GOP house gains in 2012?

[minionofmidas]

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,

then the new district in DFW is Democratic and my point is moot. -_- Jim was arguing that another Republican district could be added, which I think is possible... but perhaps not without creating one or more realistic targets for Democrats.

[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,

then the new district in DFW is Democratic and my point is moot. -_- Jim was arguing that another Republican district could be added, which I think is possible... but perhaps not without creating one or more realistic targets for Democrats.

Fidgeting with it, it becomes incredibly difficult to make completely safe R seats (60+% McCain districts) without extensive fingering into the rural areas.  It's still possible to draw a Solidly Republican map (55+% McCain), but that would be vulnerable in 2018 and 2020 if current demographic changes continue.

[Brittain33]

My guess is that Obama significantly overran generic Dem strength in some of the suburbs of DFW in particular... I think the trend in some of those districts like TX-24, TX-32, and similarly in Houston, TX-7 was very strong and then snapped back sharply this year. 55% McCain should be more than strong enough for a Texas Republican congressman.

[Dgov]

My guess is that Obama significantly overran generic Dem strength in some of the suburbs of DFW in particular... I think the trend in some of those districts like TX-24, TX-32, and similarly in Houston, TX-7 was very strong and then snapped back sharply this year. 55% McCain should be more than strong enough for a Texas Republican congressman.

Well, judging by Rick Perry's percentages (which are similar to McCains), Republicans gained a few points in the big cites like Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Austin, and San Antonio (Houston was White's home region).  The only regions that Perry did significantly worse in outside Houston was rural Texas (where White actually won a few counties) the San Antonio Suburbs (where he did about 2-3 points worse), and the South Dallas Suburbs (where Perry did worse, despite gaining roughly the same amount in the North Dallas Suburbs).

[minionofmidas]

My guess is that Obama significantly overran generic Dem strength in some of the suburbs of DFW in particular... I think the trend in some of those districts like TX-24, TX-32, and similarly in Houston, TX-7 was very strong and then snapped back sharply this year. 55% McCain should be more than strong enough for a Texas Republican congressman.

Well, judging by Rick Perry's percentages (which are similar to McCains), Republicans gained a few points in the big cites like Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Austin, and San Antonio (Houston was White's home region).  The only regions that Perry did significantly worse in outside Houston was rural Texas (where White actually won a few counties) the San Antonio Suburbs (where he did about 2-3 points worse), and the South Dallas Suburbs (where Perry did worse, despite gaining roughly the same amount in the North Dallas Suburbs).

Okay, so the last of these is surprising.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

[Dgov]

My guess is that Obama significantly overran generic Dem strength in some of the suburbs of DFW in particular... I think the trend in some of those districts like TX-24, TX-32, and similarly in Houston, TX-7 was very strong and then snapped back sharply this year. 55% McCain should be more than strong enough for a Texas Republican congressman.

Well, judging by Rick Perry's percentages (which are similar to McCains), Republicans gained a few points in the big cites like Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Austin, and San Antonio (Houston was White's home region).  The only regions that Perry did significantly worse in outside Houston was rural Texas (where White actually won a few counties) the San Antonio Suburbs (where he did about 2-3 points worse), and the South Dallas Suburbs (where Perry did worse, despite gaining roughly the same amount in the North Dallas Suburbs).

Okay, so the last of these is surprising.

It might have more to do with Obama/McCain than Perry/White.  McCain won just over 60% in Denton and Collin counties while posting over 70% in Johnson, Ellis, and Hood.  Perry had roughly equal percentages in all 5.

[Dgov]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Not really.  I think the general perception is that it won't be a "Bad" year for the GOP.  Even in 1996 the Republicans only lost about 2 net seats compared to 1994, and that was with a strong Clinton re-election.

[they don't love you like i love you]

CO can't be required to make a Hispanic majority seat. It's not covered by that section of the VRA.

Making one would probably help the Democrats by pushing liberal Denver whites to CO-07.

[Keystone Phil]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Everyone? There are people (like myself) stating that we can't make the same mistake we made after 2004 and the same mistake the Dems made after 2006 and 2008.

[Skill and Chance]

CO can't be required to make a Hispanic majority seat. It's not covered by that section of the VRA.

Making one would probably help the Democrats by pushing liberal Denver whites to CO-07.

I don't think the Democrats would want or need help in CO-07 anyway.  Perlmutter just won it by 11 points against a top notch opponent in 2010.

[Badger]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Everyone? There are people (like myself) stating that we can't make the same mistake we made after 2004 and the same mistake the Dems made after 2006 and 2008.

Yes, but other than chucking immigration reform can you identify a single difference in policy between the GOP of 2005 and 2010?

Let's see......Cut, slash, eviscerate taxes across the board including the wealthiest plutocrats and big corporations "best and brightest", cut unspecified "wasteful government spending", and talk a great deal about how awful the debt is and really really needs to be brought under control--and will be, you see, by tax cut fueled economic growth and mystery budget cuts just waiting behind curtain number 3. Doesn't this all sound familiar?

Well, at least the GOP isn't likely to get burned on foreign policy the way Iraq managed to in 2006.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Everyone? There are people (like myself) stating that we can't make the same mistake we made after 2004 and the same mistake the Dems made after 2006 and 2008.

Well, they were right about 2008 being as great as 2006.

[cinyc]

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

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department. Supreme Court not to strike down this racist, anachronistic, incumbent-protection law once and for all.   We have a black President.  It's time.

[DrScholl]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department. Supreme Court not to strike down this racist, anachronistic, incumbent-protection law once and for all.   We have a black President.  It's time.

It's not racist at all, the law is to prevent minority votes from being diluted. In fact, Republicans benefit from it more because it packs Democrats together and prevents competitive races. Republicans have pushed it more than anyone.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

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

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department. Supreme Court not to strike down this racist, anachronistic, incumbent-protection law once and for all.   We have a black President.  It's time.

I don't get why you are complaining about it with how much it helps your side in the House..

[cinyc]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department. Supreme Court not to strike down this racist, anachronistic, incumbent-protection law once and for all.   We have a black President.  It's time.

It's not racist at all, the law is to prevent minority votes from being diluted. In fact, Republicans benefit from it more because it packs Democrats together and prevents competitive races. Republicans have pushed it more than anyone.

The assumptions of that section of the Voting Rights Act are inherently racist because they assume race is the most important, overriding factor of all when it comes to creating districts.  Blacks vote for blacks.  Whites vote for whites.  Nothing else matters except race.  It's demeaning, actually.

With the election of a black President, those provisions are well past their due date.  I don't care which party benefits.  Less incumbent protection and more competitive elections are good things.  And that would be one good side effect from getting rid of it.

[DrScholl]

The assumptions of that section of the Voting Rights Act are inherently racist because they assume race is the most important, overriding factor of all when it comes to creating districts.  Blacks vote for blacks.  Whites vote for whites.  Nothing else matters except race.  It's demeaning, actually.

With the election of a black President, those provisions are well past their due date.  I don't care which party benefits.  Less incumbent protection and more competitive are good things.  And that would be one good side effect from getting rid of it.

Black votes used to be very diluted in the South, deliberately so and it's a protection to assure that overly ambition legislatures don't attempt to dilute voters.

[cinyc]

Black votes used to be very diluted in the South, deliberately so and it's a protection to assure that overly ambition legislatures don't attempt to dilute voters.

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.

[Brittain33]

Blacks vote for blacks.  Whites vote for whites.  Nothing else matters except race.  It's demeaning, actually.

More like black voters vote for black and white candidates (every recent Dem pres nominee before Obama), whites vote for whites. But, see the third chart... and imagine what the outcome is when one side significantly outnumbers the other.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/alabama.html

[Brittain33]

Black votes used to be very diluted in the South, deliberately so and it's a protection to assure that overly ambition legislatures don't attempt to dilute voters.

It's 2010, not 1965.  Louisiana and South Carolina both have a minority Governor/Governor-Elect.  

In 1850, Irish people weren't considered white. By 1920, they were, but the jury was still out on Italians and Jews. Now it would be laughable to think that Italians, Jews, and Irish weren't white... and Asian immigrants are very much on the same track toward being considered in the same category as white people. Not there yet, mind you--but they cross that divide that black candidates find nearly impossible to cross in the minds of a majority of white voters in some places.

[Mr.Phips]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Not really.  I think the general perception is that it won't be a "Bad" year for the GOP.  Even in 1996 the Republicans only lost about 2 net seats compared to 1994, and that was with a strong Clinton re-election.

Clinton got just 49% of the vote in 1996 and even then, Democrats would have likely won back the House had the Democratic fundraising scandal not erupted in the final days of the campaign. 

[cinyc]

Blacks vote for blacks.  Whites vote for whites.  Nothing else matters except race.  It's demeaning, actually.

More like black voters vote for black and white candidates (every recent Dem pres nominee before Obama), whites vote for whites. But, see the third chart... and imagine what the outcome is when one side significantly outnumbers the other.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/alabama.html

Ah yes, the old "whites are racist, but blacks cannot possibly be racist" canard.  

But, see the third chart... and imagine what the outcome is when one side significantly outnumbers the other.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/south-carolina.html

Which candidate won SC-01 in that horrible, "racist" state of South Carolina, which is subject to the relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act?  What percentage of SC-01 is white?  75%?  I guess all those closet racists voted against Scott, right?  Especially those "racist" Republicans who voted for Scott 68%-32% in the primary runoff, right?

And which candidate won in FL-22, again?  What percentage of that district is white?

[J. J.]

I just love how everyone assumes 2012 is going to be another great GOP year after good year in 2010. Kind like "2010 is going to be just another great year for Dems after 2008". Oh yes, it sound logic as well, such a majority, few seats in Senate to defend...

Everyone? There are people (like myself) stating that we can't make the same mistake we made after 2004 and the same mistake the Dems made after 2006 and 2008.

I agree on that one.

The only thing I've really been talking about is the effect of redistricting.

[Brittain33]

Why do you keep putting racist in quotes when I never used that word? Thanks. I'll use it in the next post so you understand what I actually do think.

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?