GOP house gains in 2012?

[Dgov]

From what I've read, according to the population growth the new Texas districts must be three Hispanic majority (one in Dallas, one in Houston and one at the Rio Grande valley) and one other safe Republican.
Otherwise the DOJ can and will reject the map.  

I've also read that maybe they'll demand another black majority district in Alabama.

I don't think you can fit another Hispanic-majority district in Houston, but you definitively can't in South Texas.  The region's 3 districts are already sprawling upwards, and while you could theoretically shove another Hispanic-majority district in there, it would look so ugly (see 2003's 15th for an example of what i mean) that there's no way a court would sign off on it with a straight face.  Also, doing so would probably hurt the Democrats overall, as the GOP could do what they tried to in the old 15th and pack White Liberal Austin voters into a Hispanic-majority district, which would make the 25th into a competitive seat.

As for Houston, the population is there for another Hispanic-majority district, but it's next to impossible to fit two of them and two black-plurality districts in a neat map.  There's just not enough compact Hispanic or Black populations in the city to do it cleanly.

A Dallas Hispanic-majority district would also be rather ugly, but since it deserves at least one, it shouldn't be much of a problem.  It'll probably have to stretch into Tarrant county if it has to be more than 60% Hispanic though.

The only other place a Hispanic-majority district could realistically be formed in in the San Antonio-Austin area, taking some of the Hispanic strength from South SA and carrying it across a finger north to the Minority parts of Austin.  Doing so could also make the 25th competitive (or at least more Competitive) so if the Obama DOJ mandates another one, this is the best place for Republicans to create one.

Add that to the fact that TX-23 and TX-27 can both be made significantly more Republican without too much ugly work, and the GOP can probably squeeze at least an even map out of the redistricting process, and maybe even a +3R/+1D if they're creative enough.  They just made some significant gains on the state and local level in areas people thought the Democrats had a lock on, so it's not impossible they'll try for a much bolder plan than Delay had in mind back in 2003

As for Alabama, I'd bet the Obama DOJ would mandate one, though it would have the effect of making the rest of the state completely un-winnable for the Democrats, ever.  It would have to stretch from Montgomery across the Central Black belt down to Mobile, and as a result would take up all the counties let in the state that could theoretically vote Democrat (assuming the GOP jackknifes the 4th and 5th in the Northern part of the state to guarantee Roby's Seat even more).  It's like Louisiana in that regard; if the Democrats try to mandate another Black-majority district, they'll basically guarantee Republicans hold the other 4 for a LONG time.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.