GOP house gains in 2012?

[Dgov]

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

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

[Verily]

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

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

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

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

Obama and the Democrats owe Hispanics big time. They saved Reid and Bennet's ass despite the fact that the administration did next to nothing for immigration reform.
Fighting for more Hispanic majority districts would be a nice bone to them.

[Dgov]

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

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

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

[J. J.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linus Van Pelt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. J.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. J.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the black districts were never touched. 

[Nichlemn]

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

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

[Torie]

I don't that the DOJ can demand more minority-majority districts that are erose, and not dictated by adjacent communities of interest. So I don't see a lot more being demanded myself. But the law in this area is tough to get a handle on. Muon2 keeps reminding me of that, the bastard - he knows just too damn much! 

[Skill and Chance]

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

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

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

[Skill and Chance]

There are some other interesting VRA odds and ends.

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

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

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

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

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

[Nichlemn]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

[Mr.Phips]

There are some other interesting VRA odds and ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just had to chuckle about that one. I guess in some instances, the nexus between chaos theory and politics at the moment has not been fully fathomed yet.

Seriously, the bell curve of possible outcomes is very flat now, with a very high standard deviation. Just throw out what came before in the garbage. And who really knows what Obama is thinking? I certainly don't. The man is a sphinx at the moment. I suspect he is still pondering what forks in the road to take, and even if he decides, it may rapidly be overtaken by events.

We are living in very interesting times, as the Chinese would put it.  
   

[Badger]

Republicans won't be able to make major gains from redistricting after this landslide.

Redistricting  will, however, let them keep many of their otherwise vulnerable "less astute" newly elected members.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Republicans could very well hold on easily their House majority if it was built on freshmen like Rob Hurt, Jaime Herrera or Joe Heck.
Unfortunately for them it's built on people like Allen West, Tim Walberg and Frank Guinta.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Republicans won't be able to make major gains from redistricting after this landslide.

Redistricting  will, however, let them keep many of their otherwise vulnerable "less astute" newly elected members.

Agreed. A few of the Republican gerrymanders in 2000 were stretched too thin and got swept away with the wave. If they are smart this time they will simply try to consolidate their gains and give the Dems some safe districts packed with Dem voters instead of trying to wipe them out, which will make their own incumbents safer. This will give them a great structural advantage and make the seats less competitive, which would favor them.