LA and NC 2014 Congressional Races

[Mr.Phips]

Miles, do you think NC-06 could be competitive if Howard Coble ever retires?  I was just looking through some results and it looks like there were several Democrats who won or came close to winning it on the state level; it looks like even Elaine Marshall came close in 2012.  What do you think?

Im not Miles, but the trend here and NC-09 make it quite possible that both of these seats would be competitive if open at the end of the decade. 

[Mr.Phips]

Who do you think would run if Coble retired?

Coble has already had a few younger Republicans run against him in the primary over the last few cycles. If he retires, I think there would be a clown car Republican primary.

Guilford County Commissioner Billy Yow ran against him from the far right both in 2010 and 2012; I'm pretty sure he'd run again if he seat was open.

A better candidate, IMO, would be either Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger or his son, Phil Berger Jr, both from Rockingham County. In fact, when Republicans released their original redistricting map, the Democrats accused them of redrawing NC-13 specifically for Berger Jr. Under the modified map, much of that 13th was transferred to Coble's 6th.

Other than the Bergers, most other Republican State Senators in that area only have 1 or 2 terms under their belts.

On the Democratic side, Greensboro mayor Robbie Perkins would probably be the best guy. I don't Democrats would have any other A teamers here.

How about former State Senator Tony Forrest?  He represented a state Senate district that had a pretty similar PVI to the current NC-06 before he was swept out in the 2010 wave.  Yes, he dad badly in his quixotic run against Coble, but Coble is a god in that district. 

[Mr.Phips]

Also, citing the need for greater bipartisanship and cuts to agriculture, both Landrieu and Hagan voted against the sequestration bills from both parties on Friday.

The only other Democrat to break with the party was Pryor, who of course, is, electorally, in much the same category as Hagan and Landrieu.

Pryor is in much better shape than either of those other two.  He's got fairly high approval rating and a golden family name. 

[Mr.Phips]

Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy is forgoing reelction to run against McHenry in CD10.

Bellamy will win the Asheville chunk of the district easily, but there are lot of boxes to check elsewhere in the district. Barring a major anti-incumbent wave or scandal, McHenry is still a wide favorite.

Its simply disgusting what Republicans did to Asheville.  There is absolutely no non-political reason or precendence for what they did.  All of Buncombe county has always been in the district with the Smokey Mountains. 

[Mr.Phips]

Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy is forgoing reelction to run against McHenry in CD10.

Bellamy will win the Asheville chunk of the district easily, but there are lot of boxes to check elsewhere in the district. Barring a major anti-incumbent wave or scandal, McHenry is still a wide favorite.

Its simply disgusting what Republicans did to Asheville.  There is absolutely no non-political reason or precendence for what they did.  All of Buncombe county has always been in the district with the Smokey Mountains.  

Our self-appointed resident NC geography expert, BigSkyBob, who won't say if he's ever actually been to NC, seems to disagree.

Well, he's wrong.  What Republicans did here would be equivalent to Democrats taking Wright county in Minnesota and attaching it to the Hennepin/Minneapolis based MN-05. 

[Mr.Phips]

Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy is forgoing reelction to run against McHenry in CD10.

Bellamy will win the Asheville chunk of the district easily, but there are lot of boxes to check elsewhere in the district. Barring a major anti-incumbent wave or scandal, McHenry is still a wide favorite.

Its simply disgusting what Republicans did to Asheville.  There is absolutely no non-political reason or precendence for what they did.  All of Buncombe county has always been in the district with the Smokey Mountains. 

That statement is about as meaningful as 'Will County, Illinois, population ~680k, has never been split into 6 congressional districts'.

Yet there it is.

I cant think of a time when Will WASNT split into several districts.  Even as far back as the 1980's, it was split between four. 

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

Then why did they publicly start freaking out in summer of 1998 when the scandal actually grew legs?  Even Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, who are hardly Democrat friendly, both said that Democrats had a real chance to gain back the House before the Lewinsky scandal broke. 

[Mr.Phips]

Well, how 'bout them apples, Fleming is nippin' at Cassidy's heels.

Fleming is out with some interesting numbers, from Public Opinion Strategies; these are perhaps aimed at nudging Cassidy out of the race.

The full primary poll:

Landrieu (D)- 47%
Fleming (R)- 15%
Cassidy (R)- 14%
Roemer (R)- 6%

The Roemer is Chas Roemer, the son of the former Governor. I probably would have substituted Landry for Roemer in that poll.

After "opposition research" points are read against all the candidate, the race changes to:

Landrieu- 38%
Fleming- 32%
Cassidy- 30%

Obviously, Fleming would advance to the runoff in both scenarios. 

There seems to be a sentiment among Republicans that a runoff would be bad news for them.

Whoever had the idiotic idea to move the jungle primary from early October as it had been since the beginning of time to the the general election day in early November?  Having any normal elections after November is simply idiotic.  Elections should end on the first Tuesday of November. 

[Mr.Phips]

Is it possible for democrats to retake the house or the senate despite gerrymandering?

The Senate would be easier, but its still rough. They'd need to run the right candidates in certain districts and have at least a somewhat favorable environment.

Considering that the 2004-2010 redrawn Senate map wasn't great for Democrats either, that is almost certainly correct.  Their majority there in those years existed by guys like John Snow holding districts that McCain won by double digits in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

Is it possible for democrats to retake the house or the senate despite gerrymandering?

The Senate would be easier, but its still rough. They'd need to run the right candidates in certain districts and have at least a somewhat favorable environment.

Considering that the 2004-2010 redrawn Senate map wasn't great for Democrats either, that is almost certainly correct.  Their majority there in those years existed by guys like John Snow holding districts that McCain won by double digits in 2008.

Snow was one of my biggest disappointments of 2012. He lost his seat by only a few hundred votes in 2010, ran again and lost 57/43, even as the redrawn district was more Democratic. Obama's slump in Appalachia didn't help, but still I had higher hopes.

I actually think Hayden Rogers could potentially win that seat back though.

It's amazing how close Snow came to winning in 2010, given that other Democrats in much more favorable districts around the state were losing by huge margins.

[Mr.Phips]

After the SC-01 race last night, I'm really worried about how corrosive the nationalization of these races can be. The National Reviews says that Blue Dogs will likely track even further right to further eschew their affiliation with Pelosi:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have to remember that SC-01 is a much more partisan district than seats like WV-03 and NC-07 that have a lot of poor rural voters who are solidly Republican at the Presidential level, but will consider at Democrat at the local/Congressional level.  SC-01 is a wealthy suburban Charleston seat that is more akin to a district like the old TX-22 which Nick Lampson couldnt hold in 2008 due to the much higher number of partisan Republican voters.  SC-01 has a very high Republican floor.

[Mr.Phips]

For redistricting reform, we're basically at the mercy of the Assembly.

The House would probably pass nonpartisan redistricting legislation, but the Republican leaders in the Senate are more partisan.

Why did Democrats ran North Carolina for 130 years without building a fire exit?

Because it was a one-party state for most of that time.

They didn't give the Governor redistricting authority in the 1990's because they were afraid Jim Martin would veto maps like this.

Yeah, that 1992 map was so great for Democrats.  Gantt winning just three out of the 12 districts in the close 1990 Senate race is a terrific map for Democrats.

Anyway, Democrats should have passed an independent redistricting commission in mid 2010 when polls showed that it was clear that Democrats would likely lose both chambers of the legislature. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think that making significant dents in the R supermajority will be hard in a midterm year, but if Hagan wins, it could help some of the more vulnerable Ds.

PPP is showing that the Rs are really unpopular but the state Democratic party really needs to step up in making its case, too.

What is important here is to minimize the midterm drop-off among Democrats and protect Hagan and other vulnerable Democrats.

It's also very important to slowly cut into the R supermajority just in time for the governor race in 2016.

The reason that the Tar Heels voted for the North Carolina Republicans is not because the people like them, but rather because North Carolina Democratic Party is plaque by scandals and imploded.

Tar Heels will vote for North Carolina Democrats again when present themselves as credible alternatives.

There are actually vulnerable Democrats left in the legislature?  If Republicans hold two thirds of the seats there, Democrats must be down to black majority seats and white liberal areas in the Research Triangle and Asheville. 

[Mr.Phips]

Since CD7 will be the only really competitive district in NC, I crunched the numbers from last year's races.

The current district:



The old district, just for the sake of comparison:



Looking at the non-Presidential races, the Democratic average slid from 50.4% (old) to 43.7% (new).
  
No Democrat would have carried the current district; the closest, Atkinson, only got 48%, with Marshall next at 47.4%.

The old map, by contrast, was very swingy; except for Coleman, it went with the winner in every race.

What Republicans did to this district was absolutely disgusting and completely without precedent.  Moving exurban Johnson county into this district and taking the Lumbee's out(they have been in this district since the dawn of time) is makes absolutely no sense.  This district and the removing Asheville from the 11th were probably the two redistricting moves that angered me the most not just in this cycle, but probably in the history of Congressional districts.

[Mr.Phips]

To get the Lumbee out of the southeastern district, you'd have to go back to 1882:



I can't find a historical map where Asheville isn't in the westernmost district.

^ I could be wrong but I didn't even think Asheville was incorporated until the early 1900s.

An interesting map to see would be how the 2012 races played out in the 7th district that was drawn over to Carteret County in Rucho's first map last year.  Obviously, with Jones skewing the vote in Carteret and Onslow Counties, we wouldn't be able to get an accurate measure on how McIntyre would have done.  Also he would have likely faced Pantano, who may have done slightly better around Wilmington than Rouzer did.

I think McIntyre would have won relatively comfortably in the original district. Both Perdue and Hagan would have carried it in 2008.

McIntyre has a great record on military issues and is the third highest Democrat on Armed Services, so I think he would have done well in Onslow County.

I thin the same thing.  Cateret and Onslow are far more swing able for Dems than exurban Johnston county.

[Mr.Phips]

McIntyre has a great record on military issues and is the third highest Democrat on Armed Services, so I think he would have done well in Onslow County.

But you have to consider McIntyre's likely opponent, Pantano, was a marine at Lejeune, I think.  But the fact that the map didn't split New Hanover would have been in McIntyre's favor, as he likely would have won about 60% of the vote in that county.

I thin the same thing.  Cateret and Onslow are far more swing able for Dems than exurban Johnston county.

I don't know about that.  A lot of the downballot Democratic candidates last year like Marshall, Wood, Cowell only lost Johnston by single digits while losing Carteret by thirty points.

Interesting.  I've always thought Johnston was an exurban Raleigh area that wouldn't vote Dem no matter what.

[Mr.Phips]

Since CD7 will be the only really competitive district in NC, I crunched the numbers from last year's races.

The current district:



The old district, just for the sake of comparison:



Looking at the non-Presidential races, the Democratic average slid from 50.4% (old) to 43.7% (new).
  
No Democrat would have carried the current district; the closest, Atkinson, only got 48%, with Marshall next at 47.4%.

The old map, by contrast, was very swingy; except for Coleman, it went with the winner in every race.

What Republicans did to this district was absolutely disgusting and completely without precedent.  Moving exurban Johnson county into this district and taking the Lumbee's out(they have been in this district since the dawn of time) is makes absolutely no sense.  This district and the removing Asheville from the 11th were probably the two redistricting moves that angered me the most not just in this cycle, but probably in the history of Congressional districts.

I'm pretty sure that Kankakee County and Chicago have never shared a congressional district.

The shrinkage/stagnation of Chicago's population was going to make that a neccessity sooner or later.  Johnston county is growing in population, as is Wilmington.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm pretty sure that Kankakee County and Chicago have never shared a congressional district.

I don't remember titling the thread "LA , NC and IL Congressional Races."

Well, no, but along the topic of the prior discussion, I am curious as to what Will County (population 300k) did to be loathed by Illinois liberals. Will County was broken into 6 congressional districts.

I can't remember that last time that Will county was just in one Congressional district.