Most Democrat Possible District by State

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

For some reason I never thought of checking the 'Population' box instead of the 'Election' box.  Here's another shot at New Jersey, this time with the majority-black areas connected.



88-12 Obama

Rest of the state: 55-45 Obama

[nclib]

Here's a map of these:

Are you doing actual CD's for states that haven't been done in this thread?

[Heimdal]

This thread (and the Republican version) really says a lot about the two parties, and their strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, it isn’t that difficult to create districts in California, New York and Illinois that are 95 % Obama (or maybe more). You usually don’t get close to those numbers for Romney or McCain, even in places like Alabama, Texas and Georgia. The almost monolithically Democratic cities are able to completely drown out Republican strengths in rural and exurban areas. That is of course an advantage for the Democrats.

The downside is of course that the Democratic core voters are locked into a few Congressional districts. That means that it isn’t that difficult to draw Republican districts in the suburbs and the countryside. In that respect, the current Republican coalition is better suited to control the House. Presidential Elections are of course a different story.

[muon2]

This thread (and the Republican version) really says a lot about the two parties, and their strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, it isn’t that difficult to create districts in California, New York and Illinois that are 95 % Obama (or maybe more). You usually don’t get close to those numbers for Romney or McCain, even in places like Alabama, Texas and Georgia. The almost monolithically Democratic cities are able to completely drown out Republican strengths in rural and exurban areas. That is of course an advantage for the Democrats.

The downside is of course that the Democratic core voters are locked into a few Congressional districts. That means that it isn’t that difficult to draw Republican districts in the suburbs and the countryside. In that respect, the current Republican coalition is better suited to control the House. Presidential Elections are of course a different story.

I would agree with the observation and add that this represents the fundamental shift from 40 years ago. At that time the GOP was better suited to win the White House while the Dems had a lock on the US House. Back then the cities were not as monolithic but there were significant rural areas that still voted for conservative New Deal Dems, especially in the South. The Dems now principally represent the basket of issues that are important to people who live in relatively dense diverse environments (ie cities), as opposed to the New Deal coalition which was primarily focused on issues affecting the working class and poor regardless of region.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This thread (and the Republican version) really says a lot about the two parties, and their strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, it isn’t that difficult to create districts in California, New York and Illinois that are 95 % Obama (or maybe more). You usually don’t get close to those numbers for Romney or McCain, even in places like Alabama, Texas and Georgia. The almost monolithically Democratic cities are able to completely drown out Republican strengths in rural and exurban areas. That is of course an advantage for the Democrats.

The downside is of course that the Democratic core voters are locked into a few Congressional districts. That means that it isn’t that difficult to draw Republican districts in the suburbs and the countryside. In that respect, the current Republican coalition is better suited to control the House. Presidential Elections are of course a different story.

I would agree with the observation and add that this represents the fundamental shift from 40 years ago. At that time the GOP was better suited to win the White House while the Dems had a lock on the US House. Back then the cities were not as monolithic but there were significant rural areas that still voted for conservative New Deal Dems, especially in the South. The Dems now principally represent the basket of issues that are important to people who live in relatively dense diverse environments (ie cities), as opposed to the New Deal coalition which was primarily focused on issues affecting the working class and poor regardless of region.

I'll admit I have seen a pro-urban/anti-rural sentiment among some progressives, but that aside, why do you suggest that Democrats don't focus on issues affecting the middle-class and poor regardless of region?

And no, don't say "social issues."  Hardly anyone votes on those alone.

[muon2]

This thread (and the Republican version) really says a lot about the two parties, and their strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, it isn’t that difficult to create districts in California, New York and Illinois that are 95 % Obama (or maybe more). You usually don’t get close to those numbers for Romney or McCain, even in places like Alabama, Texas and Georgia. The almost monolithically Democratic cities are able to completely drown out Republican strengths in rural and exurban areas. That is of course an advantage for the Democrats.

The downside is of course that the Democratic core voters are locked into a few Congressional districts. That means that it isn’t that difficult to draw Republican districts in the suburbs and the countryside. In that respect, the current Republican coalition is better suited to control the House. Presidential Elections are of course a different story.

I would agree with the observation and add that this represents the fundamental shift from 40 years ago. At that time the GOP was better suited to win the White House while the Dems had a lock on the US House. Back then the cities were not as monolithic but there were significant rural areas that still voted for conservative New Deal Dems, especially in the South. The Dems now principally represent the basket of issues that are important to people who live in relatively dense diverse environments (ie cities), as opposed to the New Deal coalition which was primarily focused on issues affecting the working class and poor regardless of region.

I'll admit I have seen a pro-urban/anti-rural sentiment among some progressives, but that aside, why do you suggest that Democrats don't focus on issues affecting the middle-class and poor regardless of region?

And no, don't say "social issues."  Hardly anyone votes on those alone.

What I see in the rural areas of IL with lower incomes are people who want government services, but not government mandates. Consider the response to the minimum wage proposal in IL, where downstate Dems were reluctant to support it. As one state rep responded to Quinn's State of the State address,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This type of issue reflects the rural-urban divide among low income voters. The battle over concealed carry in IL last year followed the same divide and the bill was led by rural Dems who wanted as little government interference as possible. Some suburban Pubs were supporting more controls than their downstate Dem counterparts.

[Heimdal]

This thread (and the Republican version) really says a lot about the two parties, and their strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, it isn’t that difficult to create districts in California, New York and Illinois that are 95 % Obama (or maybe more). You usually don’t get close to those numbers for Romney or McCain, even in places like Alabama, Texas and Georgia. The almost monolithically Democratic cities are able to completely drown out Republican strengths in rural and exurban areas. That is of course an advantage for the Democrats.

The downside is of course that the Democratic core voters are locked into a few Congressional districts. That means that it isn’t that difficult to draw Republican districts in the suburbs and the countryside. In that respect, the current Republican coalition is better suited to control the House. Presidential Elections are of course a different story.

I would agree with the observation and add that this represents the fundamental shift from 40 years ago. At that time the GOP was better suited to win the White House while the Dems had a lock on the US House. Back then the cities were not as monolithic but there were significant rural areas that still voted for conservative New Deal Dems, especially in the South. The Dems now principally represent the basket of issues that are important to people who live in relatively dense diverse environments (ie cities), as opposed to the New Deal coalition which was primarily focused on issues affecting the working class and poor regardless of region.

The Democrats have always done well among low income voters. It goes without saying that you find a lot of these voters in the cities (at least in parts of the city). In recent years you have also seen the Democrats do well with high income (and highly educated) voters. You also find a lot of them in some big cities. This makes for a strong coalition. Another aspect is of course that many urban areas are very racially diverse. I assume that a lot of the white people that live there are also more liberal and less religious. That makes the large cities of the country very barren for the Republicans. 

[nclib]

In Mass., the Boston-Cambridge-Somerville CD (now MA-7, was MA-8) is not far from a max pack.

84.3% Obama: old MA-8
81.9% Obama: new MA-7
85.3% Obama: Max pack

[nclib]

Comparing each state's most Dem CD possible with each state's most Repub CD possible:

Green = unsure
Gray = at-large CD

[nclib]

Texas:



The red district is 84.3% Obama, 15.7% McCain. It's 41.8% black, 39.7% hispanic, and 15.7% non-hispanic white. Rest of the state was 57.0% McCain, 43.0% Obama.

For an added bonus, the district right next to it is a 66.2% Obama district, contained entirely within Tarrant County.

Has anyone tried the south counties along the border?

[Torie]

The south counties don't have any blacks, so that is quite a headwind for finding the most Dem territory in the state.

[nclib]

Yes, but some of those counties are over 80% Obama, probably more so right along the border. I would try, but the program crashes for me, for a state that large.