Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2018, 01:25:27 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  is the reasons why the Indiana republicans didn't go overly aggressive
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: is the reasons why the Indiana republicans didn't go overly aggressive  (Read 1383 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,654
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 12, 2011, 10:18:54 pm »

on the new maps, is that they knew they could possibly end up 3-6 or 2-7 in a remotely bad year? IIRC, in 1971 they tried to put the black/democrat areas of Indianapolis in two districts, the old eleventh and the sixth. They tried to get rid of Jacobs and thought that William Bray would be fine because he was a sr incumbent. So in 1973 and 1974 they had a 7-4 delegation. However in the 1974 elections, both Indianapolis seats went democrat and Charlie Halleck's old seat went democratic (partly because the guy representing the seat was a fierce partisan) and the area in the current sixth (then called the tenth) went democratic as did the bloody eighth as the democrats now had a 9-2 delegation. Even after the 1980 elections they still had a 6-5 dem delegation.

In 1981, the legislature successfully eliminated Halleck's district by taking all the dem areas and stuffing it in the 1st district and the rest was combined in the 5th (one of only two districts that stayed republican all through the 70s). Fithian, not wanting to face off against Hillis, decided to run for the senate. They then avoided making the same mistake in Indianapolis by putting all the democrats into one district (a district that even voted for Walter Mondale) while making a new district for Senator Dan Burton (who tried running for congress in the early 70s). The problem was that although the new tenth district (the old tenth became the second) was a dem vote sink, the new sixth was also a gop vote sink that often gave republican candidates up to 75 percent of the vote. It hurt them elsewhere and by 1991 the democrats had a 8-2 delegation.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2011, 10:21:56 pm »

The Indiana map really isn't unaggressive. It's an attempt at 7-2; they just did a very stupid job of it.

South Bend into the 1st might have been a bridge too far, but that Indianapolis district is pure incompetence.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,729


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2011, 10:32:22 pm »

The Indiana map really isn't unaggressive. It's an attempt at 7-2; they just did a very stupid job of it.

South Bend into the 1st might have been a bridge too far, but that Indianapolis district is pure incompetence.

If they split up Indianapolis, I guarantee you that in 2014 or whenever the next Democratic wave is, Democrats would have likely picked up IN-04 and IN-05 due to Indianapolis being put into those districts. 
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2011, 10:39:55 pm »

The Indiana map really isn't unaggressive. It's an attempt at 7-2; they just did a very stupid job of it.

South Bend into the 1st might have been a bridge too far, but that Indianapolis district is pure incompetence.

This isn't aggressive; it's just natural - it happens to give the GOP a chance at 7-2, but that's pretty much true of any natural map.  Aggressive would have been splitting Lake and Porter counties in order to put more of LaPorte into the 1st (even if not South Bend). 
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2011, 11:10:29 pm »

The Indiana map really isn't unaggressive. It's an attempt at 7-2; they just did a very stupid job of it.

South Bend into the 1st might have been a bridge too far, but that Indianapolis district is pure incompetence.

If they split up Indianapolis, I guarantee you that in 2014 or whenever the next Democratic wave is, Democrats would have likely picked up IN-04 and IN-05 due to Indianapolis being put into those districts. 

I don't suggest cracking Indianapolis. I do suggest putting IN-07 in the correct part of Marion County to suck up the Democrats, and avoid the Republicans that live in the southern area of the county.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 11:25:12 pm »

I don't suggest cracking Indianapolis. I do suggest putting IN-07 in the correct part of Marion County to suck up the Democrats, and avoid the Republicans that live in the southern area of the county.

Maybe there is a Democrat in southern Indianapolis the Republicans hope will primary Andre Carson? Otherwise you're right, it doesn't really seem to make sense.
Logged

Truth is more important than experience.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,173
Samoa


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2011, 11:43:58 pm »

The guv decided to leave with his reputation in place as kind of a non partisan policy wonk or something. I can't get too annoyed with that, although unilateral disarmament is typically unwise - but not always.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,949
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2011, 09:24:43 am »

The guv decided to leave with his reputation in place as kind of a non partisan policy wonk or something. I can't get too annoyed with that, although unilateral disarmament is typically unwise - but not always.
I think it was a lot smarter than it appears.  First it makes what looks like an east-west split of La Porte, but then reaches out and grabs Michigan City.  La Porte is more Democratic than Porter, and they grabbed the most Democratic parts.  They gave 4 districts suburbs of Indianapolis, and then they drew three districts across southern Indiana, which means they go further north and less of a Democratic lean, and stick Bloomington between suburban Indianapolis and suburban Louisville.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,610
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2011, 10:05:18 pm »

Indiana-5 even with the redistricting will still be R+ 12-17 Indiana 4 (my soon to be district) has similar numbers. No way will they go for a dem
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,654
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2011, 10:49:07 pm »

stranger things have happened. Earl Landgrebe lost in a district that had been held by republicans for 40 years, gave Nixon 74% of the vote in 1972, and had given Nixon 57% of the vote in the three-way 1968 race.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
RBH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,183


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2011, 07:36:28 pm »

stranger things have happened. Earl Landgrebe lost in a district that had been held by republicans for 40 years, gave Nixon 74% of the vote in 1972, and had given Nixon 57% of the vote in the three-way 1968 race.

granted, Landgrebe never solidified his support in primaries and is best known for sticking by Nixon all the way to August 9th, 1974. And Landgrebe lost by 22% too.

(Landgrebe also ran 20% behind Nixon in 1972 anyways).
Logged

RBH
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines