GOP house gains in 2012?

[Mr.Phips]

No.  There are too many Republicans in normally Democratic seats and only a couple Democrats left in hostile districts.  The best Republicans can hope for is probably a loss of just five or ten seats. 

[Mr.Phips]

Redistricting will help.

Where? There aren't any states where the Republicans can gerrymander for further gains.

North Carolina and maybe Maine (where ME-02 can be more R).

They can also strengthen incumbents in states where they won an abnormal amount of seats in.

Its going to be difficult to strengthen their people in Pennsylvania much because they won so many seats.  The situation is even worse in Ohio, where Republicans are probably going to have to cut at least one of their new members and maybe even two. 

[Mr.Phips]

Redistricting will help.

Where? There aren't any states where the Republicans can gerrymander for further gains.

North Carolina and maybe Maine (where ME-02 can be more R).

They can also strengthen incumbents in states where they won an abnormal amount of seats in.

Its going to be difficult to strengthen their people in Pennsylvania much because they won so many seats.  The situation is even worse in Ohio, where Republicans are probably going to have to cut at least one of their new members and maybe even two. 

We could get Holden's and Critz is likely to be eliminated by redistricting.

You could get Critz's, but Holden would likely win anything with Schuykill or Dauphin in it. 

[Mr.Phips]

First, I'd expect a 5-10 seat GOP net gain from redistricting.  In other words, if the results were exactly the same as today,  I'd expect 248+ GOP House seats.

It would be possible that this might account for a minor GOP pickup.

Second, we don't know how popular Obama will be

Here is how I see it:

FL:  +2D(new rules make it very tough for Republicans to draw themselves more seats)
GA:  +1R
IL: -5R, +4D
IA: -1?
LA: -1R
MA: -1D
MI: -1D
NV:  +1D
NY: -1D, -1R
OH: -1D, -1R
PA: -1D
SC: +1D(VRA will mandate another black majority district)
TX: +3D, +1R(VRA will mandate new Hispanic majority districts)
UT: +1R
WA: +1D

That all adds up to five GOP losses and seven Dem gains.  There isnt much else the GOP can do in MI, PA, and OH since they hold so many seats there.  

[Mr.Phips]

Altmire, Critz and Holden are all going to be in trouble in 2012 no matter what happens with redistricting. Altmire faced a bottom of the barrel candidate who has not supported by the establishment and he could be in an even more difficult district in 2k12. Critz would probably be facing a stronger challenger in 2012 without redistricting but that's moot because his district is done and he will only have awful choices for other districts to run in. Holden's only real base this year was in Schuylkill County, if the Republicans want to be bastards they could eliminate that and make things every difficult for him.

Overall bad things are going to happen in PA.

Holden would just run wherever Republicans put Schuylkill county.  If he and Altmire could survive in the worst year for Democrats since 1894, they can survive in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

Altmire, Critz and Holden are all going to be in trouble in 2012 no matter what happens with redistricting. Altmire faced a bottom of the barrel candidate who has not supported by the establishment and he could be in an even more difficult district in 2k12. Critz would probably be facing a stronger challenger in 2012 without redistricting but that's moot because his district is done and he will only have awful choices for other districts to run in. Holden's only real base this year was in Schuylkill County, if the Republicans want to be bastards they could eliminate that and make things every difficult for him.

Overall bad things are going to happen in PA.

Holden would just run wherever Republicans put Schuylkill county.  If he and Altmire could survive in the worst year for Democrats since 1894, they can survive in 2012.  

Altmire only barely survived because he faced no serious opposition. The same applies somewhat towards Holden.

Holden faced a state Senator.  Ill state that any Democrat who won in 2010 is safe for life. 

[Mr.Phips]

TX: +3D, +1R(VRA will mandate new Hispanic majority districts)

TX: +3R +1D

The Supreme Court rejected a district that ran from the Rio Grande to Austin with the mere purpose of having a Hispanic majority.  The district court largely rejected districts that ran from the Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio.  Cuellar's district includes a very small portion of Bexar County.  Canseco's district includes West Texas simply because it had to go somewhere, and it is lightly populated.

If that's the case, AL-07 and FL-03 will also be rejected by the Supreme Court. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department.

Well, if they try to play Moderate Hero even in that case, then maybe they should just resign and let the Republicans take officially control of everything.

But I have a hunch that the Black and Hispanic caucuses won't remain silent in such a case.

The Black and Hispanic caucuses are going to be pushing the DOJ hard to create as many new districts as possible for them. 

[Mr.Phips]

Any sort of major wrenching in DFW would have to be carefully done to avoid creating a democratic target, though.

Not really.  If the Republicans create a Hispanic-Majority district alongside the current Black-Plurality one, the rest of the DFW complex becomes about 62% McCain, which should make it easy to draw enough Safe Republican districts to cover the whole area.  Not to mention that Edward's loss in TX-17 frees up some Heavily Republican South Fort worth Suburbs for use there.  Northern Dallas might be tricky, but it's the only place where the Democrats would be even theoretically competitive, and the Republicans can make that region safe enough.

It's also very possible to create a black-majority seat in DFW by unlocking the black areas in Fort Worth.

i know, but it's hard to draw two connections between Dallas and Fort worth for a Black-Majority and a Hispanic-majority district.  Besides, it's not like Fort Worth Republicans need the extra protection--the County itself voted for McCain 55-44 and it's surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs.

The Justice Department could very well demand it.  It wouldnt be that hard to draw.  Just draw an arm that connects the two cities. 

[Mr.Phips]

Any sort of major wrenching in DFW would have to be carefully done to avoid creating a democratic target, though.

Not really.  If the Republicans create a Hispanic-Majority district alongside the current Black-Plurality one, the rest of the DFW complex becomes about 62% McCain, which should make it easy to draw enough Safe Republican districts to cover the whole area.  Not to mention that Edward's loss in TX-17 frees up some Heavily Republican South Fort worth Suburbs for use there.  Northern Dallas might be tricky, but it's the only place where the Democrats would be even theoretically competitive, and the Republicans can make that region safe enough.

It's also very possible to create a black-majority seat in DFW by unlocking the black areas in Fort Worth.

i know, but it's hard to draw two connections between Dallas and Fort worth for a Black-Majority and a Hispanic-majority district.  Besides, it's not like Fort Worth Republicans need the extra protection--the County itself voted for McCain 55-44 and it's surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs.

The Justice Department could very well demand it.  It wouldnt be that hard to draw.  Just draw an arm that connects the two cities. 

Are you sure that the DOJ could demand a Hispanic district?  Being Hispanic is not a race.

It could say that three new Hispanic majority districts need to be created in Texas under the VRA. 

[Mr.Phips]

Any sort of major wrenching in DFW would have to be carefully done to avoid creating a democratic target, though.

Not really.  If the Republicans create a Hispanic-Majority district alongside the current Black-Plurality one, the rest of the DFW complex becomes about 62% McCain, which should make it easy to draw enough Safe Republican districts to cover the whole area.  Not to mention that Edward's loss in TX-17 frees up some Heavily Republican South Fort worth Suburbs for use there.  Northern Dallas might be tricky, but it's the only place where the Democrats would be even theoretically competitive, and the Republicans can make that region safe enough.

It's also very possible to create a black-majority seat in DFW by unlocking the black areas in Fort Worth.

i know, but it's hard to draw two connections between Dallas and Fort worth for a Black-Majority and a Hispanic-majority district.  Besides, it's not like Fort Worth Republicans need the extra protection--the County itself voted for McCain 55-44 and it's surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs.

The Justice Department could very well demand it.  It wouldnt be that hard to draw.  Just draw an arm that connects the two cities. 

Are you sure that the DOJ could demand a Hispanic district?  Being Hispanic is not a race.

The original VRA just mentioned "race or color", but it was extended to Hispanics in the 1975 amended version.

Has it ever been used on the Congressional level in Texas?

Yeah, when the old TX-23 was struck down because Republicans tried to make it less Hispanic. 

[Mr.Phips]

Any sort of major wrenching in DFW would have to be carefully done to avoid creating a democratic target, though.

Not really.  If the Republicans create a Hispanic-Majority district alongside the current Black-Plurality one, the rest of the DFW complex becomes about 62% McCain, which should make it easy to draw enough Safe Republican districts to cover the whole area.  Not to mention that Edward's loss in TX-17 frees up some Heavily Republican South Fort worth Suburbs for use there.  Northern Dallas might be tricky, but it's the only place where the Democrats would be even theoretically competitive, and the Republicans can make that region safe enough.

It's also very possible to create a black-majority seat in DFW by unlocking the black areas in Fort Worth.

i know, but it's hard to draw two connections between Dallas and Fort worth for a Black-Majority and a Hispanic-majority district.  Besides, it's not like Fort Worth Republicans need the extra protection--the County itself voted for McCain 55-44 and it's surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs.

The Justice Department could very well demand it.  It wouldnt be that hard to draw.  Just draw an arm that connects the two cities. 

Are you sure that the DOJ could demand a Hispanic district?  Being Hispanic is not a race.

The original VRA just mentioned "race or color", but it was extended to Hispanics in the 1975 amended version.

Has it ever been used on the Congressional level in Texas?

Yeah, when the old TX-23 was struck down because Republicans tried to make it less Hispanic. 

Or was that because of one of the black districts (Lee)?

No, the black districts were never touched. 

[Mr.Phips]

I wonder how many Democrats predicting inevitable double-digit losses for Republicans two years before 2012 were also predicting single digit losses for Democrats or potentially gains two years before 2010. For instance, in March 2009 Nate Silver claimed that Democrats were merely "somewhat more likely than not" to lose seats in 2010.

How many people who think the GOP is currently "overextended" with its 12-7 edge in PA at the moment thought that the Democrats were overextended with their 9-2 and later 10-1 edge in Upstate NY (which is as approximately Democratic as PA)?

Obama was at 60%+ approval at the beginning of March 2009.  Forecasters were likely projecting that approval forward to election day 2010.  If Obama really did have 60% approval last Tuesday, Dem gains in both chambers would have been the expected outcome.  It would have been 1934, part 2.  Whether or not it is a reasonable methodology to project the president's current approval forward in time is another issue entirely, but lacking any information about whether he and his party would be more or less popular in 2 years, it was probably the most logical thing for the prognosticators to do at the time.  Silver's final forecast actually overestimated the GOP in the Senate, while underestimating them in the House. 

As for whether the GOP is "overextended" in the House, it really comes down to whether or not Obama gets re-elected in 2012 and how the GOP state governments choose to gerrymander.  Presidential coattails matter a lot more these days. Look at the 4 GOP senate gains off of Bush's <2% national win in 2004.  If Obama loses, I would actually expect +5-10 GOP gains in the House, unless his loss is very narrow (ex. Gore in 2000).  If he wins narrowly, then the Dems pick up maybe 10-15 but don't come close to taking back the House, and the GOP is helped by gerrymandering.  Things only get interesting for the Dems if they have Obama winning 2012 at least as strongly as 2008.  In that case, the non-linearity in gains associated with gerrymandering would kick in and it would basically be 2006, if not 2008 again in the House (D+40 or better).   

I would say that there is a floor of about a five seat gain for Democrats no matter what happens at the Presidential level.  There just isnt enough Republicans can do in gerrymandering because they now control so many seats. 

[Mr.Phips]

I wonder how many Democrats predicting inevitable double-digit losses for Republicans two years before 2012 were also predicting single digit losses for Democrats or potentially gains two years before 2010. For instance, in March 2009 Nate Silver claimed that Democrats were merely "somewhat more likely than not" to lose seats in 2010.

How many people who think the GOP is currently "overextended" with its 12-7 edge in PA at the moment thought that the Democrats were overextended with their 9-2 and later 10-1 edge in Upstate NY (which is as approximately Democratic as PA)?

Obama was at 60%+ approval at the beginning of March 2009.  Forecasters were likely projecting that approval forward to election day 2010.  If Obama really did have 60% approval last Tuesday, Dem gains in both chambers would have been the expected outcome.  It would have been 1934, part 2.  Whether or not it is a reasonable methodology to project the president's current approval forward in time is another issue entirely, but lacking any information about whether he and his party would be more or less popular in 2 years, it was probably the most logical thing for the prognosticators to do at the time.

Don't most Presidents start off with high approval ratings, but nevertheless lose some seats in the midterm?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't buy that coattails matter "a lot more" nowadays. The 2004 Senate gains were a result of Southern Democratic retirements and the House gains were due to the Texas gerrymander. Without them, it was breakeven or even slightly negative for the GOP in 2004 (they lost state legislative seats, for instance).

I think there is a reasonable chance of a 1956 type result where Obama is elected with an even greater majority, but the House is more or less unchanged.

Well, Democrats only picked up 19 seats in 1954, so there wasnt a lot of Democratic dead wood.  There will be a lot of Republican dead wood in 2012.  That's why I think that even if Obama loses, Democrats will pick up five or so seats. 

[Mr.Phips]

There are some other interesting VRA odds and ends.

CO: They will probably be required to create a Hispanic majority district next year, and it will be interesting to see how the split legislature handles this.

NV: will be very close to 25% Hispanic in the 2010 census and may need a Hispanic majority district, probably carved out of parts of Las Vegas (Dem legislature +GOP Governor)?

VA: The Dems have a lot to gain by pushing for a 2nd African-American majority district in Southside, especially now that all of the downstate white Democrats have lost.  Will they create one with the help of the Obama DOJ and the state senate?  The downside for them (and a reason why the GOP governor may not object) is that it would likely make all the majority white districts south of Prince William permanently unwinnable for them.

AZ: will be required to create a second or third? Hispanic majority district next year

SC: will be required to create a second African-American majority seat when it gains one

You could probably create a Hispanic majority district out of CO-03 somehow. 

I wouldnt be surprised if a second black majority district was pushed for in Alabama.  It could easily be done by making AL-02 a Montgomery/black belt district that dips into Mobile.  A state that is 26% black shouldnt have just 14% of the state represented by an African American.  Same goes with Louisiana, where a second black majority district could also be created. 

[Mr.Phips]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Not really.  I think the general perception is that it won't be a "Bad" year for the GOP.  Even in 1996 the Republicans only lost about 2 net seats compared to 1994, and that was with a strong Clinton re-election.

Clinton got just 49% of the vote in 1996 and even then, Democrats would have likely won back the House had the Democratic fundraising scandal not erupted in the final days of the campaign. 

[Mr.Phips]

I recommend this article by Sean Trende from RCP about the 2012 redistricting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/11/a_preview_of_2012_redistricting_107924.html

It offers some very interesting perspectives.

I read it and Trende misses a couple of things.  It wont be possible to decimate GA-12 as the Voting Rights Act will probably require it to be majority black.  He's missing that three of the four new districts in Texas will also probably be mandated to be majoirty Hispanic.  It could also be mandated that a new black majority district is created in Alabama. 

[Mr.Phips]

I recommend this article by Sean Trende from RCP about the 2012 redistricting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/11/a_preview_of_2012_redistricting_107924.html

It offers some very interesting perspectives.

I read it and Trende misses a couple of things.  It wont be possible to decimate GA-12 as the Voting Rights Act will probably require it to be majority black.  He's missing that three of the four new districts in Texas will also probably be mandated to be majoirty Hispanic.  It could also be mandated that a new black majority district is created in Alabama. 

But doesn't that sound a litle extreme? Sure a lot of the growth in the Texan population can be attributed to hispanics, but not that much.
There has also been a lot of internal migration from other states. So wouldn't it be more natural to draw up two new majority hispanic districts and two new safe Republican districts?

Possibly two out of four.  Maybe three out of four.  At least two out of four.