What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[Devils30]

Moderator's note: The many posts about MI maps have been pulled into their own thread.

For this purpose I'll only count gerrymanders in swing or lean states, won't count things in safe states like Illinois, Maryland (IL seats and MD-6) or Indiana (legislature helped GOP in IN-2). Also won't count non-partisan commissions (AZ dems got a friendly map and NJ, WA GOP prevailed). Places like WA-8 might have gone Dem under the old maps. Same with court-drawn maps.

PA: Dems likely win PA-11 (Obama did well in Scranton), PA-7 (Ditto in Delaware County)
but fall short in PA- 6 (Gerlach always runs strong and Obama would have won this but by much less than 2008), PA-8 (Obama would have won old PA-8 as narrowly as Romney won the new one) and PA- 15 (Dent is a good candidate).
 +2 D

OH: Dems retake OH-1, OH-15 (Obama won both by at least 7 and the 15th by probably 10 or so) but fall just short in OH-6. Obama wins old OH-12 but these districts would be slightly different due to losing seats. Still, based on Obama showing in Cincinnati and Columbus I'm sure Dems would have won 2 seats.

+4 D

NC: Dems certainly hold onto NC-13 and NC-8 while likely taking back NC-2 (traditionally Democratic and Obama won it). NC-11 its possibly Shuler sticks around but that is too speculative for here. NC-7 isn't a race. Dems gain 3 seats.

+7 D

VA: Despite the changes, Wolf likely wins the old VA- 10 easily anyway and ditto for Rigell in a very similar VA-2. No change.

WI: WI-8 stays the same. Possible that WI-7 gets a stronger Duffy challenger and Obama likely wins the district but difficult to tell. No change.

MI: With the McCotter issues, Dems likely pick up MI-11 as Obama likely won a narrow victory here. Other than that the GOP likely prevails in MI- 1 and 7.

+8 D

So even with more fair redistricting, the GOP likely still takes the House. But they have a 226-209 majority, still enough.

However, Dems would then be only 9 seats away and GOP would hold these Obama seats: NJ-2, NJ-3, PA-6, PA-8, PA-15, NY-2, NY-11, NY-19, VA-2, VA-10, WA-8, CO-6, CA-10, CA-21, CA-31, IA-3, WI-7. There's probably a couple more I forgot but this would be enough to make GOP strategists sweat a bit more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Without Gerrymandering, the Democrats wouldn't have had NC-02 to begin with. There should be at least one Republican district in this area, and the Democrats had drawn the old map specifically to prevent such a Republican from winning. There are simply too many areas to not have a GOP district, even if only marginally so, between Southern Wake, Johnston, Nash, and Harnett Counties and it would be a rather compact distrct too. The old 2nd was a gerrymander to to protect Etheridge and the old 13th was personally drawn by, for and of Brad Miller.

Its one thing to complain about a present gerrymander, it is quite another to then latch onto a previous hatchet job and assign it an undue level of respectability.

[Mr.Phips]

For this purpose I'll only count gerrymanders in swing or lean states, won't count things in safe states like Illinois, Maryland (IL seats and MD-6) or Indiana (legislature helped GOP in IN-2). Also won't count non-partisan commissions (AZ dems got a friendly map and NJ, WA GOP prevailed). Places like WA-8 might have gone Dem under the old maps. Same with court-drawn maps.

PA: Dems likely win PA-11 (Obama did well in Scranton), PA-7 (Ditto in Delaware County)
but fall short in PA- 6 (Gerlach always runs strong and Obama would have won this but by much less than 2008), PA-8 (Obama would have won old PA-8 as narrowly as Romney won the new one) and PA- 15 (Dent is a good candidate).
 +2 D

OH: Dems retake OH-1, OH-15 (Obama won both by at least 7 and the 15th by probably 10 or so) but fall just short in OH-6. Obama wins old OH-12 but these districts would be slightly different due to losing seats. Still, based on Obama showing in Cincinnati and Columbus I'm sure Dems would have won 2 seats.

+4 D

NC: Dems certainly hold onto NC-13 and NC-8 while likely taking back NC-2 (traditionally Democratic and Obama won it). NC-11 its possibly Shuler sticks around but that is too speculative for here. NC-7 isn't a race. Dems gain 3 seats.

+7 D

VA: Despite the changes, Wolf likely wins the old VA- 10 easily anyway and ditto for Rigell in a very similar VA-2. No change.

WI: WI-8 stays the same. Possible that WI-7 gets a stronger Duffy challenger and Obama likely wins the district but difficult to tell. No change.

MI: With the McCotter issues, Dems likely pick up MI-11 as Obama likely won a narrow victory here. Other than that the GOP likely prevails in MI- 1 and 7.

+8 D

So even with more fair redistricting, the GOP likely still takes the House. But they have a 226-209 majority, still enough.

However, Dems would then be only 9 seats away and GOP would hold these Obama seats: NJ-2, NJ-3, PA-6, PA-8, PA-15, NY-2, NY-11, NY-19, VA-2, VA-10, WA-8, CO-6, CA-10, CA-21, CA-31, IA-3, WI-7. There's probably a couple more I forgot but this would be enough to make GOP strategists sweat a bit more.

Dems would have probably finally beaten Gerlach in PA-06.  Obama would have been winning there 54%-44% and that district was simply an hourglass that was losing more and more sand every cycle for the GOP.

Dems also probably would have taken WA-08 with DelBene.  Remember that she came within two points of beating Reichart in the horrific year of 2010.  Throw in Presidential turnout and a better climate for Dems and Reichart is a goner.

In Mi-07, Schauer doesn't have his home base of Battle Creek removed and runs here and beats Wahlberg.

In PA-04 and PA-12, Critz and Altmire likely hold on as well.  Both districts would have been getting tougher and tougher for Dems, but they would have held on this time.

With OH-12. I think Dems would have found a good challenger and beaten Tiberi.  Obama would have won here by around 11 points and the trends in this district were just awful for Republicans.  Remember that Tiberi was held to just 55% here in 2010 in a horrible Dem year against a candidate who was long written off by Dems.

You are pretty much on target with everything else.

[Mr.Phips]

Without Gerrymandering, the Democrats wouldn't have had NC-02 to begin with. There should be at least one Republican district in this area, and the Democrats had drawn the old map specifically to prevent such a Republican from winning. There are simply too many areas to not have a GOP district, even if only marginally so, between Southern Wake, Johnston, Nash, and Harnett Counties and it would be a rather compact distrct too. The old 2nd was a gerrymander to to protect Etheridge and the old 13th was personally drawn by, for and of Brad Miller.

Its one thing to complain about a present gerrymander, it is quite another to then latch onto a previous hatchet job and assign it an undue level of respectability.

This I agree with.  The dip into Raleigh just to pick up blacks was a blatant Dem attempt to fortify the seat.  However, Republicans did some even uglier(and unprecedented) things elsewhere in the state, like carving Asheville out of NC-11 and placing the Lumbees in with the Sand Hills.

[Miles]

How bout OH-06? Would Athens County have been enough to give Wilson a win?

[Devils30]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

[muon2]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

Shouldn't you make the same assumption in IL, too? A neutral map would probably have been 10-8 Dem for a pickup of 2 instead of 4 seats.

[Miles]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

[Devils30]

No, I won't count obviously Democratic states like Illinois and Maryland and GOP ones like Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina where each side would have a better map from a commission. This one is just about partisan gerrymanders in competitive states.

[Miles]

Well, without any gerrymandering, the NC Democrats would have gained back 3 or 4 seats.

[krazen1211]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

Nope.

Link.


It's highly amusing to see such bizarre conclusions drawn from districts that are substantially noncompliant with one man, one vote. Though I'm not certain liberals believe in such a thing.

[Miles]

I hate to defend krazen and his excessive liberal-bashing, but the PA Democratic map was pretty pitiful.

[RedSLC]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

Those districts are beautiful.

[Miles]

Those districts are beautiful.

Thanks!

If you'd like, we did a whole thread on that least summer. I came up with a court-drawn map in that thread too, but I recently went back and made a few tweaks (which resulted in the map I posted here).

As I see you're new, welcome!

[RedSLC]

Those districts are beautiful.

Thanks!

If you'd like, we did a whole thread on that least summer. I came up with a court-drawn map in that thread too, but I recently went back and made a few tweaks (which resulted in the map I posted here).

As I see you're new, welcome!

You're welcome. The thing I like most about your map is that the two counties that are large enough to have one district completely within their boundaries (Wake and Mecklenberg Counties) both have a district within them.

Also, with regards to the main topic, I'm surprised no one has mentioned pickup opportunities in Florida. Even with the new regulations, there was still room for gerrymandering.

[Devils30]

Florida is tougher to tell b/c it gained two seats so the districts would have changed no matter what. The old FL-22 would have been much closer although West would never have won it since he couldn't even win a GOP leaning 18th district.
GOP actually kind of messed up drawing Florida districts, particularly Miami-Dade. By chopping up the Cuban areas so much they made two Obama 53% districts in FL-26, 27 and one that was 51-49 Romney. This Romney district extended west into Collier County but went from like over 60-40 Bush in 2004 to barely Romney this time. Ominous trend for GOP.
 Dems would likely gain a seat around Tampa and maybe a couple around Orlando by unpacking Corrine Brown's district.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The solution to this problem would be proportional representation. A one-representative-district based system will never be fair.

[Hatman 🍁]

The solution to this problem would be proportional representation. A one-representative-district based system will never be fair.

What about post-election gerrymandering? Election is run using PR and seats are divided up based on the share of the vote afterwards.

[muon2]

No, I won't count obviously Democratic states like Illinois and Maryland and GOP ones like Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina where each side would have a better map from a commission. This one is just about partisan gerrymanders in competitive states.

So either you should either state that your hypothesis requires that 2010 had been a year when Dems would have captured a proportional number of legislatures, or you should change the title to add GOP in front of gerrymandering.

The IL gerrymander was every bit as egregious as OH or NC according to most pundits who've analyzed the maps. The presidential vote tendencies wasn't what gave control of the map to the Dems. It was the combination of the 2000 legislative map paying dividends with an unbreakable majority and the failed campaign for Gov by the GOP.

[Devils30]

12-6 Dems in Illinois really isn't absurd by any means, much less absurd than 13-5 GOP in Pennsylvania. Even in a neutral Illinois map you would expect Dems to have 11-12 of the 18 seats.

[muon2]

12-6 Dems in Illinois really isn't absurd by any means, much less absurd than 13-5 GOP in Pennsylvania. Even in a neutral Illinois map you would expect Dems to have 11-12 of the 18 seats.

12 Dem seats in IL is a huge stretch with a neutral map, and this map was drawn to be 13-5 but the Dems fielded a weak candidate in IL-13. This is different from quoting the number of seats that Obama would carried on a neutral map, but remember he has a favorite son advantage here. 10-8 is the most likely neutral map, with 5 downstate GOP out of 6 (it votes like IN) and 3 suburban GOP seats out of 12 in Chicagoland.

Counting the straight partisan numbers doesn't really tell the tale of the Dem gerrymander. Many of the 18 seats should be swing seats, and one mark of the level of gerrymandering is the number of swing seats that were moved to D+8 or so to put them out of reach in all but wave years. This is particularly true in the suburbs where the GOP was packed into two safe seats so the other 10 seats could be made safely Dem. Downstate the GOP was packed into three seats leaving three seats for the Dems. To do that they had to expose themselves in two swing seats, one of which the GOP retained in 2012.

[Torie]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

[Mr.Phips]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

There really isn't any way a neutral plan could create a seat is Mass that would be any worse for Dems than D+4.  You would have to create a Plymouth to Worcester suburbs seat, which would be a GOP Gerrymander and still probably wouldn't have voted GOP for President since 1988.

[Torie]

The Dems bagged a seat in MD through a Dem gerrymander too. Would the Pubs be competitive for a seat in Mass in a neutral plan up there? Some of the commission plans were Dem gerrys lite (c.f. CO and CA and particularly AZ), but I digress.

There really isn't any way a neutral plan could create a seat is Mass that would be any worse for Dems than D+4.  You would have to create a Plymouth to Worcester suburbs seat, which would be a GOP Gerrymander and still probably wouldn't have voted GOP for President since 1988.

About D+2 is what I came up with (D+1.9% actually), but yes, you're basically right. A second CD is D+3.3% (using 2008 numbers). So two lean Dem CD's pop out, one on the cusp of being pretty safe.

[windjammer]

http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PA-Dems-congressional-map.png
I have just a question: how many seats could the democrats have in Pennsylvania with this map?