Most Democrat Possible District by State

[muon2]

If you use Obama '08 you can break 98% staying entirely within Chicago. The hometown effect was BIG. Going just a little to the south I was able to reach 99% Obama for a CD sized for 2010. One can go higher using 2000-sized IL CDs. Even so, the rest of the state was still 59.2% Obama.

[muon2]

How are you guys getting the election results per congressional district?

Daves Redistricting App used to make the maps can bring up population by 2010 precinct for most states. They will have 2008 presidential results for those precincts, and they get added as the district is drawn. DRA also has other elections from the 2000's for many states.

[muon2]

I found that a district entirely in Brooklyn can exceed 97% Obama, but I don't think NY can match the 99% in IL.

[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.

[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.