Texas is getting 4 seats in reapportionment

[nhmagic]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20091223_2521.php

This is what they are now estimating:

Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Washington all pick up 1 seat.
Texas gets 4.
Losses all come from the northeast and midwest - except Louisiana.

Yay, thats likely to be 10 more new republicans in congress. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yay, thats likely to be 10 more new republicans in congress. 

Really?  Do you have any logic behind that estimate, hack?

[nhmagic]

Yeah, they are all states controlled by republicans save Washington state.  Only one of them cannot be gerrymandered - Arizona, because it has an independent commission.  Washington does too, but I dont know how that commission is set up.  However, the growth in Arizona is coming from republican areas - not central Phoenix and Tucson.  It will likely end up being a republican seat.  Obviously the others will be gerrymandered.  

Ah the name calling again...I could call you filth, but it would be a waste of breath.

[Brittain33]

There's a lot of demographics discussion on this board:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=34

The majority of those new seats will be Republican, although how many depends on how well Republicans do in 2010. If Dina Titus loses in 2010, then Nevada's new seat will likely go Democratic. If she doesn't, then NV-4 will be created for a Republican. Either way the result is 2-2. If WA-3 goes Republican alongside WA-8, it becomes very hard to draw a 5th Republican seat in the state. Etc.

In Texas, some of those seats will have to be drawn for Hispanic communities and will elect Democrats. That's where the population growth is.

[Brittain33]

Texas is on the bubble of 3 and 4. Differences in international migration will count for a lot. Muon2 has run numbers on the demographics board.

2010 elections will also effect the party of the seats lost in those states, too. New York will have to lose a Democrat unless R's retake an upstate seat in Congress while D's solidify the state Senate. Similarly, an R capture of IL-14 makes it likely that an R, not a D, will lose his seat in Illinois.

[nhmagic]

There's a lot of demographics discussion on this board:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=34

The majority of those new seats will be Republican, although how many depends on how well Republicans do in 2010. If Dina Titus loses in 2010, then Nevada's new seat will likely go Democratic. If she doesn't, then NV-4 will be created for a Republican. If WA-3 goes Republican alongside WA-8, it becomes very hard to draw a 5th Republican seat in the state. Etc.

In Texas, some of those seats will have to be drawn for Hispanic communities and will elect Democrats. That's where the population growth is.

I would agree with you on all but Texas.  They have gerrymandered in the past and will do so again to maximize republican gains.  I can see them giving, say, one of the four to Hispanics.  I can also see them giving some of another district to hispanics, but not enough to elect a democrat.  

Why would Nevada be drawn for a democrat though, even if Titus loses?  They could gerrymander it into two modest republican districts and one weak/lean republican/tossup district, especially if Sandoval is elected.

[Brittain33]

Why would Nevada be drawn for a democrat though, even if Titus loses?  They could gerrymander it into two modest republican districts and one weak/lean republican/tossup district, especially if Sandoval is elected.

That would be difficult to do given Nevada's current electoral demographics, and the Democrats control both houses of the legislature currently and are guaranteed to keep at least one after 2010. Whichever Republican unseats her would surely agitate for a safer seat because as of now that district, drawn in 2002 to be evenly split, leans Democratic.

Nevada does not vote like Utah or Kansas.

[Brittain33]

  I can see them giving, say, one of the four to Hispanics.  I can also see them giving some of another district to hispanics, but not enough to elect a democrat. 

The districts won't be drawn according to what the Republican majority decides would be nice to give to their enemies. Political calculations will come into play and the Obama Justice Department gets a veto on the maps. No doubt many Republicans would be happy to cede at least two districts to new Hispanic reps in order to make sure their map passes muster and their own districts in the suburbs are safe throughout the first part of the decade.

[minionofmidas]

Why would Nevada be drawn for a democrat though, even if Titus loses?  They could gerrymander it into two modest republican districts and one weak/lean republican/tossup district, especially if Sandoval is elected.

The issue is population distribution. You're stuck with one very large district and three Clark County districts (one of which will extend outside the county for a change), and the Democratic vote within Clark isn't anything as concentrated as in many other counties with both city and suburbia in them, due to the nature of sizable chunks of Vegas suburbia (ie pisspoor and multiracial).

There isn't much wiggleroom left to draw Texas even more White-Democrat-unfriendly than it already is. There might be another attempt to punish Austin and another attempt to unseat Edwards. The seat gains will have to be where the population gains are.

[Sam Spade]

Why would Nevada be drawn for a democrat though, even if Titus loses?  They could gerrymander it into two modest republican districts and one weak/lean republican/tossup district, especially if Sandoval is elected.

The issue is population distribution. You're stuck with one very large district and three Clark County districts (one of which will extend outside the county for a change), and the Democratic vote within Clark isn't anything as concentrated as in many other counties with both city and suburbia in them, due to the nature of sizable chunks of Vegas suburbia (ie pisspoor and multiracial).

There isn't much wiggleroom left to draw Texas even more White-Democrat-unfriendly than it already is. There might be another attempt to punish Austin and another attempt to unseat Edwards. The seat gains will have to be where the population gains are.

Only two white Dems I know of.  Not much of a target. 

The population growth in Texas translates to CDs in these areas:

1) SE Houston suburbs
2) DFW suburbs (north, I believe)
3) Suburbs in-between Austin and San Antonio
4) Rio Grande Valley

With 3 seats earlier, the map was a little tougher to draw for Republicans, but now I would expect a 3-1 GOP split on the new seats if they control the redistricting process.

As for the additional seats, I suspect that Republicans would (if in control):
1) Shore up the McCaul/Sessions/Smith districts by removing minorities (in the case of Sessions) or maybe redesign of the other two.
2) Use the new border CD to either increase Rodriguez/Doggett vulnerability (unknown which angle to take - if I was a Republican, I'd go after Doggett by removing Republican suburbs from Rodriguez and centering the Rodriguez CD (with the San Antonio Hispanic areas included) further South (pushing Cuellar to the west).  At least that's my guess, without looking at the map.
3) Take out Edwards again (though the only thing you can do to him is try and get him areas outside his home base).  There are questions, though, as to whether Edwards is going to be able to survive this time around - the Republicans have their first non-loon, moneyed, non-joke candidate to run against him in ages (if ever), provided he gets through the primary.

[minionofmidas]

Isn't Gene Green still there? That makes three White Democrats. Mind you, White Democrats aren't his electoral or even primary base as is (however that may have been when first elected and the district wasn't as overwhelmingly Mexican as it is now), so...

[Sam Spade]

Isn't Gene Green still there? That makes three White Democrats. Mind you, White Democrats aren't his electoral or even primary base as is (however that may have been when first elected and the district wasn't as overwhelmingly Mexican as it is now), so...

Yes, you're right.  I don't think of him as white, of course (he was my rep for many years). 

Whites weren't really his base when he was first elected either, though I'm sure they voted for him (there are more Mexicans there now than there were in the mid-1990s but it's not as big of a change as you might think).

He won that first time (and the second time too) because he was running against a complete crook.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that its 10 new Republicans assumes all states losing a seat will lose a Democrat. Unlikely. Ohio loses two, so likely one of each. Massachusetts' will obviously be a Democrat. New Jersey could go either way, I'm not sure which district is most at risk. If the Dems control NY's redistricting they could easily eliminate Lee and leave Peter King as the sole Republican in NY (ouch). Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania. Illinois will wipe out a Republican for obvious reasons, Iowa's obvious victim is Latham. Michigan's lost seat could be either party. Here redistricting will likely target Bachmann.

[Bo]

I think at least one of the new seats will be Democratic since the VRA will probably require at least one more Latino-majority district.

[Kevinstat]

The idea that its 10 new Republicans assumes all states losing a seat will lose a Democrat. Unlikely. Ohio loses two, so likely one of each. Massachusetts' will obviously be a Democrat. New Jersey could go either way, I'm not sure which district is most at risk. If the Dems control NY's redistricting they could easily eliminate Lee and leave Peter King as the sole Republican in NY (ouch). Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania. Illinois will wipe out a Republican for obvious reasons, Iowa's obvious victim is Latham. Michigan's lost seat could be either party. Here redistricting will likely target Bachmann.

I think it would be easier to eliminate King without it backfiring in other seats (if Tim Bishop survives 2010, which I expect he will, then town meeting-gate will be old news by 2012 and he'll be fine taking some new Republicans as will Steve Isreal of course) than to deny the Republicans a single seat upstate.  Remember when the debate here was whether the Democrats could limit the Republicans to 1 upstate seat without leaving a number of seats vulnerable in a Republican year?

[Mr.Phips]

No way that Republicans get all of the new seats in Texas.  The Obama Justice Department will likely force the drawing of a Hispanic majority district in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex(where there are currently none) and also in the Houston area(where Hispanics are heavily underrepresented.

[Smash255]

The idea that its 10 new Republicans assumes all states losing a seat will lose a Democrat. Unlikely. Ohio loses two, so likely one of each. Massachusetts' will obviously be a Democrat. New Jersey could go either way, I'm not sure which district is most at risk. If the Dems control NY's redistricting they could easily eliminate Lee and leave Peter King as the sole Republican in NY (ouch). Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania. Illinois will wipe out a Republican for obvious reasons, Iowa's obvious victim is Latham. Michigan's lost seat could be either party. Here redistricting will likely target Bachmann.

I think it would be easier to eliminate King without it backfiring in other seats (if Tim Bishop survives 2010, which I expect he will, then town meeting-gate will be old news by 2012 and he'll be fine taking some new Republicans as will Steve Isreal of course) than to deny the Republicans a single seat upstate.  Remember when the debate here was whether the Democrats could limit the Republicans to 1 upstate seat without leaving a number of seats vulnerable in a Republican year?

Bishop's district likely will not take any Republicans from King.  The districts do not border each other, and due to population growth Bishop's district will actually need to shrink slightly.  Israel and King will likely flip flop a few areas (Israel's portion of Nassau, which is a Democratic heavy area will likely go back to King).  King's district likely will need to expand a bit further west, likely into McCarthy's district (Freeport), and could swap a few areas as well with either McCarthy or Ackerman.

[Dan the Roman]

The Michigan map is probably maximized for Republicans. Its hard to see how they could do any better. On the other hand, if against the odds the Democrats control the process, the GOP will lose 3-4 seats. Dito for Ohio. Both losses, even under a compromise map, will almost certainly be GOP.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that its 10 new Republicans assumes all states losing a seat will lose a Democrat. Unlikely. Ohio loses two, so likely one of each. Massachusetts' will obviously be a Democrat. New Jersey could go either way, I'm not sure which district is most at risk. If the Dems control NY's redistricting they could easily eliminate Lee and leave Peter King as the sole Republican in NY (ouch). Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania. Illinois will wipe out a Republican for obvious reasons, Iowa's obvious victim is Latham. Michigan's lost seat could be either party. Here redistricting will likely target Bachmann.

I think it would be easier to eliminate King without it backfiring in other seats (if Tim Bishop survives 2010, which I expect he will, then town meeting-gate will be old news by 2012 and he'll be fine taking some new Republicans as will Steve Isreal of course) than to deny the Republicans a single seat upstate.  Remember when the debate here was whether the Democrats could limit the Republicans to 1 upstate seat without leaving a number of seats vulnerable in a Republican year?

Upstate though is where the population loss is. Especially Lee's district. Him and Massa facing each other is basically an inevitability.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Michigan map is probably maximized for Republicans. Its hard to see how they could do any better. On the other hand, if against the odds the Democrats control the process, the GOP will lose 3-4 seats. Dito for Ohio. Both losses, even under a compromise map, will almost certainly be GOP.

The Democrats have a solid majority in the Michigan House, so they could at least block any GOP gerrymander. And yes, the current map is a maxed out gerrymander. MI-4 is the most likely seat to get chopped up.

[Sam Spade]

No way that Republicans get all of the new seats in Texas.  The Obama Justice Department will likely force the drawing of a Hispanic majority district in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex(where there are currently none) and also in the Houston area(where Hispanics are heavily underrepresented.

More Hispanics in Houston are presently located percentage-wise (not total numbers) in the black-gerrymandered districts (9, 18), not in the white ones (2, 7, 10, 14, 22).  Actually, I don't think either the black-gerrymandered districts have more blacks than Hispanics anymore. 

I suppose you could create two black districts and two Hispanic districts in Houston, and I suspect  Census tricks could be used to make more Hispanics "appear", but you'd have to make the other white CDs safer to do so or risk putting whites with low-turnout Hispanics.  I would suppose it can be done.

I'd have to look at the numbers, but you could create a Hispanic CD in Dallas and I think there's still enough minority population to protect Bernice Johnson (her CD I think has more Hispanics than blacks too now).  That would undoubtedly make the white CDs safer too.

I could see Republicans making this deal to shore up certain suburban CDs (Culberson, Sessions, Johnson, Smith, McCaul come to mind) that could be problematic later on in exchange for tackling Doggett and Edwards (if the latter survives).

Anyway, I basically agree with you and suspect the GOP gains 2 if they control the redistricting (with Doggett and Edwards as future (or in the case of Edwards, present) question marks).  Of course, requiring more Hispanic CDs in Houston or Dallas may make it easier to get rid of Doggett, you know, because Austin can be played with.

[Mr.Phips]

No way that Republicans get all of the new seats in Texas.  The Obama Justice Department will likely force the drawing of a Hispanic majority district in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex(where there are currently none) and also in the Houston area(where Hispanics are heavily underrepresented.

More Hispanics in Houston are presently located percentage-wise (not total numbers) in the black-gerrymandered districts (9, 18), not in the white ones (2, 7, 10, 14, 22).  Actually, I don't think either the black-gerrymandered districts have more blacks than Hispanics anymore. 

I suppose you could create two black districts and two Hispanic districts in Houston, and I suspect  Census tricks could be used to make more Hispanics "appear", but you'd have to make the other white CDs safer to do so or risk putting whites with low-turnout Hispanics.  I would suppose it can be done.

I'd have to look at the numbers, but you could create a Hispanic CD in Dallas and I think there's still enough minority population to protect Bernice Johnson (her CD I think has more Hispanics than blacks too now).  That would undoubtedly make the white CDs safer too.

I could see Republicans making this deal to shore up certain suburban CDs (Culberson, Sessions, Johnson, Smith, McCaul come to mind) that could be problematic later on in exchange for tackling Doggett and Edwards (if the latter survives).

Anyway, I basically agree with you and suspect the GOP gains 2 if they control the redistricting (with Doggett and Edwards as future (or in the case of Edwards, present) question marks).  Of course, requiring more Hispanic CDs in Houston or Dallas may make it easier to get rid of Doggett, you know, because Austin can be played with.

I dont think Republicans would want to mess any further with Doggett's district.  They should simply conceed him all of Travis county.  Splitting up that county could cause them serious problems in a bad year in the future. 

What could be done in Houston would be to create a district that peels Hispanics from TX-09, TX-22, and TX-18 and combines them with some whites, blacks, and Asians to create another Hispanic seat there. 

What the Obama Justice Department will likely do is simply say that there has to be two new Hispanic majority seats created in the state and reject any map that doesnt do that. 

[bullmoose88]

Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania.

Which Murphy?

Its hard seeing PA-8 being much different than it is now, probably has to get slightly larger, but not too much.

[Mr.Phips]

Murphy is the most likely victim in Pennsylvania.

Which Murphy?

Its hard seeing PA-8 being much different than it is now, probably has to get slightly larger, but not too much.

A good bet would be to combine Tim Murphy's district with Jack Murtha's. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I'd guess Kanjo's district would be the most likely to get eliminated, if he's re-elected.

Murtha's district could easily be re-drawn to make it more Republican, by ceding the Dem-leaning areas SW of Pittsburgh to Altmire, which would make him pretty much safe. Assuming the Republicans don't try another overextended map.