Talk Elections

Based much on the same format I followed for the 2011 thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=133455.0).  

And here are the chambers (based on this list (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_legislative_elections,_2012) from BallotPedia) and their current makeup, which will be subject to updates:

Arkansas House:

51 Republicans
49 Democrats

Arkansas Senate:

21 Republicans
14 Democrats

Florida House:

74 Republicans
46 Democrats

Florida Senate:

26 Republicans
14 Democrats

Georgia House:

119 Republicans
60 Democrats
1 independent

Georgia Senate:

38 Republicans
18 Democrats

Kentucky House:

55 Democrats
45 Republicans

Kentucky Senate:

23 Republicans
14 Democrats
1 independent

North Carolina House:

77 Republicans
43 Democrats

North Carolina Senate:

32 Republicans
18 Democrats

Tennessee House:

71 Republicans
27 Democrats
1 independent

Tennessee Senate:

26 Republicans
7 Democrats

Texas House:

95 Republicans
55 Democrats

Texas Senate:

19 Republicans
12 Democrats

West Virginia House:

54 Democrats
46 Republicans

West Virginia Senate:

24 Democrats
10 Republicans

South Carolina House:

76 Republicans
46 Democrats

South Carolina Senate:

28 Republicans
18 Democrats

Oklahoma House:

72 Republicans
29 Democrats

Oklahoma Senate:

36 Republicans
12 Democrats

If these chambers survived 2010, I dont think any of them will get more Republican in 2010.  The 2010 elections basically reduced Democrats to inner city liberal and black majority districts in the South. 

Consider though that for many of these states, this is the first time the Republicans have control over redistricting.

There are hardly any Democrats left to redistrict away.  Most of the remaining Democratic seats are either VRA protected or super Democratic inner city seats that cant really be messed with without causing trouble for Republicans in adjacent districts. 

It's practically a given that the Democrats are going to gain seats in Kentucky, thanks to the census. In fact, one member just switched from Republican to Democratic.

You're somewhat like a parrot, you've picked up one phrase and are just repeating it everywhere for the sake of making noise. Not once has this been an intelligent, compelling argument. It is especially off putting because even recent history shows a 2006 followed by a 2008. There are seats that fell in 1994 that weren't close in 2010. There were seats that fell in 2010 that weren't close in 1994, before 1994, or after 1994. Things. Change. Frequently. Accept it and start thinking about 2012 instead of misreading 2010.

Not many--most are either solidly Democratic and will stay that way (WV, AR) or the reverse (OK, FL, etc)

If anything, the Democrats will likely make big gains in NC, TX, and FL.

Mississippi will be the only one the Dems lose.

There simply are not any seats left for Republicans to pick up.  They picked up everything they possibly could in 2010 and then some.  You dont gain almost 700 seats and go on to pick up more seats in the next election. 

Yes I have a feeling NC could flip back in 2012.  Note that the NC constitution forbids unnecessary county splits in state legislative districts, so the legislature can't really be gerrymandered.  If FL gets successfully de-gerrymandered, then there should be several Dem pickups, but not nearly enough for a majority.

There will probably be pretty big gains for Democrats in the Texas House, as Democrats lost every possible district there and even had some party switches from districts that Republicans will never hold. 

There should be a bit of a snapback to Democrats in Georgia too with Obama leading the ticket. 

GA and TX are both going to be gerrymandered to kingdom come, so much so that I'm not convinced Dems can make significant gains.  TX is probably a lost cause this decade.  GA Dems have some hope of reclaiming the legislature in the long term, but that would be around 2016-20 if GA follows VA and NC to the left. 

Texas and Georgia already are heavily gerrymandered for Republicans.  So is South Carolina. 

Texas is a court map IIRC, since Democrats controlled the State house in 2001 and couldn't agree with Perry on a map so it went to the courts.  Remember they dropped to 76 seats in 2008--not something that could realistically happen in a Republican-Gerrymandered map.  They'll also probably pick up a seat or two in South Texas since they can uncrack the Republican votes there.

Same with Georgia I think, though I'm pretty sure it was a Dem Gerrymander turned Dummymander, so I don't know.  Republicans tried to redraw the map in 2005 but got struck down, which is why the current congressional map looks kind of reasonable.

The GOP got to redraw the Georgia state Legislature map back in 2003 after the Dem map was struck down. 

Arkansas' legislature will go Republican.  The GOP didn't contest many districts in 2010 and won about all of them.  With Obama on top of the ballot, they can only go up.

How can the GOP not get more seats in the WV Senate.  It is a lock for them to gain.

I expect at least one Tennessee Senate seat gain for the GOP.  The seats up in 2012 were contested in 2008.  There is that Clarksville seat where the Democrats denied the primary victory to the Republican leaning Senator and left the liberal Dem unopposed.

Again, with Obama at the top, the Kentucky State House will likely get a few more GOP members.  The guy who switched in Louisville the other day has to be an odd duck who just wanted to be on the majority side.

I do expect GOP losses in Florida.  It is hard to understand how they have two to one majorities in so closely divided a state.

I read that the redistricting in Texas will pretty much guarantee a super majority in the State H of R.

Thanks for the chance to comment!

Democrats are gerrymandering Arkansas.

Given population loss in the Democratic inner city dumps, its certainly possible to eek out a couple more seats in most of the states mentioned.

Florida might be an exception.

In North Carolina, for instance, a black seat will probably be eliminated around Roanoke Rapids.

That is disrespectful to refer to it as that

Um, no.

Democrats actually gained seats in Kentucky with Obama leading the ticket in 2008. 

Florida is so disgustingly gerrymandered, Republicans have rigged majorities in both chambers for a long time.

Democrats actually gained seats in Kentucky with Obama leading the ticket in 2008.  
[/quote]
So, do you think it will remain 59-41, or are you seeing Democratic gains?  Personally, I just can't help but see some GOP gains with Obama getting shellacked in the state as the legislature inevitably heads towards Republican control in the next several elections.

There's going to be big Democratic gains, thanks to the census. I wouldn't be surprised to see it 65-35 again.

Think what's gone on in Colorado in the past few years. That's Kentucky a few years from now.

Guess you've never been to an inner city before..  Take a drive through Baltimore

I live in the inner city and I think what he's saying is ridiculous.

The place where retarded hipsters are stored =/= "inner city."

That's basically No True Scotsman.

It's "inner city" if you could be genuinely worried about being shot, or if you have reason to be fearful because you're a white person.  Retarded hipsterville has never been "inner city" by anyone's definition except maybe some retarded hipsters who want to show "solidarity" with the poor that they studiously avoid, or perhaps merely want to "live ironically."

To be fair, BRTD does live in the "inner city" by geographical designation.  Just because it's not majority black or crime ridden does not mean it's not inner city.  It's in the core urban area of a major metropolitan area and votes overwhelmingly Democratic in elections.  The only difference between what Krazen said and reality is that where BRTD lives is, not, in fact, a dump.  While it's not gentrified or upscale and even looks a bit grungy... it is pretty white by inner city standards (as is Minneapolis and St. Paul as a whole)... though if I remember correctly, his neighborhood is overwhelmingly made up of youngs despite not being near the university.  But that's because of the cheap rent.. not due to being "hipster"

Okay, then what do you know, I'm in the "inner city" too.  "Inner city" might literally have a geographical meaning, but when 99% of people say "inner city" they're referring to a sociocultural phenomenon of isolated, lower-class, minority ghettoes.  Otherwise we'd have absurdities like parts of NYC with $250,000 parking spaces being designated "inner city."

The definition of inner-city is "the older, generally poorer, more densely populated areas of a city."

In this definition, at least to me, age of establishment and population density are the two defining factors while being poor minority-majority ghettoes are simply stereotypes that vary from city to city...

Wiki sayeth:

"The inner city is the central area of a major city or metropolis. In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, the term is often applied to the lower-income residential districts in the city centre and nearby areas. Sociologists in these countries sometimes turn this euphemism into a formal designation, applying the term "inner city" to such residential areas rather than to geographically more central commercial districts.

...

The peculiar American sociological usage is rooted in the middle 20th century. When automobiles became affordable in the United States and forced busing ensued, many middle and high-income residents, who were mostly white, moved to suburbs to have larger lots and houses, and a lower crime rate. The loss of population and affluent taxpayers caused many inner city communities to fall into urban decay. Late in the century, many such areas underwent gentrification, especially in the Northeast and West coast, depriving them of the "inner city" label despite their unchanged location."

Kentucky doesn't have the population gain or demographics to become the next Colorado, at least on the federal level.  It grew slower than the rest of the country over the past decade.  And most higher-growth areas aren't exactly Denver or Boulder, save a few areas near Lexington - if even.

Krazy and Wormy making valued contributions as usual. ::)

Even in Minnesota, CD-4 and CD-5 are a combined 100k underpopulated while CD-6 is 100k over.


The population in Minneapolis probably is high enough not to eliminate a legislative district there, but such is not true for Cleveland and Detroit and many other shrinking cities. Democratic representatives can and will be thrown to the wolves.

The point of course is obvious. The GOP really isn't capped out in a lot of places, contrary to what some may think. Population rebalance can and will draw better maps, as shown by Mr. Solomon's Texas map which creates many more safe districts than the existing one.

actually in the case of Minnesota. The 4th district would take all of the excess population off of the 6th. The 5th would then take off all the excess from the 4th and the 3rd would take off all the excess from the 5th. The 2nd would take off excess from the 3rd, the 1st would take off excess from the 2nd, the 7th would take off excess from the 1st, and the 8th would take off excess from the 7th.

Nope, the current state legislature map isn't (mostly) a GOP gerrymander. It was redrawn in 2004 by the GA Supreme Court (majority Democratic appointees, ftr) who found the Democratic plan unconstitutional. When the GOP redrew the Congressional map they only did a "pin point" redistricting of the state legislature maps, altering a handful of districts mostly in the Athens area.

I don't know if the GOP will fully take NC or not. Due to the NC gubernatorial race being in the same year as the Presidency (and a US Senate Seat this year), I believe the federal election will influence how voters choose their state/local candidates; NC has a tradition of voting R for Federal and D for State/Local.

How Perdue and the Legislature handle education in the budget - massive cuts expected to make NC First in Flight and Last in Education - will probably be the biggest decider on a non-federal level as to who wins in NC.

As far as the South is concerned, the last bastions of Democratic strength are now in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.  With the clear exception of West Virginia (the state GOP is too far behind to actually take the legislature there -at least in 2012), does anyone else think that the GOP can take Arkansas and Kentucky next year?  

It's increasingly obvious that the GOP is out of luck in Kentucky.

LOL @ the WV Senate.

In Kentucky, I expect the Senate will remain Republican and that they will pick up around 6 seats in the House.  Obama at the top of the ticket will be a drag on Democrats.

In West Virginia, there is no place to go but up in the Senate and the GOP should gain 8 seats for a 20 to 14 balance in favor of the Democrats.  In the House, I expect around a 5 seat GOP gain for a 60 to 40 Democrat chamber.

I think the GOP will take control of both chambers in Arkansas.

I see little change in the following state's legislatures:  Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Oklahoma. 

In Texas, the Democrats should gain 5 to 8 seats in the House.  The Senate will remain 19-12 or perhaps have a one seat GOP gain to 20-11. 

In Florida, the Republicans are over-represented.  With the new redistricting, they should gain 4 or 5 seats and perhaps 10 in the House.  The new Senate might be 42 to 16 and the House 71 to 49 in the Republican's favor.

Really, in all states but Florida and North Carolina, Obama will be a drag for the Democrats chances.  In North Carolina, Obama's help to the ticket will be counter-balanced by the new districts drawn by the Republican legislature.

Oh, and if a new election is ordered in Mississippi, the Republican margins will be maintained pretty much as they are.  If the new legislature is given the opportunity to draw the boundaries, for sure.  If they are court ordered, I still don't see much advantage for the Democrats there as black majority districts would be protected leaving the Republican districts in tact.

To see the look on your face a year from now...

I imagine it will look a year older. 

What am I missing about what you are implying.  Are you saying that because a moderate-conservative incumbent Democrat is re-elected as Governor of Kentucky, the Republicans are in decline in the state (Commonwealth)? 

I stand by my prediction.

For starts, the census helps the Democrats in Kentucky. For another, the Republicans ARE in decline, as we saw this week.

How did we see that the Kentucky GOP is in decline?

I am just wondering, since I'm having a hard time seeing KY trend toward the Dems. The Democratic presidential candidate haven't won a larger percentage than 41% since Bill Clinton carried the state in 1996. The Congressional delegation in overwhelmingly Republican.

Is somebody seriously trying to argue the demographic trainwreck is coming for Republicans in KY?

What factors would be better for Kentucky Republicans in 2012 than were present in 2010?

Didn't you see the election results on Tuesday?

Did anybody 5 years ago think Colorado would be as Democratic as it is now?

I saw a popular incumbent moderate/conservative Democrat win the gubernatorial election, in a state that sometime votes for moderate and conservative Democrats (like Bill Clinton).

It goes to show that the Democrats can be competitive in KY with the right kind of candidate, not that the state is the next Colorado.

Yes, I agree.  The future is brighter for Republicans in Kentucky than for Democrats.  Kentucky really still has a leftover Democratic bias from the end of the Civil War.  Though it remained in the Union during the war, immediately afterward it aligned itself strongly with the Solid South, perhaps in part in response to the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Like Mississippi and Arkansas (until recently), it supports a moderate/conservative Democrat for State offices, all things being equal.  But its tendency to support Republicans in Federal elections is inevitably going to be reflected more and more in State elections.  Until 1994, the 1st and 2nd CDs (western Kentucky) would never elect a Republican.  Now, can anyone envision them electing a Democrat anytime soon?

The concentration of "target" seats, and the resultant concentration of resourses into that state.

There could be more movement in the 2012 state legislative elections if more challengers face off against incumbents.

We did a "competitiveness study" for the 2010 state legislative elections on Ballotpedia.  In a year that shook up the partisan landscape of many state legislatures, the incumbent chose to run for re-election in 4,985 (81.4%) of the 6,125 districts where elections took place.

In 1,295 (26.12%) of those 4,985 districts, the incumbent faced no challenger in the primary or general election.

Did you see the results of Oklahoma's state elections in 2006?

So will the GOP take over the Arkansas legislature this year?

Arkansas GOP aims for statehouse sweep (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/26/us-gop-arkansas-idUSTRE81P0WZ20120226)

By Suzi Parker
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas | Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:46pm EST

(Reuters) - For more than a century, the Democratic Party has dominated Arkansas politics.

State Republican Party officials believe they have a fighting chance this year to break that streak, with plans to field the largest number of GOP candidates in more than 150 years for offices ranging from justice of the peace to Congress.

As candidates last week began filing papers stating their intention to run for state offices, Republican leaders made clear their hopes that 2012 will be the year they finally win back the Arkansas Legislature, a rare dot of Democratic blue amid a statehouse landscape dominated by GOP red across the South.

They last controlled it during Reconstruction.

"Voters are waking up to the fact that the state Democratic Party no longer reflects the views and values of every Arkansan," said Doyle Webb, Republican Party of Arkansas chairman.

Republicans are betting that they can build on the momentum of 2010, when voter frustration over the economy provided a big boost to the party in national and state elections. What's more, in Arkansas, the GOP has been making inroads with white voters living in rural areas, a group that traditionally backed Democrats, experts said.

:(

I'd really hate to see Arkansas become Republican at the state level. But, its inevitable....

With the Occupy stuff going on, I'd be very surprised if the GOP makes any gains.

The article didn't mention that the GOP may have gained control in 2010 if they hadn't failed to contest a majority of seats.

Republicans gained in the State Senate, achieving a tie I believe.

The only people that give a crap about the Occupy crowd are the Occupy crowd.

How likely is it that by this time next year, Republicans will control the legislatures of Arkansas and Kentucky?  Especially given the recent decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court that in effect forces candidates to run in the same districts that have been in place for the past decade. 

Still (IMHO) much more likely in Arkansas then in Kentucky. Obama is very unpopular in Arkansas, Republicans made enormous gains there in 2010 (and could do more, but simply didn't had candidates in many races), and Arkansas Democratic party seems to get too lazy with decades of past elections almost without competition.

I agree. Also, if you look at the legislators themselves in Arkansas, there's a clear generational divide; the (white) Democrats are generally older and the Republicans are younger. 'Doesn't play well for the Democrat's future.

In Kentucky, it's zero.

Are there any Kentuckians besides Bandit who wish to comment? 

I agree about Arkansas and have written that state off, but why can't Republicans achieve similar success in Kentucky?  If they capture the House this November and retain control of the Senate, they will be in a position to control redistricting in that state by this time next year.  And I cannot imagine that President Obama is any more popular in Kentucky than he is in Arkansas.  

I don't think the GOP can make anymore gains in TX, GA, NC, AL, MS, especially since a lot of the DEM areas are populated by ethnic minorities. 

I can see AR, KY flip over to the GOP though.

Florida will remain the same.

When you mention Mississippi, are you referring to it after redistricting?  Because I can see the GOP making substantial gains in the legislature padding their majorities in both chambers at the expense of white Democrats once the maps are redrawn.  

Speaking of which, are there going to be legislative elections held in the state this November given the newly redrawn districts?  Or will they wait until 2015?    

This doesn't bode well for Kentucky Democrats (http://www.lex18.com/news/kentucky-republican-voter-registrations-outpace-democrats).

Bear in mind that Obama won the 18-24 age group in Kentucky pretty handily.

The age group that votes the least? I'm sure he did.

Wow, Democrats still control the Arkansas legislature?

Georgia is becoming more and more like Florida every day: A large, diverse state, that can be competitive nationally but is still dominated by Republicans at the state level. (I'm assuming that GA will be competitive nationally in the next few cycles)

Thanks to redistricting, the GOP will have firm control of the GA legislature for the foreseeable future. But I think they may have hit their ceiling in 2010. I expect Democrats to gain a few seats in 2012. If anything it'll be due to GALEO, an organization of Hispanic elected officials who have been working on a massive voter outreach in the past year. Many Hispanics in the state will likely be compelled to vote due to the immigration law. There are a lot of districts here that would be competitive if the Hispanic and Asian residents were more politically active.

(People seem to forget that Georgia has the 10th largest Hispanic population in the nation. Most of them don't vote though.)

I also think that Democrats can still pick up seats in South Georgia....once Obama leaves office. The connection between the Democratic party and Barack Obama is just too powerful for a lot of rural white voters in that part of the state.

Also an interesting little story:

I was interning for a congressman last summer when the Georgia legislature was holding redistricting hearings where the public could provide their "very important input". I went to one and it was a total joke. All of the people on the panel were Republicans (not surprising) and I swear one guy fell asleep for a few minutes. I mean, I get that it was purely symbolic but they could have at least tried to play along with the farce.

If that's how the GOP plans to interact with its constituents then I look forward to the day when the voters interact with them by kicking them out of office.

Not for much longer (http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=540812), if voting follows fundraising trends.  A political party in a conservative southern state tethered to a black Democratic president that is out-raised 3 to 1 cannot expect much else other than disaster in November. 

I will be keen to see if Kentucky follows suit...   

Kentucky has Louisville. Arkansas doesn't.

Everybody here seems to think a border state is the same as a Deep South state. It isn't.

Seriously, are there no other Kentuckians on Atlas willing to counter Bandit? 

Uh, I live in Kentucky. The media moguls do not. They don't know what goes on in Kentucky, but I do.

Yes, Kentucky it different from Arkansas, even though I don't consider AR the deep south. But the region that has helped Kentucky democrats is Appalachia. If Kentucky Appalachia trends away from the democrats the way WV is, you'll see the entire state trend R in the next few cycles statewide and nationally.

By the way, what kind of democrat is Steve Beshear? I assume he is moderate to conservative considering his win last year. But what makes him so popular up there?

Not anymore. Louisville and Lexington are the big base for Kentucky Democrats today, and they're booming.


He's fairly moderate and generally pro-union, but very uncontroversial.

The ultimate question for Kentucky is: will it trend to Democrats in 2012 Presidential election?

Going by what I'm seeing on the ground, I'd say it is.

This is not 1995.

Republicans will pick up Wendy Davis's seat in the Texas Senate since they tore her district to shreds with redistricting. Democrats will make gains in the House, probably for something like 92 GOP seats and 58 Dem seats.

The big questions in Texas will be: (1) Will the Tea Party attempt another palace coup against Joe Straus, and how horribly wrong will it go?; (2) When David Dewhurst goes to Washington, who in the Senate will replace him?; (3) Will Greg Abbott finally grow a pair and decide to run against Rick Perry in 2014?; (4) Will the Democrats be able to pit the Establishment Republicans and the Tea Partiers against one another the way the Republicans used to do with the liberal and conservative Democrats?

I have heard from some Paulite activists that there is indeed an underground movement to take out Joe Straus

The West Virginia GOP has just elected a new chairman (http://www.wvrecord.com/news/244072-gop-elects-lucas-as-new-state-chairman) -considering how everyone views this state party to be an utter mess, could this be the beginning of a turnaround?  Could Conrad Lucas be the Reince Priebus of the West Virginia GOP?  Or more of the same?

Well the idea is to run an Ed Brooke like republican and convince him to switch to the democrats and run for the senate. . He could then make the case that he shares your values and being a former republican, could win over some republican votes. The only problem is that a lot of Ed Brooke types in Texas are probably already democrats.

So.

The closest Texas ever had to an Ed Brooke Republican in elected office was George H. W. Bush as a Houston congressman in the 1960s. They ran quite a few Republicans who were arguably to the left of their Democratic opponents at that time, but none of them won. In 1968 and 1970, Paul Eggers ran for governor and made a higher state minimum wage part of his platform. And Ray Hutchison (state legislator in the '70s; husband of Senator KBH) was the only Texas Republican I can think of who was unequivocally pro-choice. 
Texas doesn't really have much of a moderate Republican base, with the exception of certain upscale neighborhoods in Dallas and Houston, and some Texas Germans in the Hill Country who vote more like Midwestern Republicans than Southern ones.

There is an underground movement, but it doesn't involve the Paulites (who don't have any members in the Lege). The Dan Patrick/Wayne Christian cabal tried to pull this last session and it fell apart because they didn't have the votes and even if they did, they couldn't decide on a non-Straus alternative; and because the nasty viral emails about the House needing a "good Christian" speaker (Straus is Jewish) made them look like knuckle-dragging bigots (and the bar for that is set pretty high in Texas). The Democrats like Straus and their votes combined with the Not-Batsh**t-Crazy Republicans will be enough to keep him as speaker for two more years.

If Republicans couldnt win control of the Kentucky House in 2010, they wont anytime soon. 

If you think that having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket will help down-ballot white southern Democrats, then I don't know what to say to you.  Considering how successful Republicans have been in the South in nationalizing elections, it would not surprise me if we find next January that the only southern legislature we hold in the region will be in West Virginia -and even there we are likely on borrowed time.  I am not expecting that we will be able to hold our ground even there by the 2020 census. 

And BTW, it is interesting that we have switched roles here.  I am not accustomed to you being the optimist.  :P

Republicans tried to nationalize the races in Kentucky in 2010 and didnt work very well.  There will be far higher minority and youth turnout in 2012, which will help Democrats. 

I guess we will just have to see when Election Day comes, won't we? 

Race for 2 open N.Ky. legislative will get heated (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120531/NEWS010802/305310078/Race-2-open-N-Ky-legislative-will-get-heated)

Written by Scott Wartman
6:44 PM, May. 31, 2012

While the 4th Congressional District race garnered much of the attention in the May 22 primary, both Democrats and Republicans expect state legislative races will get heated in the general election, as both parties try to pick up seats in the General Assembly.

Two open seats in Northern Kentucky have raised the hopes of members from both parties.

The retirement of State Rep. Royce Adams, D-Dry Ridge, could open the door for the first Republican to represent Grant County in the House for more than 150 years.

Jack Westwood’s decision not to seek re-election in the 23rd Senate District in Kenton County has a Villa Hills councilman for the Democrats pitted against a concrete construction business owner from Taylor Mill for the Republicans.

Republicans have a majority in the Kentucky Senate, 22 seats to 15 with one independent. Democrats control the House, 59 to 41.

What about West Virginia? How much longer will Democrats hold its state legislature?

I don't expect the parties to flip in either of these open seats.

Also, I live in Dennis Keene's district, and I KNOW he won't lose. He is an ultraconservative Democrat, but he'll win because it's a heavily Democratic district (in an otherwise Republican county).

Forever.

LOL -talk about complacency.  West Virginia is already heading into Alabama and Mississippi territory at the federal level -do you seriously think that state and local races will remain unaffected by the GOP trend for much longer?

And I just read the other thread, and some actually think we will hold on even in Arkansas -where is all this optimism coming from?

By the time that shoe would have dropped, the GOP will be largely a fringe party.

No, I think it will happen sooner than that.  Perhaps within this decade.  It fits with the decades-long realignment of more southerly states, and the movement of the white working class into the GOP.  Even if Obama is no longer in office, the white working class in the South is so alienated from the Democratic Party on cultural and economic grounds that their shift in allegiance at the state and local levels is inevitable.  We are no longer in an era in which 'all politics is local' -not with the advent of the internet and the 24/7 cable news cycle. 

The GOP could very well become a fringe party THIS YEAR.


If working-class whites are so Republican, how did Obama win the town of Dayton, KY (which is in an otherwise Republican county)?

Can I have whatever you're smoking?  


Bush.  

My own predictions -the GOP will take over the Arkansas legislature this year, and will likely continue to narrow the gap in the Kentucky House while shoring up their majority in the Kentucky Senate.  This is a conservative prediction, mind you -it is entirely possible that the GOP can take over the Kentucky legislature outright, and thus be in position to redistrict the state chambers next year.

As for West Virginia -there is no chance in hell that the GOP can take over this year (needless to say), but they will gain substantially in the legislature there in both chambers much like their counterparts in Arkansas did in 2010 who faced similar daunting odds that year.  

I will not comment on the other states, except that the outlook does not look bright for Democrats anywhere in the region -especially in North Carolina (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/north-carolina-democrats_n_1511603.html).  :P

If Republcians were going to take over the Kentucky House, 2010 would have been the year.  Same with West Virginia.  Not every year is going to be 2010 for Republicans. 

They don't.

Not everything moves exactly in tandem with the national climate. (In fact, this is probably the biggest mistake people make with respect to downballot predictions).

Just came upon this analysis (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111175/-Arkansas-Senate-July-Update) of the Arkansas Senate, and in brief, it states Republicans are favored to win the chamber due to declining population in the Delta region, and conversely rising population in the northwest of the state.  

Thoughts?

This wasnt a problem for Republicans in the New York state Senate, who didnt have to shift seats downstate due to population changes or in the Virginia Assembly, where Democratic NOVA gained districts.  What Democrats should have done to compensate for this shift is to pack as many Republicans as possible into the smallest number of Northwestern districts possible and stitch together districts out of Democratic precincts in that part of the state. 

Also, in West Virginia, the GOP is taking aim at the southern part of the state where the Democratic Party has been most dominant (http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201208050131).

Then how come Republicans are still able to hold on to strongly Democratic legislative seats in New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania?  Wont having Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket hurt them?

2 of those 3 are not strongly Democratic. The third is done through vicious gerrymandering.

If they want to waste money, let 'em.

It's hilarious they're targeting Boone County, Obama's best county in West Virginia.

But, even if their candidates lose, the money will have been invested, not lost.

There are districts in Pennsylvania and Michigan that Republicans hold that are over 60% Obama.  Same in New York. 

I don't know if this will have any bearing on who will likely control the Arkansas legislature, but according to a recent poll it looks like there will be a Republican sweep of all four Arkansas congressional districts (http://talkbusiness.net/2012/09/congressional-polls-suggest-gop-sweep/). 

That was always gonna happen IMO.

But don't the Democrats have one of the districts now? Why would the Republicans be gaining a seat?

In Arkansas, the Lt Gov is not first in line to become governor in case of a vacancy.  I think the law was changed to make the Senate President first in line after Mike Huckabee moved up when Tucker was convicted and had to resign.  At that time, the state legislature was so heavily Democratic, no one envisioned that Republicans would assume control.  
"If the elected governor resigns, dies, is removed, or is otherwise unable to discharge the office, the president of the Senate is the first to succeed, serving as the governor until an election is held. He also serves as acting governor if the incumbent is temporarily unable to exercise his office. The next in line is the speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives. Arkansas is unusual is that there is a constitutionally designated lieutenant governor, but he is not the first in the line of succession."

Perhaps if the GOP takes the State Senate in November, a lame duck session will return the Lt Gov to being first in line (though the current Lt Gov, Mark Darr, is a Republican anyway).

Bad redistricting... on the Democrats' part.

So now, I guess it's safe to say the days of swing-statehood for Arkansas are long gone.  Sigh.

Yeah except that poll was complete bogus. None of the Dems even broke 30% which is ridiculous. It also showed Romney +21% (which is what this particular poll has shown all year) despite all the recent swings.

I don't buy the Republican hype for Arkansas...

I'm sure Obama will carry Arkansas 52-48%.

Try not to think about what might have been...
()

Only three more weeks until Election Day -does anyone have any (preferably non-hackish) predictions for these legislatures?  Especially in Arkansas and Kentucky?  

We look ed in Arkansas, reckon we'll hold on in Kentucky though.

The Courier-Journal has been kind enough to provide articles on the races for the Kentucky House (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121013/NEWS01/310140030/1001/Kentucky-GOP-has-its-eye-house-Party-sees-possibility-majority-after-Nov-6?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cp), and the Kentucky Senate (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121019/NEWS01/310190098/Senate-races-heating-up-across-Kentucky?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome).  

Post election results for the region here.  It will be far easier than having multiple threads for each state clogging up this board. 

It seems Arkansas Republicans have won control of both houses of the legislature, with a 21-14 majority in the Senate (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/06136915c97d41f4bb1e73bb41e142ee/AR--Arkansas-Legislature-Senate), and, pending further election results, are on course to have a narrow majority in the House as well (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-arkansas-legislature-idUSBRE8A60WA20121107). 

Republicans also gained seats in both chambers in Kentucky, but the House remains in Democratic hands (http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/06/2398557/democrats-keep-control-of-kentucky.html). 

And in the Mountain State, Republicans have just gained 11 seats in the House (http://www.statejournal.com/story/20031971/gop-picks-up-11-seats-in-wv-house-of-delegates), and has another 3 members in the Senate (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/48720). 

Republicans in North Carolina have just gained a veto-proof majority in the legislature (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/06/north-carolina-election-results/1658363/), with their Georgia counterparts within reach pending further results (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/gop-within-reach-of-supermajority-at-georgia-legis/nSzjp/). 

Can't find a link, but Republicans now have a quorum-proof majority in the House and Senate. Back in 2011, House Democrats made national headlines by participating in a walkout. That's no longer an issue.

Before the 2010 elections, Democrats controlled the Indiana House 52-48. Next January, Republicans will have a 69-31 advantage. There is also a 37-13 advantage in the Senate - I don't think there was any change there, though I could be wrong.

The GOP has also gained a supermajority in the Tennessee legislature for the first time since Reconstruction (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20023570/gop-gets-supermajority-in-state-legislature). 

The GOP in the Georgia Senate are one seat shy of a supermajority, while their bitter rivals (the House and Senate Republicans have long resented each other here) are five seats short.  However, the sole independent in the House, Rusty Kidd, has raised the possibility of switching to the Republicans.  Stacey Abrams, the House Minority Leader, has said that wouldn't be such a smart move considering his district voted for Obama.

It's pretty hard to have enough ticket-splitting to hold the state legislature when the opposing party gets 60%+ of the vote on the federal level. West Virginia will probably flip to Republicans in the next 2 or 3 cycles if things continue as they have been.

Its very interesting looking at these Southern state legislative results.  It looked like a repeat of 2010 in most of these states, save Florida. 

And while they fell short of taking the chamber outright this year, Republicans are now within striking distance of carrying the Kentucky House as well. 

Can anyone explain why they did so well in the West Virginia House, but not in the West Virginia Senate? 

The South Carolina Senate will still be in the hands of the moderate Republicans. (i.e., The Democrats get to pick which Republican leads the Senate.) The exact results of the election however are still not known and will not be known for some time thanks to the cluster[Inks] that Richland County made of the elections.  They didn't provide enough voting machines to all the precincts, even tho they had machines left unused in their central office. (SC law requires 1 machine be available per 250 registered voters.)  One judge ordered the state election commission do a recount with the county election commission to be kept from doing more than watch.  Then the State Supreme Court blocked that recount before it could finish and had the ballots locked up pending what it would decide to do.  Richland has already missed the Friday deadline for sending their official results to the state election commission as a result.  I'm doubtful that if there is a recount that it will be completed before the state election commission is supposed to vote to certify the results on Wednesday.

This primarily affects two races, House District 75 which was a contest for an open seat that the unofficial numbers have the Republican barely winning, and a referendum on a local option sales tax to fund transportation. The referendum passed fairly handily, but opponents are calling for a revote because the illegal lack of the required number of machines may have affected turnout.

I'm not sure why, but the same thing happened in 2010 in west virginia, with the republicans gaining 10 seats in the house, but actually losing one in the senate. Maybe to do with the multiplte member districts, or the power of incumbency in the senate (only one democratic senator lost re election)

Given the election results, that's a pretty good start for him.  A party that makes the gains it did (and likely laying the groundwork for future progress in taking over the state) doesn't look like quite the mess that some here have made it out to be.