GOP house gains in 2012?

[Brittain33]

Cinyc:

Lots of Americans are racist.

Racism by white people against minorities has a much greater impact on minorities' lives than minority racism against the majority because of the balance of power and wealth in society today, and the simple dynamic of majority elections.

The history of American democracy is, up until very recently, the history of disenfranchisement of the minority.

I take your word for it that you don't want to be the beneficiary of this pattern, it just happens, and that's why you're so very angry when people point it out. That's fine. Please understand that your feelings, no matter how deeply felt, do not in themselves negate facts.

[cinyc]

Why do you keep putting racist in quotes when I never used that word? Thanks.

Anyway, it's nice if every 15 years when there's a big wave election a majority white district in the South (and this one which nearly elected a lesbian Democrat in '08!) will elect a single black Republican congressman, that's a sign that we've come a ways toward race being less of an issue, but I don't buy that a single example counteracts decades of history and current electoral dynamics that you seem to be outraged by people acknowledging the existence of. I'm sorry this makes you so extremely angry, generally when people come here it's for a love of data, and sometimes that crosses over into issues that stoke intense personal emotion.

There are tens of millions of white voters across the country who have never voted for a black candidate, and for many of them, the race is a factor. How many black voters do you think have never voted for a white candidate, since you view the two situations as equivalent?

I put "racist" in quotes because the people of SC-01 - who voted for an African-American congressman and Indian-American governor - are far from it.

Again, there is far more than one example of minorities getting elected in white areas of the South.  FL-22 is another.  And you may dismiss the Louisiana and South Carolina Gubernatorial elections because you think some people aren't minority enough to be considered a minority.   (Never mind that there is little reason to think that Louisiana and South Carolina wouldn't elect a competent, conservative Republican black governor, too.)  But the fact remains that those states did elect a governor who is a minority - which is more than can be said of many so-called "progressive" states north of the Mason-Dixon line.

There are tens of millions of white voters who have not had the opportunity to vote for a black candidate other than Barack Obama - who many viewed as unfit not because of his race but because of his lack of experience and liberal politics.  Can you say the same thing about most black voters - that they've never had the opportunity to vote for a white candidate with prior political experience who reflected their political views?  No.

[DrScholl]

It's 2010, not 1965.  Louisiana and South Carolina both have a minority Governor/Governor-Elect.  The President is black.   Those provisions of the Voting Rights Act have run their course.  Its only purpose now is to automatically keep incumbents in power in heavily Gerrymandered districts - which is a bad thing.

It doesn't matter what the race of those Governors are, they could very well be capable of diluting minority voting strength for partisan reasons. There are strict regulations in place for a reason, because some politicians cannot be trusted to be fair, they have to be checked by the law. Just because the President is black doesn't mean the Voting Rights act should be thrown out.

[Brittain33]

Again, there is far more than one example of minorities getting elected in white areas of the South.  FL-22 is another.

FL-22 ain't the South. Geographically it is, but it's full of transplants.

SC-1 this year.
OK-4 in 1994 and afterward.

A hundred thousand or so Republican primary voters in each district are carrying a hell of a great weight on their shoulders to serve the purposes you're setting them to... I'm sure they're happy for it but it's two districts, 16 years apart...  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. I didn't make up the distinction between how Asian immigrants are viewed and other groups, but you're free to pretend it's just me. You may want to consider why there are no competent, conservative Republican black governor candidates--I suspect you're really not prepared to have an honest discussion of how come that hasn't happened, and why you have to look at single congressional districts every 15 years to redeem tens of millions of voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, although Louisiana needed a second try. I'm not sugarcoating the record in the north. There are no black senators and precious few elected at all from anywhere. All of which supports my argument about the majority vs. minority dynamic. Would you accept that your prejudices do matter differently if you're in the majority vs. the minority if I say it gives you license to rag on the north, too?

BTW, if you want to rag on "so-called progressive" states, check the record in Mass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They've had opportunities for offices and candidates other than President and Barack Obama. I didn't say "presidential" there. How many African-Americans have won statewide in the South, again, since Reconstruction? How often?

[Skill and Chance]

I think we have to focus on the aggrieved groups, which are, specifically, African-Americans in the Deep South, Hispanics in the SW and both groups combined in FL and TX.  The fact remains that only one southern state has ever had a black governor, and that was Douglas Wilder in VA, which went on to vote decisively for Obama in 2008.  VA has probably left the cultural south as of 2006.  FL will have a black conservative Lt. Governor next year, but even more so than VA, it doesn't really belong in the cultural South anymore.  That leaves just Sanford Bishop and the newly elected Tim Scott in SC for black representation of white areas in the south, and even Bishop's district is over 40% black.  Even if Bishop or Scott becomes governor in 2014, it would still be glossing over a serious, persistent issue in these states.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.

Be careful with Holden's.  By making that more Republican, you could make PA 6, 11 or 16 more Democratic possibly flipping those seats in a wave.  And yes, the 16th as currently drawn is on my long term radar.  Add too much of Reading or West Chester to that- watch out!  Short term gains could backfire by the end of the decade like they did last time.  Just saying.

[Dgov]

I think we have to focus on the aggrieved groups, which are, specifically, African-Americans in the Deep South, Hispanics in the SW and both groups combined in FL and TX.  The fact remains that only one southern state has ever had a black governor, and that was Douglas Wilder in VA, which went on to vote decisively for Obama in 2008.  VA has probably left the cultural south as of 2006.  FL will have a black conservative Lt. Governor next year, but even more so than VA, it doesn't really belong in the cultural South anymore.  That leaves just Sanford Bishop and the newly elected Tim Scott in SC for black representation of white areas in the south, and even Bishop's district is over 40% black.  Even if Bishop or Scott becomes governor in 2014, it would still be glossing over a serious, persistent issue in these states.

Ever think the problem is the lack of Conservative Blacks running rather than racism?  I mean, how many white-majority districts in the South would elect a white Liberal?  I count maybe 4 (Nashville, the two Raleigh seats, and Austin), and those are generally filled with culturally un-southern whites.  The rest of the White South is strongly Conservative, and therefore is loathe to back the kind of Liberal Blacks that generally form the Democratic party's list of candidates.

I mean, the fairly moderate Harold Ford Jr. almost won in solidly Republican Tennessee in 2006.  I'm willing to bet he pulled significantly more of the white vote than the more Liberal Barrack Obama did two years later.

[Skill and Chance]

I think we have to focus on the aggrieved groups, which are, specifically, African-Americans in the Deep South, Hispanics in the SW and both groups combined in FL and TX.  The fact remains that only one southern state has ever had a black governor, and that was Douglas Wilder in VA, which went on to vote decisively for Obama in 2008.  VA has probably left the cultural south as of 2006.  FL will have a black conservative Lt. Governor next year, but even more so than VA, it doesn't really belong in the cultural South anymore.  That leaves just Sanford Bishop and the newly elected Tim Scott in SC for black representation of white areas in the south, and even Bishop's district is over 40% black.  Even if Bishop or Scott becomes governor in 2014, it would still be glossing over a serious, persistent issue in these states.

Ever think the problem is the lack of Conservative Blacks running rather than racism?  I mean, how many white-majority districts in the South would elect a white Liberal?  I count maybe 4 (Nashville, the two Raleigh seats, and Austin), and those are generally filled with culturally un-southern whites.  The rest of the White South is strongly Conservative, and therefore is loathe to back the kind of Liberal Blacks that generally form the Democratic party's list of candidates.

I mean, the fairly moderate Harold Ford Jr. almost won in solidly Republican Tennessee in 2006.  I'm willing to bet he pulled significantly more of the white vote than the more Liberal Barrack Obama did two years later.

I think you are still missing something significant here.  Cultural liberalism is the natural consequence of what African-Americans experienced in the South over the past century.  If they wanted to be able to participate in society, they needed an activist federal government.  To a large extent, this is still true.  See the debates over inequality in access to health care during the past two years, for example.  The reason that African-Americans are seen to be out of the mainstream of the white South is precisely because of historical racism.  Besides, your argument is kind of silly.  Why doesn't the GOP just run pro-HCR, pro-cap-and-trade, and pro-gay marriage candidates so that they can win in Boston or San Francisco?  Because they have certain values that are more important than holding those seats.     

[Dgov]

I think you are still missing something significant here.  Cultural liberalism is the natural consequence of what African-Americans experienced in the South over the past century.  If they wanted to be able to participate in society, they needed an activist federal government.  To a large extent, this is still true.  See the debates over inequality in access to health care during the past two years, for example.  The reason that African-Americans are seen to be out of the mainstream of the white South is precisely because of historical racism.  Besides, your argument is kind of silly.  Why doesn't the GOP just run pro-HCR, pro-cap-and-trade, and pro-gay marriage candidates so that they can win in Boston or San Francisco?  Because they have certain values that are more important than holding those seats.     

I'm saying that the reason that there aren't many Blacks representing majority-white Congressional districts in the South is because of a lack of Conservative Black Republicans running for them.  Most of these districts simply will not elect Democrats regardless of skin color, and therefore regularly elect the heavily-white Republican candidates.  I don't think Black Republicans would have a problem getting elected anywhere in the South where White Republicans can get elected (which is what my original argument was).

In other words, the current racial divide in the South is merely a manifestation of the political divide rather than an actual racial divide.  Democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans.  Because most Blacks are Democrats and most Whites are Republicans, you get whites voting for whites and blacks voting for blacks.

[Mjh]

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.

[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. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

[Skill and Chance]

Has anyone else noticed that Democratic gerrymanders generally look "worse" on a map than GOP gerrymanders?  Democrats usually try to draw lots of awkward looking "spokes" out of the cities, while Republicans will usually separate the cities as their own circle/box shaped districts and then have several roughly quadrilateral disticts that cover large rural areas and some suburbs.

[Dgov]

Has anyone else noticed that Democratic gerrymanders generally look "worse" on a map than GOP gerrymanders?  Democrats usually try to draw lots of awkward looking "spokes" out of the cities, while Republicans will usually separate the cities as their own circle/box shaped districts and then have several roughly quadrilateral disticts that cover large rural areas and some suburbs.

It's more population dispersion.  Republicans tend to win 55-60% of the vote in most of the country, but lose the urban centers like 80-20, which means most of their "Safe Seats" are just seats with no urban portion in them.

Also, it does help that Republicans do better in the sparsely populated areas.  It's less useful to draw finger districts in a state like Iowa than in a state like Maryland.

[Sbane]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6642/ca-nonbiased-redistricting-aka-will-we-actually-benefit

Is this the one you are referring to?

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6642/ca-nonbiased-redistricting-aka-will-we-actually-benefit

Is this the one you are referring to?

No, it was about 4-5 days ago, after the initiative passed. Sadly, it seems that it has been deleted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

     It would favor the Republicans more than a Democratic gerrymander of the state would, though. Since the polls clearly showed that Prop 25 would pass, getting Prop 20 passed as well clearly benefitted the Republicans. Losing 4-5 seats is better than losing 9-10 seats, after all.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

Which proves, what, that the Democrats at Swing State Project can still gerrymander a "fair" map?

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

     It would favor the Republicans more than a Democratic gerrymander of the state would, though. Since the polls clearly showed that Prop 25 would pass, getting Prop 20 passed as well clearly benefitted the Republicans. Losing 4-5 seats is better than losing 9-10 seats, after all.ders

Better 4-5 than nothing I guess.

Which proves, what, that the Democrats at Swing State Project can still gerrymander a "fair" map?

Why don't you give it a try since you're obviously so much more objective?

[Sbane]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

Which proves, what, that the Democrats at Swing State Project can still gerrymander a "fair" map?

You should try it. You don't even have to draw the whole map. Try to draw Calvert or Drier fair seats based on where the majority of their district is currently. Calvert is finished. Maybe not in 2012, but if he survives even a decent Democratic year, I will be quite surprised.

On the other hand, which Democrats do you think won't be safe anymore? Not CA-11, as Mcnerney's hometown is surrounded on all sides by Democratic territory. And the VRA should save the Central Valley and OC democrats.

[Kevinstat]

Maine is not going to gerrymander no matter who is in control. It's not in their culture with just two districts. The state already has a clear sense of identity that has Portland on one side and other cities on the other, the legislature is not going to put towns in extreme southern Maine with Lewiston and Houlton just to get an R+1 district.

I'm quite sure "culture" can be put aside when there's partisan advantage to be had. I could also see them redistricting early (it's easily explained away as "synchronising") to protect the Republican legislature in 2012, as well as create a toss-up House seat and electoral vote.

Legislative redistricting in Maine before 2013 (and legislative redistricting in Maine done by the Legislature without 2/3 support in each chamber, which the Republicans don't have), would require a state constitutional amendment, which itself requires a 2/3 vote in each house of the Legislature.  There are similar statutory provisions for congressional and county commissioner redistricting in Maine, but the relevent sections, subsections, and whatnot could be amended or "notwithstood" by a law enacting new plans for those districts which could be passed and signed by the Governor as easily as "normal" legislation.  I could see the Republicans redrawing Maine's congressional districts next year, but I could easily see them deciding not to risk negative PR on an early (based on current Maine law, which should have been fixed long ago regarding the timing of redistricting) and partisan redistricting.

[Mjh]

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?

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Has anyone else noticed that Democratic gerrymanders generally look "worse" on a map than GOP gerrymanders?  Democrats usually try to draw lots of awkward looking "spokes" out of the cities, while Republicans will usually separate the cities as their own circle/box shaped districts and then have several roughly quadrilateral disticts that cover large rural areas and some suburbs.

Hmmm... Florida? DeLay's Texas (before the two most visibly ridiculous seats got struck down)?
Then again... Maryland. The Democrat's Georgia. North Carolina.
And of course, let's not forget bipartisan Illinois. And of course VRA-protected seats of that type in Alabama and Virginia.
Nope, I don't think there's a partisan dimension to that. Republican Georgia's looks nicer because it's not much of a gerrymander, not because it's a republican one. Michigan's is because the law there banned a Florida-style map.

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW, the guys at Swing State Project made a fair map of California (compact districts, communities of interest, etc). While no Democrat was endangered by such a map (even though their districts became less Democratic), 4-5 Republicans suddenly found themselves in unfriendly or swing districts. So Trende's assumption that fair redistricting in California will favor Republicans doesn't seem to be true.
The state has become so heavily Democratic that even a neutral map might bring significant Dem gains.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6642/ca-nonbiased-redistricting-aka-will-we-actually-benefit

Is this the one you are referring to?

No, it was about 4-5 days ago, after the initiative passed. Sadly, it seems that it has been deleted.

The guy who made the map I mentioned made a new one to correct some imperfections.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8028/redistricting-california

Overall, that would be almost a net gain of 6 for the Democrats, just from drawing more compact districts. In reality, it will probably be 4 or 5, because I'm sure the Central Valley will turn out a bit differently than I had it, but there will nonetheless be another swing district up no matter how they draw it.