Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 29, 2014, 12:15:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  NC redistricting revisited
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: NC redistricting revisited  (Read 4282 times)
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2012, 02:22:28 am »
Ignore

 
Quote

And honoring the special pleadings of Republican Party hacks in smoke-filled back rooms means ignoring the pleadings that actually make geographic and cultural sense.

Of course, but thats all fine and good for Bob as long as its the Republicans who are doing it.

'Drawing Asheville with suburban Charlotte? 'Nothing wrong with that!

'Pairing Johnston county with the southern coast? No problem there!

'Snaking CD-04 down from Chapel Hill to Fayetteville? Makes perfect sense!

But when you pair urban Greensboro with central Raleigh or keep Asheville in its century-old community of interest, Bob suddenly has a big problem.

Quote
Butterfield's district does not need Durham. But no argument on the other point.

Even with the Durham hand of CD01, there wasn't a need to crack it 4 ways.

Logged


Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2012, 08:38:31 am »
Ignore


In the NC map I drew, the 1st district is 48.5% VAP black if I remember correctly-- more than enough to elect a black representative

Well, it would still retrogress out of 6 VRA-covered counties. Thats why the the Assembly had to redraw their original CD1 so that it complied with Section 5.

This is off topic, but those idiots at WRAL are still using the original map without the changes to NC-01 and surronding seats.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8558


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2012, 10:16:21 am »


Take Idaho as an example. IIRC, Idaho's redistricting rules require that large counties be split first, then if cities need to get split, larger cities are split first. This basically means that Boise gets screwed. To me it would make much more sense to have a district anchored in Boise and its suburbs and a district comprised of the rest of the state.

EDIT: Any chance that the North Carolina stuff could be moved to another thread? We seem to be hijacking a discussion about Maryland.

Your wish is my command. Smiley


In the NC map I drew, the 1st district is 48.5% VAP black if I remember correctly-- more than enough to elect a black representative

Well, it would still retrogress out of 6 VRA-covered counties. Thats why the the Assembly had to redraw their original CD1 so that it complied with Section 5.


You are revising history here. The stated motivation for the revision is that the legislature thought that the Black Congressman in the first district had expressed his preference to gain  additional urban Black residents in Wake county rather than in Durham  county. When that Congressman publicly stated the opposite, he was accommodated in the second map.

As laid out here in this diary, there was still a good chance that the original CD01 would have been thrown out on Section 5 grounds anyway.

They could have drawn the district into Wake county while still avoiding retrogression in the eastern counties, ya know.


I might have agreed with the concerns in the diaries a year ago before DOJ started ruling. But seeing how DOJ protected their review position by taking a less scrutinizing view of section 5 on so many other maps then many observers expected, I think NC could have pulled back from some of the 21 counties and survived. Here's a 50.04% version with only 7 county splits. It does leave out some of the section 5 counties currently in CD 1, but it could survive since it is more compact and splits fewer counties.



Edited to drop county splits from 8 to 7.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 08:26:37 am by muon2 »Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2012, 11:34:58 am »
Ignore

One of a myriad of special pleadings that wasn't honored. Again, there are a series of special pleading that are contradictory to one another. Honoring some special pleading means ignoring others.

And honoring the special pleadings of Republican Party hacks in smoke-filled back rooms means ignoring the pleadings that actually make geographic and cultural sense.


Again, you are showing a willful blindness to any special pleading but your own. Culturally, Asheville isn't like most of the rest of Western North Carolina. Culturally, it more to the left, and populated with a greater number of transplants. You actually go on to claim that it is economic considerations that you believe should drive redistricting algorithms. So, it isn't even a claim consistent with your own stated position.

I understand that you believe that redistricting ought to start in urban areas, and radiate out into rural areas to meet population requirements. I disagree. I find your urbancentric approach discriminatory to folks who`in live in rural areas. I find it just as valid to start building districts in the rural areas, and then reach into the urban areas as necessary for population equality. Such an approach is used in New York where Senate districts divide larger cities, but, avoid splitting smaller cities.

Your entire rhetorical approach is to create a special pleading and then present it as though it is the ace of trump. It simply isn't. Again, some county in Western North Carolina had to be split to achieve OMOV. The legislature chose the most populous county to be split. There is nothing inherently wrong, or sinister in preferring to split the largest county as opposed to some smaller county.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2012, 11:52:18 am »
Ignore

Quote

And honoring the special pleadings of Republican Party hacks in smoke-filled back rooms means ignoring the pleadings that actually make geographic and cultural sense.

Of course, but thats all fine and good for Bob as long as its the Republicans who are doing it.

'Drawing Asheville with suburban Charlotte? 'Nothing wrong with that!

'Pairing Johnston county with the southern coast? No problem there!

'Snaking CD-04 down from Chapel Hill to Fayetteville? Makes perfect sense!

But when you pair urban Greensboro with central Raleigh or keep Asheville in its century-old community of interest, Bob suddenly has a big problem.

Quote
Butterfield's district does not need Durham. But no argument on the other point.

Even with the Durham hand of CD01, there wasn't a need to crack it 4 ways.



Here, you have exited reality in favor of your own fantasy world. I have commented on the lines in Western North Carolina, which I find well within the legitimate range of redistricting choices. I simply have not commented on any of the other issues, other than Durham, for which you have assigned to me a position.

In the case of Durham, you agreed that it was Butterfield's objections that lead to one split. As I eluded too before, the remedy to Butterfield's objection bisected an existing district that linked Raleigh to Greensboro [don't remember you pillioring that choice!] required a new bridge through Durham county.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2012, 12:18:57 pm »
Ignore

Since we're revisiting NC redistricting here, I may post some of the alternative NC maps's I've made (its the state I do the most in DRA), for everyone's enjoyment.
Logged


Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2012, 02:15:33 pm »
Ignore

Since we're revisiting NC redistricting here, I may post some of the alternative NC maps's I've made (its the state I do the most in DRA), for everyone's enjoyment.

Ya know what, nevermind. If I post my maps, Bob will probably systematically go through them and circuitously argue about every little detail he thinks should be different. Nothing positive will come from that and I have more productive things to do than argue with an arrogant, condescending troll. 
Logged


Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2012, 02:37:30 pm »
Ignore

Since we're revisiting NC redistricting here, I may post some of the alternative NC maps's I've made (its the state I do the most in DRA), for everyone's enjoyment.

Ya know what, nevermind. If I post my maps, Bob will probably systematically go through them and circuitously argue about every little detail he thinks should be different. Nothing positive will come from that and I have more productive things to do than argue with an arrogant, condescending troll. 

Isn't that why you have him on ignore? I'd like to see your maps.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2012, 02:43:13 pm »
Ignore

Since we're revisiting NC redistricting here, I may post some of the alternative NC maps's I've made (its the state I do the most in DRA), for everyone's enjoyment.

Ya know what, nevermind. If I post my maps, Bob will probably systematically go through them and circuitously argue about every little detail he thinks should be different. Nothing positive will come from that and I have more productive things to do than argue with an arrogant, condescending troll. 

Isn't that why you have him on ignore? I'd like to see your maps.

Even still...

Ok, I might actually post some then Smiley
Logged


Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2012, 07:54:31 pm »
Ignore

Well, this thread started in Maryland, it became NC thread and now I'm taking it to TX.

One situation that I thought was comparable to that of NC-11 is TX-01. The difference here is that, for the sake of partisan advantage, Republicans moved an urban area into a rural district, rather than excising an urban area as they did with NC-11.



Before the DeLaymander, TX-01 was almost entirely rural; its largest city was Texarkana, with a population of 37,000.
 Like NC-11, which included the same basic set of counties since at least the 1920's, TX-01 was anchored in the state's northeastern corner since the 1880's.

 However, to defeat Max Sandlin, the Republicans moved the cities of Longview and Tyler into the district while splitting the rural counties between CD1 and CD4. Tyler and Longview were noticeably more Republican than the surrounding, less-populated counties along the LA/AR border (LBJ couldn't even win them in 1964).

Now, by Bob's logic, since Asheville is urban, it should be paired with the Charlotte exurbs, rather than the more culturally similar rural western counties. With that in mind, Bob, were the TX Republicans right to break up a geographically and politically coherent district like the original TX-01?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 08:00:16 pm by MilesC56 »Logged


BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2012, 12:47:21 am »
Ignore

Well, this thread started in Maryland, it became NC thread and now I'm taking it to TX.

One situation that I thought was comparable to that of NC-11 is TX-01. The difference here is that, for the sake of partisan advantage, Republicans moved an urban area into a rural district, rather than excising an urban area as they did with NC-11.



Before the DeLaymander, TX-01 was almost entirely rural; its largest city was Texarkana, with a population of 37,000.
 Like NC-11, which included the same basic set of counties since at least the 1920's, TX-01 was anchored in the state's northeastern corner since the 1880's.

 However, to defeat Max Sandlin, the Republicans moved the cities of Longview and Tyler into the district while splitting the rural counties between CD1 and CD4. Tyler and Longview were noticeably more Republican than the surrounding, less-populated counties along the LA/AR border (LBJ couldn't even win them in 1964).

Now, by Bob's logic, since Asheville is urban, it should be paired with the Charlotte exurbs, rather than the more culturally similar rural western counties.

No, that's not my logic. That is your strawman interpretation of my logic. My logic notes that redistricting involving a series of choices that balance a number of competing considerations. Attempts to claim redistricting "should" be done based solely on "cultural" considerations is a form of sophistry in which the various competing considerations are ignored in favor of a simplified standard that just happens to derive the conclusion towards which the sophist was aiming.

Quote
With that in mind, Bob, were the TX Republicans right to break up a geographically and politically coherent district like the original TX-01?

Since you are nominally asking me to apply my logic to the situation, I will note that if the redistricting had been down in reverse by the Democrats I would argue that while they made redistricting choices that favored the Democratic party and harmed the Republican party those decisions were well within the acceptable range of redistricting choices that could be made.

What you are really doing is projecting your failings onto me. A couple of posters here took a highly dogmatic stance about their particular special pleadings. I noted the existence of competing special pleadings that were just as valid, but, lead to the opposite conclusions. In response, without any basis in fact, or logic, I was told that I was just a dogmatic my in arguing my special pleading as they were in arguing theirs.  I never argued that Buncombe had to be split, but, merely that it was legitimate to split Buncombe. I never disputed the idea that there are legitimate candidate maps that didn't split Buncombe.

If I hadn't happened to follow politics for most of life, with its familiarities with what places vote what way, and, if I were asked to redistrict Texas, I would try to draw as many completely rural districts as practical, possibly like the example above.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2012, 12:51:26 am »
Ignore


If I hadn't happened to follow politics for most of life, with its familiarities with what places vote what way, and, if I were asked to redistrict Texas, I would try to draw as many completely rural districts as practical, possibly like the example above.

Very good; as long as you're consistent. That interestingly puts you at odds with your party's actions in TX; Republicans diluted the influence of rural voters in those such districts.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 12:53:20 am by MilesC56 »Logged


asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12465


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2012, 12:53:29 am »
Ignore

Out of curiosity, Miles, is the old TX-01 entirely rural any more? I imagine there might be some DFW sprawl, but I don't know since it's only been about nine years.
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.
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2012, 12:54:48 am »
Ignore

Out of curiosity, Miles, is the old TX-01 entirely rural any more? I imagine there might be some DFW sprawl, but I don't know since it's only been about nine years.

Yes, its still pretty rural.

I've drawn it in DRA a few times, and its actually lost population, IIRC.
Logged


Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2012, 01:15:54 am »
Ignore

Out of curiosity, Miles, is the old TX-01 entirely rural any more? I imagine there might be some DFW sprawl, but I don't know since it's only been about nine years.

Yes, its still pretty rural.

I've drawn it in DRA a few times, and its actually lost population, IIRC.

Correction: It didn't lose population, but it grew at a rate much slower than the state as a whole.

It had right at 650K people in 2000 and in 2010, it was 685k. So it grew at about a 6% rate compared to almost 20% for the state as a whole.
Logged


krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5783


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2012, 11:27:15 pm »
Ignore


If I hadn't happened to follow politics for most of life, with its familiarities with what places vote what way, and, if I were asked to redistrict Texas, I would try to draw as many completely rural districts as practical, possibly like the example above.

Very good; as long as you're consistent. That interestingly puts you at odds with your party's actions in TX; Republicans diluted the influence of rural voters in those such districts.

That is a very good point Miles.

The opposite is true on other parts of the state. By drawing 4 bizarre baconstrips from Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties (total population of roughly 2 congressional districts), some plaintiffs in recent redistricting legalese sought to dilute the influence of rural voters in those such districts.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2012, 11:30:28 pm »
Ignore


If I hadn't happened to follow politics for most of life, with its familiarities with what places vote what way, and, if I were asked to redistrict Texas, I would try to draw as many completely rural districts as practical, possibly like the example above.

Very good; as long as you're consistent. That interestingly puts you at odds with your party's actions in TX; Republicans diluted the influence of rural voters in those such districts.

That is a very good point Miles.

The opposite is true on other parts of the state. By drawing 4 bizarre baconstrips from Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties (total population of roughly 2 congressional districts), some plaintiffs in recent redistricting legalese sought to dilute the influence of rural voters in those such districts.

Yeah, we agree on that. There were also rural districts like the old TX-02 and TX-17 which were  pretty cohesive rural blocks but were cracked multiple ways.
Logged


Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2012, 06:13:58 pm »
Ignore

Ok, if I were in charge of NC redistricting, this is what I'd draw. After making dozens of precinct-level maps, and spending hours in DRA, this is the best deal that I've come up with for the Democrats.

My goal here was 9-4, optimally consisting of four liberal Democrats, five Blue Dogs and four Republicans.




CD1:


OLD PVI: D+10
NEW PVI: D+15

50.3% black VAP. My goal here was to get the Obama % as low as possible while still keeping it >50% black and avoiding retrogression out of any Section 5 counties. It connects into Durham via touch-point with the 13th.

Safe D.

CD2:

OLD PVI: R+1
NEW PVI: D+1

Follows the same basic formula as the current version. Its centered in Johnston county, but expands its reach further into Raleigh and Fayetteville to pick up more liberal voters. Obama margin here increased 3 points, making this district a point or so bluer than the nation as a whole; this would have been enough for Etheridge to hold on. Ellmers was lucky to get washed in during 2010, but I doubt she'd hold this district going forward, especially in a Presidential year.

Lean D.

CD3:

OLD PVI: R+15
NEW PVI: R+15

In terms of partisanship, the Third is basically unchanged. No Democrat has a realistic chance of beating Jones anyway. When he retires, this area has trended R so that even an open seat would be tough sledding for a Democrat.

Safe R with Jones, Likely R if open.

CD4

OLD PVI: D+9
NEW PVI: D+5

The PVI of this district takes a hit because of the loss of most of Durham-proper. To make up for the loss of population there, it reaches down to grab all of Chatham and Lee from the old 2nd. In Wake county, it keeps much of its current holdings.

Safe D.

CD5

OLD PVI: R+15
NEW PVI: R+7

As a gaffe-prone incumbent who routinely underperforms, my biggest target in this map was Virginia Foxx. McCain's margin here was reduced to 7 points, down from 23 in the previous district. Much of that shift can be attributed to shifting all of Forsyth county into the district. Assuming a uniform swing, Foxx would have held on in 2008 with just 50.5%. If Democrats recruited a Blue Dog who could use Winston-Salem as a base while still performing relatively well in the rural counties, Foxx could very well lose.

Tossup/Slight R.

CD6

OLD PVI: R+17
NEW PVI: R+16

One of my favorite R's, Congressman Howard Coble, is still super-safe. The district is the same, except it takes two precincts in southeastern Forsyth and adds a chunk of northern Davidson.

Safe R.

CD7

OLD PVI: R+6
NEW PVI: R+6

Aside from taking in all of Sampson and trading around a few precincts along the northern border, very minimal change; it remains a compact district logically placed in the southeastern edge of the state. In terms of PVI, its slightly friendlier to Obama. Its less than 52% McCain now, but has 51.2% D average in state races, meaning this will be safe for McIntyre and the D's will have a decent shot at holding it when he retires.

Safe D with McIntyre, Tossup if open.

CD8

OLD PVI: R+1
NEW PVI: EVEN

This becomes more marginally Democratic by swapping out chunks of Stanly and Union counties in exchange for a bigger slice of Charlotte and northern precincts in Robeson county. Other than that, just some minor precinct-trading in Fayetteville. Since Kissell won by a surprisingly comfortable margin in 2010 he'll be safe here and the Democrats would be favored when he retires.

Safe D for Kissell, Lean D if open.

CD9

OLD PVI: R+9
NEW PVI: R+13

The suburban Charlotte seat becomes even more of a vote-sink, with McCain approaching 60%. I'm pretty sure McCrory would be near 70% here as well. It keeps the same basic Gaston-Mecklenburg-Union formula but takes a chunk of Stanly from the 8th.

Safe R.

CD10

OLD PVI: R+17
NEW PVI: R+19

Overall, it shifts eastward to accommodate the loss of Burke county to CD11. It takes in Alexander county, the Republican parts of Iredell and eastern Wilkes, all of which have the collective effect of making CD5 more competitive. Just to be partisan, I drew McHenry's home in CD9, though its just one precinct away from being in the 10th.

Safe R.

CD11

OLD PVI: R+6
NEW PVI: R+6

Remains a mountainous western district anchored in Asheville, as it has been for many decades. It gives all of Rutherford county to the 10th while replacing it with most of Burke county. Obama's performance improves slightly.

Safe for Shuler, Tossup if open.

CD12

OLD PVI: D+17
NEW PVI: D+17

I'm assuming I can pull CD12 out of Forsyth county altogether, since its not covered under Section 5 jurisdiction. The White-Black VAP percentages go from 46-43 to 44-40.

Safe D.

CD13:

OLD PVI: D+6
NEW PVI: D+4

Now uses touch-point in two locations, which seems a bit sketchy, but its the most efficient way to make this seat as Democratic as possible. Despite moving a few points to the right, Miller would have still won here in 2010 with 52/53%. Going forward, the trend would also be in his favor.

Likely/Safe D.



Overall, the Miles Plan splits 32 counties, compared with 40 split counties in the enacted Republican plan. The Miles plan splits 5 counties 3-ways while the Republican splits 7 counties 3 or more ways.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 09:43:58 am by MilesC56 »Logged


jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5749
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2012, 11:34:03 pm »
Ignore

Well, this thread started in Maryland, it became NC thread and now I'm taking it to TX.

One situation that I thought was comparable to that of NC-11 is TX-01. The difference here is that, for the sake of partisan advantage, Republicans moved an urban area into a rural district, rather than excising an urban area as they did with NC-11.



Before the DeLaymander, TX-01 was almost entirely rural; its largest city was Texarkana, with a population of 37,000.
Wouldn't want the folks to forget what the districts looked like as a result of the Frostrosity.  Note the red and yellow districts are the CLEANED UP versions after Bush v Vera



CD 4 was Sam Rayburn's district (Rayburn was from Bonham in Fannin County.  CD 1 was Wright Patman.   The Democrats refused to redistrict, and forced Joe Pool to run at large because he kept losing Dallas County, which was the most overpopulated district in the country at the time of Wesberry v Sanders.  As the result of Bush v Martin OMOV came to Texas.

The legislature carved up CD-3 based in Tyler-Longview-Marshall because it had nearly elected a Republican in 1962 (he would have been 1 of 2).  That politically motivated split of the East Texas Field between two Red River districts lasted until the Delay reforms of 2003, reaching its nadir in 1991 when Hunt, Smith, Gregg, and Nacogdoches counties were hacked apart by the Frostrosity.



Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12465


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2012, 12:32:29 am »
Ignore

'Reforms' is an interesting term for a shift from one blatantly hyperpartisan gerrymander to another.
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.
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2012, 01:15:39 am »
Ignore

jimrtex, thanks for that informative post; I've always found east Texas politics interesting.

At least with respect to the rural distrcits, wasn't a lot of the Frostrosity's ugliness fixed with the 2001 court-drawn map though?



Smith and Gregg were kept whole and put in Hall's district while Sandlin got all of Hunt (except for one or two precincts in the southwest) and all of Nacogdoches-proper.
Logged


asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12465


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2012, 01:57:54 am »
Ignore

Even the DFW districts don't look too bad in that map, although there may be something off about them demographically that I'm not aware of.
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.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5783


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2012, 08:48:16 am »
Ignore

Mr. Miles's NC-05 looks like a lean R district. Those rural counties look far less likely to support a D congressman than some of the other rural counties in NC, and in that type of tug of war district the GOP has an edge. It is still a very skillful gerrymander.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14761
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2012, 09:25:48 am »
Ignore

Mr. Miles's NC-05 looks like a lean R district. Those rural counties look far less likely to support a D congressman than some of the other rural counties in NC, and in that type of tug of war district the GOP has an edge. It is still a very skillful gerrymander.

Thanks Smiley

I do think the GOP would still be favored in CD5, but I made it as Dem-friendly as possible, so that it could possibly fall in another 2006 or 2008.

The rural counties in the 5th, unlike those in the the 7th or 8th, are actually ancestrally Republican; FDR couldn't even win Wilkes or Yadkin, IIRC.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 09:35:36 am by MilesC56 »Logged


Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2012, 04:08:48 pm »
Ignore

Mr. Miles's NC-05 looks like a lean R district. Those rural counties look far less likely to support a D congressman than some of the other rural counties in NC, and in that type of tug of war district the GOP has an edge. It is still a very skillful gerrymander.

Thanks Smiley

I do think the GOP would still be favored in CD5, but I made it as Dem-friendly as possible, so that it could possibly fall in another 2006 or 2008.

The rural counties in the 5th, unlike those in the the 7th or 8th, are actually ancestrally Republican; FDR couldn't even win Wilkes or Yadkin, IIRC.

Yeah, I don't think that district would be enough to sink Foxx. Those rural counties are too Republican.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines