US House Redistricting: Maryland

[Torie]

How black is the green district in this map?  Even if the Dems could do this, I doubt that they will.

[Torie]

How black is the green district in this map?  Even if the Dems could do this, I doubt that they will.

The Green district is 51% Black and the Yellow district is also 51% black. The rest of the districts are all about the same demographically(except the Montgomery County districts) and voted about the same for Obama. About 62-37 for all of them except 60-38 for the Purple district. The Green district is 70% Obama and the Yellow district is 74% Obama. And the 1st is 54-44 Mccain but that is less Republican than the current district.

This is the "greedy" map though. Democrats can make one very safe GOP district and shore up the rest of the 7 districts.

51% black districts will not be acceptable to the black representatives, I don't think.

[Torie]

The Baltimore congressman was really unhappy with what happened to his district last time. Now if it is diluted down further, we shall see what happens. The issue is not whether the district would go GOP, but pressure in a primary.

[Torie]

All you need Inks is a GOP governor, and about 50 more Pubbies in the legislature or something, and your map may just see the light of day.

I might as well copy and paste my ramblings about MD that I dumped on the NC thread, because I was a naughty boy, here. By the way, when the intra County population numbers come in, in MD, they will have a distinct GOP lean. So shove all the numbers by as much as 75 basis points in the GOP direction:

Well having played with the MD map a bit, I think the best the Dems can expect to do is make one of the 2 Pubbie CD's marginal, and they may not get even that far (I got down to making MD-06 a 50% McCain district, before things started getting messy), and to get to even that point,  MD-08 had to take in Annapolis and part of the Eastern Shore, so things are starting to get really bizarre. Is Van Hollen really going to want that done with his CD, particularly given that he is a partisan high profile Dem assigned to be one of their chief attack dogs, and political strategists, when it won't really in all likelihood knock off another Pubbie anyway?  I suspect not. So I am going to keep MD at no change on my redistricting score card list for the present.  I might change my mind; I doubt it, but I might. I will work on it a bit more, and put up a map at some point.

Basically only MD-08  has a significant excess of useable Dems to attack one of the Pubbie CD's, and that means attacking MD-06, and not MD-01, given where MD-08 is. The two black CD's cannot have their black percentages diluted down much, and in addition, in MD-05 the blacks will not want their 35% percentage diluted down much as well (and Hoyer needs most of  them anyway to keep his CD in the safe zone). The blacks have a veto power on redistricting in MD, basically.

Hoyer's MD-05 is only about a a Dem +8.5% PVI or so CD (so not much to give there, maybe a little, but not much, and again the blacks there are not going to want much of a dilution, since they may see that CD in their future (this is a high black increase zone), and MD-2 and MD-03 are only about Dem PVI +5.5 and 5.0, respectively (and therefore have nothing to give really).

Oh yes, for Bush 2004, MD-06 has a GOP PVI of +13%, and MD-01 is +11% GOP PVI.  So both have a lot of Pubbies to drain off and pack and move. MD-08 had a Dem PVI of 17.5%. So using just MD-08 alone, to get MD-06 down to an even PVI, means basically that MD-08 has to move 13 of its 17.5 Dem PVI points over to MD-06 to get MD-06 down to even, leaving MD-08 at just Dem +4.5 PVI. Van Hollen is just not going to allowing his Dem PVI to get down that low (and that reminds me, that I need to check where Van Hollen lives). Now to get MD-06  down to a GOP PVI of say +4% GOP PVI, I did not use MD-08 alone, but it was mostly MD-08, and as I say, at that point, the map started to get really ugly. That is when I decided to take a break.

[Torie]

The 51% rule for minorities under the VRA is VAP, not population, so unless the Dems want to litigate whether a black does not need 51% VAP to get elected in his or her CD, push the 51% black percentage population number up to say about 53% (so it is probably indeed 51 VAP black), and try again. Thanks.

By the way, I am now quite confident the Dems won't mess with the two GOP CD's in MD.  Does anyone really think otherwise?  In any event, a 55% Obama CD in MD is a marginal CD, and when the final numbers come in, it will be more like a 54% Obama CD, and even more marginal.  It just ain't happening folks. Among other things, the MD black incumbents won't stand for it - at all.

[Torie]

Those are better numbers. How much did you dilute down the black percentage in MD-05?  In any event, what you have done is convert 2 safe GOP districts, into one reasonably safe, and one marginal. And again remember the GOP percentages in the two most GOP CD's are going to move about 1% in the GOP direction, with the final census numbers.

I think the odds of this happening are very low, but I think you have done about the best that you can now. Good job. You have done very well in clarifying this issue in my mind, and saved me considerable work. Thanks indeed Johnny.

[Torie]

Guys, here are my thoughts about MD for what they are worth. In MD, moderate Pubbies have shown that they can cut into Dem strength. MD has a lot of swing voters, all those GS 12's government workers and above living in Montgomery County and the like. Van Hollen in MD-08, is a highly partisan Dem, and will want to remain one. He needs a pad. Ditto for Hoyer, given his position. These guys need to serve their caucus, not themselves. They don't want to worry about their re-election at all, nor have their style crimped. The black congressmen are going to bitch if their CD's are diluted down below 55% black (in total population, maybe 52.5% black VAP). To go lower than that, there had better be a really good reason, like really bagging one more CD, without much doubt.

In 2001, Rupplesbarger wanted to take over Ehrlich's Baltimore County CD. He negotiated with Cummings black precinct, by black precinct, as to just how many he could have. In the end, he got a 58% Gore CD, with a PVI for that year of +7.5% Dem. That is what he needed he thought to take Ehrlich out, and Cummings was not happy, but finally acceded - taking a hit for the team as it were. Now granted Ehrlich was an entrenched and reasonably popular incumbent. With an open seat, or a weak incumbent, Rupplesbarger might have found a PVI of +4%-5% Dem perhaps acceptable. But as I say, Van Hollen and Hoyer given their positions, and the number of swing voters in the CD's, who might drift away from a partisan Dem, given an acceptable moderate Pubbie choice, won't stand for a 4%-5% Dem PVI CD. I suspect they will insist on +6% Dem PVI anyway.

So a +6% Dem PVI for 2008 is a 59.5% Obama CD (Obama got 53.5% of the vote nationally). And as I say, when the intra county census splits come in, the Dems are going to drop a point or so, so now we are up to a 60.5% Obama CD, as the safe zone for Van Hollen and Hoyer.

So my question is, without the map looking ridiculous, and the Dem incumbents having to face a majority of new voters, how much can the Dems weaken one of the Pubbie CD's, while having the black CD's 55% black, and the Dem incumbents all having at least a 60% Obama CD (maybe a tad less (say at least 58.5% Obama) for the lower profile Jewish guy SE of Baltimore sort of, whose name escapes me Cardin I think come to think of it)?  That I think would be a useful exercise. If one of the Pubbie CD's can really be taken down to say at least close to  a 50-50 proposition for the Dems (that would be like a 53% Obama or more CD), then I think they may well go for such a map. Otherwise not. They certainly are not going to go after both Pubbie CD's. One will have to be a Pubbie pack CD. If one of the Pubbie CD's can get up to say 56% Obama, then I think they may well be tempted to just do it, and the odds of them going for it would rise - substantially - over a 53% Obama CD, since then they would be the favorites to take the CD over in 2010.

So if one of you guys wants to engage in that exercise, since you have worked this state far more than I, and know all the traps, that would be great. If not, I will get around to it eventually. Thanks, and Johnny, I really do like your maps. You "get it;" you have talent.

[Torie]

It may have been true in the past that there were a lot of moderate swing voters in Maryland, but it's looking increasingly likely that they're becoming solid Democratic voters. Montgomery County is pretty much a guaranteed 2-1 Democratic vote now, Charles and Howard have moved from swing counties to pretty solidly Democratic counties, and even Frederick is heading towards swing county status.

Hoyer and Van Hollen don't need districts any more Democratic than about 65% Obama (which Hoyer has, but Van Hollen's is still packed in from when they dislodged Connie Morella). Hoyer had a reasonably competent opponent this time around and still finished at 64%. As for Cummings, well, he can be petulant all he wants, if he prefers to remain in the minority.

It's John Sarbanes in MD-03, by the way. Cardin's in the Senate now, and Sarbanes is definitely not Jewish.

Yes, indeed. Time flies when you are having fun.

Anyway, I have set the parameters which I think are the key factors as to whether the Dems launch an attack on one of the Pubbie CD's: 55% black, and 60% Obama (with Sarbannes perhaps shaved down to 58.5% Obama), in the Dem incumbent zone. If it varies much of these parameters, I don't see it happening, although in all events, even if the Dems don't go for the gold, certainly one of the Pubbie CD's could be substantially weakened, but not enough in the latter case I don't think to have pretty good odds of taking over the Pubbie CD, absent a wave or sick incumbent Pubbie puppy, or an open seat, if the Dem is the superior candidate for the CD.

How much can the Dems accomplish within these parameters which I have set is my current interest.

[Torie]

The main thing to consider is that ousting Harris would be a lot easier than ousting a generic Republican. Harris is the type of guy who would be 100% unelectable under any circumstances in even a D+1 seat. And probably even an R+1 seat. And maybe even an R+5 seat.

Well then the Dems would be wise to Pubbie pack MD-06, and weaken MD-01 as much as they can, while still being happy with the contours of all of their own CD's.  And I think I have a pretty good idea what will make them happy, and what not.

Arrogant bastard aren't I?  That is what happens when you have been following this sh*t for too many decades I guess.

[Torie]

Torie, I've noticed that you've identified veto points in states where Dems control the process or have significant influence (Maryland [black reps insisting on high VAP], Illinois [Schakowsky complaining about getting a less hardcore D district], to some extent New York [the whole upstate discussion about whom to sacrifice, Hinchey's friends in the assembly protecting him]) that will keep Dems from realizing gains when they have an opportunity. But in Republican-controlled states, you've not only drawn maps for maximum sustainable Republican advantage, you've done so in a way that breaks up longstanding geographic patterns in places like York/Lancaster PA and eastern Wisconsin. I'm not saying that a Republican majority in Wisconsin won't go for maximum gain, or that Penn. Republicans might not go even further than they did in 2002 and reconfigure solid R districts to share the wealth, but doesn't it seem challenging to believe that it's all-clear for Republicans and they will go all-out in their states, but none of the Dems will? This is a separate issue from whether you've drawn the best possible maps for those states for maximizing sustainable Republican gain, which I easily believe is true.

Yes, Brittain33, I did abandon sinking Kind in WI-03, because it made Petri's WI-06 CD just too erose, with too much new territory. I will send both maps off to the map drawers for Wisconsin, but I don't think the Pubbies will go for the gold. And you are quite right about PA-16 and PA-09, and I redid the map, to reduce the amount of new territory with which each of the two  incumbent Pubbies would have to cope. Sometimes however, a Pubbie CD needs so much help, that one does need to shove the lines around a lot, and doing that to help out a Pubbie incumbent who needs help, I am quite sure will be more tolerated by the map drawers, than when the game is to knock off a Dem incumbent. Make sense?

As in all things in life, it is balancing test. For PA, I had to do a lot of balancing, since at some point, helping one Pubbie is going to hurt another, after maximizing the Dem pack.

[Torie]

Johnny already posted a map with six seats safe for Democrats even by your inflated requirements, and the seventh leaning their way (though I know what would happen in an Eastern Shore R versus Western Shore D race there) anyways.... though you're right that Cummings has reason to want more than 51% Black. Though Edwards doesn't... but has one in that map anyways.

Johnny is a very fine map drawer indeed, and his map on the previous page, does indeed come close, although I don't like the 51% black thing (it has got to be at least 53%, or it will fall below 50% black VAP, and the Pubbies will sue, with the issue being whether it is OK now for MD to go below 50% black VAP), but then Sarbannes can be shaved a bit, so Johnny's final numbers may well be realized, anyway, meeting all of my parameters. Since the partisan numbers in Maryland have about a 1% Dem bias, which will go away when the intra county census numbers come in,  what is now per Johnny's map a .5% 2008 Dem PVI for MD-01, will end up about .5% GOP PVI (53% Obama). So MD-01 is marginal. So given Johnny's fine work, I will erase my no change notation for Maryland, and award the Dems +.5 seats.

[Torie]

Now you are cooking Johnny. 

What is the Obama percentage now for MD-01? 

[Torie]

Is Hoyer aiming to ax just one Pubbie, or both of them?

[Torie]

Maybe the Pubs should send a telegram to the MD Dems, that if they kill off a Pubbie in MD, Cooper in TN is finished. An semi-erose go for the kill map will be passed in TN. Just a thought. And I just drew one (not yet posted; my prior map was more "gentlemanly." I'm serious. I feel a bit bad. Cooper is a throughly decent man. I feel unclean. But the MD Dems are being a bit piggish. It's time to retaliate.

[Torie]

Well then if it were me, I would feel a lot better about finishing off Cooper in Tennessee, and he can be finished off totally without risk to existing GOP incumbents, if one is willing to do the requisite number of county chops and erosity. I guess what I am suggesting is interstate compacts. Illinois Dems leash themselves and NC Pubbies do and so forth, so even though the final national numbers don't change much, we get some civility and reason with these maps. As it is, what we have is what we have, and it's disgusting. Yes, I know I'm fantasizing. One can be stoned without being nutter. 

But the MD thing does annoy me, and it does make me feel better what I am doing to Cooper. And thus my comment. I would prefer neither be done. Both western MD and Nashville are natural CD's for their respective parties. But it appears that both "natural" CD's are going down the drain. Does that make anyone feel the least bit unclean? Does anyone feel like they need a shower?

[Torie]

The idea that Dems are to blame for Republicans going for maximal advantage, or that Republicans interested in gerrymandering would hold off if they could work out an agreement with Dems in another state, is very hard to take seriously.

The IL Dem map didn't invent gerrymandering in this cycle, much less in this decade. State parties that want to play hardball and have the discipline and motivation to do so, are doing so. That's all there is to it.

Yes, I know.  But, well, I made my little point. I feel better now.  

So we just will go with creating one disgusting map after another after another after another.

[Torie]

Not that this isn't a Democratic gerrymander (it is), but we should remember that it could've been a worse gerrymander.  I have seen several solid maps on sites such as DKE that would eliminate both Bartlett and Harris.  In all honesty, I don't have much sympathy for Illinois Republicans or North Carolina Democrats given the previous maps in those states.  Ohio is easily the worst map so far, imo (although Michigan is also pretty bad).  Regarding Tennessee/Cooper, I agree with those who have said that this could just as easily be viewed as payback for Barrow.

The previous IL map was a bipartisan plan, so it's not completely equivalent to the NC situation.  Just sayin'.  

Correct. Incumbent protection maps are also disgusting in general (e.g., take a look at the existing NY excrescence drawn in 2002). Btw, would you happen to know how to post images on Red Racing Horses?  I thought I would put up some of my maps there.

[Torie]

The idea that Dems are to blame for Republicans going for maximal advantage, or that Republicans interested in gerrymandering would hold off if they could work out an agreement with Dems in another state, is very hard to take seriously.

The IL Dem map didn't invent gerrymandering in this cycle, much less in this decade. State parties that want to play hardball and have the discipline and motivation to do so, are doing so. That's all there is to it.

Yes, I know.  But, well, I made my little point. I feel better now.  

So we just will go with creating one disgusting map after another after another after another.

Since JohnnyLongtorso proved that an 8-0 map is possible, I would counter with this offer: If the Republicans in Tennessee leave Cooper alone, the Maryland Democrats will settle for only getting rid of Bartlett instead of both Bartlett and Harris. The Tennessee Republicans can't touch the Memphis district.

I think the MD Dems were less concerned about some measure of self restraint, and more concerned that an 8-0 map was either at risk of devolving into a dummymander, and/or too inconvenient for the existing incumbents to live with.  Just a guess on my part I know. So ... no deal.

[Torie]

Guys, please, please. All of these maps are disgusting.  They cannot be defended. Heck, some of mine are disgusting; it depends the purpose for which I am drawing the map, and what I think the political culture of a state is. Let's not pretend otherwise. It's all about power, unrestrained power. It's the functional equivalent of total political war now. There is no civility left. There once was.  Yes there was. I recall, barely, the days when John McCormick used to protect the GOP seat of Congressman Martin.

[Torie]

Does anyone feel like they need a shower?

This whole redistricting process is unclean and f'ed up. Not sure whether MD and TN are where the deals need to be made. What sort of map will be coming out of Ohio? Pennsylvania? Maybe the Dems feel they need to retaliate for that? Let's just have a constitutional convention or something, take redistricting out of the hands of the pigs, and be done with it.

Wait, has the Ohio map been released? Did they create a Columbus district? If not, then the MD dems should go for the juggular and severe it with one bite. 8-0 map is in order, I think.

The GOP ceded Columbus. Their map is a still massive cf however. All the Pubbies here agree on that one.    Among other things, they chopped Toledo in half.  But there is just so much more. My map looks like a veritable non partisan plan in comparison. Check out the Ohio thread, and you shall see.

[Torie]

Ok just saw the Ohio map, pretty disgusting as expected but still has 4 dem districts it seems. So 7-1 in MD I guess.

Oh btw, I hope they draw a dummymander in TN, I really do. And please try to eliminate Medicare, pretty please? Then the fun can begin.

I should send them my TN gerry. It ain't a dummymander.

[Torie]

They chickened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/proposed-md-congressional-map-could-imperil-rep-roscoe-bartlett/2011/10/03/gIQAY7FKJL_blog.html

Even that 6th district doesn't look super heavily Democratic. Probably enough to flip it though.

I'd estimate that at 55-56% Obama... more than enough to flip it.

Not surprising, another disgusting Maryland gerrymander.

Absolutely no reason to rip up Carroll County.

I drew a much nicer looking 7-1 map. Believe it's in this thread. I think there is something wrong with Maryland Democrats when it comes to redistricting. They just can't help going crazy. And it's more like a 6-1-1 map anyways. Hilarious.

You agree that the Western MD CD that the Dems tried to "steal" which motivated me to lash out in Tennessee is only 55%-56% Obama?  If so that is ludicrous. That is very close to a toss-up CD for 2012, particularly if the number is 55%.  The Dem incumbents must have had a rather "selfish" little agenda, and want CD's where they can just dial it in. I of course as the Dem ring master would have told them to just go F themselves.  I think when I did this exercise way back when, or Johnny did it, a 59% Obama CD could have been somewhat "reasonably" drawn, but maybe my recollection fails me.

[Torie]

Considering how pathetic the GOP is at winning even McCain districts on the local level in Maryland, I don't see them taking a 56% Obama seat. Bartlett is an older than dirt dude no one cares about, he's not surviving in that. A panhandle Republican isn't going to get the numbers in Montco needed to take that. And Montco Republicans might as well be extinct.

Presumably Bartlett will retire don't you think?

[Torie]

Duh.  Hence why Md is a Democrat state.

And by the way, Howard County only became solid Democrat when it jumped up to being the 3rd richest county in America.  12-15 years ago it was middle of the road.  Now full of rich liberal government workers, just like Charles county

Government workers probably do have something to do with it, but I think there's a fair amount of white collar jobs around too. Can't say a metro area with 6 million odd people is all government workers. These are the professional class that moved left on social issues. Also see Montgomery County, PA.

Not to totally depreciate your point, but a lot of those "non-government" workers, particularly white collar ones, work for outfits heavily dependent on government funding - and favors and good will.

[Torie]

Seventh-day Adventist as well.

Yes. That's a real reason to miss him.

With something like 11 kids no?  If we just had a few more like him, Social Security could be made solvent without having to cut much - or tax more - a veritable freebie!