GOP house gains in 2012?

[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).   

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.     

[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.