Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[Mr.Phips]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

[Napoleon]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

[Mr.Phips]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

They lost many seats that they should have been able to hold like NY-13, NY-19 and NY-25.  NY-29 was arguably the only seat that they should have lost based on statewide results.

[Napoleon]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

They lost many seats that they should have been able to hold like NY-13, NY-19 and NY-25.  NY-29 was arguably the only seat that they should have lost based on statewide results.

The same can be said of Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Fossella always won in landslides. NY-13 isn't a lean Dem district. The better question is how did Bishop manage to hang on?

[Nichlemn]

A Republican cant win anymore statewide in New York no matter how bad the year is for Democrats.

lol. So what, do you expect Democrats to win every statewide race for the next fifty years or something? Based on what evidence... the results of 2010 alone?

[Landslide Lyndon]

A Republican cant win anymore statewide in New York no matter how bad the year is for Democrats.

lol. So what, do you expect Democrats to win every statewide race for the next fifty years or something? Based on what evidence... the results of 2010 alone?

Well, as long as Republicans nominate people like Paladino...

[cinyc]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

They lost many seats that they should have been able to hold like NY-13, NY-19 and NY-25.  NY-29 was arguably the only seat that they should have lost based on statewide results.

NY-13, NY-19 and NY-29 are all R+ PVI seats that Republicans should win in anything but a bad year for them.  They are traditionally Republican seats.  2006 and 2008 were the outliers in those districts, not 2010.  Had Fossella not been embroiled in a mistress scandal, NY-13 would have never been lost at all in the first place.

NY-25 is a D+3 district, but was traditionally held by Republicans until 2008.  2010 arguably was a bit of a fluke there - but, on the other hand, if Republicans had their best year since 1894 in New York, they would have picked up NY-01, NY-23 and one or more of NY-02, NY-04, NY-09, NY-22 and NY-27, too.  That they didn't and ended up just winning back traditionally Republican seats tells me that, in New York, 2010 was a regression back to the Republican mean, not the Republicans' best year since 1894.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Senate Republicans draw the districts again, it's a tossup.
If anyone else draws the districts, they're complete utter toast.

[Lunar]

The Senate GOP probably won't be able to run away with as silly of a gerrymander as they did last time too, since they need a Democratic governor to sign off on the plan.  Cuomo's not going to fight to make John Sampson Majority Leader, but he won't want a black mark on his record from having signed off on something that looks just awful.

[Dgov]

The Senate GOP probably won't be able to run away with as silly of a gerrymander as they did last time too, since they need a Democratic governor to sign off on the plan.  Cuomo's not going to fight to make John Sampson Majority Leader, but he won't want a black mark on his record from having signed off on something that looks just awful.

This, and playing the good government card will benefit him here.  Even if it is a GOP gerrymander, so long as its not egregiously bad, odds are the the Democrats will be able to pick up at least two net seats by 2020.

that being said, if I were the NYGOP, I'd start floating the idea of an independent redistricting commission or something.  They're probably going to lose their senate majority anyway, and the least they can do is stop the Democrats from taking out all those upstate Republican Congress critters in 2020.

[ag]

that being said, if I were the NYGOP, I'd start floating the idea of an independent redistricting commission or something.  They're probably going to lose their senate majority anyway, and the least they can do is stop the Democrats from taking out all those upstate Republican Congress critters in 2020.

It would be a lot easier for them to do this in exchange for surrendering their power to effectively veto this redistricting. Get the redistricting commission do this now, in exchange for it keeping doing it in the miserable future. Of course, this would require some self-sacrifice today )

I think, they may likely survive 2012, but I'd be shocked if they are still in majority by 2020 - unless the current trends change.

[Smash255]

The Senate GOP probably won't be able to run away with as silly of a gerrymander as they did last time too, since they need a Democratic governor to sign off on the plan.  Cuomo's not going to fight to make John Sampson Majority Leader, but he won't want a black mark on his record from having signed off on something that looks just awful.

This, and playing the good government card will benefit him here.  Even if it is a GOP gerrymander, so long as its not egregiously bad, odds are the the Democrats will be able to pick up at least two net seats by 2020.

that being said, if I were the NYGOP, I'd start floating the idea of an independent redistricting commission or something.  They're probably going to lose their senate majority anyway, and the least they can do is stop the Democrats from taking out all those upstate Republican Congress critters in 2020.

Everyone was pretty much working towards this prior to the Election from last year.  Dean Skelos (Majority Leader in the Senate) backed off of t as soon a the GOP regained the State Senate and he became Majority Leader again.

[Nichlemn]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

They lost many seats that they should have been able to hold like NY-13, NY-19 and NY-25.  NY-29 was arguably the only seat that they should have lost based on statewide results.

NY-13, NY-19 and NY-29 are all R+ PVI seats that Republicans should win in anything but a bad year for them.  They are traditionally Republican seats.  2006 and 2008 were the outliers in those districts, not 2010.  Had Fossella not been embroiled in a mistress scandal, NY-13 would have never been lost at all in the first place.

NY-25 is a D+3 district, but was traditionally held by Republicans until 2008.  2010 arguably was a bit of a fluke there - but, on the other hand, if Republicans had their best year since 1894 in New York, they would have picked up NY-01, NY-23 and one or more of NY-02, NY-04, NY-09, NY-22 and NY-27, too.  That they didn't and ended up just winning back traditionally Republican seats tells me that, in New York, 2010 was a regression back to the Republican mean, not the Republicans' best year since 1894.

This. Something a lot of people forget about 2010 is that Republicans were starting from a low point, particularly in states like New York. "+63 seats!" sounds like a lot, but consider that the Republicans won more than that in 1938. That wasn't due to the Republicans being strong - in fact they still ended up fairly deeply in the minority - it was just due to reversion to the mean from extraordinary Democratic gains.

While it is true that Republicans hold more House seats than any time since 1946, this is substantially due to Southern realignment. For New York alone, the current proportion of Republican House members is below the historical average.

[Cincinnatus]

A Republican cant win anymore statewide in New York no matter how bad the year is for Democrats.

lol. So what, do you expect Democrats to win every statewide race for the next fifty years or something? Based on what evidence... the results of 2010 alone?

Well, as long as Republicans nominate people like Paladino...

All he had was Upstate support.  Can't get very far in this state unless you have a downstate base.  Most people downstate were totally oblivious to his existence until he appeared on the ticket.  Cuomo on the other hand had basically complete downstate support in opposition to Paladino.  If I'm honest Cuomo seems to be quite serious about closing the states shortfall and hasn't yet earned my disapproval.

[Dan the Roman]

Cuomo has been hinting for several months he will veto any plan that is based on "political considerations" if the GOP in the Senate continue to refuse to accept his independent redistricting plan. Its not clear if he will, but its perfectly possible he will veto the legislative maps as well.

I know this sounds odd, but the recent behavior of Bob McDonnell and the Republicans in the MS senate makes this more likely. Redistricting is a linked process, the same law firms tend to represent Democrats in a number of states, and I know for a fact that there has been talk in MA of all places of retaliating against recent GOP behavior in VA, or in Wisconsin by going after republicans in the legislature. The same firm works for the MA legislative Democrats and the VA ones, so there is a constituency with an interest in riling things up.

And Cuomo needs to strengthen his partisan credentials a bit, given his performance so far, especially if he wants liberal interest groups to back him in 2016. He needs to get Gay Marriage through the legislature, and that won't happen without not only a Democratic majority in the senate, but one of the size a neutral or democratic gerrymander will produce.

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

And most likely, Skelos blinks and agrees to deal.

[BigSkyBob]

Cuomo has been hinting for several months he will veto any plan that is based on "political considerations" if the GOP in the Senate continue to refuse to accept his independent redistricting plan. Its not clear if he will, but its perfectly possible he will veto the legislative maps as well.

I know this sounds odd, but the recent behavior of Bob McDonnell and the Republicans in the MS senate makes this more likely. Redistricting is a linked process, the same law firms tend to represent Democrats in a number of states, and I know for a fact that there has been talk in MA of all places of retaliating against recent GOP behavior in VA, or in Wisconsin by going after republicans in the legislature. The same firm works for the MA legislative Democrats and the VA ones, so there is a constituency with an interest in riling things up.

And Cuomo needs to strengthen his partisan credentials a bit, given his performance so far, especially if he wants liberal interest groups to back him in 2016. He needs to get Gay Marriage through the legislature, and that won't happen without not only a Democratic majority in the senate, but one of the size a neutral or democratic gerrymander will produce.

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

And most likely, Skelos blinks and agrees to deal.

The Democrats in MA will decide to screw the Republicans based one exactly one consideration: whether they think they can.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How exactly can the Massachusetts Democrats screw over the GOP? I suppose they could make the current MA-10 (new MA-9) more unwinnable but that's not exactly an epic screw. And even if they can squeeze out an additional legislative seat or two, what's the point?

[Brittain33]

How exactly can the Massachusetts Democrats screw over the GOP? I suppose they could make the current MA-10 (new MA-9) more unwinnable but that's not exactly an epic screw. And even if they can squeeze out an additional legislative seat or two, what's the point?

State legislature. Pubbies are almost extinct in the senate but they picked up about 20 house seats last time and a malicious redistricting could carve up all their districts out of spite. The leadership's done that in the past to Dems and Pubbies it didn't like but it is not a foregone conclusion that they'd do it this time, considering how few Pubbies there are.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems to me like most of those Republican freshman would lose anyway even with minimal changes to their districts.

[Lunar]

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

Sorry, but I think this is where you're a bit wrong -- you're right in principle but perhaps less so in assuming that the Democrats are rational and thinking collectively here.

A court-drawn map, even if more Democratic overall, could destroy many districts gerrymandered to protect Democratic incumbents and their power bases (even forcing a few primaries while leaving other districts open).  At least a few Democratic State Senators would prefer a GOP majority to having to take the roll of the dice with their own districts.

In fact, one could argue that at least a few Democratic State Senators prefer being in the minority as it frees them from actually having to govern.

[Dan the Roman]

How exactly can the Massachusetts Democrats screw over the GOP? I suppose they could make the current MA-10 (new MA-9) more unwinnable but that's not exactly an epic screw. And even if they can squeeze out an additional legislative seat or two, what's the point?

Its in the legislature. Up through March the process had been fairly bipartisan. There are a lot of scared Democrats. The Democrats lost 15 seats, about 12 of them with incumbents. No Democratic incumbent had lost to a Republican since 2002, and in that year only one did(Jeff Perry was the lucky winner). That was a sea change, and the Senate President only held her own seat 52-48. There were also about 20 or so Democrats who pulled in under 53% in the house.

As a consequence, the Democrats were more or less inclined to recognize a "new normal" of GOP strength of between 25 and 30 in the house, in exchange for creating a firewall above it. Given MA law, low population change outside of Boston and the Berkshires, and a general desire to avoid trouble, it was going to be a soft-firewall.

But the combination of a newly assertive GOP caucus, and a number of concerned Democrats means the firewall has been drifting from soft to hard. There are Democrats who won by 15-20 points who are collecting lists of precincts they would like to jettison.

[Dan the Roman]

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

Sorry, but I think this is where you're a bit wrong -- you're right in principle but perhaps less so in assuming that the Democrats are rational and thinking collectively here.

A court-drawn map, even if more Democratic overall, could destroy many districts gerrymandered to protect Democratic incumbents and their power bases (even forcing a few primaries while leaving other districts open).  At least a few Democratic State Senators would prefer a GOP majority to having to take the roll of the dice with their own districts.

In fact, one could argue that at least a few Democratic State Senators prefer being in the minority as it frees them from actually having to govern.

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

A mid-decade redrawing seems to be Shelly Silver's price for going with court drawn maps this year. Democrats are at a low enough base they can't possibly lose anything else with Presidential turnout, even in the Assembly, but a lot of them want to avoid running in Obama's second midterm year. I have no idea if such a redrawing would also extend to the congressional maps, but given that the DCCC is sending staff to hang around the MA State house telling everyone that Democrats are being so screwed by GOP states in redistricting that no one can afford to be merciful, only Cuomo's Presidential ambitions would likely stand in the way of it.

Really I have never seen a redistricting process like this. The DCCC and NRCC have staff everywhere, and are intimately working with their state counterparts. I don't know whether the Democrats will force a showdown in NY, but anyone expecting a GOP gerrymander to pass the Assembly is missing how much times have changed since 2001. Look at Virginia, look at what happened to the Mississippi legislative maps. These bargains and traditions don't count for anything anymore.

[Lunar]

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

But if two incumbents are drawn together in 2012, isn't that a pretty impactful event, even if the lines are redrawn in 2013?

[Lunar]

It seems to me like most of those Republican freshman would lose anyway even with minimal changes to their districts.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all -- Grisanti (the dude up in Buffalo who won against a terrible candidate) is the only one who comes to mind as one destined to lose. 

The Democrats who lost up in the North Country or Long Island aren't necessarily going to lose -- many of them won traditionally Republican seats themselves in the last couple years, and those parts of the world aren't exactly going through radical demographic or political transformation.

Not to mention that several Democrats are also occupying marginal seats, including Carl Kruger who is sitting on the most presidentially Republican seat in all of New York, I think, and several Freshmen Democrats who won sort-of upsets in 2010 (Carlucci, Kennedy). 

And at least one veteran Brooklyn Republican (Marty Golden) is considered a top target for Democrats in 2012.

[BigSkyBob]

How exactly can the Massachusetts Democrats screw over the GOP? I suppose they could make the current MA-10 (new MA-9) more unwinnable but that's not exactly an epic screw. And even if they can squeeze out an additional legislative seat or two, what's the point?

Reread the post I responded to for the answer.