes away the ability of the legislators to appoint members to the commission if it's not passed again next year. The legislature has a sort of veto power over the commission maps, though they wouldn't have free reign to draw whatever they want. The Senate and Assembly majority wanted to pass this tonight because there's a court hearing on the progress of the state maps tomorrow. This is all part of a grand compromise package that includes casino gambling, pension reform and redistricting reform, among other things, which is why Cuomo is caving. The US House maps are NOT included in this package. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 14, 2012, 11:10:19 PM Alright:
Long Island Swing districts: 1, 4, 5, 8, 10 Republican districts: 2, 3, 7 Dem districts: 9 9 is majority minority and almost 70% Obama. Some of those swing districts are in the vicinity of 55-56% Obama but since Republicans hold such seats on Long Island now I'm calling them swing. 2 voted for Obama 50-48 but almost certainly would elect a Republican. 10 doesn't go too far into Jamaica. It has a lot of land area, but that's because of the airport. NYC OK some interesting districts but the only ones worth noting from a partisan perspective are 20 (the pink south Brooklyn one), 23 (southern Staten Island) and 24 (the purple one near 21, NY Jew's dream seat). 21 is basically a swing seat, 51.1% McCain, but Democrats hold such districts in that area now. 23 would obviously go Republican, (61.3% McCain FTR), 24 is 62.3% McCain but who knows how bloc voting in that area goes, so we'll call it a swing seat. The rest are obviously all safe Dem (11-36), so that's 23 Dem seats, 2 swing ones and 1 Republican. Westchester area You got a south Westchester seat, 37 (dark blue) and a northern seat (teal), both are >60% Obama, oddly the outer one is more Dem (62.2-61.7%). Both go Dem. 39 is Rockland County's seat, it has almost enough population for a district, lol. Probably held by a Republican despite being won by Obama. Further north you have two likely Republican seats, though the green one was about 52% Obama (the brown one is about 50%) McCain, so 3-2 from this region. Further upstate Well count this up till 55 (the one right west of Syracuse). The safe or near safe Dem seats are 41 (Kingston-Poughkeepsie, about 58% Obama), 45 (Albany), 51 ("Only" about 55% Obama, but since it contains Ithaca the GOP's going to need a hell of a candidate running up the vote in the non-Ithaca areas) and 53 (Syracuse). 44 would be winnable for the Dems, (53.2% Obama, running up to Canada on the Vermont border), also possibilities are 46 (Schenectady), 50 (Binghamton), 54 (Suburban Syracuse-Oswego) which were about 52-53% Obama. 43 (that pink rural area), 47 (around Albany) and 48 (the other big northern seat) all voted for Obama with about 51%, but thus would be kind of tricky to win in most years. 49 (Utica-Rome) was 52.8% McCain and 55 (Auburn) voted for Obama by just a couple hundred votes, probably truly unwinnable. So 4 Dem seats, 5 likely Republican seats, and 3 swing ones, that would no doubt be Republican held now. West 52 (ugly color on the southern border), 58 (purple) and 59 (red) are obviously all very safe Republican seats. That guy in Rochester is doomed, district 57 contains the city and is 73% Obama. 62 is the main Buffalo seat, that's 75% Obama. 60 (the yellow seat along the coast) and 61 (Niagara Falls to Amherst) are swing districts, about 52.5% Obama and 54.8% Obama respectively, 56 (suburban Rochester) is 51% Obama, so probably would be won by a Republican most of the time. 2 Dem seats, 2 swing, and 4 Republican. So that's 32 Dem seats, 16 Republican, and 14 swing. Probably ends up with about 36-39 Dem seats. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on March 14, 2012, 11:13:29 PM I'm really have a tough time following all the twists and turns of this byzantine redistricting proces. Can someone inform me if this very basic summary is right- Dems and Reps cannot agree on map Cuomo is pissed and an agreement is hammered out by both parties to have an independent Judge draw up a map Craven career politicians on both sides get scared and decide to cooperate to perpetuate their power Cuomo throws up his hands and punts 10 years for change in state Constit. ???- Lost on where things stand now. I know their will be several different Republican primaries and I'm looking to see even what districts I will be in. Any links to updates would be appreciated. The Assembly passed the state Senate and Assembly redistricting plans tonight 93-43. The State Senate just passed it 36-0 with most Democrats leaving the chamber because debate was cut off after 2.5 hours. The Senate then passed the constitutional amendment creating an independent redistricting commission in 2020. Because constitutional amendments require passage by two successive legislatures, there's some sort of hammer provision that takes away the ability of the legislators to appoint members to the commission if it's not passed again next year. The legislature has a sort of veto power over the commission maps, though they wouldn't have free reign to draw whatever they want. The Senate and Assembly majority wanted to pass this tonight because there's a court hearing on the progress of the state maps tomorrow. This is all part of a grand compromise package that includes casino gambling, pension reform and redistricting reform, among other things, which is why Cuomo is caving. The US House maps are NOT included in this package. Thanks a million, Cinyc. It seems that following all of the twists in Albany is nearly a full time job. Do you have a link to the maps that were passed and what in the world is going on with the House now? I'm a registered Republican and will probably have like 3 different primaries on separate dates. I'm doing my best to try and keep up. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 14, 2012, 11:20:33 PM Thanks a million, Cinyc. It seems that following all of the twists in Albany is nearly a full time job. Do you have a link to the maps that were passed and what in the world is going on with the House now? I'm a registered Republican and will probably have like 3 different primaries on separate dates. I'm doing my best to try and keep up. State Senate (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s) Assembly (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012a) We're almost certainly going to have three primaries this year - the Presidential primary in April, the federal offices primary in June and the state offices primary in September, assuming there are candidates in your district for the latter two. There probably will be a Republican primary for US Senator given the number of declared candidates, so it's really a question of whether there are multiple State Senate and Assembly candidates in your districts (or a local race, if there is one). Some good government groups want to hold the state primaries in June, too - but the petitioning period would begin in a matter of weeks if they did that, so it's probably not going to happen. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on March 15, 2012, 12:04:05 AM Thanks a million, Cinyc. It seems that following all of the twists in Albany is nearly a full time job. Do you have a link to the maps that were passed and what in the world is going on with the House now? I'm a registered Republican and will probably have like 3 different primaries on separate dates. I'm doing my best to try and keep up. State Senate (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s) Assembly (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012a) We're almost certainly going to have three primaries this year - the Presidential primary in April, the federal offices primary in June and the state offices primary in September, assuming there are candidates in your district for the latter two. There probably will be a Republican primary for US Senator given the number of declared candidates, so it's really a question of whether there are multiple State Senate and Assembly candidates in your districts (or a local race, if there is one). Some good government groups want to hold the state primaries in June, too - but the petitioning period would begin in a matter of weeks if they did that, so it's probably not going to happen. Well, I am in Skelos' district so nothing there. From your link it looks like I lost my Assemblyman. It was Curran, however, it appears I will now be in the first/last block of an open seat, DOJ approved 22. There certainly will be a primary but demographically it looks like he/she will be a R loser. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 15, 2012, 07:08:45 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/
Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 07:48:12 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/ Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. One would have thought Ackerman would have been competitive. Crowley gets a lot of new territory too. I'm surprised. Is that just because I don't know enough on this one? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 15, 2012, 08:24:11 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/ Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. One would have thought Ackerman would have been competitive. Crowley gets a lot of new territory too. I'm surprised. Is that just because I don't know enough on this one? Crowley has wanted an all-Queens district instead of representing the Bronx. It's not clear that he's running in NY-06 yet, though. The ironic thing is that a Democrat who was thinking of running against Ackerman announced he wasn't running this afternoon before Ackerman's announcement. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 15, 2012, 08:39:51 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/ Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. One would have thought Ackerman would have been competitive. Crowley gets a lot of new territory too. I'm surprised. Is that just because I don't know enough on this one? Joe Crowley is the Queens Democratic Party chairman, and the 6th district lies wholly within Queens. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 15, 2012, 11:03:15 PM Crowley wins all those types of battles.
Looking at the State Senate map, it pretty much preserves the previous gerrymander of Long Island, though I'm sure there are changes here and there. The seats that the Republicans gained back in 2010 were 3 and 7 that were lost in 2008 - I'd really need to examine these boundaries closely to see what was done. 5 and 6 have also been somewhat close in the 2006/2008 cycle, fwiw, the others were never close. NYC becomes even more gerrymandered than before, in Brooklyn, particularly, - Avella (11) and Stavisky (16) are pulled into the same district on the edges, but this is Avella's territory. Huntley (10), Gianaris (12), Peralta (13), Smith (14) retain pretty much the same shape, though note the finger they created in Addabo's district (15). (16) is open (as noted above) and a monstrosity as before - I need to see whether anything's different here - doesn't look like it on its face. (17) is the NY Jew seat, formed from Kruger and part of Parker. Dilan, formerly (17), now becomes (18), basically the same. Sampson (19) nor Adams (20) receives no real change worth mentioning, except Adams gets Sunset Park for some reason now, in exchange for his parts of the new NY Jew seat. It's also an ugly gerrymander. Parker (21) is pushed northwards, gaining more black liberal areas. Marty Golden (GOP) in (22) took the parts of Kruger's seat that were marginal/Republican, but not Jewish - it is a gerrymander of beauty. Savino (23) and Lanza (GOP) (24) are also pretty much the same as before. Montgomery, formerly (18), now becomes (25), basically the same. I'm still in Squadron's district now renumbered as (26) from (25), but no real material changes. Duane is renumbered (27) after being (29), and loses a lot of the upper West Side north of 72nd Street (don't know why) and there's also some weird gerrymander into MSG/Penn Station/Port Authority Bus Terminal for Espillat that I can't explain. Liz Kreuger's UES/Murray Hill SD becomes (28) from (26) and becomes a bit less compact. Serrano (29) from (28) trades some of Spanish Harlem for a chunk of the Upper West Side above 72nd, which I can't particularly figure out either. Perkins (30) still has his Harlem seat. Getting to Espillat (31), his seat is still Washington Heights and chunks other places. Diaz in (32) becomes much uglier, probably to protect him even better, I would suspect. I don't believe Rivera (33) changes in any substantial way. Klein (34) loses most of his Westchester parts, but retains basically the same structure otherwise, gaining more of the parts of the upper income/white Bronx (to the extent such things exist of course). Hassell-Thompson gets nicer boundaries (36), but is basically the same black district. I'll do upstate tomorrow (35 and 37-63), but as we can see, the GOP is looking to create the new NY Jew seat and shore up Golden in Brooklyn (like he really needs much - the problem is when he retires) to get 3 seats out of the city instead of 2. I'll have to look over Queens to see if any games are being played there - nothing shows on its face, so the GOP may have well left that alone, realizing that it is probably gone. I also need to look over Long Island - there are probably some changes at the margins that I'm missing. State Assembly is not really worth messing with too much - pretty sure it preserves the same Dem gerrymander and massive margins. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 16, 2012, 10:03:25 AM No surprise, but the appellate court seems disinclined (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/121037/federal-judges-hear-final-pleas-move-toward-mann-plan/) to mess much with the Congressional map Judge Mann drew, if at all. One judge noted the ripple effect, and if you mess in one place, that has consequences elsewhere, and so forth, and time is short anyway. Nobody really lodged any real objections anyway, other than the Senate Pubs who whimpered that no cognizance was taken as to where incumbents lived. That one is going absolutely nowhere.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 16, 2012, 10:11:55 AM Sam, on the state senate, how effectively did the Pubs move the ball towards their goal of making their majority more secure than it is now? What is the partisan PVI number which is at the tipping point between control and losing control? Are the tipping point seats around Pub PVI +3%, or greater or less?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 16, 2012, 02:25:12 PM Crowley wins all those types of battles. Looking at the State Senate map, it pretty much preserves the previous gerrymander of Long Island, though I'm sure there are changes here and there. The seats that the Republicans gained back in 2010 were 3 and 7 that were lost in 2008 - I'd really need to examine these boundaries closely to see what was done. 5 and 6 have also been somewhat close in the 2006/2008 cycle, fwiw, the others were never close. NYC becomes even more gerrymandered than before, in Brooklyn, particularly, - Avella (11) and Stavisky (16) are pulled into the same district on the edges, but this is Avella's territory. Huntley (10), Gianaris (12), Peralta (13), Smith (14) retain pretty much the same shape, though note the finger they created in Addabo's district (15). (16) is open (as noted above) and a monstrosity as before - I need to see whether anything's different here - doesn't look like it on its face. (17) is the NY Jew seat, formed from Kruger and part of Parker. Dilan, formerly (17), now becomes (18), basically the same. Sampson (19) nor Adams (20) receives no real change worth mentioning, except Adams gets Sunset Park for some reason now, in exchange for his parts of the new NY Jew seat. It's also an ugly gerrymander. Parker (21) is pushed northwards, gaining more black liberal areas. Marty Golden (GOP) in (22) took the parts of Kruger's seat that were marginal/Republican, but not Jewish - it is a gerrymander of beauty. Savino (23) and Lanza (GOP) (24) are also pretty much the same as before. Montgomery, formerly (18), now becomes (25), basically the same. I'm still in Squadron's district now renumbered as (26) from (25), but no real material changes. Duane is renumbered (27) after being (29), and loses a lot of the upper West Side north of 72nd Street (don't know why) and there's also some weird gerrymander into MSG/Penn Station/Port Authority Bus Terminal for Espillat that I can't explain. Liz Kreuger's UES/Murray Hill SD becomes (28) from (26) and becomes a bit less compact. Serrano (29) from (28) trades some of Spanish Harlem for a chunk of the Upper West Side above 72nd, which I can't particularly figure out either. Perkins (30) still has his Harlem seat. Getting to Espillat (31), his seat is still Washington Heights and chunks other places. Diaz in (32) becomes much uglier, probably to protect him even better, I would suspect. I don't believe Rivera (33) changes in any substantial way. Klein (34) loses most of his Westchester parts, but retains basically the same structure otherwise, gaining more of the parts of the upper income/white Bronx (to the extent such things exist of course). Hassell-Thompson gets nicer boundaries (36), but is basically the same black district. I'll do upstate tomorrow (35 and 37-63), but as we can see, the GOP is looking to create the new NY Jew seat and shore up Golden in Brooklyn (like he really needs much - the problem is when he retires) to get 3 seats out of the city instead of 2. I'll have to look over Queens to see if any games are being played there - nothing shows on its face, so the GOP may have well left that alone, realizing that it is probably gone. I also need to look over Long Island - there are probably some changes at the margins that I'm missing. State Assembly is not really worth messing with too much - pretty sure it preserves the same Dem gerrymander and massive margins. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 16, 2012, 02:38:28 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/ Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. http://www.cityandstateny.com/lancman-mix-crowley-ny-6/ Crowley is running in the 14th, not the 6th. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 16, 2012, 02:58:30 PM http://atr.rollcall.com/new-york-gary-ackerman-to-retire/ Longtime New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman will retire at the end of the 112th Congress, he announced tonight. Crowley elbowed Ackerman out. http://www.cityandstateny.com/lancman-mix-crowley-ny-6/ Crowley is running in the 14th, not the 6th. Very interesting. I guess then the idea that Crowley wanted a district with less Hispanics is not really as true as was indicated. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Sam Spade on March 16, 2012, 07:15:41 PM Sam, on the state senate, how effectively did the Pubs move the ball towards their goal of making their majority more secure than it is now? What is the partisan PVI number which is at the tipping point between control and losing control? Are the tipping point seats around Pub PVI +3%, or greater or less? The Senate wouldn't have proposed this map if they didn't think it secured things stronger (exactly how much that is in reality, who knows) In Long Island, the tipping point seats will have Dem PVIs, probably D+3 to D+5, but I don't know exactly. Truthfully, I suspect most (if not all) of the seats would be marginal in a national environment, after all Long Island as a whole is about D+1, D+2. I need to really break down the changes in the SDs to see what happened to SDs 3, 5, 6 and 7, as these were the problem/close seats in 2006/2008. The GOP controls it all - so all they can go is down, anyways. In NYC, Lanza is a GOP PVI seat, the NY Jew seat is certainly one, though historically Dem down the ballot (but that is probably changing too). Golden's seat certainly got more Republican areas, so it may have gotten back to a GOP PVI (I know it wasn't before), but I don't know for sure. At any rate, Golden will never be beaten so long as he's on the ballot, so who cares. As you are aware, the GOP lost their last historical seat in Queens in the last election, but I don't know whether any of the games that I'm seeing would have any effect in the Queens seats that are most favorable to the GOP. I suspect not, as I think that ship has sailed. The Republicans aren't packed like they are in Brooklyn. All in all, I really can only see the GOP, at best, getting one seat from this map in NYC and Long Island. (presently 24-11 (techically 23-11-1), with 2 "independent" Dems) Upstate is 21-6, so I have to see what seats have actually been made more problematic. Upstate will be later, and I'll give a little more of a close look. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 16, 2012, 07:35:53 PM The Senate wouldn't have proposed this map if they didn't think it secured things stronger (exactly how much that is in reality, who knows) In Long Island, the tipping point seats will have Dem PVIs, probably D+3 to D+5, but I don't know exactly. Truthfully, I suspect most (if not all) of the seats would be marginal in a national environment, after all Long Island as a whole is about D+1, D+2. I need to really break down the changes in the SDs to see what happened to SDs 3, 5, 6 and 7, as these were the problem/close seats in 2006/2008. The GOP controls it all - so all they can go is down, anyways. In NYC, Lanza is a GOP PVI seat, the NY Jew seat is certainly one, though historically Dem down the ballot (but that is probably changing too). Golden's seat certainly got more Republican areas, so it may have gotten back to a GOP PVI (I know it wasn't before), but I don't know for sure. At any rate, Golden will never be beaten so long as he's on the ballot, so who cares. As you are aware, the GOP lost their last historical seat in Queens in the last election, but I don't know whether any of the games that I'm seeing would have any effect in the Queens seats that are most favorable to the GOP. I suspect not, as I think that ship has sailed. The Republicans aren't packed like they are in Brooklyn. All in all, I really can only see the GOP, at best, getting one seat from this map in NYC and Long Island. (presently 24-11 (techically 23-11-1), with 2 "independent" Dems) Upstate is 21-6, so I have to see what seats have actually been made more problematic. Upstate will be later, and I'll give a little more of a close look. SD-37 was gerrymandered to give Republicans their best shot at winning a Westchester seat. With the Republican incumbents in SD-34 and 35 long gone, the more Republican-leaning areas of those districts, Eastchester and Eastern Yonkers, were added to SD-37, while Democratic-leaning Scarsdale and parts of White Plains and New Rochelle were put into SD-35. SD-37 also added Republican-leaning Bedford and lost Ossining and New Castle in the northern part of the county. The SD-37 incumbent Democrat is retiring after almost losing under the more Dem-favorable old lines last cycle, so the Senate must think the district will be competitive if not lean Republican. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 17, 2012, 07:31:47 PM The Senate wouldn't have proposed this map if they didn't think it secured things stronger (exactly how much that is in reality, who knows) In Long Island, the tipping point seats will have Dem PVIs, probably D+3 to D+5, but I don't know exactly. Truthfully, I suspect most (if not all) of the seats would be marginal in a national environment, after all Long Island as a whole is about D+1, D+2. I need to really break down the changes in the SDs to see what happened to SDs 3, 5, 6 and 7, as these were the problem/close seats in 2006/2008. The GOP controls it all - so all they can go is down, anyways. In NYC, Lanza is a GOP PVI seat, the NY Jew seat is certainly one, though historically Dem down the ballot (but that is probably changing too). Golden's seat certainly got more Republican areas, so it may have gotten back to a GOP PVI (I know it wasn't before), but I don't know for sure. At any rate, Golden will never be beaten so long as he's on the ballot, so who cares. As you are aware, the GOP lost their last historical seat in Queens in the last election, but I don't know whether any of the games that I'm seeing would have any effect in the Queens seats that are most favorable to the GOP. I suspect not, as I think that ship has sailed. The Republicans aren't packed like they are in Brooklyn. All in all, I really can only see the GOP, at best, getting one seat from this map in NYC and Long Island. (presently 24-11 (techically 23-11-1), with 2 "independent" Dems) Upstate is 21-6, so I have to see what seats have actually been made more problematic. Upstate will be later, and I'll give a little more of a close look. SD-37 was gerrymandered to give Republicans their best shot at winning a Westchester seat. With the Republican incumbents in SD-34 and 35 long gone, the more Republican-leaning areas of those districts, Eastchester and Eastern Yonkers, were added to SD-37, while Democratic-leaning Scarsdale and parts of White Plains and New Rochelle were put into SD-35. SD-37 also added Republican-leaning Bedford and lost Ossining and New Castle in the northern part of the county. The SD-37 incumbent Democrat is retiring after almost losing under the more Dem-favorable old lines last cycle, so the Senate must think the district will be competitive if not lean Republican. Oppenheimer almost lost in 2010 because independents were more Republican than they will ever be for another 40 years and Democratic turnout fell through the floor. The only way Republicans will pick up that seat in 2012 is if the Obama percentage is moved down to the low 50's. Upstate, there are only three Democratic held districts and they will probably need to be packed further to help out Republican incumbents in surrounding areas. I wonder what they did to help Greg Ball just north of Westchester, who only won 51%-49% in the best Republican year in many generations. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 17, 2012, 08:46:32 PM Oppenheimer almost lost in 2010 because independents were more Republican than they will ever be for another 40 years and Democratic turnout fell through the floor. The only way Republicans will pick up that seat in 2012 is if the Obama percentage is moved down to the low 50's. Upstate, there are only three Democratic held districts and they will probably need to be packed further to help out Republican incumbents in surrounding areas. I wonder what they did to help Greg Ball just north of Westchester, who only won 51%-49% in the best Republican year in many generations. Given that Westchester state senate districts have been held by Republicans in the past decade, I seriously doubt that independents were more Republican in 2010 than they will ever be for 40 years. They were even more Republican in prior years when Republicans won and can be more Republican in the future. Coattails are overrated. Republicans hold plenty of Long Island State Senate seats where Obama was in the mid-50s. A Republican could win SD-37 under similar circumstances. Ball was given the other Republican-friendly town in old SD-35, Mount Pleasant. It is one of the most Republican-leaning towns in the county. But he lost about half of Putnam County, so that may just offset what was lost instead of shore him up. Without the need to shore up a Republican incumbent, SD-35 is now a Democratic vote sink in the southern and central parts of Westchester. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 17, 2012, 09:00:09 PM Oppenheimer almost lost in 2010 because independents were more Republican than they will ever be for another 40 years and Democratic turnout fell through the floor. The only way Republicans will pick up that seat in 2012 is if the Obama percentage is moved down to the low 50's. Upstate, there are only three Democratic held districts and they will probably need to be packed further to help out Republican incumbents in surrounding areas. I wonder what they did to help Greg Ball just north of Westchester, who only won 51%-49% in the best Republican year in many generations. Given that Westchester state senate districts have been held by Republicans in the past decade, I seriously doubt that independents were more Republican in 2010 than they will ever be for 40 years. They were even more Republican in prior years when Republicans won and can be more Republican in the future. Coattails are overrated. Republicans hold plenty of Long Island State Senate seats where Obama was in the mid-50s. A Republican could win SD-37 under similar circumstances. Ball was given the other Republican-friendly town in old SD-35, Mount Pleasant. It is one of the most Republican-leaning towns in the county. But he lost about half of Putnam County, so that may just offset what was lost instead of shore him up. Without the need to shore up a Republican incumbent, SD-35 is now a Democratic vote sink in the southern and central parts of Westchester. Republicans held those Long-Island seats as LONG TIME INCUMBENTS. The Westchester districts were held by Republicans in the past, just like Democrats held many districts in Alabama and Tennessee in the past. The only way Republicans win the new SD-37 in 2012 is if they somehow get the Obama percentage down to 53% or below. There is no popular long time incumbent running there like on Long Island. I also would like to see what happened to SD-07, where Craig Johnson barely lost in 2010. He would be very stupid not to run again unless the district is somehow made much more Republican. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 17, 2012, 09:35:21 PM Republicans held those Long-Island seats as LONG TIME INCUMBENTS. The Westchester districts were held by Republicans in the past, just like Democrats held many districts in Alabama and Tennessee in the past. Westchester County is not Alabama or Tennessee. The county executive is a Republican and Republicans picked up county board seats last cycle. Part of the county has a Republican congresswoman. If anything, the county is trending Republican after trending Democratic during the Bush years. Quote The only way Republicans win the new SD-37 in 2012 is if they somehow get the Obama percentage down to 53% or below. There is no popular long time incumbent running there like on Long Island. It will be a totally open seat with no incumbent at all that voted 50-50 in the 2010 legislative elections. And coattails are overrated. Republicans won back the state Senate last cycle despite having a dreadful gubernatorial candidate at the top of the ticket. Quote I also would like to see what happened to SD-07, where Craig Johnson barely lost in 2010. He would be very stupid not to run again unless the district is somehow made much more Republican. Not a ton. It's hard to tell exactly what happened because Long Island doesn't have many towns and the maps don't show villages, but it looks like SD-07 took in a little bit more of Hicksville in exchange for losing part of Elmont. That's about it. I'd be surprised if its partisan makeup moved more than a point. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 17, 2012, 10:22:47 PM Republicans held those Long-Island seats as LONG TIME INCUMBENTS. The Westchester districts were held by Republicans in the past, just like Democrats held many districts in Alabama and Tennessee in the past. Westchester County is not Alabama or Tennessee. The county executive is a Republican and Republicans picked up county board seats last cycle. Part of the county has a Republican congresswoman. If anything, the county is trending Republican after trending Democratic during the Bush years. Quote The only way Republicans win the new SD-37 in 2012 is if they somehow get the Obama percentage down to 53% or below. There is no popular long time incumbent running there like on Long Island. It will be a totally open seat with no incumbent at all that voted 50-50 in the 2010 legislative elections. And coattails are overrated. Republicans won back the state Senate last cycle despite having a dreadful gubernatorial candidate at the top of the ticket. Quote I also would like to see what happened to SD-07, where Craig Johnson barely lost in 2010. He would be very stupid not to run again unless the district is somehow made much more Republican. Not a ton. It's hard to tell exactly what happened because Long Island doesn't have many towns and the maps don't show villages, but it looks like SD-07 took in a little bit more of Hicksville in exchange for losing part of Elmont. That's about it. I'd be surprised if its partisan makeup moved more than a point. The county executive is Republican elected in the Republican heavy 2009-2010 cycle where Democratic turnout fell through the floor and indepndents were heavily Republican. Republicans won back the state Senate in 2010 because Cuomo refused to help downballot Democrats and the Republican candidtate was so much of a joke that there was no real campaign to drive turnout on the Democratic side. 50-50 in 2010 is really like 55-45 Dem in a normal cycle. Republicans did about five points better than normal across the board in 2010. Democrats were asleep in 2009 and 2010. They wont be in 2012 or 2014 thanks to the orange Speaker. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 17, 2012, 11:27:59 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. Decent enough call. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 17, 2012, 11:28:37 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. I doubt the GOP will try that. Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander. If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines. Very bad call. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 17, 2012, 11:29:50 PM Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson? Why didn't that happen in 2001? Torie, New York is about many different moving gears. In 2001, you had Assembly Democrats, Senate Republicans, and a Republican Governor. They were free to strike a deal that would disadvantage the other gears on the board. In 2010, there's enough of a redistricting reform force at work that nothing outrageously crazy gerrymander-wise is going to be passed (outside of what already exists). The New York Republicans don't have very solid control over the Senate either, so their own piece on the board is weak. Bad call. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 17, 2012, 11:31:11 PM Torie, the scenario you describe happened in 2002 when there was a split legislature and a Republican governor. The congressional maps went to a judge or special master and the results were so disruptive to Republican incumbents that both sides freaked out and worked out an incumbent protection compromise that froze a Republican advantage in western NY and a Democratic advantage on LI. Republicans have more to lose than Democrats if it goes to the courts. I also don't think there's much discipline of any type, party or moral, in the New York State Senate to count on. I wouldn't expect them to save the national GOP's bacon on this map any more than the Virginia Senate Democrats are going to use their leverage to upend the table in that state and force the Republicans to unpack the old gerrymander, or that Jan Schakowsky is going to torpedo a Dem gerrymander in Illinois because she would fight tooth and nail any watering down her district. It's a pipe dream. Very bad call. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 17, 2012, 11:32:56 PM I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying. So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk? That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map. The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like. I doubt the GOP will try that. Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander. If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines. Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson? Why didn't that happen in 2001? The Dems have a massive advantage in the Assembly, even if the Assembly districts are drawn by the courts they will still have a massive advantage. The GOP would have more to lose by bringing it to the courts, it would result in a Permanent Dem Majority in the Senate and a diminished but still massive Dem majority in the Assembly. Due to the GOP's minimal advantage in the State Senate which is heavily gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, they really have no leverage to take it to the courts. My guess is each side loses a Congressional seat, the rest is something similar to the Incumbent Protection, GOP gets to draw the Senate, Dems the Assembly. That is probably the best the GOP can hope for Wrong about the weakness. Correct about the outcome. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 18, 2012, 09:46:41 AM Stop being a prick, Bob.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 18, 2012, 09:47:16 AM Are you denying Bob's right to exist?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 18, 2012, 09:52:24 AM Are you denying Bob's right to exist? Only in his current form. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 18, 2012, 10:30:30 AM Stop being a prick, Bob. Very good call. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 18, 2012, 12:02:08 PM It would indeed by a nightmare if some sadist dredged up all my old posts for evaluation. I would probably be driven to put such a person on ignore. It would all be just too embarrassing. :P
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 18, 2012, 07:23:48 PM It would indeed by a nightmare if some sadist dredged up all my old posts for evaluation. I would probably be driven to put such a person on ignore. It would all be just too embarrassing. :P Well you were right in what he did dredge up here. At the time, both of the eliminated seats were held by Democrats so in a way they did end up taking the hit for both. ;) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 19, 2012, 10:16:08 AM Well Slaughter is going to have her hands full it appears, and Owens won't be getting the help he got last time.
In Rochester, (NY-25), three term Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks (R), plans to announce her candidacy for the seat held by Ms. Slaughter tomorrow (http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2012/03/Report-Brooks-announcing-Congressional-run-on-Monday/). In NY-21, GOP party splitter and problem child Doug Hoffman won't be stirring the waters (http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/529890/Hoffman-focuses-on-Assembly-run.html?nav=5008) this time, so the Conservative and GOP party will have but one candidate to face Bill Owens (D) in the fall. Thanks to Red Racing horses for the hat tip. Down south, Lowey's new CD has agitated the Pubs (http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/senate-bid-dropped-carvin-eyes-house-run/) out of their slumber perhaps. Oh, and here (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5508054/cuomo-saved-dean-skelos-and-permanently-messed-redistricting-proces) is an incendiary tidbit about why Cuomo signed off on the Pub gerrymander for the State Senate (and insurance of no Dem gerrymander later) in such a lamb-like manner. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 19, 2012, 02:30:53 PM Down south, Lowey's new CD has agitated the Pubs (http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/senate-bid-dropped-carvin-eyes-house-run/) out of their slumber perhaps. Carvin sounds like a vanity candidate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 19, 2012, 05:02:32 PM Both of those races are safe D. All they'll do is force Slaughter and Lowey to raise and spend money.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: nclib on March 19, 2012, 06:55:17 PM I'm surprised most Dems here seem to be a bit disappointed. I'm not too worried about the LI Dems and every upstate freshman GOPer's CD moves in our direction except Hanna (the most moderate). I am disappointed about Ackerman and Hinchey retiring, but that won't affect partisan balance.
BTW, wondering based on NY Jew's posts--what would a packed Jewish GOP CD look like, and a packed Jewish Dem CD? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 19, 2012, 08:21:28 PM I think the issue is more that nothing is done to shore up Hochul, and if you consider Turner's seat a Dem one currently Republican by a fluke it's two Dem seats eliminated. Sure the inverse is true of Hochul but with her just losing that's not quite a fair trade. And the only seat that becomes so Dem in a neutral environment it's guaranteed to flip is Buerkle's, which probably would've happened anyway. Losing Hochul, Buerkle, Hinchey and Turner may be a net zero but it's not exactly "fair" if you look at the details.
The problem with a "packed Jewish Dem CD" is that the Jews don't segregate like the races do except the Hasids NY Jew is so obsessed with, for example the Manhattan part of Nadler's seat certainly has a lot of Jews but many non-Jews as well. And the problem with the packed Jewish GOP seat NY Jew desires so much is the makeup depends primarily on who else you put there, it's quite easy to combine all the Hasidic areas and put them in a majority black seat. Nadler's seat is actually the closest thing to a "Jewish seat" that can be drawn. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Smash255 on March 19, 2012, 08:42:11 PM I think the issue is more that nothing is done to shore up Hochul, and if you consider Turner's seat a Dem one currently Republican by a fluke it's two Dem seats eliminated. Sure the inverse is true of Hochul but with her just losing that's not quite a fair trade. And the only seat that becomes so Dem in a neutral environment it's guaranteed to flip is Buerkle's, which probably would've happened anyway. Losing Hochul, Buerkle, Hinchey and Turner may be a net zero but it's not exactly "fair" if you look at the details. The problem with a "packed Jewish Dem CD" is that the Jews don't segregate like the races do except the Hasids NY Jew is so obsessed with, for example the Manhattan part of Nadler's seat certainly has a lot of Jews but many non-Jews as well. And the problem with the packed Jewish GOP seat NY Jew desires so much is the makeup depends primarily on who else you put there, it's quite easy to combine all the Hasidic areas and put them in a majority black seat. Nadler's seat is actually the closest thing to a "Jewish seat" that can be drawn. You perhaps can draw something that starts in the Nassau portion of Israel's current seat with a narrow strip connecting it to much of the Nassau portion of Ackerman's current seat (minus Manhasset and Plandome) and then push it into the Forrest Hills section of Queens. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 19, 2012, 08:48:40 PM I'm surprised most Dems here seem to be a bit disappointed. I'm not too worried about the LI Dems and every upstate freshman GOPer's CD moves in our direction except Hanna (the most moderate). I am disappointed about Ackerman and Hinchey retiring, but that won't affect partisan balance. BTW, wondering based on NY Jew's posts--what would a packed Jewish GOP CD look like, and a packed Jewish Dem CD? http://www.politicker.com/2012/03/05/orthodox-jewish-group-pushes-court-for-new-congrressional-district/ () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 19, 2012, 09:45:47 PM Well, this won't be a majority Jewish district, would it be? And, of course, the Jewish community there would be divided between the Orthodox/Hassidic and pork-and-cheese-eating Russian: calling this a "community of interest", to the exclusion of the secular Jews (other than recent ex-Soviet migrants), is a definite stretch - they seem to believe they have more in common w/ Italian Catholics than w/ most American Jews. A funny notion of a "racial" group it is :))
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 19, 2012, 10:52:09 PM Well, this won't be a majority Jewish district, would it be? And, of course, the Jewish community there would be divided between the Orthodox/Hassidic and pork-and-cheese-eating Russian: calling this a "community of interest", to the exclusion of the secular Jews (other than recent ex-Soviet migrants), is a definite stretch - they seem to believe they have more in common w/ Italian Catholics than w/ most American Jews. A funny notion of a "racial" group it is :)) http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Archive/C-NY-New_York-2002-Geographic_Profile_Report.pdf Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 19, 2012, 11:48:26 PM I wouldn't be that sure. Just by plugging in the South Brooklyn numbers on that map I got about 360,000 - but big chunks of that are well outside of the proposed district (they are just too spread). Also, of course, this includes both the Orthodox and the Russians (big chunk of whom are not even halakhikally Jewish, and most of whom have no love lost for the Orthodox) and the others, raising the issue of existence of a "community of interest". And while the Orthodox might be growing, is the entire growth in Brooklyn and does it compensate for the emigration of all sorts of Jews to the suburbs? Though, perhaps, I'd grant you that it should be possible to gerrymander a Jewish majority district in Brooklyn - and do so even without the Park Slope/Brooklyn Heights folk that you've come to consider goyim because they don't vote the way you like :)) But you'd, probably, have to be quite a bit more ingenious about the boundaries, to get rid of the gentiles and the "wrong" Jews.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 12:26:23 AM BTW, I got a great idea for a Jewish district in Brooklyn :)) Take Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park and even Crown Heights - you can't say we are splitting the Orthodox, can you? Williamsburg's missing - but that's a bit off geographically, hard to get w/ the rest without ugly gerrymanders. Add Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights - these are Jews, as much or more so than the bacon-on-matzo Russians. If you are creative, this would not be much less Jewish, if at all so, than the South Brooklyn version. Pack the rest w/ reliably democratic minority areas and bingo - a reliably Dem district with an Orthodox Jewish pack at its core :)) Should be doable :)))
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 20, 2012, 12:42:12 AM I mentioned that earlier. It's quite easy to keep all the Orthodox areas together and put them in a majority black district.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 20, 2012, 01:31:55 AM While we're inventing "communities of interest" that are supposedly screwed over by the map, how about the huge white liberal population in Brooklyn? Right now they are basically all in seats that are either black, Hispanic, or represented by someone in Manhattan (Nadler). I suppose you could've made a case for Weiner while he was in office but the part of Brooklyn in his district wasn't the liberal one. And unlike the Hasids they have enough population for their own district.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 20, 2012, 01:33:40 AM BTW, I got a great idea for a Jewish district in Brooklyn :)) Take Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park and even Crown Heights - you can't say we are splitting the Orthodox, can you? Williamsburg's missing - but that's a bit off geographically, hard to get w/ the rest without ugly gerrymanders. Add Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights - these are Jews, as much or more so than the bacon-on-matzo Russians. If you are creative, this would not be much less Jewish, if at all so, than the South Brooklyn version. Pack the rest w/ reliably democratic minority areas and bingo - a reliably Dem district with an Orthodox Jewish pack at its core :)) Should be doable :))) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 20, 2012, 01:41:21 AM No there would be no VRA violation since the preferred candidate of the black community would clearly win that district.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 20, 2012, 01:49:00 AM I wouldn't be that sure. Just by plugging in the South Brooklyn numbers on that map I got about 360,000 - but big chunks of that are well outside of the proposed district (they are just too spread). Also, of course, this includes both the Orthodox and the Russians (big chunk of whom are not even halakhikally Jewish, and most of whom have no love lost for the Orthodox) and the others, raising the issue of existence of a "community of interest". And while the Orthodox might be growing, is the entire growth in Brooklyn and does it compensate for the emigration of all sorts of Jews to the suburbs? Though, perhaps, I'd grant you that it should be possible to gerrymander a Jewish majority district in Brooklyn - and do so even without the Park Slope/Brooklyn Heights folk that you've come to consider goyim because they don't vote the way you like :)) But you'd, probably, have to be quite a bit more ingenious about the boundaries, to get rid of the gentiles and the "wrong" Jews. for example I'm sure zip codes 11236 (Canarsie) 16,946 whites and 11239 (Starett City) 5,546 whites according to the 2000 census really effect the 42,900 jews in zip codes 11234 + 11236 + 11239 tremendously. get it through your head Orthodox jews and Russian Jews live in ethnic enclaves I doubt there are any normal size blocks where non Orthodox or Russian Jews are the majority on the block. for example the only unsupergerrymandered way to make this more Jewish would be to take in more of Bensonhurst. Taking in Brooklyn Heights will never make this even close to the 50% number Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 20, 2012, 01:51:17 AM No there would be no VRA violation since the preferred candidate of the black community would clearly win that district. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Padfoot on March 20, 2012, 02:20:29 AM Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post, but what are the PVIs for final court map? Also, what is the generally accepted net loss/gain for each party with that map?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 20, 2012, 06:28:27 AM Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post, but what are the PVIs for final court map? Also, what is the generally accepted net loss/gain for each party with that map? Here's where I calculated the 2008 results (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129756.msg3230136#msg3230136), and where Torie turned it into PVIs (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129756.msg3229589#msg3229589) based on that election alone. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 12:04:59 PM BTW, I got a great idea for a Jewish district in Brooklyn :)) Take Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park and even Crown Heights - you can't say we are splitting the Orthodox, can you? Williamsburg's missing - but that's a bit off geographically, hard to get w/ the rest without ugly gerrymanders. Add Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights - these are Jews, as much or more so than the bacon-on-matzo Russians. If you are creative, this would not be much less Jewish, if at all so, than the South Brooklyn version. Pack the rest w/ reliably democratic minority areas and bingo - a reliably Dem district with an Orthodox Jewish pack at its core :)) Should be doable :))) There is no law that says ALL blacks should be in majority black districts :))) Especially, if we are alleging that we are doing this to avoid disenfranchizing another minority :))) Arguably, the district I propose would concentrate more ORTHODOX Jews than the South Brooklyn district - we are uniting a community of interest. And it is not that easy to argue that the Russian Jews (many of them not even Jewish from the Orthodox standpoing) belong to the same community of interest - their interest in most areas are quite diametrically opposed to those of the Orthodox. That they happen to be part of the same emerging pro-Republican coalition is an accident, based, primarily, on vehement racism, which is de rigueur inside the Russian community. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 20, 2012, 12:12:58 PM BTW, I got a great idea for a Jewish district in Brooklyn :)) Take Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park and even Crown Heights - you can't say we are splitting the Orthodox, can you? Williamsburg's missing - but that's a bit off geographically, hard to get w/ the rest without ugly gerrymanders. Add Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights - these are Jews, as much or more so than the bacon-on-matzo Russians. If you are creative, this would not be much less Jewish, if at all so, than the South Brooklyn version. Pack the rest w/ reliably democratic minority areas and bingo - a reliably Dem district with an Orthodox Jewish pack at its core :)) Should be doable :))) There is no law that says ALL blacks should be in majority black districts :))) Especially, if we are alleging that we are doing this to avoid disenfranchizing another minority :))) In addition the only way possible to make a compact majority Jewish district would be to include Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach. If you don't realize that it's probably because you have no clue where jews live in NY. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 12:28:09 PM BTW, I got a great idea for a Jewish district in Brooklyn :)) Take Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park and even Crown Heights - you can't say we are splitting the Orthodox, can you? Williamsburg's missing - but that's a bit off geographically, hard to get w/ the rest without ugly gerrymanders. Add Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights - these are Jews, as much or more so than the bacon-on-matzo Russians. If you are creative, this would not be much less Jewish, if at all so, than the South Brooklyn version. Pack the rest w/ reliably democratic minority areas and bingo - a reliably Dem district with an Orthodox Jewish pack at its core :)) Should be doable :))) There is no law that says ALL blacks should be in majority black districts :))) Especially, if we are alleging that we are doing this to avoid disenfranchizing another minority :))) In addition the only way possible to make a compact majority Jewish district would be to include Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach. If you don't realize that it's probably because you have no clue where jews live in NY. I happen to be a Russian Jew who spent 9 years in greater New York (admittedly, in the 1990s). Should I tell you where exactly the groceries where I used to buy my bacon are, or will you just believe me? :))) My argument is subtly different :)) Anybody, who argues for a Jewish majority district on these grounds would have to be using definition of the Jews that goes against the definition used by the ultra- (and not very ultra) Orthodox. Many of the "Russians" are only Jewish by descent on the male line and/or converted to other faiths. Those who are technically Jewish still, mostly, follow the Jewish law mostly in its breach. Finding a community of interest between them and the Orthodox presents a stretch - more of a stretch, in fact, than finding a community of interest between the Orthodox and the Park Slope or Upper West Side guys. Yes, of course, the Russians and the Orthodox happen to be more of Republican types - but Republican Jews is, most definitely, a not very protectable community :))) The South Brooklyn district removes big chunks of the Orthodox community (Crown Heights and Willamsburg) - so, it fails in its stated objective of uniting a well-defined community of interest. A Central/North Brooklyn district would gather more of the ultra-Orthodox Jews. Of course, it would not take in the Russian Jews - but that's a very distinct community, with its own interests. And it would be quite hard for the Orthodox lawyers to argue otherwise - without abandoning the Halakha, at least :)) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 12:29:40 PM BTW, the Jewish sector of the Crown Heights could be incorporated with relatively few blacks - via a salient from Park Slope through the Prospect Park. Not a big deal.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 01:46:42 PM Anyway, it is not hard to draw a district that would include the entire Borough Park, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Midwood Jewish parts of Williamsburg, Crown Heights, Flatbush, etc. - I even got the entire Gravesend and half the Homecrest in (Ocean Parkway is in all the way through to the Belt Parkway) that would be 66.5% Obama (72.1% Dem on average). It's only 9% black - no concern there. 12.9% Hispanic and 11.3% Asian - but you can't draw a Hispanic district from those parts anyway. There is still a lot of stuff I've included for no good reason to pad the Dem margin (such as Red Hook) that could be removed to replace w/ Jewish neighborhoods without making it less than 60% Obama. Of course, once you insist on including Brighton and Manhattan Beach, it would change - but why include those atheist ex-Commies :))?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 20, 2012, 01:56:42 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :(
Here is their entire map. I got the drf file from the chap who drafted it (except for the 4 northern CD's in the Bronx and Westchester, which a Catholic friend of his drew, because of the press of time). The map has a few "problems," alas, some fixable, but the bleaching out of the Crowley CD might raise a retrogression issue. Hewing to municipal/village lines was not job one either. I quite admire the chutzpah in merging the Mahoney and Nadler CD's, as the white CD to go, in exchange for creating the "Jewish" one in Brooklyn. :P I spoke to the map drawer about 3 times on the phone for a couple of hours. I initiated it because his submission had problems, and I wanted to help him fix them, if possible, even though the filing deadline had passed. By the last conversation, the federal appellate court had rejected his submission, and he want to file a petition to SCOTUS, based on ignoring communities of interest for white people and so forth, particularly Jews, who are the most victimized by hate crimes. It took some time to persuade him that the odds of SCOTUS taking the case were effectively zero. I must say one party would like this map a whole lot better than the other party. The other party if the appellate court accepted this after making some necessary adjustments, like equalizing population, would have just gone bonkers. The Israel district goes Pub, and Lowey's is down to about Dem +2% in PVI. (I am not sure, because I had to draw the 4 CD's the Catholic guy drew myself, and the PDF screen shots did not show the Lowey CD's northern perimeter.) The Lowey CD needs to go farther out anyway, because overall the NYC area CD's about about 50,000-75,000 or something short of population overall. Oh by the way, the map drawer says he spoke to the Pub Senate majority leader Skelos, and tried to persuade him to leave two Jewish state senate CD's in Brooklyn Queens somewhere alone because in another couple of years both would fall to the Pubs. Skelos said he needed another CD now, rather than two later, so he merged them to get one more sufficiently Pub to flip now. I guess the discount rate on future Pub seats, but not right now, was close to 50% per year of something. :P The guy was fascinating to talk to. He knows the NYC streets like the back of his hand, and who is doing what to whom. I'm sure NY Jew would enjoy talking to him. He agreed that gay marriage did indeed tank Welperin, allowing Turner to win. () () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 20, 2012, 02:24:12 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :( Here is their entire map. I got the drf file from the chap who drafted it (except for the 4 northern CD's in the Bronx and Westchester, which a Catholic friend of his drew, because of the press of time). The map has a few "problems," alas, some fixable, but the bleaching out of the Crowley CD might raise a retrogression issue. Hewing to municipal/village lines was not job one either. I quite admire the chutzpah in merging the Mahoney and Nadler CD's, as the white CD to go, in exchange for creating the "Jewish" one in Brooklyn. :P I spoke to the map drawer about 3 times on the phone for a couple of hours. I initiated it because his submission had problems, and I wanted to help him fix them, if possible, even though the filing deadline had passed. By the last conversation, the federal appellate court had rejected his submission, and he want to file a petition to SCOTUS, based on ignoring communities of interest for white people and so forth, particularly Jews, who are the most victimized by hate crimes. It took some time to persuade him that the odds of SCOTUS taking the case were effectively zero. I must say one party would like this map a whole lot better than the other party. The other party if the appellate court accepted this after making some necessary adjustments, like equalizing population, would have just gone bonkers. The Israel district goes Pub, and Lowey's is down to about Dem +2% in PVI. (I am not sure, because I had to draw the 4 CD's the Catholic guy drew myself, and the PDF screen shots did not show the Lowey CD's northern perimeter.) The Lowey CD needs to go farther out anyway, because overall the NYC area CD's about about 50,000-75,000 or something short of population overall. Oh by the way, the map drawer says he spoke to the Pub Senate majority leader Skelos, and tried to persuade him to leave two Jewish state senate CD's in Brooklyn Queens somewhere alone because in another couple of years both would fall to the Pubs. Skelos said he needed another CD now, rather than two later, so he merged them to get one more sufficiently Pub to flip now. I guess the discount rate on future Pub seats, but not right now, was close to 50% per year of something. :P The guy was fascinating to talk to. He knows the NYC streets like the back of his hand, and who is doing what to whom. I'm sure NY Jew would enjoy talking to him. He agreed that gay marriage did indeed tank Welperin, allowing Turner to win. () () Very interesting. I'm also fascinated as to its similarity to the map I tried to submit to the court early in March, but missed the deadline. In Brooklyn one would only have to swap Bay Ridge for Gravesend and Coney Island to essentially have our maps match. Try it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. I'm skeptical that you can get it over 50%, especially if we're using VAP, but I'd definitely like to see. When I tried to eyeball a compact South Brooklyn CD earlier, I was using DRA so it wasn't clear how much of 'white' was Jewish, and also I ended up having to include more Democratic parts of Brooklyn in Grimm's district such that it actually shifts several points Democratic, so it seems likely to me that were you to successfully create the district that you're talking about we'd still end up with only the one Republican CD in the city most years (possibly zero if some hawkish, religiously conservative Jewish Democrat got elected from the hypothetical district that we are discussing). the key is to move Grimm out of Brooklyn and towards the Rockways Grimm would be +2 and the New Jewish district would be +9 and in regards to weather or not the there was a Democrat or a Republican though I would prefer a Republican I would vote for someone like Noach Dear, or Dov Hikind way before I would vote for most NY state Republicans. If you are looking for the Orthodox precincts in DRA, use the option to color by election. They will show up as strongly McCain compared to everything else. Though I was motivated by geography and the black-majority districts, I suspect it would look similar to CD 8 in my map above (reposted here). () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 20, 2012, 02:31:28 PM How in the world did you plan to sell it, Muon2? Or did you not do the Westchester and Long Island gerrymanders? What was your Hispanic percentage for the Crowley CD?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 03:51:49 PM <Adopting an offended Jewish posture> Well, if this map is not designed to SPLIT the Orthodox Jewish vote accross several district, what is it designed to do? Russians ain't Orthodox!
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 20, 2012, 04:32:39 PM How in the world did you plan to sell it, Muon2? Or did you not do the Westchester and Long Island gerrymanders? What was your Hispanic percentage for the Crowley CD? Of course I refrained from the LI/Westchester gerrys. I'm all about county integrity. :) For the NYC minority districts I note that the city is 22.2% BVAP and 26.7% HVAP. This would be 2.53 and 3.04 CDs respectively. I provide for three black-majority districts by including a small part of Nassau, and it is designed to make the remainder of Hempstead Town with Long Beach exactly one CD. I provide for three CDs with a HVAP majority. If the plan is to seriously considered for Hispanic CDs then the HVAP should be large enough to consistently elect a candidate of choice without knowledge of other electoral factors. The proposed plan has only one such CD in The Bronx, with one other CD at 52% and two in the high 40% range. Crowley's success, demonstrates that the upper 40's will not elect a candidate of choice, and Velasquez' success in a neighboring district is presumably due to other factors. My CD 13 and CD 15 are 52% and 63% similar to the court plan. My CD 7 is 57.2% and should be far more likely to elect a candidate of choice for Hispanics than the two sub-50% districts in the court plan. This effectively combines populations in those two sub-50% HVAP districts, and is not retrogression since one of those districts was not electing a candidate of choice. Here's my original post: I had hoped to put together a plan for submission last night, but my DRA hung at about 10:30 when I was checking the districts prior to creating a file. But I can still share my work here. I based my plan on the same model I used in the CA exercise. I started with regions of whole counties that were nearly equal to a whole number of districts: Southern NY (CD 1-19, +1398) Northern NY (CD 20-22, -702) Western NY (CD 23-27, -695) The regions were divided based on nearly whole counties with at most one town split in a county. Splits were used to get all deviations under 0.1% at the precinct level, and all but two districts are under 300 deviation. This is the resulting map for the state: () Within the NYC area districts were grouped to fit counties as well: LI (CD 1-4, -37,948) Queens (CD 5-7, +77,600) Brooklyn/SI (CD 8-11, +102,600) Manhattan/Bronx (CD 12-15, +100,151) Lower Hudson (CD 16-19, -241,005) Shifts and additional county breaks were made to get 3 Black-majority districts and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. The NYC area map look like this: () Here are the demographics including VAPs over 20%. Estimated PVIs are based on the 2008 Pres using Torie's spreadsheet factor. LONG ISLAND CD 1 (Smithtown) W 80.1% [R+2] CD 2 (Islip) W 66.2% [D+1] CD 3 (Hicksville) W 71.2% [R+1] CD 4 (Hempstead) W 64.2% [D+1] QUEENS CD 5 (Flushing) W 43.4%, A 33.9% [D+9] CD 6 (S Jamaica) B 50.4% [D+33] CD 7 (Corona) H 59.4% [D+30] BROOKLYN/STATEN ISLAND CD 8 (Borough Park) W 55.7% A 23.4% [R+5] CD 9 (Staten Island) W 67.1% [R+5] CD 10 (East NY) W 23.6%, B 50.2% [D+38] CD 11 (Flatbush) W 30.6%, B 50.3% [D+38] MANHATTAN/BRONX CD 12 (Manhattan) W 64.2% [D+31] CD 13 (Harlem) B 28.2%, H 52.1% [D+40] CD 14 (Triboro) W 54.1%, H 23.8% [D+24] CD 15 (South Bronx) B 29.3%, H 63.1% [D+41] LOWER HUDSON CD 16 (Yonkers) W 41.3%, B 29.0%, H 23.3% [D+18] CD 17 (White Plains) W 67.9% [D+5] CD 18 (Newburgh) W 75.1% [D+1] CD 19 (Albany) W 77.3% [D+5] NORTHERN NY CD 20 (Schenectady) W 90.0% [R+1] CD 21 (Utica) W 90.2% [R+2] CD 22 (Syracuse) W 85.8% [D+3] WESTERN NY CD 23 (Binghampton) W 88.9% [D+0] CD 24 (Niagara Falls) W 91.6% [R+6] CD 25 (Rochester) W 76.0% [D+6] CD 26 (Elmira) W 93.1% [R+8] CD 27 (Buffalo) W 76.5% [D+9] Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: traininthedistance on March 20, 2012, 04:44:39 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :( Here is their entire map. Wow, that Staten Island-Ozone Park district is really something else. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 20, 2012, 04:48:06 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :( Here is their entire map. Wow, that Staten Island-Ozone Park district is really something else. It is no problem. Most folks know how to swim these days. Bridges are just for the physically challenged. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 20, 2012, 07:54:53 PM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner).
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on March 20, 2012, 09:38:48 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :( Here is their entire map. Wow, that Staten Island-Ozone Park district is really something else. It is no problem. Most folks know how to swim these days. Bridges are just for the physically challenged. NY had a Rockland-Richmond-Kings district at one time. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 20, 2012, 10:17:14 PM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner). The question I don't understand is how they make a case. To appeal to the federal court they would have to argue that they are a racial or language minority. Religion is not covered by the 15th amendment, and probably by the 1st amendment it can't be used. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 10:22:27 PM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner). Do you really think that the Orthodox Jews would elect (Catholic) Turner if it were up to them? He'd loose a primary in any Orthodox-majority district before you can say "Jesus". Partisan arguments can't be a problem: the courts have repeatedly ruled that it's ok to gerrymander for partisan ends. The problem is dilution of a racial/ethnic/other minority group for the purposes of preventing it from electing the candidate of their choice. It is hard to see how a district that maximizes the concentration of the target group (Orthodox Jews) could be wrong here. It is also hard to see how reducing the proportion of that group in the district (as would be the case in the South Brooklyn district as compared w/ the North-Central Brooklyn district) could help the Orthodox Jews elect the candidate of their choice that would not also be supported by some other major group. Of course, it is simply impossible to get a district in Brooklyn where Orthodox Jews would be able to elect candidate of their choice without them happening to coincide with some other, not Orthodox community - there are simply not enough of them (especially, if we just look at the voting age population). That's why, any proposed "Orthodox Jewish" district would have to rely at least as strongly on other, non-Orthodox, or even non-Jewish groups to do the trick - the Russians, the Irish, the Italians or whatever. But at that point it becomes a matter of coalition building, not of electing a candidate of the Orthodox Jewish choice. In as much as "candidate of choice" seems to be an euthemism for "one of their own", this is going to fail outright - a proper Hasid won't get elected in such a district (many Russians would, probably, rather vote Dem, as would many of the other elements of this "Republican coalition"). Turner is certainly not one of them, and would not have been their choice if they could decide on their own. Hence the difficulty with defining the "protected group". The Orthodox Jews simply are not numerous or concentrated enough for a district (unless one finds a way of linking Borough Park and Rockland county in one district :)) ). Protecting Jews as such - a group that less than 4 years ago voted, what, 70% for Obama - would not seem to require drawing a Republican district; if anything, that would prevent the Jews at large from electing representatives of their choice. So NY Jew and his kind have invented a new "protected group": Republican Jews - which includes the Orthodox and the Russians (especially the first-generation immigrants among those), but excludes the bulk of the Jews in Manhattan, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, etc. For their purposes Bob Turner is a member of this group, while Woody Allen isn't. Fine by me - but they'd have to pursuade Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan :)))) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 10:30:04 PM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner). The question I don't understand is how they make a case. To appeal to the federal court they would have to argue that they are a racial or language minority. Religion is not covered by the 15th amendment, and probably by the 1st amendment it can't be used. Racial minority. Hm.... has a nasty tinge when applied to Jews, don't you think so? Are Jews a race? Linguistic minority sounds better. It would work for the Hassidim - many of them, especially the Satmars, I believe, are still largely Yiddish-speaking. Might be more trouble w/ other Orthodox, though, (do they still speak much Yiddish in Lithuanian yeshivas? I don't know), if we take the current linguistic situation, but, probably, could be argued by descent for most Ashkenazic Jews in Brooklyn, including almost all the ex-Soviets (the Bukharans and the Georgians, whose ancestors have never been Yiddish-speaking, are, mostly, in Queens). It would, of course, exclude the Sephardim, unless that common language is defined as Hebrew - which would, in all frankness, exclude the Russians :)) But Sephardim are not so big in Brooklyn (though, of course, present), so, I guess, it is fine. So, the ultimate irony: the despised "jargon" would, probably, serve best as the identifier for the group to be protected :)))) As somebody who has a fair deal of sentimental attachment for the language of Sholom Aleykhem, I'd be thrilled :)))) Of course, the problem then would be how to avoid including all those liberal Manhattan/Park Slope Jews, who would be as much part of the same community (you can't exclude them by only considering current Yiddish-speakers, as that would exclude the Russians as well). If you include them, it becomes unclear why the protected group should be electing a Republican, if it is, mostly, Democratic :)) But then the same problem would be even more acute if the racial argument were to be used. Tough.... Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 10:34:20 PM The question I don't understand is how they make a case. To appeal to the federal court they would have to argue that they are a racial or language minority. Religion is not covered by the 15th amendment, and probably by the 1st amendment it can't be used. Imagine getting it up to the Supreme Court and arguing it in front of the current roster of the Justices :))) Justice Ginsburg: "Would, say, some of us present here be considered a part of the same protected minority". NY Jew: "With all due respect, justice, I would say that this minority is defined not merely in terms of ancestral usage of Yiddish, but in terms of current cultural practice and personal identification". Justice Kagan "Are you suggesting that myself and Justice Ginsburg are not Jewish?" NY Jew: "I wouldn't say that. But, the self-hating Jews might as well be considered anti-semites, and, so, definitely, would not be part of the protected minority. Then, of course, come to think about this, as the example of Bob Turner shows, Justice Scalia might well be part of it". I just can imagine it. It would be a great show :)) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 20, 2012, 10:39:04 PM Pity you guys picked up on the Orthodox Jewish submission. I was going to put up a poll, with all the usual suspects listed, from myself to BRTD to Muon2 to Sbane to NY Jew to Lewis to Brittain33 and so on, and ask who do you think would like the map best. But now the answer has been given away. :( Here is their entire map. Wow, that Staten Island-Ozone Park district is really something else. It is no problem. Most folks know how to swim these days. Bridges are just for the physically challenged. NY had a Rockland-Richmond-Kings district at one time. That could be great for the Orthodox Jews! Well, I guess, it would have to be drawn along the Hudson, because if it takes any significant population on Manhattan, there is a way of making it Jewish, but no way of making it Republican :))) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 20, 2012, 11:40:27 PM During what period was that district drawn like that?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on March 21, 2012, 12:28:13 AM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner). The question I don't understand is how they make a case. To appeal to the federal court they would have to argue that they are a racial or language minority. Religion is not covered by the 15th amendment, and probably by the 1st amendment it can't be used. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: danny on March 21, 2012, 06:27:08 AM Might be more trouble w/ other Orthodox, though, (do they still speak much Yiddish in Lithuanian yeshivas? I don't know) I checked and the best I came up with were http://www.mla.org/map_data_results&state_id=34&place_id=38580&cty_id= (http://these numbers for lakewood 2000)(home to the Beth Medrash Govoha. So that would probably be an English majority with significant Yiddish and Hebrew minorities amongst the Litvishers. Does that count as a linguistic minority? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 21, 2012, 08:10:16 AM Might be more trouble w/ other Orthodox, though, (do they still speak much Yiddish in Lithuanian yeshivas? I don't know) I checked and the best I came up with were http://www.mla.org/map_data_results&state_id=34&place_id=38580&cty_id= (http://these numbers for lakewood 2000)(home to the Beth Medrash Govoha. So that would probably be an English majority with significant Yiddish and Hebrew minorities amongst the Litvishers. Does that count as a linguistic minority? According to the site there are less than 200K Yiddish and Hebrew speakers throughout NY. They would not reach the 50% of a CD required for VRA section 2 status, assuming they were a recognized minority. There are certainly enough for legislative districts, however. If they are shown to vote as a bloc differently than the rest of the population in their area, then they would meet the Gingles test. That still leaves the question as to whether they could be recognized as such. It's perhaps useful to note that Hispanics as a language minority were not in the original VRA but were added later. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 21, 2012, 08:16:32 AM Claiming they speak Hebrew at home won't cut it for some of the Hassidim: they make a point not to :)) It's loshn koydesh vs. mama loshn, and you don't use the former to talk about chickens.
But then, if Scottish Gaelic is not a European language by Australian law, what would prevent Yiddish from not being a European language by American law? For that matter, there are almost no speakers left in Europe :)) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 21, 2012, 09:51:21 AM Man, Hasids love No True Scotsman more than any other group.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: danny on March 21, 2012, 12:04:51 PM If Yiddish is a problem because it originated in Europe, than wouldn't Spanish have the same problem?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 21, 2012, 01:28:09 PM 5 districts? NY Jew, have you seen what they did to Austin? A better example is Will County, Illinois, which has the distinction of being chopped into 6 districts. I think that might be a record! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on March 21, 2012, 01:28:31 PM During what period was that district drawn like that? Then 1822-1840 Kings, Richmond, and Rockland (New York City only included Manhattan) Then Richmond was with Queens and Suffolk (Nassau wasn't created until later). It was in 1892 that Richmond started being placed with Manhattan. In the 1950s it was moved to Brooklyn. The 1960s district was Richmond and SE Brooklyn, and in the 1970s back to Manhattan. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 21, 2012, 06:44:14 PM Anyway, it is not hard to draw a district that would include the entire Borough Park, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Midwood Jewish parts of Williamsburg, Crown Heights, Flatbush, etc. - I even got the entire Gravesend and half the Homecrest in (Ocean Parkway is in all the way through to the Belt Parkway) that would be 66.5% Obama (72.1% Dem on average). It's only 9% black - no concern there. 12.9% Hispanic and 11.3% Asian - but you can't draw a Hispanic district from those parts anyway. There is still a lot of stuff I've included for no good reason to pad the Dem margin (such as Red Hook) that could be removed to replace w/ Jewish neighborhoods without making it less than 60% Obama. Of course, once you insist on including Brighton and Manhattan Beach, it would change - but why include those atheist ex-Commies :))? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 21, 2012, 06:52:12 PM One quick point I would like to make here in the Orthodox Jewish seat argument is that if such a seat is drawn to grant representation specifically to the Orthodox Jewish minority is that for such a seat to do just that, the main premise would be that the seat needs to be drawn so that the Orthodox community is able to elect the representative of their choice. It does not need to be majority Orthodox Jewish. We often use this standard with other minority groups throughout the country in redistricting. Note, I am not arguing that the Orthodox Jewish community is large enough that representation should be legally required, but if it is, the district needs to be drawn so that other groups will not drown out the Orthodox vote. This means that the other groups cannot be too heavily partisan against the Orthodox prefered candidate (which right now seems to be Turner). Do you really think that the Orthodox Jews would elect (Catholic) Turner if it were up to them? He'd loose a primary in any Orthodox-majority district before you can say "Jesus". Partisan arguments can't be a problem: the courts have repeatedly ruled that it's ok to gerrymander for partisan ends. The problem is dilution of a racial/ethnic/other minority group for the purposes of preventing it from electing the candidate of their choice. It is hard to see how a district that maximizes the concentration of the target group (Orthodox Jews) could be wrong here. It is also hard to see how reducing the proportion of that group in the district (as would be the case in the South Brooklyn district as compared w/ the North-Central Brooklyn district) could help the Orthodox Jews elect the candidate of their choice that would not also be supported by some other major group. Of course, it is simply impossible to get a district in Brooklyn where Orthodox Jews would be able to elect candidate of their choice without them happening to coincide with some other, not Orthodox community - there are simply not enough of them (especially, if we just look at the voting age population). That's why, any proposed "Orthodox Jewish" district would have to rely at least as strongly on other, non-Orthodox, or even non-Jewish groups to do the trick - the Russians, the Irish, the Italians or whatever. But at that point it becomes a matter of coalition building, not of electing a candidate of the Orthodox Jewish choice. In as much as "candidate of choice" seems to be an euthemism for "one of their own", this is going to fail outright - a proper Hasid won't get elected in such a district (many Russians would, probably, rather vote Dem, as would many of the other elements of this "Republican coalition"). Turner is certainly not one of them, and would not have been their choice if they could decide on their own. Hence the difficulty with defining the "protected group". The Orthodox Jews simply are not numerous or concentrated enough for a district (unless one finds a way of linking Borough Park and Rockland county in one district :)) ). Protecting Jews as such - a group that less than 4 years ago voted, what, 70% for Obama - would not seem to require drawing a Republican district; if anything, that would prevent the Jews at large from electing representatives of their choice. So NY Jew and his kind have invented a new "protected group": Republican Jews - which includes the Orthodox and the Russians (especially the first-generation immigrants among those), but excludes the bulk of the Jews in Manhattan, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, etc. For their purposes Bob Turner is a member of this group, while Woody Allen isn't. Fine by me - but they'd have to pursuade Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan :)))) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Cliff Racer on March 21, 2012, 07:00:34 PM 5 districts? NY Jew, have you seen what they did to Austin? A better example is Will County, Illinois, which has the distinction of being chopped into 6 districts. I think that might be a record! Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Cliff Racer on March 21, 2012, 07:06:46 PM edit: Ah heck, dp
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 21, 2012, 07:19:58 PM But Sephardim are not so big in Brooklyn (though, of course, present), so, I guess, it is fine. So, the ultimate irony: the despised "jargon" would, probably, serve best as the identifier for the group to be protected :)))) Brooklyn probably has more sefradiem then any other place outside of Israel Syrian shuls in Brooklyn (there are other sefardi groups) according to wikapedia (I think this missed a few) * Ahaba Ve Ahva, at 1744 Ocean Parkway between Kings Highway and Quentin Road, for Egyptian Jews. - Rabbi Shimon Alouf (Rosh Yeshiba of the Sephardic Rabbinical College). * Ahaba Ve Ahva Congregation and Yeshiva, at 2001 East 7th Street. * Ahi Ezer Congregation, at 1885 Ocean Parkway. The synagogue generally serves the Damascus or (Shami) Syrian community. - Rabbi Shaul Maslaton * Ahi Ezer Torah Center, at 1950 East 7th Street. * Ahi Ezer Yeshiva, a synagogue housed on the ground floor of the Ahi Ezer Elementary School, at 2433 Ocean Parkway. Originally built as an extension for Damascus (Shami) Jews, it currently has a mostly Egyptian attendance. - Rabbi Hanania Elbaz * Ateret Torah, at 901 Quentin Road, for Haredim. - Rabbi Yosef Harari Raful * Avenue O Synagogue or Ohel Yeshua VeSarah, at 808 Avenue O. - Rabbi Shemuel Beyda * Avenue U Synagogue, at 400 Avenue U. * Congregation Beth El, at 2181 East 3rd Street between Avenue U and Avenue V. * Bet Shaul U'Miriam, at 2208 Avenue S (Madison Neighborhood). - Rabbi David Cohen * Beth Torah, at 1061 Ocean Parkway (Midwood Neighborhood), founded by Albert Shalom. - Rabbi Yehuda A. Azancot * Bet Yaakob, now situated in the former Ahaba Ve Ahva synagogue, at 1801 Ocean Parkway. - Rabbi Eli Mansour * Beth Yosef, also known as Beth Levy, at 2108 Ocean Parkway (Gravesend Neighborhood). * Congregation Bnai Yosef, the Sitt Shul, at 1616 Ocean Parkway, on the corner of Avenue P. - Rabbi Haim Benoliel * Bnei Binyamin Torah Center, at 727 Avenue O. - Rabbi Solomon Seruya * Bnei Yitzhak, at 730 Avenue S. - Rabbi Harold Sutton (Rosh Yeshiba of the Magen David Yeshiva, and Rosh Kollel of the Sephardic Rabbinical College). * Bnei Yitzhak Annex, at 718 Avenue S. * Hesed Avraham, at 59 Gravesend Neck Road. * Har Halebanon, at 820 Avenue S. - Rabbi David Jemal and Rabbi Clem Harari * Hayim Shaal Congregation, at 1123 Avenue N (Midwood Neighborhood). - Rabbi Mordechai Maslaton * Keter Sion, at 1914 East 8th Street. - Rabbi Max Maslaton (son of Rabbi Sion Maslaton) * Kol Israel Congregation, at 3211 Bedford Avenue. - Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari (Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshiva of Flatbush). * Kollel Ohel Moshe, also known as Rabbi Lankry's Synagogue, at 1848 East 7th Street between Avenue R and Kings Highway, for Moroccan Jews. - Rabbi Shlomo Lankry * Madison Torah Center, at 2221 Avenue R. - Rabbi Danny Tawil and Rabbi Shmuel Aini * Magen Abraham, housed in the former Torah Academy of Brooklyn high school, at 2066 East 9th Street. * Magen David Synagogue, housed in the Magen David Yeshivah, at 2130 McDonald Avenue. - Rabbi Joey Haber, Rabbi Haim Shaul and Rabbi Ikey Tawil * Netivot Israel Congregation, at 1617 Ocean Parkway, for Moroccan Jews. - Rabbi Gad Bouskila * Ohel Moshe, at Avenue P and East 16th Street. - Rabbi Moshe Levy * Ohr Hachaim, at 2286 Coney Island Avenue. * Rabbi Yehouda Ben Betera Congregation, at 2296 Coney Island Avenue, for Qamishli Jews. - Rabbi Marco Nakash * Sephardic Center of Mill Basin, at 6208 Strickland Avenue (Mill Basin Neighborhood). - Rabbi Abraham Levy * Sephardic Lebanese Congregation, at 805 Avenue T. - Rabbi Eliyahu Elbaz * Sephardic Synagogue, housed in the former Sephardic Institute, at 511 Avenue R. - Rabbi Moshe Shamah and Rabbi Ronald Barry * Shaare Rahamim, at 1244 East 7th Street (Midwood Neighborhood). - Rabbi Shlomo Churba * Shaare Shalom, at 2021 Avenue S (Madison Neighborhood). - Rabbi Joe Dweck (Rosh Yeshiba of Barkai Yeshiva) * Shaare Torah, at 1680 Coney Island Avenue (Midwood Neighborhood). * Shevet Achim Congregation, at 708 Avenue T, for Damascus (Shami) Jews. - Rabbi Yosheyahu Shammah and Rabbi Yosef Hamra * Shevet Achim Youth Congregation, at 706 Avenue T. - Cantor Chaim Leviov * Shuva Israel, at 2015 Avenue R. * Sukkat Daveed Congregation, at 807 Avenue T. * Tiferet Torah Congregation, on East 3rd Street between Avenue P and Quentin Road. - Rabbi Michael Haber * Congregation Torat Israel, at 710 Shore Boulevard (Manhattan Beach Neighborhood). - Rabbi Jacob Farhi * Congregation Yam Hatorah, at 1573 East 10th Street. * Yad Yosef Torah Center, at 1032 Ocean Parkway (Midwood Neighborhood). - Rabbi David Ozeri and Rabbi David Sutton Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 21, 2012, 11:18:43 PM Well, if there are lots of Sefardim in the Orthodox block, that makes it worse: they can't be part of the same linguistic minority, as they don't speak Yiddish. They can't be part of the same religious minority, because it is not protectable. That leaves the racial designation, which is both borderline anti-semitic and not even very certain to succeed, as it is pretty hard to identify them w/ the Ashkenazim in any way that is not reliant on religion. Tough - I guess, any arguments relying on the joint numbers of Sefardim and Ashkenazim might not be allowable.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 21, 2012, 11:39:08 PM besides Orthodox + Russian Jews are around 60% of NYC Jewish population. If that is true (and I would need a source), this would suggest that the two blocks together are fairly Democratic (which is not that surprising, since, once the younger Russian Jews move off the Brighton Beach, they tend to assimilate in the general secular Jewish population and start voting Dem). I haven't found the exit poll number for Jews in NY state in 2008, but for Jews nationwide the NYTimes exit poll shows that 78% of them voted for Obama (fairly typical numbers; the Jewish share of vote for the Dem presidential candiate in the last 5 cycles has oscillated between 74% for Kerry in 2004 and 80% for Clinton in 1992). About a quarter of US Jews lives in NY state, so, if most NY Jews, did not vote for Obama, this would imply that nearly 90% of the Jews outside of NY State voted for him. And it is not as if there were no Russians or Orthodox in the other 49 states. It simply seems implausible to assume anything other than most Jews in NY State reliably vote Dem in most elections. Drawing a Republican district to represent this "protected minority" seems a rather strange exercise. Of course, there remains a possibility (that seems increasingly likely to me) that NY Jew is simply using the definition of Jewishness that excludes Woody Allen and the 3 Supreme Court Justices and includes Bob Turner. Thus, the minority to be protected is DEFINED to be "Jews who vote Republican and allies". Good luck defending that in court. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 21, 2012, 11:48:43 PM He agreed that gay marriage did indeed tank Welperin, allowing Turner to win. keep in mind NYS state already passed marriage redefinition and congress didn't pass the disrespect for marriage act (so this senate election was seen somewhat as a statement) and Fidler wasn't Orthodox and never gave a speech (which hurt him even more then the marriage vote). the 48th Ad overlap with the 27th SD was around 70% for Storobin. (he also won the rest of the Orthodox vote) from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/nyregion/both-sides-declare-victory-in-bumpy-brooklyn-senate-race.html?_r=2 Quote He generated support from the staunchly Orthodox communities who did not favor Mr. Fidler’s support of same-sex marriage. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/nyregion/in-overtime-close-senate-election-shifts-to-the-vote-counters.html Quote He took advantage of two growing and politically conservative communities in Brooklyn — Orthodox Jews, who related to Mr. Storobin’s position against same-sex marriage, and Russians, who were eager to elect a young candidate who spoke their language. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 21, 2012, 11:51:53 PM besides Orthodox + Russian Jews are around 60% of NYC Jewish population. If that is true (and I would need a source), this would suggest that the two blocks together are fairly Democratic (which is not that surprising, since, once the younger Russian Jews move off the Brighton Beach, they tend to assimilate in the general secular Jewish population and start voting Dem). I haven't found the exit poll number for Jews in NY state in 2008, but for Jews nationwide the NYTimes exit poll shows that 78% of them voted for Obama (fairly typical numbers; the Jewish share of vote for the Dem presidential candiate in the last 5 cycles has oscillated between 74% for Kerry in 2004 and 80% for Clinton in 1992). About a quarter of US Jews lives in NY state, so, if most NY Jews, did not vote for Obama, this would imply that nearly 90% of the Jews outside of NY State voted for him. And it is not as if there were no Russians or Orthodox in the other 49 states. It simply seems implausible to assume anything other than most Jews in NY State reliably vote Dem in most elections. Drawing a Republican district to represent this "protected minority" seems a rather strange exercise. Of course, there remains a possibility (that seems increasingly likely to me) that NY Jew is simply using the definition of Jewishness that excludes Woody Allen and the 3 Supreme Court Justices and includes Bob Turner. Thus, the minority to be protected is DEFINED to be "Jews who vote Republican and allies". Good luck defending that in court. or the polls are way off because they underestimate the Orthodox and Russian (also Iranian ext.) vote's big. keep in mind this was 10 years ago and the demographics are getting much more Orthodox. http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Archive/C-NY-New_York-2002-Main_Report.pdf 185,700 Russian speaking Jews in NYC 331,200 Orthodox Jews in NYC 972,000 Jews in NYC Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 22, 2012, 12:16:43 AM besides Orthodox + Russian Jews are around 60% of NYC Jewish population. If that is true (and I would need a source), this would suggest that the two blocks together are fairly Democratic (which is not that surprising, since, once the younger Russian Jews move off the Brighton Beach, they tend to assimilate in the general secular Jewish population and start voting Dem). I haven't found the exit poll number for Jews in NY state in 2008, but for Jews nationwide the NYTimes exit poll shows that 78% of them voted for Obama (fairly typical numbers; the Jewish share of vote for the Dem presidential candiate in the last 5 cycles has oscillated between 74% for Kerry in 2004 and 80% for Clinton in 1992). About a quarter of US Jews lives in NY state, so, if most NY Jews, did not vote for Obama, this would imply that nearly 90% of the Jews outside of NY State voted for him. And it is not as if there were no Russians or Orthodox in the other 49 states. It simply seems implausible to assume anything other than most Jews in NY State reliably vote Dem in most elections. Drawing a Republican district to represent this "protected minority" seems a rather strange exercise. Of course, there remains a possibility (that seems increasingly likely to me) that NY Jew is simply using the definition of Jewishness that excludes Woody Allen and the 3 Supreme Court Justices and includes Bob Turner. Thus, the minority to be protected is DEFINED to be "Jews who vote Republican and allies". Good luck defending that in court. or the polls are way off because they underestimate the Orthodox and Russian vote's big. Any reason to believe that? Unless, of course, the Orthodox and the Russians are somehow ashamed of their anti-Jewish behavior and refuse to answer the pollsters, that is :)) In any case, for the moment we do not have a shred of evidence that most NY Jews would prefer electing Republican to electing a Democrat, but definite evidence that it is the other way around. Until polls and exit polls start showing that it is the other way around, why exactly would anyone decide that they, as a group, would need a Republican district in Brooklyn? This is even if we forget, that the current congressional delegation from New York already has at least 5 Jewish congressmen and a Jewish Senator, most of them elected w/ overwhelming Jewish support. Drawing a district that would reliably elect a Republican Catholic to the dismay of most NY State Jews (the latter according to the best available evidence) seems a very interesting way of letting the Jews elect a candidate of their choice. To sum up, it seems increasingly clear, that NY Jew does NOT want Jews as such to be the protected minority. As there is no way of drawing together the Orthodox (both Sefardic and Ashkenazic) and the Russians to the exclusion of the secular American Jewish population into any community based on anything other than their shared support of the Republican party (based to a significant extent, let us be honest, on dislike of blacks and other racial minorities), it is equally clear that the group he would like to protect are the Republican Jews. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 22, 2012, 12:26:29 AM BTW, even if I believe the Jewish databank data (btw, interestingly enough, you exclude the NYState Jews outside the city - why, may I inquire? they are about 40% of the total, if I am not much mistaken; or do you think that the protected community should be Republican Jews in NYCity?) you forget that a) Russians outside of Brighton Beach are a lot less Republican (probably, in fact, substantially Democratic, as they quickly become American Jews) and, in the absence of recent massive Russian immigration they, as a community are becoming less and less distinct from the general secular Jewish population (even if they don't move to Jersey :)) ) and b) Orthodox families have lots of kids - these are not voting age and would not be voting for a while.
In any case, it would be a coherent position that Orthodox Jews are a distinct cultural community that should be protected - but there are not enough of the Orthodox for an Orthodox majority district (forget about VAP), and certainly not enough of them for an Orthodox majority district in Brooklyn. It would be a coherent position that Jews (or, at least, Ashkenazic Jews) should be protected as a whole - but these are still mostly Democratic by all the evidence we have. It's NOT a coherent position to ask to protect the Orthodox and the Russians together, to the exclusion of the rest. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 12:35:48 AM besides Orthodox + Russian Jews are around 60% of NYC Jewish population. If that is true (and I would need a source), this would suggest that the two blocks together are fairly Democratic (which is not that surprising, since, once the younger Russian Jews move off the Brighton Beach, they tend to assimilate in the general secular Jewish population and start voting Dem). I haven't found the exit poll number for Jews in NY state in 2008, but for Jews nationwide the NYTimes exit poll shows that 78% of them voted for Obama (fairly typical numbers; the Jewish share of vote for the Dem presidential candiate in the last 5 cycles has oscillated between 74% for Kerry in 2004 and 80% for Clinton in 1992). About a quarter of US Jews lives in NY state, so, if most NY Jews, did not vote for Obama, this would imply that nearly 90% of the Jews outside of NY State voted for him. And it is not as if there were no Russians or Orthodox in the other 49 states. It simply seems implausible to assume anything other than most Jews in NY State reliably vote Dem in most elections. Drawing a Republican district to represent this "protected minority" seems a rather strange exercise. Of course, there remains a possibility (that seems increasingly likely to me) that NY Jew is simply using the definition of Jewishness that excludes Woody Allen and the 3 Supreme Court Justices and includes Bob Turner. Thus, the minority to be protected is DEFINED to be "Jews who vote Republican and allies". Good luck defending that in court. or the polls are way off because they underestimate the Orthodox and Russian vote's big. Any reason to believe that? Unless, of course, the Orthodox and the Russians are somehow ashamed of their anti-Jewish behavior and refuse to answer the pollsters, that is :)) In any case, for the moment we do not have a shred of evidence that most NY Jews would prefer electing Republican to electing a Democrat, but definite evidence that it is the other way around. Until polls and exit polls start showing that it is the other way around, why exactly would anyone decide that they, as a group, would need a Republican district in Brooklyn? This is even if we forget, that the current congressional delegation from New York already has at least 5 Jewish congressmen and a Jewish Senator, most of them elected w/ overwhelming Jewish support. Drawing a district that would reliably elect a Republican Catholic to the dismay of most NY State Jews (the latter according to the best available evidence) seems a very interesting way of letting the Jews elect a candidate of their choice. To sum up, it seems increasingly clear, that NY Jew does NOT want Jews as such to be the protected minority. As there is no way of drawing together the Orthodox (both Sefardic and Ashkenazic) and the Russians to the exclusion of the secular American Jewish population into any community based on anything other than their shared support of the Republican party (based to a significant extent, let us be honest, on dislike of blacks and other racial minorities), it is equally clear that the group he would like to protect are the Republican Jews. I'll be shocked if McCain didn't win the NYC Jewish vote. most Orthodox and Russian jews don't want to speak to pollsters. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on March 22, 2012, 12:37:53 AM Well, if there are lots of Sefardim in the Orthodox block, that makes it worse: they can't be part of the same linguistic minority, as they don't speak Yiddish. They can't be part of the same religious minority, because it is not protectable. That leaves the racial designation, which is both borderline anti-semitic and not even very certain to succeed, as it is pretty hard to identify them w/ the Ashkenazim in any way that is not reliant on religion. Tough - I guess, any arguments relying on the joint numbers of Sefardim and Ashkenazim might not be allowable. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 12:53:53 AM This is even if we forget, that the current congressional delegation from New York already has at least 5 Jewish congressmen and a Jewish Senator, most of them elected w/ overwhelming Jewish support. Drawing a district that would reliably elect a Republican Catholic to the dismay of most NY State Jews (the latter according to the best available evidence) seems a very interesting way of letting the Jews elect a candidate of their choice. Which current jewish congressmen was elected with overwhelming Jewish support in their last election? in 2002 according to the federation there are in zip codes (with a much bigger general population then Cony Island) 11201, 11231, 11217, 11215 there 27,000 jews (and I'm sure much less now) in the Cony Island one of the areas you want to take out zip codes 11224 and 11235 there are 54,500 jews the only way to actually make a jewish majority compact district would be to combine the Orthodox and Russian and and leave out the non Orthodox/Russian jews there aren't enough of them to include them in the district and they are not the majority in any area in the city. the only way possible to get a majority jewish compact district is to do something similar to what the Orthodox group did. taking out Geristan Beach for example and putting in parts of Bensehurst would make this more jewish and more Orthodox and Russian though (not sure why they didn't do that as GB has more in common with the catholic district) Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 01:04:21 AM BTW, even if I believe the Jewish databank data (btw, interestingly enough, you exclude the NYState Jews outside the city - why, may I inquire? they are about 40% of the total, if I am not much mistaken; or do you think that the protected community should be Republican Jews in NYCity?) you forget that a) Russians outside of Brighton Beach are a lot less Republican (probably, in fact, substantially Democratic, as they quickly become American Jews) and, in the absence of recent massive Russian immigration they, as a community are becoming less and less distinct from the general secular Jewish population (even if they don't move to Jersey :)) ) and b) Orthodox families have lots of kids - these are not voting age and would not be voting for a while. In any case, it would be a coherent position that Orthodox Jews are a distinct cultural community that should be protected - but there are not enough of the Orthodox for an Orthodox majority district (forget about VAP), and certainly not enough of them for an Orthodox majority district in Brooklyn. It would be a coherent position that Jews (or, at least, Ashkenazic Jews) should be protected as a whole - but these are still mostly Democratic by all the evidence we have. It's NOT a coherent position to ask to protect the Orthodox and the Russians together, to the exclusion of the rest. Just for the record I think all Jews should be included but since there is no where else in the country besides southern Brooklyn that there can be a compact Jewish majority district that makes your whole argument mute Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 01:07:18 AM Well, if there are lots of Sefardim in the Orthodox block, that makes it worse: they can't be part of the same linguistic minority, as they don't speak Yiddish. They can't be part of the same religious minority, because it is not protectable. That leaves the racial designation, which is both borderline anti-semitic and not even very certain to succeed, as it is pretty hard to identify them w/ the Ashkenazim in any way that is not reliant on religion. Tough - I guess, any arguments relying on the joint numbers of Sefardim and Ashkenazim might not be allowable. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 22, 2012, 01:43:51 AM why don't you look at who they vote for in elections (in areas where they are the majority) that might be a better indicator then exit polls. there is no way in the world that the calculated for all the heavy McCain Jewish neighborhoods throughout the country. I'll be shocked if McCain didn't win the NYC Jewish vote. most Orthodox and Russian jews don't want to speak to pollsters. This is unadulterated nonsense. There is no evidence the Russians don't talk to exit pollsters in any numbers that are distinct from the other population groups and in ways that are unanticipated by the pollsters. Based on the exit poll numbers I'd be shocked if McCain got much more than 40% of NYCity Jewish vote or 35% of NYState Jewish vote. People who live in the ghetto vote differently from those who live outside it. There is a reason all those Russians have moved out of the greater Brighton Beach area: they don't like to live in the ghetto. They still go there a few times a year to stock up on Russian food and books - and then spend weeks discussing the barbarousness of the permanent residents of that self-made Soviet shtetl (hey, even the Russian dialect of Brighton Beach is a major subject of hilarious jokes). A trip to a Russian deli in Brighton Beach is an incredible, exotic experience to most Russian Jews in the US. Unlike the Brighton Beach crowd, people from outside the area, tend to be more fluent in English - the get less of their information from the Russian-American media (there is a reason the Novoe Russkoe Slovo has died - young people didn't read it). Those outsiders, especially the younger ones, most definitely DO NOT vote the same as the brightonbeachers. There might still be a slightly elevated share of Republicans among these assimilated Russians, as compared to other Jews, but I don't think there is any doubt that they are, actually, mostly voting Dem. Also, keep in mind, the Russian community is not homogenous: electoral habits of those who came from small-town Ukraine and those who came from major cities in Russia should not be confused. And Brighton Beach is, mostly, about the former, not the latter. By the time you get to Washington Heights even some elderly Russian ladies might be volunteering for Dem causes. As for the Orthodox - well, these do overwhelmingly live in the ghetto. The problem is, their electoral strength lags behind their raw numbers: too many kids. Of course, this is only a temporary delay, but a delay it is - you need to be 18 to vote (and, thus, to show up in exit polls). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: ag on March 22, 2012, 01:57:12 AM Again, there is no reason to create a "majority Jewish" district to elect congressmen that would be rejected by a large majority of NY State Jews. I could see a reason to create a district for the ultra-Orthodox, if they were sufficiently numerous in a compact area - but the are not, at least not yet. Joining the Russians and the Orthodox serves no identifiable objective, except electing a Republican congressman and, perhaps, spiting most NY Jews, who would be opposed to creation of such a district. There are 5 Jewish congressmen currently that are elected in NY State, and there is every reason to believe that they got an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote in their districts, which represent a substantial proportion of NY State Jewish population. That most voters in those districts were not Jewish is NOT an argument in support of segregating Jews in "Jewish" districts: as it is, Jewish voters elect the representatives of their choice. That a minority of the Jewish voting public is unhappy is undeniable - but that is not a legal reason to do anything.
I am coming to believe that you are an archetypal "self-hating Jew". You happen to sincerely dislike most of your fellow-tribesmen and prefer to invent your own idea of a Jewish-American, that has little to do w/ reality, at least of today. Well, the Woody Allens, and not the Bob Turners, are still the Jews you have to deal with, if you are talking of NY Jewry. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 02:11:42 AM Again, there is no reason to create a "majority Jewish" district to elect congressmen that would be rejected by a large majority of NY State Jews. I could see a reason to create a district for the ultra-Orthodox, if they were sufficiently numerous in a compact area - but the are not, at least not yet. Joining the Russians and the Orthodox serves no identifiable objective, except electing a Republican congressman and, perhaps, spiting most NY Jews, who would be opposed to creation of such a district. There are 5 Jewish congressmen currently that are elected in NY State, and there is every reason to believe that they got an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote in their districts, which represent a substantial proportion of NY State Jewish population. That most voters in those districts were not Jewish is NOT an argument in support of segregating Jews in "Jewish" districts: as it is, Jewish voters elect the representatives of their choice. That a minority of the Jewish voting public is unhappy is undeniable - but that is not a legal reason to do anything. I am coming to believe that you are an archetypal "self-hating Jew". You happen to sincerely dislike most of your fellow-tribesmen and prefer to invent your own idea of a Jewish-American, that has little to do w/ reality, at least of today. Well, the Woody Allens, and not the Bob Turners, are still the Jews you have to deal with, if you are talking of NY Jewry. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: NY Jew on March 22, 2012, 02:17:13 AM Again, there is no reason to create a "majority Jewish" district to elect congressmen that would be rejected by a large majority of NY State Jews. I could see a reason to create a district for the ultra-Orthodox, if they were sufficiently numerous in a compact area - but the are not, at least not yet. Joining the Russians and the Orthodox serves no identifiable objective, except electing a Republican congressman and, perhaps, spiting most NY Jews, who would be opposed to creation of such a district. There are 5 Jewish congressmen currently that are elected in NY State, and there is every reason to believe that they got an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote in their districts, which represent a substantial proportion of NY State Jewish population. That most voters in those districts were not Jewish is NOT an argument in support of segregating Jews in "Jewish" districts: as it is, Jewish voters elect the representatives of their choice. That a minority of the Jewish voting public is unhappy is undeniable - but that is not a legal reason to do anything. I am coming to believe that you are an archetypal "self-hating Jew". You happen to sincerely dislike most of your fellow-tribesmen and prefer to invent your own idea of a Jewish-American, that has little to do w/ reality, at least of today. Well, the Woody Allens, and not the Bob Turners, are still the Jews you have to deal with, if you are talking of NY Jewry. Engel, Ackerman probably won the Jewish vote but the Jewish vote% was probably much smaller then their total vote% Lowey and Israel fit your description. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 23, 2012, 06:29:04 AM Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on March 23, 2012, 07:08:39 AM Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree. But why are they that worried. With a D+6 the district looks secure on paper. If the problem is Slaughter, then that's an internal issue for the Dems. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 23, 2012, 09:19:24 AM Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree. But why are they that worried. With a D+6 the district looks secure on paper. If the problem is Slaughter, then that's an internal issue for the Dems. It was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 23, 2012, 09:33:58 AM Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree. But why are they that worried. With a D+6 the district looks secure on paper. If the problem is Slaughter, then that's an internal issue for the Dems. The "internal problem" is that Slaughter is refusing (http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/slaughter-gets-specific-in-re-election-announcement/) to retire. I suspect that she can be bagged given the Pubs have such a strong candidate, and it should be a good Pub year. The problem is then trying to hold it when the Dems come up with a much better opponent. It will be a tough call given that how much money the RNC and the PACS and so forth want to spend on this race given that it seems to me. Maybe if Buerkle goes down with Slaughter (quite possible), in an ensuing bi-partisan gerrymander after the election (I would not count that out depending on what happens), the two CD's can then do a precinct exchange - just in the reverse direction of what might have happened if a bi-partisan gerrymander were done this year. :P The Dems probably will demand in such a deal that Israel and Lowey be shored up as part of such a deal however, assuming they both get re-elected (which of course is highly probable with Lowey, but somewhat less probable with Israel, depending on how good an opponent he gets, and how much money is dumped into the race). What happens in NY-01 might be part of the mix too. Ah the wheels within wheels. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 23, 2012, 03:01:49 PM Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree. But why are they that worried. With a D+6 the district looks secure on paper. If the problem is Slaughter, then that's an internal issue for the Dems. The "internal problem" is that Slaughter is refusing (http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/03/slaughter-gets-specific-in-re-election-announcement/) to retire. I suspect that she can be bagged given the Pubs have such a strong candidate, and it should be a good Pub year. The problem is then trying to hold it when the Dems come up with a much better opponent. It will be a tough call given that how much money the RNC and the PACS and so forth want to spend on this race given that it seems to me. Maybe if Buerkle goes down with Slaughter (quite possible), in an ensuing bi-partisan gerrymander after the election (I would not count that out depending on what happens), the two CD's can then do a precinct exchange - just in the reverse direction of what might have happened if a bi-partisan gerrymander were done this year. :P The Dems probably will demand in such a deal that Israel and Lowey be shored up as part of such a deal however, assuming they both get re-elected (which of course is highly probable with Lowey, but somewhat less probable with Israel, depending on how good an opponent he gets, and how much money is dumped into the race). What happens in NY-01 might be part of the mix too. Ah the wheels within wheels. A good Republican year? If Obama wins, I doubt it will be a good Republican year. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on March 23, 2012, 04:14:57 PM A good Republican year? If Obama wins, I doubt it will be a good Republican year. Yeah... I'm assuming either evenly balanced or slightly Dem year, which means some Republican losses but continued control of the House. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 23, 2012, 04:29:01 PM A good Republican year? If Obama wins, I doubt it will be a good Republican year. Yeah... I'm assuming either evenly balanced or slightly Dem year, which means some Republican losses but continued control of the House. Im expecting the House to be around 225-210. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 24, 2012, 02:09:24 AM If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be arguing that Slaughter isn't worth it. First of all you still have to consider any opponent's going to need about 1/6 of Obama voters while keeping the Tea Party people who already aren't happy about Romney satisfied. Not easy to do simply on the "old and in office too long" way of thinking, it didn't even work against Kanjorski without a GOP wave and he had corruption issues on top of that. More like a recipe for Slaughter to end up with only 53-54%, which might finally convince her to retire. But that just means a new fresh Dem takes the seat. And even if they manage to pull it off, the seat is gone as soon as the Dems have a good year again. There's plenty of vulnerable GOP incumbents who are more in need of that money, including ones in the same state.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 24, 2012, 10:06:31 AM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 24, 2012, 10:24:36 AM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. It is animated by my low opinion of Slaughter. We shall see. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 24, 2012, 12:26:31 PM Does anyone have a close up comparison between Slaughter's 1988 district and the 2012 district and how much additional territory is in the current one?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: patrick1 on March 24, 2012, 12:40:20 PM Does anyone have a close up comparison between Slaughter's 1988 district and the 2012 district and how much additional territory is in the current one? This has highlights by color and allows you to zoom in and out. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/20/nyregion/new-york-redistricting.html?ref=reapportionment Edit, sorry missed 1988. Nope. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 24, 2012, 12:53:41 PM Yeah I have the 1992 district.
http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/1992cong/c028.pdf This is a 62% Obama district today that has ~598k people; it had ~580k in 1992. http://tinypic.com/r/2n1evjc/5 Teal is the 1992 district, grey is the territory added to form the 2012 district. That territory is 51% McCain. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on March 24, 2012, 01:16:11 PM Does anyone have a close up comparison between Slaughter's 1988 district and the 2012 district and how much additional territory is in the current one? Here is the 1988 CD, old NY-30, although I think a part of the city of Rochester itself was excised from it, but from the tiny map I have in my 1990 almanac, I am not sure, and have no way of drawing the boundary in the city of Rochester anyway. The CD went 54% to 45% for Bush pere in 1988, per the almanac stats. Back then Slaughter was viewed as a superstar believe it or not. How times have changed. And as you can further see New York has viewed gerrymandering as an exercise in cutting edge abstract art for a very long time indeed. This map was from a Pub gerrymander, and this CD was drawn for Barber Conable, who then retired in 1984. He successor was a Pub named Fred Eckert, whom Slaughter beat in 1986 51%-49% due to his suck personality and political skills. And there you have it! :) () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: cinyc on March 24, 2012, 07:56:21 PM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. Torie's exuberance is far from irrational. No New York Congressman squawked louder about the new lines than Slaughter, even getting Nancy Pelosi in on the act. Had she not done so, I'd agree with your assessment. But Slaughter must know something, like how a countywide official elected under pretty much the same lines as the CD might give her a run for her money, enough so that she'd actually have to actively campaign - a process with which she is sorely out of practice for at least the last decade due to gerrymandering. Beware of candidates who haven't had to run in a competitive race for a while. They sometimes implode. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 25, 2012, 12:07:26 AM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race! Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally. Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 25, 2012, 02:32:40 AM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race! Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally. Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year. Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: minionofmidas on March 25, 2012, 04:38:20 AM And as you can further see New York has viewed gerrymandering as an exercise in cutting edge abstract art for a very long time indeed. This map was from a Pub gerrymander Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: DrScholl on March 25, 2012, 10:21:29 AM Brooks margin as county executive fell in 2011, while she still won comfortably, it was reduced. Now, those are low turnout elections, where voters vote different based on local issues and issues that don't translate above that local level. She'll most likely do as well as Kay Barnes did in MO-6, a popular local official doing poorly in a congressional race. Republicans didn't unseat any Democratic incumbents in D+6 seats in 2010, it's hard to see how they do so in a presidential year.
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: BigSkyBob on March 25, 2012, 07:28:49 PM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race! Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally. Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year. Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. If Obama is reelected, and the economy weakens again, we could see a result similiar to 1958 in the Senate. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Mr.Phips on March 25, 2012, 08:47:33 PM I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman. People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race! Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally. Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year. Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. If Obama is reelected, and the economy weakens again, we could see a result similiar to 1958 in the Senate. The yield curve is saying that the economy is going to be pretty strong until at least 2015. Plus, Demcorats will have an unpopular, obstructionist Congress to run against in 2014, which Republicans didnt have in 1958. Republicans are NOT picking up 13 seats in the Senate. The most is maybe 6-7. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: krazen1211 on March 26, 2012, 10:39:04 AM http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/gop_dem_olition_man_in_senate_IKWFk2lNIO5jUoqYK9KkwN
Some key Senate Democrats, shocked by the apparent victory of Republican David Storobin in last week’s special election in Brooklyn, are privately conceding they have little chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: freepcrusher on May 03, 2012, 12:54:14 PM anyone hear that Slaughter broke her foot? Hopefully she can serve one last term and then retire. Who would a good dem candidate be for the seat? Maybe Harry Bronson?
Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: jimrtex on May 03, 2012, 08:16:56 PM anyone hear that Slaughter broke her foot? Hopefully she can serve one last term and then retire. Who would a good dem candidate be for the seat? Maybe Harry Bronson? Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 03, 2012, 10:16:11 PM anyone hear that Slaughter broke her foot? Hopefully she can serve one last term and then retire. Who would a good dem candidate be for the seat? Maybe Harry Bronson? With a broken foot, I'd think running would be quite difficult. :P Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on December 26, 2014, 11:08:38 AM In an idle moment, after the Pubs bagged three seats in NY in the last go round,I was wondering if it would ever be possible for the Pubs to get a majority of the House seats in NY. They have nine, and needed fourteen, or five more. NY 2, NY-4, NY-18 are possible, and after the Pub came so close in Rochester, NY-25 is not impossible. However, that last one, NY-17, is a very steep climb indeed. So probably not. But wait a minute, if the Court had drawn that South Brooklyn seat, which it didn't, would that not it be possible then? Should the court have drawn the seat? Was it possible to do so, hewing to the VRA (bearing in mind that Article 5 is now dead), and good redistricting principles (now I would like to think a bit older and wiser at it, and now no longer "fooled" by all this community of interest hype)? So I redrew one of my prior maps, and voila, it is. Indeed, the south Brooklyn seat would be by far the most Pub in NY, with a PVI of something like 10, believe it or not (56% McCain).
I wonder how my map would do in the little contest Muon2 is hosting for Virginia (not sure how erosity for intra-county lines is measured in that contest). I jiggled the lines on Long Island to minimize Town chops (Towns, not villages), as well as Borough chops in NYC. () Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: muon2 on December 26, 2014, 05:58:53 PM In an idle moment, after the Pubs bagged three seats in NY in the last go round,I was wondering if it would ever be possible for the Pubs to get a majority of the House seats in NY. They have nine, and needed fourteen, or five more. NY 2, NY-4, NY-18 are possible, and after the Pub came so close in Rochester, NY-25 is not impossible. However, that last one, NY-17, is a very steep climb indeed. So probably not. But wait a minute, if the Court had drawn that South Brooklyn seat, which it didn't, would that not it be possible then? Should the court have drawn the seat? Was it possible to do so, hewing to the VRA (bearing in mind that Article 5 is now dead), and good redistricting principles (now I would like to think a bit older and wiser at it, and now no longer "fooled" by all this community of interest hype)? So I redrew one of my prior maps, and voila, it is. Indeed, the south Brooklyn seat would be by far the most Pub in NY, with a PVI of something like 10, believe it or not (56% McCain). I wonder how my map would do in the little contest Muon2 is hosting for Virginia (not sure how erosity for intra-county lines is measured in that contest). I giggled the lines on Long Island to minimize Town chops (Towns, not villages), as well as Borough chops in NYC. () Nothing strikes me as particularly unreasonable, particularly as you seem to hew to both towns and villages, which is good in my book. Within the boroughs I'd have to see how the lines match up with the official NYC community areas (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neighbor/index.shtml) as that would be the natural neutral set of subunits. As for how your keen mapping skills might fare compared to others, I can only suggest you add your thoughts on a VA redo (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=202783.0). Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 08, 2015, 10:09:22 PM How do you think it will change now that they've created a commission to do it?
I think it could help the GOP, since the Dems won't be able to gerrymander anymore. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Brittain33 on January 09, 2015, 09:30:09 AM How do you think it will change now that they've created a commission to do it? I think it could help the GOP, since the Dems won't be able to gerrymander anymore. When did the Dems gerrymander New York other than the state assembly? Not in 2012 or in 2002, certainly. Title: Re: US House Redistricting: New York Post by: Torie on January 11, 2015, 03:29:29 PM How do you think it will change now that they've created a commission to do it? I think it could help the GOP, since the Dems won't be able to gerrymander anymore. When did the Dems gerrymander New York other than the state assembly? Not in 2012 or in 2002, certainly. Well, as a technical matter, the Dems gerrymandered in 2002 - hand in hand with the Pubs, in a rather disgusting display of incumbent protectionism, giving rise to the Slaughter barbell excrescence, and the Hinchey writhing serpentine affair. Slaughter was very sad to lose her barbell, as she whimpered about at least not getting Ithaca as a consolation prize. Turns out that she was near prescient to be worried. I am not sure the Dems have ever gerrymandered the NY CD's in a solo affair, which is most odd for such a Dem state. The Pubs have been incredibly lucky. |