US House Redistricting: New York

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

Why would a court dismantle Turner's district instead of some combination of Ackerman, McCarthy, and King?

False dichotomy. There is no reason to do either. Basically take train's 9th, 10th and 11th and align nw-ne-s instead, fiddle with the perimeter a bit, and hey presto, two Black districts and an Orthodox district.

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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!

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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?

yes the dems plan doesn't break up SI (if they wanted to gerrymander strictly on partisan lines Grimm wouldn't have a chance)

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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?

[traininthedistance]

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?

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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!

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

The special master has posted a proposed plan. Comments due by Wednesday.

State and Regional maps
District maps
Demographics

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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?

[traininthedistance]

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)?

[traininthedistance]

Owens may be saved again.

I wonder if Dems can find a good candidate against Gibson. Should be winnable and holdable, but not with just anybody.

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.