Does increased urbanization hurt the Democrats in the House?

[ElectionsGuy]

It definitely does. But of course if a democrats is drawing the lines, they will combine less D suburbs to make more D districts (IE Illinoi), and pretty much "pack" big rural republican chunks in a few districts, so it depends . If a republican draws the lines, they will "pack" urban areas into a few districts, and combine suburbs and rural areas to make maximum amount of districts (IE Pennsylvania). I would say when its all equal though, it absolutely does hurt them, as packed urban areas are much more D than rural areas are R. And many times, its unavoidable to pack extremely democratic districts, while you can almost always combine something other than rural land into a district. So I think the answer is yes.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

The majority of Congressional districts D+20 (and these are districts that would normally go 60-40 in favor of a Democrat in a 50-50 election) or more are in California and New York, and those reflect the giant urban areas that hold the vast majority of the population of those states. There is no way to avoid such districts in California or New York  in such numbers. I didn't count the total, but most states with large populations and at least one giant metro area have one. To give some idea of their rarity outside of California and New York, Illinois has four, Pennsylvania has three, Texas has three, North Carolina has two,  Florida has three New Jersey has two, and Michigan has two. (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin each have one).   

Republicans have done an excellent job of ensuring that Democrats must win about 53-47 in Congressional races on the whole to have a chance at a majority, at least based on assumptions of 2010. They have created some of the D+20 districts as sure wins for any Democrat who does nothing so egregious as a felony crime while diluting any significant concentrations of Democratic votes elsewhere.   Such allows Congress to represent what Sarah Palin calls "the Real America" -- the part of America still rural, conservative in religious beliefs and family traditions, and that still believes in the benevolence of Corporate America.

[muon2]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

The majority of Congressional districts D+20 (and these are districts that would normally go 60-40 in favor of a Democrat in a 50-50 election) or more are in California and New York, and those reflect the giant urban areas that hold the vast majority of the population of those states. There is no way to avoid such districts in California or New York  in such numbers. I didn't count the total, but most states with large populations and at least one giant metro area have one. To give some idea of their rarity outside of California and New York, Illinois has four, Pennsylvania has three, Texas has three, North Carolina has two,  Florida has three New Jersey has two, and Michigan has two. (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin each have one).   

Republicans have done an excellent job of ensuring that Democrats must win about 53-47 in Congressional races on the whole to have a chance at a majority, at least based on assumptions of 2010. They have created some of the D+20 districts as sure wins for any Democrat who does nothing so egregious as a felony crime while diluting any significant concentrations of Democratic votes elsewhere.   Such allows Congress to represent what Sarah Palin calls "the Real America" -- the part of America still rural, conservative in religious beliefs and family traditions, and that still believes in the benevolence of Corporate America.

A D+20 district is expected to go 70-30 in a 50-50 election, that is the Dem is expected to beat the national average there by 20%. There are 59 D+20 districts compared to 28 R+20 districts based on the 2008-12 elections. Of the 59 D+20, 12 are from CA and 10 from NY, so it's not quite a majority of those CDs.

My point was that at the PVI+20 level or even the PVI+15 level there are more Dem districts where the general becomes less relevant, though there is one R+16 seat held by a Dem (UT-04). It's only when one moves down to the PVI+10 level that the number of GOP districts top Dem districts. I would note though there are another two Dems holding GOP seats in that R+10-14 bunch vs no GOP holds among the districts D+10 or above.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

The majority of Congressional districts D+20 (and these are districts that would normally go 60-40 in favor of a Democrat in a 50-50 election) or more are in California and New York, and those reflect the giant urban areas that hold the vast majority of the population of those states. There is no way to avoid such districts in California or New York  in such numbers. I didn't count the total, but most states with large populations and at least one giant metro area have one. To give some idea of their rarity outside of California and New York, Illinois has four, Pennsylvania has three, Texas has three, North Carolina has two,  Florida has three New Jersey has two, and Michigan has two. (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin each have one).   

Republicans have done an excellent job of ensuring that Democrats must win about 53-47 in Congressional races on the whole to have a chance at a majority, at least based on assumptions of 2010. They have created some of the D+20 districts as sure wins for any Democrat who does nothing so egregious as a felony crime while diluting any significant concentrations of Democratic votes elsewhere.   Such allows Congress to represent what Sarah Palin calls "the Real America" -- the part of America still rural, conservative in religious beliefs and family traditions, and that still believes in the benevolence of Corporate America.

A D+20 district is expected to go 70-30 in a 50-50 election, that is the Dem is expected to beat the national average there by 20%. There are 59 D+20 districts compared to 28 R+20 districts based on the 2008-12 elections. Of the 59 D+20, 12 are from CA and 10 from NY, so it's not quite a majority of those CDs.

My point was that at the PVI+20 level or even the PVI+15 level there are more Dem districts where the general becomes less relevant, though there is one R+16 seat held by a Dem (UT-04). It's only when one moves down to the PVI+10 level that the number of GOP districts top Dem districts. I would note though there are another two Dems holding GOP seats in that R+10-14 bunch vs no GOP holds among the districts D+10 or above.

I think the reason that Republicans fear primary elections more than Democrats-despite Democrats being in safer districts-is because Republican voters, activists, and donors have demonstrated a willingness to punish those Republicans at the polls who are not "conservative" enough. Certainly this is more true of Republicans than it is of Democrats today.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In terms of gerrymandering and vote packing. Does the denser population in the Democratic cities help the Republicans, who are more spread out among the metro fringe and the rural areas?

Yes, but the problem isn't population density as much as the fact that you might have a city that votes 70% Democratic surrounded by suburbs that vote 55% Republican. With a map that doesn't visually look gerrymandered, the city is a Democratic vote sink while Republicans win the suburbs.  A fair map should look a little gerrymandered for the Democrats. A map that is drawn heavily in favor of Democrats, like this one, ends up looking epic.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/

[Sbane]

In terms of gerrymandering and vote packing. Does the denser population in the Democratic cities help the Republicans, who are more spread out among the metro fringe and the rural areas?

Yes, but the problem isn't population density as much as the fact that you might have a city that votes 70% Democratic surrounded by suburbs that vote 55% Republican. With a map that doesn't visually look gerrymandered, the city is a Democratic vote sink while Republicans win the suburbs.  A fair map should look a little gerrymandered for the Democrats. A map that is drawn heavily in favor of Democrats, like this one, ends up looking epic.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/

That is assuming you think a fair map should necessarily be balanced between Republicans and Democrats.

[krazen1211]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

But the counties that hold Kalamazoo, South Bend, and Lansing are all held entirely intact in Congressional redistricting. Such 'dilution' is mandatory unless of course you go chopping cities up like Peoria and Rockford. The Michigan mapping scheme generally does not chop up cities.

[memphis]

The problem for the Dems is the VRA. It absolutely drains Democratic votes from House districts that might otherwise go their way. It needn't be an urban issue, except that so many minoroties live in cities. Look at NC as an obvious example.

[Sol]

The problem for the Dems is the VRA. It absolutely drains Democratic votes from House districts that might otherwise go their way. It needn't be an urban issue, except that so many minoroties live in cities. Look at NC as an obvious example.

NC-12 is actually not VRA protected.

I am of the opinion, however, that NC shouldn't have to draw NC-01 as majority black either- it requires linking a bunch of small cities, not to mention the arms to durham/raleigh. It also kinda screws up NC-3.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

But the counties that hold Kalamazoo, South Bend, and Lansing are all held entirely intact in Congressional redistricting. Such 'dilution' is mandatory unless of course you go chopping cities up like Peoria and Rockford. The Michigan mapping scheme generally does not chop up cities.

MI-07 was chopped up so that the Democratic Representative barely defeated in 2010 could not challenge the bare victor of 2010, in accordance with the suggestions of Koch's group.