Which members are likely to loose their seats due to reapportionment?

[Napoleon]

Mary Bono Mack and Dan Lungren are in trouble in California, even with the nonpartisan redistricting commission. If they move some Democrats from the 23rd into Gallegly's district, he could also be in serious trouble. Capps' 23rd is a hideously drawn coastal gerrymander and Santa Barbara belongs with the rest of Santa Barbara and Vetura counties.

Lungren likely won't survive but I think the rest of California's delegation will remain.

As for reapportionment, the Republicans in Pennsylvania will get rid of Altmire and pack the 13th with Democrats with certainty.

[Napoleon]

As for reapportionment, the Republicans in Pennsylvania will get rid of Altmire and pack the 13th with Democrats with certainty.

You know for certain? Who are you?    Give me your idea for how Altmire is going to get axed and I'll see if you're for real. 

It's already an R+6 district like the 18th but Murphy can win in an R+3 or R+4 district quite comfortably. Altmire only won because Hart was too insane for even her conservative constituents and his 2010 challenger was very weak. A few more Repblicans from the rural Sothwest will put Altmire in a very tough spot and the last thing PA Repblicans want is a moderate Democrat that  could become a potential statewide player in the near future. He will be a top target.

The tricky part is PA districting laws, not sure how mch that can complicate things though. Republicans have a lot of room here to do as they please as the western half of the state becomes increasingly Republican.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves or becoming complete failures once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

[Napoleon]

They chose to closely associate with unpopular conservative policies (making it a more prominent part of their public image) and I think Sali is an even better example than Hart of this.

Harris lost in an open seat, that is a bit different.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

What you say may be true, but Santorum was also re-elected comfortably against a moderate challenger in 2000 when many Republicans were defeated in blue states (Gordon, Roth, Abraham, Grams). Santorum, like Hart, simply let too much of his inner firebrand out. Probably just a result of getting too comfortable. How else do explain losing in an R+6 district? The Republicans failed to pick up any D+6 or greater districts while gaining over 60 seats in 2010. It's more than you're admitting.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

What you say may be true, but Santorum was also re-elected comfortably against a moderate challenger in 2000 when many Republicans were defeated in blue states (Gordon, Roth, Abraham, Grams). Santorum, like Hart, simply let too much of his inner firebrand out. Probably just a result of getting too comfortable. How else do explain losing in an R+6 district? The Republicans failed to pick up any D+6 or greater districts while gaining over 60 seats in 2010. It's more than you're admitting.

I understand your point with Santorum. Hart's ratings were fine though and she certainly wasn't as well known for being a "firebrand." The district wasn't R+6 in 2006. In fact, I'm 90% sure that the Dems still hold a registration advantage there.

It's possible, but registration in Pennsylvania is and has been in transition. It's my favorite thing about Pennsylvanian politics. The liberal Republicans and Democrats in the east and the conservative Republicans and Democrats in the west and how they've slowly been shifting but sometimes seem to revert back to form.

Firebrand may have been a bit hyperbolic. But she certainly had no moderate tendencies to fall back on. To play on my earlier point, more in-touch politicians like Gerlach were able to hold a more Democratic seat mostly due to image. I have no doubt that PA-4 is a conservative district that will elect conservative Republicans, but Hart was 100% conservative instead of 95%. And now that Altmire is in there, might as well get some more Republicans in the district to vote against him if you're a Republican legislator who has the power to. Which they most likely will, because the votes are there to do it.

[Napoleon]

Short of drawing Altmire into Doyle's district I'm not sure what you are getting at. Abolishing the district would be akin to making it more Republican, as the populations involved have more to do with the district than some little number. Besides, it would be far easier to have Critz's PA-12 disappeared (and more beneficial to the party assuming power).

[Napoleon]

Critz and Altmire could both be disposed of if Republicans wished to do so.

[Napoleon]

Critz and Altmire could both be disposed of if Republicans wished to do so.

That would be almost impossible to do with endangering Tim Murphy and Mike Kelly. 

Unless they make use of surplus Republicans in the 9th.

[Napoleon]

I think it's safe to say it already is.

[Napoleon]

Critz and Altmire could both be disposed of if Republicans wished to do so.

That would be almost impossible to do with endangering Tim Murphy and Mike Kelly. 

Unless they make use of surplus Republicans in the 9th.

True, but doing that would be a total mess and would still require PA-18 to take in a lot of Democratic territory where Critz could move to and run in.  The best thing to do for Republicans would be to just chop up PA-12.  Chopping up PA-04 would create problems for Mike Kelly and Tim Murphy by adding part or all of traditionally heavily Democratic Beaver and Lawrence counties to their district.  

Well, we expect the current incarnation of the 12th to disappear. But that would allow to move the 18th to expand more eastward and the 3rd to expand further South, especially after Pittsburgh Dems are packed into Doyle's. Remember, the 9th is R+17 and quite far-reaching. It gives Republicans some flexibility with their voters.