Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2017, 01:13:35 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Arizona
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 21 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Arizona  (Read 57826 times)
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: October 04, 2011, 09:49:38 am »
Ignore

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?
And loses Payson. And picks up the Pinal reservations. And some bits of North Tucson inner suburbs. Looks a normally Democratic district, actually. Giffords' goes back into highly competitive territory in exchange.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #276 on: October 04, 2011, 09:52:22 am »
Ignore

Anyways, not what I would have drawn as a map, but at 4-2-3 probably identical in outcome.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #277 on: October 04, 2011, 09:58:32 am »
Ignore

Anyways, why is Salt River still in the sixth? It's on the road from Mesa to Payson goddammit, the overspill slightly elevated native percentages are in bordering precincts of Mesa, not Scottsdale, and it's totally wasted and outvoted in that district. Tongue

Meanwhile, that fourth district is a right abomination. Eastern Exurbs with Western Rural (often de facto quasi exurban) areas? Wtf?
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #278 on: October 04, 2011, 10:24:04 am »
Ignore

The Tucson district should have been even more Democratic if you ask me! But I guess the Mexicans need their district. And the Phoenix district shouldn't have been dipping in and out of Mesa and Chandler but I guess they wanted a more Dem swing district up there. So Mccain won the Tuscon district by 3 points then? Have you drawn the Phoenix swing district or the 1st yet?

0.3% of a percent for McCain. It's precise PVI per my model is 2.15% Dem, making it lean Dem and a toss-up for 2012 (which I assume will  be a good Pubbie year), if Giffords does not run, and the Pubbies put up a competent candidate. No I have not done any of the other CD's, and this one was a bitch to draw. It gave me a headache!  But it's as accurate as it can be. I checked it - again and again. Some of the lines don't precisely match due to the way the precincts are currently drawn, but the variance is very minor.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #279 on: October 04, 2011, 10:28:05 am »
Ignore

The only other districts worth calculating are probably the 1st and 9th.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #280 on: October 04, 2011, 10:30:28 am »
Ignore

So how's the Tuscon district rated? It doesn't look much more Republican than the current district.

From what I can discern, it is but only slightly. 1, 2, and 9 are very much swing districts.

Creating competitive swing districts is a clear goal of the commission. There was a presentation last month analyzing the correlation between various averages and the predicted competitiveness, but its not completely clear which average went into their actual district analysis. They discuss a number of models, and the slides don't say which one is adopted.
I'll probably have to watch the video of the meeting to know for sure. Tongue

If I look at the table in the presented slides the best correlated average takes the average of the two-party vote in the two 2008 statewide races, the same for the seven 2010 statewide races, and the fraction of registrations between the two parties. That has a partisan split of 54.5% R and 45.5% D statewide. My best guess is that this was used in the commission report on the districts.

For comparison, another measure used 10 years ago was the "Arizona quick and dirty." It uses only the Corporate Commission races from the two most recent elections. That gives 54.3% R to 45.7% D. That would be consistent with the measure I identified in the previous paragraph.


But lawless, because competitiveness was per the wording of the statute expressly subordinated to all the other metrics, which in my opinion the commission trashed. They followed the VRA, and then the Dems did the max that they thought they could get away with is what I see happened. Nothing else much mattered. It is cute that the 3 border CD thing the Dems were pushing proved in the end to be inconvenient to them, so they just went through the motions in hewing to that by appending but one border precinct to AZ-01 - with 1,165 people in it,  just to claim they still did. The Dems probably had this map in their drawer more or less all along. The rest was all for show.

We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 10:34:22 am by Torie »Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #281 on: October 04, 2011, 10:35:46 am »
Ignore

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.


We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14573


View Profile
« Reply #282 on: October 04, 2011, 10:49:52 am »
Ignore

so they just went through the motions in hewing to that by appending but one border precinct to AZ-01 - with 1,165 people in it,  just to claim they still did.

That is too funny. I couldn't figure out why they carved up Cochise County like that.

Which district will be the first to go over 1,000,000 people this decade? 8, 4, or 1?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #283 on: October 04, 2011, 10:59:39 am »
Ignore

The way Cochise and Yavapai and Gila and Pima precincts all don't line up with the map perfectly makes this a bitch, but the first is still about 51.0% McCain.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16735


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #284 on: October 04, 2011, 11:05:13 am »
Ignore

The way Cochise and Yavapai and Gila and Pima precincts all don't line up with the map perfectly makes this a bitch, but the first is still about 51.0% McCain.

On that swing, Ann Kirkpatrick would have won by 0.1% in 2010. Heh.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #285 on: October 04, 2011, 11:05:32 am »
Ignore

so they just went through the motions in hewing to that by appending but one border precinct to AZ-01 - with 1,165 people in it,  just to claim they still did.

That is too funny. I couldn't figure out why they carved up Cochise County like that.

Which district will be the first to go over 1,000,000 people this decade? 8, 4, or 1?

As to your first question, the reason for the musical chairs where the Tucson CD switched out the NW burbs for the slice of Cochise that it took was of course a partisan one.

You see, the Dems had a little problem. They needed to take some Hispanics out of the Tucson CD, which causes its Pubbie PVI to go up in a hurry. What to do to mitigate that?  They cast their little avaricious eyes around, and lo and behold, saw these Dem precincts in Cochise near the border and started salivating. But how to get there?

The way to "get there" was to strip out the pretty heavy Pubbie NW Tucson burbs and dump them into AZ-01, so that the Tucson CD needed substantially more people, and then one can suck up those Dem precincts while making the lines look like something other than a snake that would kind of look the way I drew that Pittsburgh CD in PA. That way, the Pubbie territory that the Tucson CD sucks up to make up for the lost Hispanic precincts, is minimized in its Pubbiness - it's but light pink. And I admire it, because it is just the sort of thing I would do in drawing gerried Pubbie CD's.  In a word, it's genius baby.  It's just beautiful - or as I said to the WSJ guy about my Pittsburgh CD, it's well -"gorgeous!" Tongue

As to AZ-01 getting a tad more Pubbie by playing this game, they dealt with that by playing even more games with AZ-01's border elsewhere, by doing a better Pubbie pack in one or more of the Pubbie CD's.  It's like a symphony, where the whole is more than the sum of its parts, where each instrument synergizes with the others.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 11:26:45 am by Torie »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #286 on: October 04, 2011, 11:09:20 am »
Ignore

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.


We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

As I said, the Dems maxed what they thought they could get away with, without taking on excessive legal risk, and maybe Mathis didn't want to make too obvious that she was in the tank for the Dems, given her little shredding incidents and the like. This map is a Dem hatchet job - and  very skillfully done.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #287 on: October 04, 2011, 11:11:00 am »
Ignore

Everybody except Raul Grijalva and whatshisface (Stentz? The hard-right commissioner from Tucson, anyways) would probably have been happier if they'd just moved Douglas and Bisbee into the 3rd. Grin
It also helps from Giffords' perspective that SV is an army town. They can be quite incumbent friendly.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #288 on: October 04, 2011, 11:14:55 am »
Ignore

No. This is a Dem hatchet job. You can draw R vote sinks in Arizona much as you can draw D vote sinks in other states, they just don't sink as far.


You're not going to get those ridiculous third and fourth districts, and you're not going to get the little grab at Chandler's barrio section (since you can easily exchange it for the remainder of Mesa), but otherwise it's not a bad map actually. Apart from the obvious.



1st 52.6% McCain, 54.0% White, 21.6% Native
2nd 63.1% McCain
3rd 61.1% McCain
4th 52.0% McCain, 60.0% White
5th 64.8% Obama, 65.0% Hispanic, 20.6% White
6th 52.0% McCain, 60.9% White
7th 60.9% McCain
8th 55.3% Obama, 57.0% Hispanic, 31.6% White, 51.9% Hispanic VAP
9th 49.8% McCain, 68.3% White

Changing the third and fourth to at least not split as many municipalities (adding northern Glendale to the 3rd in exchange for Paradise Valley, the 4th' share of Scottsdale, and a couple of Phoenix precincts) makes for an odder-looking boundary and shares of 60.5% and 52.5%.
Eliminating the split of Mesa and cleaning up that of Chandler makes for 53.1% and 59.9%.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6814


View Profile
« Reply #289 on: October 04, 2011, 11:18:22 am »
Ignore

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.


We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

As I said, the Dems maxed what they thought they could get away with, without taking on excessive legal risk, and maybe Mathis didn't want to make too obvious that she was in the tank for the Dems, given her little shredding incidents and the like. This map is a Dem hatchet job - and  very skillfully done.

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #290 on: October 04, 2011, 11:23:41 am »
Ignore

Well maybe Lewis that map does not take on further legal risk. Maybe. I have not fly specked Phoenix. Good job though. Was that a prior Dem draft? Tongue  I bet they had their reasons though for doing what they did. The PVI baseline is also biased. It's too Pubbie. I know better. State races can be idiosyncratic. That is not the most efficacious way to infer the most accurate PVI baseline.  The Pubs of course were pathetic in defending themselves. I wish I had been on that commission!  Smiley
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #291 on: October 04, 2011, 11:24:44 am »
Ignore

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.


We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

As I said, the Dems maxed what they thought they could get away with, without taking on excessive legal risk, and maybe Mathis didn't want to make too obvious that she was in the tank for the Dems, given her little shredding incidents and the like. This map is a Dem hatchet job - and  very skillfully done.

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.

The Pubs got a good deal out of Washington?
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6814


View Profile
« Reply #292 on: October 04, 2011, 11:31:46 am »
Ignore

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.


We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.
Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

As I said, the Dems maxed what they thought they could get away with, without taking on excessive legal risk, and maybe Mathis didn't want to make too obvious that she was in the tank for the Dems, given her little shredding incidents and the like. This map is a Dem hatchet job - and  very skillfully done.

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.

The Pubs got a good deal out of Washington?

Relative to what a legislature would draw, probably. Seattle almost certainly doesn't stay intact as it historically has.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #293 on: October 04, 2011, 11:42:04 am »
Ignore


Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.
Well, yeah.

Washington is not decided... but it's pretty much decided that protecting all four Republicans will be the prime consideration.

(And yeah, Grijalva probably would have complained about the district I drew for him. Too little Tucson. Which would have knockon effects in the red district in Glendale probably. Still, there is no reason for a Dem gerry to concede four safe Republican districts in the state. If you're ready to draw competitive districts anyways.)
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14416


View Profile
« Reply #294 on: October 04, 2011, 01:15:15 pm »
Ignore

So it seems like the second map, with the Phoenix area undrawn was better for the pubbies? Because the Dems seems like they got what they wanted in Phoenix, didn't they? I would love to see the Obama numbers in that 9th district. And in Tucson, they barely made the district more Republican, by putting those Republican precincts in the north in CD-1. And CD-1 probably stays about the same, or becomes a click more Democratic due to picking up West Sedona, and the Native reservation in Pinal, as well as losing parts of Cochise, though that might be lean Rep territory, I am not too sure. Oh, and don't count on exurban growth in the 1st either. This is not the 2000's. There will not be a housing boom in this decade, and it certainly won't be happening in Phoenix. The population may still rise, but they will be filling the houses that already have been built. Unless there are a lot of vacant houses, or half built houses in the Pinal part of CD-1, the population won't rise much. I wouldn't count on too much more new construction.

The pubbies got screwed. They should have just stopped complaining. Even Grijalva is safer in this map! Wow. Maybe the pubbies in California should learn a lesson from this. They have a decent map now, considering all the constraints of the VRA. They will get something worse from the Dem legislature and Brown, even if they act like children and hold up the budget to get something favorable to them. They should understand that. One only needs to look at the Obama numbers in the current Rep districts in California to realize what a favorable map they have currently. And they have a chance to knock over some Dem incumbents like Capps for example. They should set their aims higher instead of just trying to protect their ass.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 01:18:10 pm by sbane »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #295 on: October 04, 2011, 02:48:47 pm »
Ignore

Yes, the Pubs should just let me run the party in CA.  I would turn things around - and in a hurry.  Tongue
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14416


View Profile
« Reply #296 on: October 04, 2011, 04:48:49 pm »
Ignore

I was looking at the senate districts, which is where the pubbies are really worried/angry about, and some of them should be competitive with the right candidate. The Morgan Hill to SLO district or the Pasadena to Upland district. If they don't win those sorts of districts, they will get stuck at 13 and below the 1/3 threshold. But there are enough competitive districts that they could win the senate with good candidates and luck/move towards the Republicans in California.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 04:51:06 pm by sbane »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14416


View Profile
« Reply #297 on: October 04, 2011, 08:00:41 pm »
Ignore

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35529
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #298 on: October 04, 2011, 09:11:42 pm »
Ignore

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

That's weak safe Dem. Smiley  That is supposed to be "competitive?"  LOL. They sure did get what they want!  I wonder if the Pubbies will get another referendum up. They must be as mad as hell.
Logged
Compassion Fills the Void
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 80716
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #299 on: October 04, 2011, 09:14:58 pm »
Ignore

Since AZ-08 still got more Dem (just not as much as some wanted I guess), I don't know why the GOP is getting too excited unless they are absolutely certain Giffords isn't running again, since Giffords would be unbeatable in that seat.
Logged

I'm finally seeing them! September 16.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 21 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines