US House Redistricting: California

[BigSkyBob]

Democrats shouldn't necessarily be so confident in their chances. Even if Gallegly, Dreier, Miller, and Bilbray lose, there is a decent chance that Loretta Sanchez's district could go Republican, along with those of Harman, Capps, and the new district containing Lakewood and Paramount.

The 2012 year will probably have better Hispanic turnout than 2010, fwiw.

Then again, if the economy continues to enter into a double-dip, housing prices continue to fall, unemployment persists at 9%,  and the Democrats in the state legislature and offices pass the tax increases they desire,  Democrats may will have fond memories of their previous districts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Economy up, Presidential party up, and economy down, Presidential party down, has had a considerable correlation over the years. "Coattail" arguments haven't shown the same correlation.


If the economy continues to weaken, the Democrats will regret not having the old gerrymandered, non-competitive districts currently in effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Economy up, Presidential party up, and economy down, Presidential party down, has had a considerable correlation over the years. "Coattail" arguments haven't shown the same correlation.


If the economy continues to weaken, the Democrats will regret not having the old gerrymandered, non-competitive districts currently in effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In such a scenario, all that will do is reduce the size of the Republican majority. It's far better for Democrats (in expectation) to increase their chances of winning the House in a even-ish year.

In general, that would be true, but, in this particular case the new seats are up in 2012, and the winners in the marginal seats will have the opportunity to hold their seats for the entire decade.

[BigSkyBob]

No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

[BigSkyBob]

No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

But it's not a gerrymander either when Republicans drawn favorable maps for themselves.

I see your case is so intellectually weak you must resort to strawmen arguments. Some Republican maps are gerrymanders, in the sense of what Gerry did, and others are not, for example Indiana, which favors Republicans more than the current map does, and is not a "gerrymander."

[BigSkyBob]

No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   

It is a denial position to claim that Republicans have hit a "ceiling" in the number of seats they hold. There was just a "wave" election, and absent another "wave," or the effects of redistricting,  the par assumption is that the GOP will lose some of the marginal seats they won in the last election. But, if there is a second Republican wave in 2012, as there was a second Democratic wave in 2008, then the GOP could reasonably win more seats. In the last election, the wave was, basically, in flyover county. If the coasts become as sick of the Democrats in 2012 as the heartland was in 2010, a double digit gain is possible.


Of couse, if a Democratic wave occurs, the GOP could lose the House.

[BigSkyBob]

No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   

It is a denial position to claim that Republicans have hit a "ceiling" in the number of seats they hold. There was just a "wave" election, and absent another "wave," or the effects of redistricting,  the par assumption is that the GOP will lose some of the marginal seats they won in the last election. But, if there is a second Republican wave in 2012, as there was a second Democratic wave in 2008, then the GOP could reasonably win more seats. In the last election, the wave was, basically, in flyover county. If the coasts become as sick of the Democrats in 2012 as the heartland was in 2010, a double digit gain is possible.


Of couse, if a Democratic wave occurs, the GOP could lose the House.

The Democratic wave in 2006 was not half as big as the Republican wave of 2010.  If Democrats had picked up 63 seats in 2006, they would have certainly lost seats in 2008 no matter what.

Had the Democrats won 63 seats in 2006,  they would have held about 263 seats. That is closing in on the total number of attainable Democratic seats. However, if in 2006, the Democrats had won 240 seats, they would have had a large enough pool of attainable seats to gain more seats in 2008.

[BigSkyBob]

Also, Vietnamese voters swung significantly to the right in 2008 due to McCain on the ticket (Vietnam veteran), and had been somewhat more D than usual in 2004 due to Kerry being a vet.

Republicans run better among Cubans and Vietnamese for the same basic reason: the Democratic party delivered their fellow countrymen into repressive dictatorships. During the war, Kerry de facto gave aid and comfort to those would-be dictators. Whatever the reason Kerry ran better in 2004 is, it is not his service in Vietnam.

[BigSkyBob]

The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT

They should have gone for the equal protection angle based on the staggered senate terms.

Referendum on redistricting plans don't really work since the same plan can simply be re-enacted over and over.

That's certainly will be true in Maryland, But, in a state in which members of both parties must approve the final plan, any map that in retrospect seemed unfair to one political party might be rejected by the new commissioners of that party.