Talk Elections

CT-04 & CT-05: CT Capitol Report/Merriman River Group (http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/files/CTC%20Murphy_Himes.pdf):
CT-04
Debicella (R) - 48.0%
Himes (D)(i)  - 46.1%
Unsure         -    4.6%
Neither         -    1.4%
October 24-26; 571 LV; MoE +/- 4.1 percent.

CT-05
Caligiuri (R)    - 46.9%
Murphy (D)(i)  - 45.5%
Unsure          -    3.7%
Neither          -    3.9%
October 24-26; 595 LV; MoE +/- 4.0 percent

Neat.

It sounds like CT Capitol Report might to do a daily tracking poll for at least CT-05:


CD Crosstabs here (http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/files/CTCapCongress.pdf).

Double neat!

Wow. Maybe something is going on in New England. And then there was that weird poll that the Jewish CD in Brooklyn is tight. Maybe Orthodox Jewish support for Dems has just totally collapsed or something out of anger at Obama over Israel issues, etc.

     Isn't it kind of late to be starting a tracking poll?

The Merriman River Group also put out a poll that suggested Brickley is within 7 points of Larson in the First District. These two polls (CT-04 and 05) seem more accurate, but still, I'm a little wary of the MRG's polls.

DCCC is spending money in CT-5, so something is certainly happening there of some sort.

Affluent white areas seem to be swinging hard against Democrats, despite the cultural problems they have with the GOP.

Taxes and economic issues will always trump any other issues, cultural ones especially.

True. I do remember, though, that after the 2008 election some were saying the GOP had lost these areas for a long time because they were culturally alien to them.

A lot of talk about potential long-term shifts in voting patterns will often miss the point and tend to be overly sensationalist. The same goes with the usual talk this year that the Democrats have lost power for the next 30 years and that they're down badly with [demographic x].

On top of that some new Critical Insights polls came out showing Pingree down by 4 and Michaud only up by 4.

Plus, Obama is going to visit Bridgeport in CT-04 tomorrow to gin up minority turnout in the park city.

These areas will still remain more Democratic than they were 20-30 years ago. These areas are basically swing areas, so it's not surprising Republicans are competitive there this year.

Weird how they gave us the ones that were good for the Democrats (20 or so point leads, including in one that was a 2006 pickup) before these crappy ones.

If the Republicans do wind up winning both, the Democrats can basically force them into 1 district after 2012.  It will be interesting to see where thy put Bridgeport, given that without that city CT-4 becomes a Republican-leaning district.

Bridgeport would have to stay in the CT-4. There really arent too many moves, especially in Fairfield County to really try and redistrict anything.

As AndrewCT said, I don't see how they can split CT-04.  It's basically the Connecticut Panhandle by the New York border along the LI Sound Shore.   Moving Northward along the CT border instead of into Bridgeport probably wouldn't change the makeup of the two districts much.  I suppose they could split off the more minority parts of Stamford and put them into a district with Bridgeport and into New Haven, but that would probably make CT-03 more competitive.  Plus, CT usually doesn't split towns without good reason.

No, you can draw a district that is all of Fairfield county except Bridgeport and the areas immediately east of it.  It would actually be better looking than the current map, to be honest.

Again, you wouldnt be able to do it. The only thing you could do to Bridgeport is to put it into the CT-3, but than you would be lumping Bridgeport and New Haven into the same CD, leaving the 4th with significantly less people. You would have to take Danbury and add it to the 4th, and even then it wouldnt make up for the loss. It would take MASSIVE population growth in Shelton, Westport, Weston, Wilton and towns like that to make Bridgeport a central CD, and put Norwalk, Greenwich, and Stamford in the same.

No, I'm telling you, you can draw a Congressional District completely inside Fairfield county without including Bridgeport.  The county has a population of 882,000 according to the 2000 census, and Bridgeport has a population of only 137,000 People.  882,000-137,000 = 745,000 which is more than enough for it's own Congressional District if you drop about 50,000 for connecting territory to the East of Bridgeport.

The only concern would be that move makes CT-5 more Democratic, but you can trade out the Democratic parts of Hartford county for more Conservative parts of Middlesex county.

And the point of that would be?  You're making one of the most Democratic-leaning CT districts, CT-03, more Democratic, which means the other CT CDs would become more Republican.

The way the CDs split Fairfield County right now makes sense.  CT-04 runs primarily along the I-95/Merritt/New Haven Line corridor, which has strong ties to NYC.  CT-05 along the I-84 corridor and points north, which have less strong ties to NYC.

Unlike MA, CT does split towns to achieve exact population equality. For instance, Shelton is split between CD 3 and 4. County lines aren't particularly respected either, since CD 4 jumps the line to include Oxford, when Shelton could have been left intact and a small piece of Stratford used to get equality.

MA splits towns in some instances, too.  There are at least 4 towns that are split between CDs.  From memory, Fall River is split between Barney Frank's CD and another (MA-10? or MA-3?).  And of course Boston is split.

When I said CT generally respects town lines, I meant there aren't many towns in a line that are split for no good reason - like you'd have to do to create a lower Greenwich/Stamford/all Bridgeport vs. Upper Greenwich/Stamford/no Bridgeport district.

Counties are pretty much irrelevant in Connecticut.  There is no county government

My point was that CT will split enough towns to get population equality. MA will create CDs that are not of exact population to avoid town splits, and CD 1, 2 and 6 include no split towns. CT could do the same and make districts that vary by a fraction of a percent to avoid some splits, but they choose population equality instead.

The Orthodox Jews are always less Democratic than their Conservative and Reform brethren.

Yes, I know. In fact, Beverlywood, an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in LA City, is now one of the most GOP areas of the city - meaning it is marginally GOP - sometimes.  Beverly Hills went GOP due to Iranian Jews.