SurveyUSA says Dems favored to keep KY House

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Something mildly interesting here...

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140207/NEWS0101/302070091/Steve-Beshear-Obamacare-Bluegrass-Poll-shows-support-governor-disdain-new-law

The Republican-leaning SurveyUSA gives the Democrats an edge of 3 percentage points for Kentucky House. I know it's hard for Democrats to overcome Republican gerrymandering in Kentucky, but this is SurveyUSA, so I was expecting the Republicans to be ahead by at least that much.

Also, the Republicans did a poor job of recruitment for Kentucky House races this year, and there's actually been some speculation that the Democrats might retake the Kentucky Senate (though they'll need to win every close race).

[Badger]

"Republican gerrymandering in Kentucky"?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

"Republican gerrymandering in Kentucky"?

Yes, we've got Republicans just like other states.

[Badger]

"Republican gerrymandering in Kentucky"?

Yes, we've got Republicans just like other states.

But not ones in control of the redistricting process. You kinda need that to "gerrymander" something.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

But not ones in control of the redistricting process. You kinda need that to "gerrymander" something.

I guess you're not familiar with the "let's cave on everything" Kentucky Democrats.

[Badger]

But not ones in control of the redistricting process. You kinda need that to "gerrymander" something.

I guess you're not familiar with the "let's cave on everything" Kentucky Democrats.

Including carving up their own districts and electoral fortunes?

You're even further disconnected from reality than usual here, and that's saying a lot.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Including carving up their own districts and electoral fortunes?

Remember what happened after the 1990 census, when they controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship but still managed to give us a House delegation that was 5-to-1 Republican.

One district had to be eliminated, but they cut up the 7th instead of the 4th.

[Badger]

Including carving up their own districts and electoral fortunes?

Remember what happened after the 1990 census, when they controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship but still managed to give us a House delegation that was 5-to-1 Republican.

One district had to be eliminated, but they cut up the 7th instead of the 4th.

<sigh> <shakes head>

How about we focus a bit more on what happened in the post-2010 redistricting, since the next election was the "point" of your original post. Democrats, IIRC, generally controlled that process.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How about we focus a bit more on what happened in the post-2010 redistricting, since the next election was the "point" of your original post. Democrats, IIRC, generally controlled that process.

They had to get it past the Kentucky Senate, which is Republican (for now).

[Kevinstat]

Including carving up their own districts and electoral fortunes?

Remember what happened after the 1990 census, when they controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship but still managed to give us a House delegation that was 5-to-1 Republican.

One district had to be eliminated, but they cut up the 7th instead of the 4th.

There were some sudden changes in partisan voting in Western Kentucky in 1994 that have held since.  And they gave Hal Rogers kind of a run in 1992 (okay, I guess he won by 10 points but not a complete rout), but having a single shot at someone who brings home the bacon and then having him "leashed" just enough to keep delivering and hoping for a competitive race when he retires (not that it would be a competitive race now probably) wasn't the worst strategy.  Granted, it didn't work, but some changes are tough to see coming.