Which members are likely to loose their seats due to reapportionment?

[Brittain33]

Democrats have held PA-05 before. 

From what I can tell, not since one term in the mid-70s when it was PA-23. PA-5 used to designate a Philly district, FWIW.

I do remember PA-9 being competitive in the special election to replace Bud Shuster before 9/11 goosed all the Republicans' numbers.

[Torie]

PA-13 needs to become a Dem sink Flyers. A lot of Dems need to be shoved into three CD's in the Philly zone, not two. If done right, the Dems could be held to those three CD's plus one for Pittsburgh, with the Holden and Altmire CD's basically Pubbie (I think they are both about 55% Bush 2004 (actually in checking, Altmire was 55% Bush, and Holden in PA-17 was 58% Bush (wow), and should stay about at those percentages - with Holden maybe even shaved down a bit, if some of his Pubbies are really needed elsewhere), even if they continue to be held by Tory Dems. The Pubbies would be wise not to try too hard to get rid of Altmire and Holden, since that would just waste too many Pubbie votes that are needed elsewhere to prop up the horde of Pubbies that were elected in 2010 in PA. Altmire and Holden both are pretty house broken when it comes to voting with the Pubs on key votes, so why sweat it?  We are focused more on policy aren't we?

Granted, other than drawing an octopus for the Pittsburgh district, just for my entertainment, I have not drawn PA yet. I guess maybe that should be my next state.

[Napoleon]

Mary Bono Mack and Dan Lungren are in trouble in California, even with the nonpartisan redistricting commission. If they move some Democrats from the 23rd into Gallegly's district, he could also be in serious trouble. Capps' 23rd is a hideously drawn coastal gerrymander and Santa Barbara belongs with the rest of Santa Barbara and Vetura counties.

Lungren likely won't survive but I think the rest of California's delegation will remain.

As for reapportionment, the Republicans in Pennsylvania will get rid of Altmire and pack the 13th with Democrats with certainty.

[Keystone Phil]

Pennsylvania is apparently going to be more interesting than just getting rid of Critz. Not sure if the rumored plan is for real though.

Doing more than just getting rid of Critz in PA-12 would risk making a map where Democrats could pick up several more seats.  Republicans are already way overrepresented in the state now.  They have to protect PA-03, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08, and PA-11, and making PA-18 or PA-05 too Democratic could give Democrats an opportunity in those seats. 

Suggesting that the Dems would get PA 5 made your officially made your post laughable.

The rumored plan isn't risky at all. That was my point in following posts.

Democrats have held PA-05 before.  Its no more laughable than Republicans getting PA-13. 

The current PA 5 hasn't had a Democratic Congressman.

Democrats have held PA-05 before. 

From what I can tell, not since one term in the mid-70s when it was PA-23. PA-5 used to designate a Philly district, FWIW.

I do remember PA-9 being competitive in the special election to replace Bud Shuster before 9/11 goosed all the Republicans' numbers.

The Dems were running a strong candidate - current State Representative and 2010 Lt. Gubernatorial nominee Scott Conklin - so that explains that. Ever since then, Shuster, Jr. has coasted with the exception of the 2004 primary which he almost lost.

  Although Phil personally, do you really want to give up on a shot at taking the 13th?  I'll say it's an uphill battle, but for a while I was a bit nervous and called it a sleeper in this past election.

It's possible to take it but I'd still personally prefer to be in the 8th and not care about the 13th.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure we can lose the 7th in a wave year but not the 16th. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bingo

[Keystone Phil]

As for reapportionment, the Republicans in Pennsylvania will get rid of Altmire and pack the 13th with Democrats with certainty.

You know for certain? Who are you?    Give me your idea for how Altmire is going to get axed and I'll see if you're for real. 

[Mr.Phips]

Pennsylvania is apparently going to be more interesting than just getting rid of Critz. Not sure if the rumored plan is for real though.

Doing more than just getting rid of Critz in PA-12 would risk making a map where Democrats could pick up several more seats.  Republicans are already way overrepresented in the state now.  They have to protect PA-03, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08, and PA-11, and making PA-18 or PA-05 too Democratic could give Democrats an opportunity in those seats. 

Suggesting that the Dems would get PA 5 made your officially made your post laughable.

The rumored plan isn't risky at all. That was my point in following posts.

Democrats have held PA-05 before.  Its no more laughable than Republicans getting PA-13. 

The current PA 5 hasn't had a Democratic Congressman.

It did from 1976 to 1978. 

[Keystone Phil]

Pennsylvania is apparently going to be more interesting than just getting rid of Critz. Not sure if the rumored plan is for real though.

Doing more than just getting rid of Critz in PA-12 would risk making a map where Democrats could pick up several more seats.  Republicans are already way overrepresented in the state now.  They have to protect PA-03, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08, and PA-11, and making PA-18 or PA-05 too Democratic could give Democrats an opportunity in those seats. 

Suggesting that the Dems would get PA 5 made your officially made your post laughable.

The rumored plan isn't risky at all. That was my point in following posts.

Democrats have held PA-05 before.  Its no more laughable than Republicans getting PA-13. 

The current PA 5 hasn't had a Democratic Congressman.

It did from 1976 to 1978. 

And the Northeast Philadelphia part of the current PA 13 had a Republican Congressman (the legendary Charlie Dougherty) from 1979 to 1983. That means nothing now.

[Napoleon]

As for reapportionment, the Republicans in Pennsylvania will get rid of Altmire and pack the 13th with Democrats with certainty.

You know for certain? Who are you?    Give me your idea for how Altmire is going to get axed and I'll see if you're for real. 

It's already an R+6 district like the 18th but Murphy can win in an R+3 or R+4 district quite comfortably. Altmire only won because Hart was too insane for even her conservative constituents and his 2010 challenger was very weak. A few more Repblicans from the rural Sothwest will put Altmire in a very tough spot and the last thing PA Repblicans want is a moderate Democrat that  could become a potential statewide player in the near future. He will be a top target.

The tricky part is PA districting laws, not sure how mch that can complicate things though. Republicans have a lot of room here to do as they please as the western half of the state becomes increasingly Republican.

[nclib]

The PA-GOP needs to keep in mind that five CD's currently GOP went for Kerry. Also PA-16 has swung strongly Democratic, and while Pitts wouldn't lose it under the current lines, with a bit more Dems it could become vulnerable. Dems could pick up several seats with retirements, waves, or even without that, under an aggressive GOP gerrymander.

[Keystone Phil]

Altmire only won because Hart was too insane for even her conservative constituents and his 2010 challenger was very weak.

I'm assuming you're saying she was too conservative. She wasn't. She just didn't take Altmire seriously until it was way too late in a bad year for us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know he's a top target, dude, but that's not exactly the plan. It's more than just throwing in more Republican areas.

The PA-GOP needs to keep in mind that five CD's currently GOP went for Kerry.

Ok, can we realize that there comes a time when that's not relevant anymore?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. Likely? No.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves or becoming complete failures once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

[Lunar]

Agree with Phil re: "too conservative."  Harris didn't lose in Maryland or Sali in Idaho in '08 because they were too conservative, but rather because they ran bad campaigns (or campaigns with bad branding) in a bad year.

[Keystone Phil]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

[Napoleon]

They chose to closely associate with unpopular conservative policies (making it a more prominent part of their public image) and I think Sali is an even better example than Hart of this.

Harris lost in an open seat, that is a bit different.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

What you say may be true, but Santorum was also re-elected comfortably against a moderate challenger in 2000 when many Republicans were defeated in blue states (Gordon, Roth, Abraham, Grams). Santorum, like Hart, simply let too much of his inner firebrand out. Probably just a result of getting too comfortable. How else do explain losing in an R+6 district? The Republicans failed to pick up any D+6 or greater districts while gaining over 60 seats in 2010. It's more than you're admitting.

[Keystone Phil]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

What you say may be true, but Santorum was also re-elected comfortably against a moderate challenger in 2000 when many Republicans were defeated in blue states (Gordon, Roth, Abraham, Grams). Santorum, like Hart, simply let too much of his inner firebrand out. Probably just a result of getting too comfortable. How else do explain losing in an R+6 district? The Republicans failed to pick up any D+6 or greater districts while gaining over 60 seats in 2010. It's more than you're admitting.

I understand your point with Santorum. Hart's ratings were fine though and she certainly wasn't as well known for being a "firebrand." The district wasn't R+6 in 2006. In fact, I'm 90% sure that the Dems still hold a registration advantage there.

[Napoleon]

I didn't use insane as a malphemism for conservative. It was her staunch conservative attitude and Santorum closeness, not her ideology or voting record. Well, the Democratic wave was the main contributor but she lost to Altmire (a nobody at the time) because her own public image missteps made her more vulnerable. I don't know how conservative pro-life women manage to end up making caricatures of themselves once elected, but it seems to be a consistent type of thing.

Hart has always been personally popular there. Her closeness to Santorum and "staunch conservative attitude" were well known before 2006 and she was always fine. Altmire ran a great campaign in a tremendous year for Pennsylvania Democrats and Hart didn't take it seriously until literally the final week after the party pleaded with her to wake up.

What you say may be true, but Santorum was also re-elected comfortably against a moderate challenger in 2000 when many Republicans were defeated in blue states (Gordon, Roth, Abraham, Grams). Santorum, like Hart, simply let too much of his inner firebrand out. Probably just a result of getting too comfortable. How else do explain losing in an R+6 district? The Republicans failed to pick up any D+6 or greater districts while gaining over 60 seats in 2010. It's more than you're admitting.

I understand your point with Santorum. Hart's ratings were fine though and she certainly wasn't as well known for being a "firebrand." The district wasn't R+6 in 2006. In fact, I'm 90% sure that the Dems still hold a registration advantage there.

It's possible, but registration in Pennsylvania is and has been in transition. It's my favorite thing about Pennsylvanian politics. The liberal Republicans and Democrats in the east and the conservative Republicans and Democrats in the west and how they've slowly been shifting but sometimes seem to revert back to form.

Firebrand may have been a bit hyperbolic. But she certainly had no moderate tendencies to fall back on. To play on my earlier point, more in-touch politicians like Gerlach were able to hold a more Democratic seat mostly due to image. I have no doubt that PA-4 is a conservative district that will elect conservative Republicans, but Hart was 100% conservative instead of 95%. And now that Altmire is in there, might as well get some more Republicans in the district to vote against him if you're a Republican legislator who has the power to. Which they most likely will, because the votes are there to do it.

[Keystone Phil]

Firebrand may have been a bit hyperbolic. But she certainly had no moderate tendencies to fall back on. To play on my earlier point, more in-touch politicians like Gerlach were able to hold a more Democratic seat mostly due to image. I have no doubt that PA-4 is a conservative district that will elect conservative Republicans, but Hart was 100% conservative instead of 95%.

And I'm just saying it wasn't a problem for her in 2006 or before that.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rumored plan is more than that. Altmire will have other problems if this plan is the real deal. Think beyond the district being "more Republican." There's a step before that. 

[Napoleon]

Short of drawing Altmire into Doyle's district I'm not sure what you are getting at. Abolishing the district would be akin to making it more Republican, as the populations involved have more to do with the district than some little number. Besides, it would be far easier to have Critz's PA-12 disappeared (and more beneficial to the party assuming power).

[Keystone Phil]

Short of drawing Altmire into Doyle's district I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Oh, just ignore my whistling...

[Landslide Lyndon]

Short of drawing Altmire into Doyle's district I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Oh, just ignore my whistling...

Stop impersonating Sam Spade and spit it out.

[Keystone Phil]

Short of drawing Altmire into Doyle's district I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Oh, just ignore my whistling...

Stop impersonating Sam Spade and spit it out.

If it isn't obvious by now...

[Torie]

I guess Phil is implying that Altmire's CD will be chopped up into pieces, with the pieces appended to other CD's with entrenched Pubbie incumbents. I have not done a map yet, so I don't know if that is what the lay of land suggests needs to happen to make it all come together for them.

Phil you are a very bad boy for doing a Spade imitation. One Spade is enough! 

[Keystone Phil]

I guess Phil is implying that Altmire's CD will be chopped up into pieces

...the answer was literally stated in a previous post.

[Sbane]

Granted, other than drawing an octopus for the Pittsburgh district, just for my entertainment, I have not drawn PA yet. I guess maybe that should be my next state.

I can assure you that 5 dems are needed in PA. I even gave Holden a swing district, instead of a lean R district, just so I could make the Republicans safer. There were just too many Republicans elected in Obama districts in PA for there to be an easy solution for the GOP.