US House Redistricting: Arizona
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:48:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Arizona
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Arizona  (Read 69069 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: October 02, 2011, 10:32:32 AM »
« edited: October 02, 2011, 10:37:28 AM by sbane »

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base. In California the problem is that you basically have a Republican gerrymander right now. It wasn't like that in 2000, but it is now due to changes in the state. You cannot expect something like that again.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that? Tongue

As for competitiveness in AZ, it ranges from about a 4 point Mccain lead to a 4 point Obama lead. The Tucson district is towards the dem side but it's still a swing district. The Phoenix district should probably be closer to a 2-4 point Mccain district. If Republicans can't win in those district then they DO NOT DESERVE to win congress. Don't expect any sympathy from me. And yes, I do understand the Orange district in the Phoenix area is about a 4 point Obama district. That should and probably will be changed.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: October 02, 2011, 10:34:56 AM »

These commissions aren't "non-partisan," they are a set of rules. Once you know the rules, the system can be gamed. The Democrats have taken seriously gaming the system, and the results show. It isn't an accident that the "non-partisan" commission chairwoman happens to have a husband that is active in the Democratic party, or firms with close ties the Democratic party happen to advise such commissions. Nor, is it an accident that key documents explain why the Democratic firms were chosen happen to have disappeared.

In California, the rules appear to be that a winnowing process picks randomly chooses  five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents. A "non-partisan" map was suppose to emerge because it was acceptable to the majority of all three blocks.  In reality,  redistricting in California was controlled by the folks whom performed, and scored, the interviews for the commissioners. They abused their positions to score liberally highly, conservatively poorly, and, as a result, picked a commission that was a mix of liberal Democrats, liberal independents, and liberal "Republicans."

I'm not sure of mechanics of the Arizona system, so I don't know how they gamed the system. But, the fact that the wife of a Democratic party activist was seated to lead the commission proves that Democrats did in fact game the system.

The only thing that stopped the Democrats from completely screwing the Republicans in Arizona was the fact that Republicans exposed the scam before the maps were finalized. Even then, a map that just happens to throw to Republican Congressmen in the same district, weaken the Republican performance in swing districts, and create a new seat favorable to the Democrats was deemed to "suck" by the wife of a Democratic activist who wrote it. Imagine how badly Republicans would have been shafted in a map had no one been looking!

In Florida, the redistricting reform doesn't have anything to do with reforming redistricting. It is a deliberate attempt to impose so many conflicting standards so that redistricting will be decided by the courts.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: October 02, 2011, 10:36:57 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 10:39:10 AM by Torie »

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that? Tongue

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What do you think?  

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share. Smiley
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: October 02, 2011, 10:38:11 AM »

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that? Tongue

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What so you think? 

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share. Smiley

Not Romney. Tongue
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: October 02, 2011, 10:40:29 AM »

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that? Tongue

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What so you think? 

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share. Smiley

Not Romney. Tongue

That is just not a very "sharing" revelation sbane.  Sad
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: October 02, 2011, 10:51:17 AM »

I haven't a clue. Somehow Herman Cain is the flavor of the week, and now we hear that Christie might just jump in. In the end Romney might just come out ahead, but there is obviously a huge chunk of the Republican base that doesn't want to vote for him. I have a few theories why, but I won't "share" them.

As for Cali, that Long Beach to Garden Grove district is the worst offender you could say. But the Dems could fire back and say they made a Latino district in the central valley that a Dem can't win with their eyes closed so that is unfair and blah blah blah. I say the Republicans sack up, get serious, drop the sharia law/omgz learn english omgz/ and mandoglove BS.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: October 02, 2011, 10:57:01 AM »

Following the grid, respecting jurisdictional lines, compactness and communities of interest, as modified by the VRA. If without degrading the former, one can make CD's more competitive, then go for it. It's all right in the statute. The chairwoman characterizes both the Hispanic CD on the border and the Tucson CD's as competitive. The Hispanic CD clearly is not, except for the weak incumbent, and as I say, pending more data, I suspect the Tucson CD is lean Dem. Of course in 2012, both may fall to the Pubbies. I suspect the Dems are headed towards something worse than what they endured in 2010, particularly where blacks are thin on the ground.

Districts like the current AZ-1, AZ-5, and AZ-8 have by definition already proven to be competitive over the last decade. The Democrats in that map sought to move all 3 to the left and make them noncompetitive.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: October 02, 2011, 10:58:17 AM »

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.  Tongue In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: October 02, 2011, 11:06:36 AM »

Following the grid, respecting jurisdictional lines, compactness and communities of interest, as modified by the VRA. If without degrading the former, one can make CD's more competitive, then go for it. It's all right in the statute. The chairwoman characterizes both the Hispanic CD on the border and the Tucson CD's as competitive. The Hispanic CD clearly is not, except for the weak incumbent, and as I say, pending more data, I suspect the Tucson CD is lean Dem. Of course in 2012, both may fall to the Pubbies. I suspect the Dems are headed towards something worse than what they endured in 2010, particularly where blacks are thin on the ground.

Districts like the current AZ-1, AZ-5, and AZ-8 have by definition already proven to be competitive over the last decade. The Democrats in that map sought to move all 3 to the left and make them noncompetitive.

We will have to disagree about AZ-8, I think that's how it should be, but you are correct about AZ-5, and that map is pretty "creative" shall we say. I am not saying it should be a Republican district, but it shouldn't be a 51-47 Obama district either. A 2-4 point Mccain district seems in order. Not sure what's going on with AZ-1. I am sure the Dems tried to make it more Democratic, but is the map as drawn also highly Dem? Isn't most of the change due to the fact it picks up the Navajo and the Hopi (I think?) reservations instead of just one last time around? It doesn't pick up the portion of Sedona in Yavapai County, right?

Remember, one more Republican district is being created with this map, so it's natural that there will be some movement on the margins towards the Dems in the other districts. It should be more in the Tucson area, but very less in the Phoenix and outstate districts. The 4th and the 7th have about the same partisan makeup as last time around. Republicans might want to pack it more, but that won't fly. Sorry.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: October 02, 2011, 11:13:23 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 11:15:07 AM by Torie »

Nah, the game with AZ-01 was to excise Prescott and the Colorado River area where all those rednecks gamble, and buzz the river in their stinkpots while drunk. The Hopi make up about 3 precincts, and Native Americans as a whole maybe 30,000 voters or something. That CD was gamed to death, and the Flagstaff city council Dems got just what they wanted. They probably came in their pants. And then this fixation with 3 border CD's.  The game there was to excise from Tuscon that little county Cochise, in the SE corner - contrary to the grid as well as the balance of the statutory metrics. That tipped that CD.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2011, 11:17:53 AM »

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.  Tongue In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: October 02, 2011, 11:21:49 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 11:23:39 AM by sbane »

Nah, the game with AZ-01 was to excise Prescott and the Colorado River area where all those rednecks gamble, and buzz the river in their stinkpots while drunk. The Hopi make up about 3 precincts, and Native Americans as a whole maybe 30,000 voters or something. That CD was gamed to death, and the Flagstaff city council Dems got just what they wanted. They probably came in their pants. And then this fixation with 3 border CD's.  The game there was to excise from Tuscon that little county Cochise, in the SE corner - contrary to the grid as well as the balance of the statutory metrics. That tipped that CD.

What is this grid you keep talking about? Why should the Tucson district be put with Cochise? It doesn't pick up that much population in Santa Cruz County does it? Sure, that could have been sent into Cochise instead, but don't you dare try to crack Tucscon! Grijalva doesn't need white liberals in his district. Anyways, the reason why the Tucson district doesn't pick up Cochise is because it needed to lose population, no?

Ok, this is hilarious, the 8th only picks up 4,000 in Santa Cruz and about the same in Pinal. It should be exactly how it is!
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: October 02, 2011, 11:35:04 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 12:34:36 PM by Torie »

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (with a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: October 02, 2011, 11:39:24 AM »

Nah, the game with AZ-01 was to excise Prescott and the Colorado River area where all those rednecks gamble, and buzz the river in their stinkpots while drunk. The Hopi make up about 3 precincts, and Native Americans as a whole maybe 30,000 voters or something. That CD was gamed to death, and the Flagstaff city council Dems got just what they wanted. They probably came in their pants. And then this fixation with 3 border CD's.  The game there was to excise from Tuscon that little county Cochise, in the SE corner - contrary to the grid as well as the balance of the statutory metrics. That tipped that CD.

The 1st district is about 46% obama now, up from 44%, due to the swap of Cochise. Tolerable, I suppose. Same with AZ-8, as it takes special gerrymandering to flip that district. Neither are particularly unfair and Gosar should be ok in either. The growing areas in Pinal county are of course the GOP areas, although the district carefully avoids Apache Junction.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: October 02, 2011, 11:39:41 AM »

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.  Tongue In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.

Bear in mind that even in CA, 2010 was a lean GOP year. The Fiorina baseline has some GOP bias to it. Some of the map I don't understand, but I am not making any charges, because I would need to know what the alternatives were, that were rejected, and these commissions refuse to publish on their websites (in both CA and AZ), what the competing considerations were that caused them to make the decisions that they did. It overall is by no means a horrible map, and certainly better than a partisan gerry, or an incumbent protection plan.  Hopefully it will force the Pubbies to start getting real about what it takes to be competitive in CA. But I am not holding my breath.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: October 02, 2011, 11:43:02 AM »

Ok, so I looked up the grid maps and it seems like grid 1 was used. The Hispanic district shouldn't pick up liberal areas so that is what should be used for Pima county. But your point about the Cochise district then picking up Flagstaff is well taken. That wasn't in the grid. Maybe Flagstaff should have been put in the 2nd and Yavapai in the 1st haha. Still, I don't see how it's overly egregious. But I guess my eyes have been soiled by the maps being drawn in other parts of the country. Tongue
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: October 02, 2011, 11:46:59 AM »

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.  Tongue In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Really, past practise was to add an equal number of voters to both leading candidates, so a 1-0 precint became 5-4, etc., etc. That little tidbit was uncovered when reconciling the results in the Reid-Ensign race.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: October 02, 2011, 11:49:03 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 11:53:04 AM by Torie »

Which CD is AZ-08?  It is marked on the map, but I see no CD. I assume Tucson is AZ-02.  The Hispanic border CD is about 56-44 Obama or so, but missing about 55,000 voters in my map. We agree on the Tucson CD numbers, which can be quite precisely drawn. I just assume AZ-01 is pretty heavily Dem, but have not drawn it. It just has to be the way it is drawn it seems to me, but maybe I am missing something.

What this little exercise tells me, is just how hard it is to take politics out of drawing CD's, no matter how hard you try. My tentative point of view is that the courts do the best job. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to so provide!  Smiley
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: October 02, 2011, 11:49:37 AM »

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (which a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.

Dude, there aren't that many more Hispanics to pick up in Tucscon. There just isn't. Maybe a few precincts worth about 5-6,000 voters. And that would have to be balanced with what can be gotten in Phoenix. The VRA trumps the grid, you know that. And even in the best case scenario for Republicans the Tucson district remains an Obama district, though maybe by a few votes instead of a few points. As for the 1st, it hasn't gotten too much more Dem, even if that is what Flagstaff dem wanted. I don't see how you think that district could have a dem lean. You seem to think the partisan numbers are off by 15-20 points, instead of the 10 points it is from the actual partisan makeup. It's as if AZ isn't a GOP state at all. Maybe I've been transported into a parallel universe and didn't even know it. Tongue

Edit: The 1st is about 6 points Republican I think. Lean Republican district, yes, but not a swing district and definitely not a Dem district. And yes I was talking about the Tucson district, using the old numbers.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: October 02, 2011, 11:52:42 AM »

Which CD is AZ-08?  It is marked on the map, but I see no CD. I assume Tucson is AZ-02.  The Hispanic border CD is about 56-44 Obama or so, but missing about 55,000 voters in my map. We agree on the Tucson CD numbers, which can be quite precisely drawn. I just assume AZ-01 is pretty heavily Dem, but have not drawn it. It just has to be the way it is drawn it seems to me, but maybe I am missing something.

Pretty sure both of us are referring to the white Tucson district, ie, the successor to the current AZ-08 based on current numbering.

AZ-05 is whatever district has Tempe in it, which is about the only Dem area outside the Pastor district.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: October 02, 2011, 11:53:49 AM »

Which CD is AZ-08?  It is marked on the map, but I see no CD. I assume Tucson is AZ-02.  The Hispanic border CD is about 56-44 Obama or so, but missing about 55,000 voters in my map. We agree on the Tucson CD numbers, which can be quite precisely drawn. I just assume AZ-01 is pretty heavily Dem, but have not drawn it. It just has to be the way it is drawn it seems to me, but maybe I am missing something.

Pretty sure both of us are referring to the white Tucson district, ie, the successor to the current AZ-08 based on current numbering.

AZ-05 is whatever district has Tempe in it, which is about the only Dem area outside the Pastor district.

The white Tucson CD is 50.4-48.4 Obama.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: October 02, 2011, 11:54:26 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 11:58:03 AM by sbane »

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zeroTongue In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it! 

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.

Bear in mind that even in CA, 2010 was a lean GOP year. The Fiorina baseline has some GOP bias to it. Some of the map I don't understand, but I am not making any charges, because I would need to know what the alternatives were, that were rejected, and these commissions refuse to publish on their websites (in both CA and AZ), what the competing considerations were that caused them to make the decisions that they did. It overall is by no means a horrible map, and certainly better than a partisan gerry, or an incumbent protection plan.  Hopefully it will force the Pubbies to start getting real about what it takes to be competitive in CA. But I am not holding my breath.

That's why I think CA-47 is egregious, whereas CA-31 may or may not be. Remember they had to draw a VRA compliant Hispanic district in SBD as well. The only other option I would think was to cross county lines to pick up the Hispanic parts of Riverside and put it with San Bernardino. Which would have resulted in a convoluted rest of the IE map.

Then again, maybe drawing the Latino districts in LA county led to the drawing of CA-47. We can't be sure. I am trying to draw a fair assembly map right now and drawing the Latino districts is a bitch.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: October 02, 2011, 11:55:56 AM »

Arizona the beautiful:





7 to 2
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: October 02, 2011, 11:58:32 AM »

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (which a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.

Dude, there aren't that many more Hispanics to pick up in Tucscon. There just isn't. Maybe a few precincts worth about 5-6,000 voters. And that would have to be balanced with what can be gotten in Phoenix. The VRA trumps the grid, you know that. And even in the best case scenario for Republicans the Tucson district remains an Obama district, though maybe by a few votes instead of a few points. As for the 1st, it hasn't gotten too much more Dem, even if that is what Flagstaff dem wanted. I don't see how you think that district could have a dem lean. You seem to think the partisan numbers are off by 15-20 points, instead of the 10 points it is from the actual partisan makeup. It's as if AZ isn't a GOP state at all. Maybe I've been transported into a parallel universe and didn't even know it. Tongue

Edit: The 1st is about 6 points Republican I think. Lean Republican district, yes, but not a swing district and definitely not a Dem district. And yes I was talking about the Tucson district, using the old numbers.

Oh, there are plenty more Hispanics to pick up in Pima. I drew a map that did it. There is no need to march into Phoenix, just pick up stuff on the outskirts. It would be nice to know what the AZ-01 numbers are. The paper said the the Pubbie incumbent would be toast in that CD.  The CD looks very Dem to me, since it excises most Pubbie areas, except of course for the addition of Cochise. But well, we know the quality of political reporting in newspapers don't we?  It sucks in general.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: October 02, 2011, 12:04:15 PM »

I have only one quibble with that map. Why is Sedona/Camp Verde not grouped with Flagstaff? That's where it belongs transportationwise etc, and in Sedona's (but not Camp Verde's) case also regarding voting patterns / Dem designs on CD1. You could then excise more Pinal exurbs that don't belong in this district at all. (For a completed non-ridiculous Dem gerry, add Salt River / Fort McDowell and Colorado City - it doesn't vote Dem but it doesn't vote much at all.)
Otherwise, this is the one of about two-and-a-half reasonable ways to draw it that makes sense for Democrats.
AZ-3 is way too close to the old AZ-7, of course, meaning it still has the West End etc area which really doesn't belong in it, but once the debate turned to "retrogression" that was to be expected. The continuous bloc of territory that belongs in the Central Phoenix seat just is too large for one seat.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.