Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 15, 2019, 03:47:23 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  US House Redistricting: Indiana
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Indiana  (Read 23526 times)
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 21, 2010, 06:08:05 pm »

With a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, Republicans have an opportunity to create a gerrymandered map. However, several leading Republicans claim they are committed to a bi-partisan map, which isn't sitting too well with some, including myself. 10 years ago, Democrats gave us a terrible map to work with on the state level, and they completely ignored geographic similarities when creating the US House Districts. As long as Republicans return things to normal, we're looking at 6-7 GOP seats. The best possibility for Democrats right now is 3 solid seats, with 2 toss-ups.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2010, 06:15:41 pm »

Here's my first map of Indiana. I don't have Microsoft Paint, so I have to use another application, in which Indiana doesn't quite fit. Here are my three maps, one of Indianapolis.







On Southern Indiana, I tried to tie geographically similar regions together, making it similar to before 2000 redistricting. Evansville and Terre Haute are back to being in seperate districts.

Indianapolis is split up into four districts. I can't honestly say how this would play out, but it could hypothetically make 2-3 competitive districts.

The Gary District would be very strong Democrat. Teal, Yellow, Green, bright Blue, and light Purple all could potentially become competitive. Grey, Purple, and Red are Republican districts.

This would make the Indiana composition 5-3-1, Republican-Toss Up-Democratic.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,799
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2010, 06:26:34 pm »

You complain about the Democrats ignoring basic geography when they drew the maps a decade ago, and then you propose that disgusting thing. Hilarious.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2010, 06:33:04 pm »

You complain about the Democrats ignoring basic geography when they drew the maps a decade ago, and then you propose that disgusting thing. Hilarious.
I really only know about Southern Indiana. I honestly couldn't tell you about the Northern part, because I've never been up there. I was referring to the South, where I live. Terre Haute and Evansville have little in common. Geographically, at least the grey, bright blue, and soft purple are an improvement.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2010, 06:35:23 pm »

I posted some maps on the Maps We Need to See! thread I'll repost over here; they're my idea of how one could make the map more Republican, but not necessarily how it would be done. One thing you learn quite quickly is that South Bend can not be thrown into the Gary district, there are just too many people living in that corner of the state. So it's all about making the 2nd more Republican while still having it based in South Bend.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2010, 06:35:37 pm »

I think his main point was about your ripping apart of the Indianapolis metro, which is a really obvious gerrymander.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2010, 12:57:53 pm »
« Edited: November 22, 2010, 01:00:14 pm by Verily »

Here's my map of Indiana. It destroys Donnelly's district and puts him into a district with Stutzman. It also prevents a Baron Hill comeback by combining Bloomington with Indianapolis exurbs instead of the southern edge of the state. Pence and Young switch district numbers (Pence, who lives in Bartholomew County, is now in IN-09, and Young, who lives in Monroe County, is now in IN-06), and IN-03 is an open but very GOP seat. Ellsworth's district is mostly unchanged, so he maybe could mount a comeback, but otherwise I think this is what the Indiana GOP will do.

I'm assuming the white suburbs in Lake County (in IN-04) are mostly marginal or GOP-leaning; the map might need some modification if they are not.


Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2010, 07:31:54 am »

Here's my map of Indiana. It destroys Donnelly's district and puts him into a district with Stutzman. It also prevents a Baron Hill comeback by combining Bloomington with Indianapolis exurbs instead of the southern edge of the state. Pence and Young switch district numbers (Pence, who lives in Bartholomew County, is now in IN-09, and Young, who lives in Monroe County, is now in IN-06), and IN-03 is an open but very GOP seat. Ellsworth's district is mostly unchanged, so he maybe could mount a comeback, but otherwise I think this is what the Indiana GOP will do.

I'm assuming the white suburbs in Lake County (in IN-04) are mostly marginal or GOP-leaning; the map might need some modification if they are not.




I think your division of Lake is fine, but in LaPorte the Westville area tends to go Dem IIRC.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2010, 05:08:03 pm »

Yes, Lake County south of Mordor on the Lake, actually has some pretty nice towns. I have been to a couple.  I saw a dermatologist down there for some reason, when I lived in Chicago. Along the lake it does really look like Mordor at night, with the flames from the steel mills illuminating the sky. I lost a wallet something, and some good Samaritan picked it up in the parking lot of a steel mill, and gave it to a security guy who called me, and though the cash was gone, the credit cards, and driver's license were still in it, so down I went to pick it up. Oh dear, I will never forget my little journey through the slag heaps. It was a long way from the ivory tower zone where I lived - a very long way, as it were.
Logged
Cigarettes & Saints
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,088
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2010, 02:26:22 pm »

Upper Lake County seemed like a great place when I drove through it. I remember billboards with prominent ads for huge adult sex stores and strip clubs. I believe Indiana is horrible for prudish strip club regulation, but Lake also strikes me as the type of place where the clubs just ignore the law and it goes unenforced. I'm sure opebo would dig it greatly as there are probably tons of cheap hookers with the very high priced escorts sticking to Chicago and the suburbs there (then again there is the quality vs. cost issue...)
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,116
Bangladesh


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2010, 01:11:53 am »

That first map looks very French with all the rurban districts.
Logged
Cigarettes & Saints
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 88,088
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2010, 02:00:20 am »

That first map looks very French with all the rurban districts.

Did you invent that word?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,116
Bangladesh


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2010, 02:04:22 am »

That first map looks very French with all the rurban districts.

Did you invent that word?

Hashemite's definitely used it before me.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,799
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2010, 11:00:57 am »

It's a fairly obscure Canadian term, I think. Dates from the early 1990s or so, maybe earlier? I've been using it since I discovered it as it's so perfect.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2010, 06:49:44 pm »

With a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, Republicans have an opportunity to create a gerrymandered map. However, several leading Republicans claim they are committed to a bi-partisan map, which isn't sitting too well with some, including myself. 10 years ago, Democrats gave us a terrible map to work with on the state level, and they completely ignored geographic similarities when creating the US House Districts. As long as Republicans return things to normal, we're looking at 6-7 GOP seats. The best possibility for Democrats right now is 3 solid seats, with 2 toss-ups.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Ideas I would suggest :
SPLIT INDIANAPOLIS not in two but in four (destroy Carson's district)
Force Donnelly into a primary with Vislowsky (bye bye either one. Most likely Silent Joe)
Create a new district between Stutzman and Vislowsky centered around South Bend in the north and Kokomo in the South (New IN-2 Rep by Jackie Walorski)
Out of the Indy Split Pence, Burton, Rokita, and Young all rep part of Indy

So the delegation would look kinda like this

1.Safe Dem (Vislowsky)
2.Likely GOP (Walorski)
3.Safe GOP (Stutzman)
4.Safe GOP (Rokita)
5.Safe GOP (Burton)
6.Safe GOP (Pence)
7.Toss Up (Scott)
8.Lean GOP (Bucshon)
9.Likely GOP (Young)
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,179
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2010, 08:24:11 pm »

With a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, Republicans have an opportunity to create a gerrymandered map. However, several leading Republicans claim they are committed to a bi-partisan map, which isn't sitting too well with some, including myself. 10 years ago, Democrats gave us a terrible map to work with on the state level, and they completely ignored geographic similarities when creating the US House Districts. As long as Republicans return things to normal, we're looking at 6-7 GOP seats. The best possibility for Democrats right now is 3 solid seats, with 2 toss-ups.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Ideas I would suggest :
SPLIT INDIANAPOLIS not in two but in four (destroy Carson's district)
Force Donnelly into a primary with Vislowsky (bye bye either one. Most likely Silent Joe)
Create a new district between Stutzman and Vislowsky centered around South Bend in the north and Kokomo in the South (New IN-2 Rep by Jackie Walorski)
Out of the Indy Split Pence, Burton, Rokita, and Young all rep part of Indy

So the delegation would look kinda like this

1.Safe Dem (Vislowsky)
2.Likely GOP (Walorski)
3.Safe GOP (Stutzman)
4.Safe GOP (Rokita)
5.Safe GOP (Burton)
6.Safe GOP (Pence)
7.Toss Up (Scott)
8.Lean GOP (Bucshon)
9.Likely GOP (Young)


Very dangerous and as has been pointed out before it would make IN at risk to be represented by 6 or 7 Dems in the right environment like in 1974 (which followed a similar redistricting plan in 1971).

Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2010, 08:51:32 pm »

With a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, Republicans have an opportunity to create a gerrymandered map. However, several leading Republicans claim they are committed to a bi-partisan map, which isn't sitting too well with some, including myself. 10 years ago, Democrats gave us a terrible map to work with on the state level, and they completely ignored geographic similarities when creating the US House Districts. As long as Republicans return things to normal, we're looking at 6-7 GOP seats. The best possibility for Democrats right now is 3 solid seats, with 2 toss-ups.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Ideas I would suggest :
SPLIT INDIANAPOLIS not in two but in four (destroy Carson's district)
Force Donnelly into a primary with Vislowsky (bye bye either one. Most likely Silent Joe)
Create a new district between Stutzman and Vislowsky centered around South Bend in the north and Kokomo in the South (New IN-2 Rep by Jackie Walorski)
Out of the Indy Split Pence, Burton, Rokita, and Young all rep part of Indy

So the delegation would look kinda like this

1.Safe Dem (Vislowsky)
2.Likely GOP (Walorski)
3.Safe GOP (Stutzman)
4.Safe GOP (Rokita)
5.Safe GOP (Burton)
6.Safe GOP (Pence)
7.Toss Up (Scott)
8.Lean GOP (Bucshon)
9.Likely GOP (Young)


Very dangerous and as has been pointed out before it would make IN at risk to be represented by 6 or 7 Dems in the right environment like in 1974 (which followed a similar redistricting plan in 1971).



But how could the GOP stick it to the Dems like they did us in 2000 when they eliminated the old tenth? This may be the best way.  Is there a better way?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2010, 09:48:04 pm »

If I were the GOP in Indiana, I'd focus all my efforts on getting rid of Donnelly and making IN-8 and IN-9 less problematic during Dem waves.  The former can be done pretty easily, the latter is probably impossible, to a certain extent, given Indiana's characteristic weirdness, but it certainly wouldn't hurt a try.  Playing to try and get rid of Carson and Visclosky is probably a recipe for trouble.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2010, 10:50:31 pm »

If I were the GOP in Indiana, I'd focus all my efforts on getting rid of Donnelly and making IN-8 and IN-9 less problematic during Dem waves.  The former can be done pretty easily, the latter is probably impossible, to a certain extent, given Indiana's characteristic weirdness, but it certainly wouldn't hurt a try.  Playing to try and get rid of Carson and Visclosky is probably a recipe for trouble.

I agree; there is a risk to a greedy map. A wave can then create a set of opposite party incumbents that can't be ousted in a later normal year despite the PVI. Given the sucess this year to get to 6-3 I think anything more than a 7-2 map is overreaching. The GOP is better served to lock in its gains for the decade especially in the south. Making one Dem district in play in the north is then a reasonable move on their part.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,799
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2010, 11:37:35 pm »

Yes, Indiana swings too much for ambitious gerrymandering to be worthwhile. Though wrt IN-9, removing Monroe county ought to solidify the district in all but a catastrophic year.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2010, 12:29:06 am »

So my plan to get rid of silent Joe is ok. Kinda like this.... The Dems gerrymander Kokomo. So we undo that and gerrymander Granger into the first. Solidify the new 2nd as a safe GOP seat for Jackie Walorski  and leave it at that.

Sorry you folks don't share my sentiment of knocking 2 Democrats out. But those two are bad representatives and must be reapportioned out of office post haste.

We don't swing that badly. Except 2008 we have been solidly GOP since the 1960's

I'm leaving  Visclosky in a better spot. My targets are Carson and silent Joe and I think you can knock both out without getting greedy.
Logged
JoeyJoeJoe
Full Member
***
Posts: 195
Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2010, 05:43:58 pm »

In 1981, Republicans passed a tough gerrymander to undo the Dems 6-5 advantage.  They eliminated the old 2nd, made the current 5th much more Republican by moving it out of Indy, strengethened the 8th, and made the current 6th more GOP to go after the Dem incumbent (Phil Sharp).  Under those lines, Dem held 7 of 9 seats after 1990, having captured the current 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th during the decade while holding the current 6th and 9th.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2010, 04:32:09 pm »

Here's a map I did of Indiana.



The Indianapolis district is pretty much the same as it was last time. The blue district takes in South Bend. The other seven districts are intended to be fairly Republican (i.e. around 53-55% for McCain). I split Bloomington between the 8th and 9th districts, and ran both of them up to the uber-Republican Indy suburbs. Aside from the 8th, the map even looks fairly decent.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2011, 10:54:11 am »

Yes, taking rural areas that bounce around some, and appending them to reliable GOP suburban and exurban areas is a very good strategy. And that is why Carson's CD needs to be left alone. All those Indianapolis suburbs and exurbs are needed to beef up the GOP districts. The trick as always is to pack as many Dems as possible into the Carson CD.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,179
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2011, 11:38:30 am »

With a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, Republicans have an opportunity to create a gerrymandered map. However, several leading Republicans claim they are committed to a bi-partisan map, which isn't sitting too well with some, including myself. 10 years ago, Democrats gave us a terrible map to work with on the state level, and they completely ignored geographic similarities when creating the US House Districts. As long as Republicans return things to normal, we're looking at 6-7 GOP seats. The best possibility for Democrats right now is 3 solid seats, with 2 toss-ups.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Ideas I would suggest :
SPLIT INDIANAPOLIS not in two but in four (destroy Carson's district)
Force Donnelly into a primary with Vislowsky (bye bye either one. Most likely Silent Joe)
Create a new district between Stutzman and Vislowsky centered around South Bend in the north and Kokomo in the South (New IN-2 Rep by Jackie Walorski)
Out of the Indy Split Pence, Burton, Rokita, and Young all rep part of Indy

So the delegation would look kinda like this

1.Safe Dem (Vislowsky)
2.Likely GOP (Walorski)
3.Safe GOP (Stutzman)
4.Safe GOP (Rokita)
5.Safe GOP (Burton)
6.Safe GOP (Pence)
7.Toss Up (Scott)
8.Lean GOP (Bucshon)
9.Likely GOP (Young)


Very dangerous and as has been pointed out before it would make IN at risk to be represented by 6 or 7 Dems in the right environment like in 1974 (which followed a similar redistricting plan in 1971).



But how could the GOP stick it to the Dems like they did us in 2000 when they eliminated the old tenth? This may be the best way.  Is there a better way?

Create a safe 7-2 GOP map. Between Gary in the north and Indianapolis, It would be very foolish not to create two packed Dem seats. Whatever is Dem and can't be packed into the first or seventh should be peeled like a banana with the most Dem pieces being placed in districts with uber Republican Indy suburbs and exurbs to neutralize them. Similar to what JL did. Going 10 years with a 7-2 delegation, "sticks it to them" in my book. Also, whatever happened in 2000, would hardly count as being "screwed". CA 1981 and TX 2003 is getting screwed. The really ambitious ILL plans that kill 4 or 5 Republicans this time around is getting screwed. Its pretty hard to argue that you guys got screwed when the map produced a 6-3 delegation in 2002, 7-2 in 2004 and 6-3 again (almost 7-2) in 2010. Thats 3/5 elections this past decade. And when you consider that the GOP won 6/10 seats in 2000 and 6/9 in 2002, at face value you would think the Republicans had been in charge. Wink
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC