US House Redistricting: New York

[Mr.Phips]

Instead you get the new upgraded 2010 earmuffs that goes to from Rochester to Syracuse. Obama 67% or so.

Why would Democrats agree to that? In 2002, you had the excuse of a Republican governor and the influence of the White House, and the district being eliminated downstate was Republican. This time, the Democrats have a stronger hand everywhere and are going to lose a seat downstate. I don't see why they'd agree to a Pennsymander-type Democratic district upstate.

Exactly.  If Democrats are going to have a downstate district eliminated, they are going to want a Republican district eliminated upstate and a better district for Owens(possibly going into Syracuse). 

[Mr.Phips]

I thought the consensus was that 26 was getting eliminated regardless of who won, but that a Hochul win made the actual act more painful?

Democrats in the Assembly and Cuomo would never allow two Democratic seats to be eliminated, especially considering what is likely to happen to Democrats in other states. 

[Mr.Phips]

NYC glory.





Fuschia: Long Island district for King. 49.8% McCain

Red: Long Island/Queens district for some Democrat. 56.9% Obama

Slate Green: Queens/Long Island district for Meeks. 51.0% black, 85.2% Obama

Grey: Brooklyn/Queens district for some Jewish Republican. 54.5% McCain

Peach: Staten Island/Brooklyn district for Grimm: 50.0% McCain

Pink: Brooklyn district for Towns: 50.3% Black, 90.2% Obama

Pale green: Brooklyn district for Clarke: 50.7% black, 92.0% Obama

Purple: Manhattan district for Nadler: 82.2% Obama

Cyan: Manhattan district for Maloney: 88.5% Obama

Orange: Bronx/Manhattan district for Serrano: 61.8% Hispanic, 90.2% Obama

Sky Blue: Queens/Brooklyn district for Velazquez: 52.8% Hispanic, 83.2% Obama

Yellow: Queens district for Crowley. 71.9% Obama

Puke: Bronx district for some Hispanic Democrat. 48.3% Hispanic, 89.5% Obama

Bright Green: Westchester/Queens leftovers for Engel.




No Rangel, no Weiner. 6 districts don't cross borough lines at all. New Hispanic district.

Why would Democrats ever agree to a map that gives Republicans another seat in New York City?

[Mr.Phips]

Well, if Turner bags Weprin, and assuming the Pubbies are willing to push NY-03 into the lean GOP column from reasonably safe, and make that worthless creature and one-time IRA symp Peter King work harder, if I were the NY Pubbies, I would drive a hard bargain with the Dems. The map below was drawn without my ever looking at partisan numbers until it was finished. It is the map that I think a court might well draw. Given the VRA, it sort of draws itself, with NY-12 and NY-09 becoming filler CD's stuck between the minority CD's. NY-04 disappears; good bye Carolyn McCarthy, the lady who jump started her career running against guns, and has had an undistinguished career ever since.

The Dem margin in NY-12 collapses (but still safe Dem), Ackerman in NY-05 now has a lean Dem CD, and will have to really sweat to hold on to it, or become more moderate, and yes, NY-09 becomes a reasonably safe GOP district. As a lagniappe for the Pubbies, NY-02 changes from lean Dem to a true toss up CD. Crowley (NY-07) and Velazquez (NY-12) will need to swap CD's.  I did everything possible to get NY-06 to 50% black VAP, but after doing everything, the best I could do was 49.7% black VAP, so that should hold up. There are no more blacks in the neighborhood.
 
It is all a really beautiful thing really. On a really good day, the Pubbies could have a six pack representing Long Island and NYC.  Imagine that!  Sure if the courts draw the lines, the Pubbies will lose 1 or 2 CD's upstate (but Hinckley [Hinchey] with his ludicrous CD which was gerrymandered for him might be in serious trouble as well), but it all seems well worth it to me.

The bottom line is that the VRA really F's - and F's bad, the Dems in the Big Apple metro area; that and the geography of the territory, which limits were CD's can go, without looking ridiculous. I didn't even look at the old map. It was and is just an erose mess and deserves to be thrown into the garbage, never to be seen again.

It is interesting that Charlie Rangel's CD (NY-15) will end up being only about 25% black. It won't be any higher, because they are no blacks nearby (or otherwise available) for that CD to reach out and pick up. Rather the CD needs to pick up more of the white upper west side. Meanwhile Harlem itself is steadily bleaching towards white.  The real estate is just too valuable.

Why would Democrats ever accept a map like this?

[Mr.Phips]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive!

It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence.  I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise.

I think you m ean NY-26, not NY-29.  NY-26 was a gerrymander to help Tom Reynolds hold the seat and vote like a Southern conservative.  Any reasonable court drawn map would confine that district to Buffalo.  A court drawn map would also likely end the career of Michael Grimm and possibly Richard Hanna and Nan Hayworth if those districts pick up parts of NY-22. 

[Mr.Phips]

You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state.

I did that (NY-26 took the black neighborhoods mostly in Buffalo), but the problem is that it dilutes the other Buffalo CD down too much, so NY-27 needs to make up for the lost Dems by going to Ithaca. Both CD's are about 57% Obama, and NY-26 is 52.5% average Dem based on some formula, and NY-27 is 54.5% average Dem.  Actually Buffalo can be fairly volatile, so anything less than these figures means the CD's are not safe Dem. As they are, they are only weak safe Dem.

At 57% Obama, they would be safe Dem.  Higgins won 61% in 54% Obama NY-27 in 2010, which was the worst year for Democrats since 1894.  57% Obama would make them safe districts. 

[Mr.Phips]

Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though?

A compromise map saves Turner, and loses a GOP seat upstate. I consider the Hochul seat a GOP seat, even though a Dem sits in it at the moment. In a compromise map, the whole state is gerrymandered actually. And the existing map is a compromise map, which both parties signed off on. A court is unlikely to give Hochul anything much better than she has now in any event. A court would likely make the Syracuse seat a Dem seat, and flush the Hinchey seat, and the rest of the upstate CD's from a partisan standpoint would not change much, except that the Buffalo seat would get much more Dem, since it was drawn to help out the Pub Quinn, now long gone, and the Rochester seat much more Pub, almost to the point where Slaughter might have some trouble, who has zero cross over appeal, and is basically an embarrassment.

Chopping up Hinchey's seat would make NY-24 and NY-19 more Dem and would probably cause Hanna and Hayworth to lose as they just barely won in a GOP wave year. 

Slaughter represented a strongly GOP district from 1987 to 1991 that split Rochester and connected it with some heavily Republican rural counties.  She will be fine in a 59% Obama district. 

[Mr.Phips]

I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically.

With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul.

Yes, that is the natural thing to do, and what I think a court would do, but no, it won't help Hochul much. In my "court drawn" map above, the partisan make-up of Hochul's seat stays about the same (51.7% McCain, 50 basis points more Dem than it is now). The earmuffs gerrymander is almost strictly a Buffalo v Rochester CD affair, involving just those two CD's. Hochul's CD just takes up the land bridge between the muffs is all along the lake, which is GOP territory. All the territory around Hochul's CD is GOP actually. If the Dems want to make it more Dem, they will have to pay for it. Nothing is for free. Or they can leave it alone, but then the odds are two incumbents will go down, one Pub (Buerkle), and Hochul, with Owens always kind of vulnerable, and the former Hinchey CD marginal, along with the CD running from Albany down to Dutchess County, now held by a Pub. Presumably in a party deal map, the latter two CD's would cease to be marginal, with the Albany to Dutchess Pub getting a better CD, and the former Hinchey CD made more Dem.

Upstate NY is not a good place for the Dems, in part because the Buffalo CD gets a lot more Dem right out of the box, sucking up Dems there, and in part because Slaughter is so weak, and in part because the Hinchey CD is so ridiculous.

Hinchey's district is not "marginal".  Obama got 59% there and even John Kerry got 54% there.  Hinchey only got 53% in 2010 because it was an epic GOP wave year and there was very low Democratic turnout and independents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes. 

NY-22 doesnt need to be made any more Dem. 

[Mr.Phips]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that?  

Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map.


Dean Skelos is calling their bluff.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html

New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week.
   
Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan.

Which districts?  If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

Look at it this way - a reasonably competent incumbent, particularly in NY, garners you about a 3% to 5% tailwind over the partisan PVI baseline. Israel is reasonably competent, but too liberal, and in particular too high profile out front partisan,  for his new CD. McCarthy I don't consider reasonably competent. Is Gibson reasonably competent? And Slaughter isn't reasonably competent at all.

Gibson was basically a wave wash in who has almost no crossover appeal.  He would very likely lose in the new district. 

[Mr.Phips]

We seem to be missing the point.  The smart members of the state GOP (i.e. the State Senate and its Congressmen) are looking towards two things only:

1) shoring up incumbents insofar as they can be shored up (and they will compare to prior congressional incumbents and State Senate incumbents in Long Island and upstate NY in that regard, which is the correct, though as you can imagine, risky, measure, but considering they've had great success in the past 25 years amidst really bad, and continually worsening returns upballot, it's the correct model).

2) getting as many potentially competitive seats as possible using the above congressional incumbent/State Senate incumbent measure that are either competitive now or certainly could be under circumstances (i.e. retirement, wave).  Let's break this down...

Given Republican exploits in the past decade, that means a CD of D+3 PVI or less, I suspect, though it might be extended to D+5 in upstate, but to be cautious, let's say the former.  In the 2000 map, the number of those seats is 10 out of 29, of which Republicans hold 9.  If we extend it to D+5, we add 3 more (Higgins, Turner and Israel), of which Republicans now hold 1. 

I would need to get exact numbers to calculate PVI for the proposed court map, but it is almost certain that NY-1 through NY-3 are D+3 PVI or less (NY-1 and NY-2 will both be about R+1, NY-3 about D+0 or D+1), and it is likely that NY-4 is D+3, maybe D+4, but my suspicion is the former.  Sure King is a good bit less safe, and could be in trouble if a wave hit, but let's remember he did get 56% in 2006 and 64% in 2008.  Obviously, it becomes a greater problem if he retires, but that's the tradeoff.  The State GOP will likely view all four as potentially competitive under the above standard.

NY-9 is dead.  NY-11 remains about R+4, maybe R+5.  NY-17 (Lowey) is probably pushed down to D+6, but it might be D+5.  The State GOP may view this as competitive is vacant, but let's say for theoretical purposes they don't.  I'm almost certain that NY-18 (Hayworth) has a GOP PVI (probably R+1), but NY-19 (Gibson) is probably right at even, not going to make guesses there.  At any rate, these are two more competitive CDs.  NY-20 (Tonko) should stay at D+6.  NY-21 (Owens) did not get any help, and will be at R+1, I'm almost certain.  That's another four competitive seats for the NY GOP.

Continuing further, Hanna really gets favorable treatment in NY-22 - his CD is probably R+3 now or R+4.  To benefit Hanna, Reed in NY-23 is probably now about R+3 also.  Buerkle in NY-24 looks roughly the same as before, but may lose a point to D+4.  The NY GOP is likely to consider that potentially competitive, given Republican strength in years past - I tend to agree with those who say that this view is probably right, just not with Buerkle.  Slaughter is complaining in NY-25 because she's going to get a D+6 or D+7 district.  I don't see how this one is going to be viewed as competitive by the NY GOP, but obviously she's concerned about something (whether real or imagined).  NY-26 (Higgins) becomes safe, and NY-27 (Hochul) is probably about R+8 or so in an area that typically acts more Republican than that downballot.  Good luck to her.  So, four more seats for the state GOP to view as potentially competitive.

So, we have 12 seats that the state GOP is going to view as potentially competitive under possibly my measure (D+3) vs. 10 seats in the 2000 map (D+3).  Even if I'm wrong about NY-4 and NY-24, such that they're outside the D+3 measure, that's still 10 vs. 10.  Going with the broader measure of D+5, it is certainly 12 vs. 13, which again means that the GOP didn't really lose anything.  Going further than that, the 2000 map had 3 D+6 seats, whereas this map also has three seats that will probably be such.

Given this evaluation, why would the smart people in the GOP ever voice any opposition to what the Court is doing, other than to ask for a little help for Gibson and King's districts?  Sure, they'd like to play games to constitute a Turner/NY Jew district, but they don't hold all the cards, obviously...

NY-20(Tonko) is not a competitive seat.  No Republican is ever going to win a seat where half of the votes come from Albany county. 

[Mr.Phips]

The Senate wouldn't have proposed this map if they didn't think it secured things stronger (exactly how much that is in reality, who knows)

In Long Island, the tipping point seats will have Dem PVIs, probably D+3 to D+5, but I don't know exactly.  Truthfully, I suspect most (if not all) of the seats would be marginal in a national environment, after all Long Island as a whole is about D+1, D+2.  I need to really break down the changes in the SDs to see what happened to SDs 3, 5, 6 and 7, as these were the problem/close seats in 2006/2008.  The GOP controls it all - so all they can go is down, anyways.

In NYC, Lanza is a GOP PVI seat, the NY Jew seat is certainly one, though historically Dem down the ballot (but that is probably changing too).  Golden's seat certainly got more Republican areas, so it may have gotten back to a GOP PVI (I know it wasn't before), but I don't know for sure.  At any rate, Golden will never be beaten so long as he's on the ballot, so who cares. 

As you are aware, the GOP lost their last historical seat in Queens in the last election, but I don't know whether any of the games that I'm seeing would have any effect in the Queens seats that are most favorable to the GOP.  I suspect not, as I think that ship has sailed.  The Republicans aren't packed like they are in Brooklyn.

All in all, I really can only see the GOP, at best, getting one seat from this map in NYC and Long Island.  (presently 24-11 (techically 23-11-1), with 2 "independent" Dems) Upstate is 21-6, so I have to see what seats have actually been made more problematic.  Upstate will be later, and I'll give a little more of a close look.

SD-37 was gerrymandered to give Republicans their best shot at winning a Westchester seat.  With the Republican incumbents in SD-34 and 35 long gone, the more Republican-leaning areas of those districts, Eastchester and Eastern Yonkers, were added to SD-37, while Democratic-leaning Scarsdale and parts of White Plains and New Rochelle were put into SD-35.   SD-37 also added Republican-leaning Bedford and lost Ossining and New Castle in the northern part of the county.  The SD-37 incumbent Democrat is retiring after almost losing under the more Dem-favorable old lines last cycle, so the Senate must think the district will be competitive if not lean Republican.

Oppenheimer almost lost in 2010 because independents were more Republican than they will ever be for another 40 years and Democratic turnout fell through the floor.  The only way Republicans will pick up that seat in 2012 is if the Obama percentage is moved down to the low 50's. 

Upstate, there are only three Democratic held districts and they will probably need to be packed further to help out Republican incumbents in surrounding areas.  I wonder what they did to help Greg Ball just north of Westchester, who only won 51%-49% in the best Republican year in many generations. 

[Mr.Phips]

Oppenheimer almost lost in 2010 because independents were more Republican than they will ever be for another 40 years and Democratic turnout fell through the floor.  The only way Republicans will pick up that seat in 2012 is if the Obama percentage is moved down to the low 50's. 

Upstate, there are only three Democratic held districts and they will probably need to be packed further to help out Republican incumbents in surrounding areas.  I wonder what they did to help Greg Ball just north of Westchester, who only won 51%-49% in the best Republican year in many generations. 

Given that Westchester state senate districts have been held by Republicans in the past decade, I seriously doubt that independents were more Republican in 2010 than they will ever be for 40 years.  They were even more Republican in prior years when Republicans won and can be more Republican in the future. 

Coattails are overrated.  Republicans hold plenty of Long Island State Senate seats where Obama was in the mid-50s.  A Republican could win SD-37 under similar circumstances.

Ball was given the other Republican-friendly town in old SD-35, Mount Pleasant.  It is one of the most Republican-leaning towns in the county.  But he lost about half of Putnam County, so that may just offset what was lost instead of shore him up.  Without the need to shore up a Republican incumbent, SD-35 is now a Democratic vote sink in the southern and central parts of Westchester.

Republicans held those Long-Island seats as LONG TIME INCUMBENTS.  The Westchester districts were held by Republicans in the past, just like Democrats held many districts in Alabama and Tennessee in the past. 

The only way Republicans win the new SD-37 in 2012 is if they somehow get the Obama percentage down to 53% or below.  There is no popular long time incumbent running there like on Long Island. 

I also would like to see what happened to SD-07, where Craig Johnson barely lost in 2010.   He would be very stupid not to run again unless the district is somehow made much more Republican. 

[Mr.Phips]

Republicans held those Long-Island seats as LONG TIME INCUMBENTS.  The Westchester districts were held by Republicans in the past, just like Democrats held many districts in Alabama and Tennessee in the past.

Westchester County is not Alabama or Tennessee.  The county executive is a Republican and Republicans picked up county board seats last cycle.  Part of the county has a Republican congresswoman.  If anything, the county is trending Republican after trending Democratic during the Bush years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It will be a totally open seat with no incumbent at all that voted 50-50 in the 2010 legislative elections.  And coattails are overrated.   Republicans won back the state Senate last cycle despite having a dreadful gubernatorial candidate at the top of the ticket.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a ton.  It's hard to tell exactly what happened because Long Island doesn't have many towns and the maps don't show villages, but it looks like SD-07 took in a little bit more of Hicksville in exchange for losing part of Elmont.  That's about it.  I'd be surprised if its partisan makeup moved more than a point.

The county executive is Republican elected in the Republican heavy 2009-2010 cycle where Democratic turnout fell through the floor and indepndents were heavily Republican.  

Republicans won back the state Senate in 2010 because Cuomo refused to help downballot Democrats and the Republican candidtate was so much of a joke that there was no real campaign to drive turnout on the Democratic side.  50-50 in 2010 is really like 55-45 Dem in a normal cycle.  Republicans did about five points better than normal across the board in 2010.

Democrats were asleep in 2009 and 2010.  They wont be in 2012 or 2014 thanks to the orange Speaker. 

[Mr.Phips]

Ok, I was wrong in thinking that restoring Slaughter's district to Monroe only was painless for Dems. Too many Dems disagree.

But why are they that worried. With a D+6 the district looks secure on paper. If the problem is Slaughter, then that's an internal issue for the Dems.

The "internal problem" is that Slaughter is refusing to retire. I suspect that she can be bagged given the Pubs have such a strong candidate, and it should be a good Pub year.  The problem is then trying to hold it when the Dems come up with a much better opponent. It will be a tough call given that how much money the RNC and the PACS and so forth want to spend on this race given that it seems to me. Maybe if Buerkle goes down with Slaughter (quite possible), in an ensuing bi-partisan gerrymander after the election (I would not count that out depending on what happens), the two CD's can then do a precinct exchange - just in the reverse direction of what might have happened if a bi-partisan gerrymander were done this year.

The Dems probably will demand in such a deal that Israel and Lowey be shored up as part of such a deal however, assuming they both get re-elected (which of course is highly probable with Lowey, but somewhat less probable with Israel, depending on how good an opponent he gets, and how much money is dumped into the race). What happens in NY-01 might be part of the mix too.

Ah the wheels within wheels.

A good Republican year?  If Obama wins, I doubt it will be a good Republican year. 

[Mr.Phips]

A good Republican year?  If Obama wins, I doubt it will be a good Republican year. 

Yeah... I'm assuming either evenly balanced or slightly Dem year, which means some Republican losses but continued control of the House.

Im expecting the House to be around 225-210. 

[Mr.Phips]

I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman.

People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings

I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race!

Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally.

Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year.

Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010.  With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. 

[Mr.Phips]

I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman.

People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings

I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race!

Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally.

Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year.

Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010.  With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. 

If Obama is reelected, and the economy weakens again, we could see a result similiar to 1958 in the Senate.

The yield curve is saying that the economy is going to be pretty strong until at least 2015.  Plus, Demcorats will have an unpopular, obstructionist Congress to run against in 2014, which Republicans didnt have in 1958.  Republicans are NOT picking up 13 seats in the Senate.  The most is maybe 6-7.