Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2014, 03:03:07 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: New York
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: New York  (Read 48238 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #825 on: March 10, 2012, 07:27:52 pm »
Ignore

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!  Tongue

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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 07:34:47 pm by Torie »Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3310


View Profile
« Reply #826 on: March 10, 2012, 09:11:23 pm »
Ignore

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!  Tongue

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).
Logged



Economic: -4.45
Social: -6.52
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #827 on: March 10, 2012, 09:18:04 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #828 on: March 10, 2012, 10:17:29 pm »
Ignore

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. 
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14286


View Profile
« Reply #829 on: March 10, 2012, 10:19:34 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5779


View Profile
« Reply #830 on: March 10, 2012, 10:31:11 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
АverroŽs Nix
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9809
United States


View Profile
« Reply #831 on: March 11, 2012, 09:23:53 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12757


View Profile
« Reply #832 on: March 11, 2012, 09:36:37 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged
АverroŽs Nix
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9809
United States


View Profile
« Reply #833 on: March 11, 2012, 09:58:43 am »
Ignore

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%.)
Logged

freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2291
United States


View Profile
« Reply #834 on: March 11, 2012, 08:20:22 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12757


View Profile
« Reply #835 on: March 11, 2012, 08:28:28 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #836 on: March 11, 2012, 09:16:16 pm »
Ignore

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. Smiley
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 09:23:37 pm by Torie »Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #837 on: March 11, 2012, 11:18:36 pm »
Ignore

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...
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #838 on: March 11, 2012, 11:38:34 pm »
Ignore

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. Tongue 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.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #839 on: March 12, 2012, 10:18:02 am »
Ignore

The hacks were busy this weekend, and apparently 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.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 10:20:27 am by Torie »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #840 on: March 12, 2012, 12:45:58 pm »
Ignore

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. Smiley

« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 09:45:42 pm by Torie »Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14628
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 3.65

View Profile
« Reply #841 on: March 12, 2012, 12:58:41 pm »
Ignore

A Republican delegation from NY? Thats a thought. I think Slaughter would still be safe in a 59% Obama district though.
Logged


asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12421


View Profile
« Reply #842 on: March 12, 2012, 01:00:24 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #843 on: March 12, 2012, 01:03:45 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12421


View Profile
« Reply #844 on: March 12, 2012, 01:16:11 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #845 on: March 12, 2012, 01:20:08 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12421


View Profile
« Reply #846 on: March 12, 2012, 01:22:58 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27189
United States


View Profile
« Reply #847 on: March 12, 2012, 01:24:23 pm »
Ignore

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.

Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12421


View Profile
« Reply #848 on: March 12, 2012, 01:31:16 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #849 on: March 12, 2012, 02:07:24 pm »
Ignore

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. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines