Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US state senates.

[windjammer]

And yes, in some states, republicans are too conservative and they could do much better if they were more moderate, the South Carolina Republican Party, and I fail to see where hackery is. I have said too that Republicans in some blue states were really competitive, like in Oregon, Nevada, Connecticut,... I have also critized the OH democrat party for being a mess and for failing to win some toss up/lean D state senate seat.

Huh?  The SCGOP at present controls all nine statewide offices, the General Assembly, and all but one member of the Congressional delegation.  While they aren't entirely dominated by wingnuts, they certainly are predominating and I fail to see how they could possibly do better than they are doing even if they did take a turn towards being moderate.

The SCDEM currently holds 5 senates seats in conservative area. So yes, they could do better.

[windjammer]

Now, I will make the House PVI!

[smoltchanov]

May be - this link will be of some help:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/09/1220127/-Daily-Kos-Elections-2012-election-results-by-congressional-and-legislative-districts?detail=hide

[jimrtex]

Now, I will make the House PVI!

The House districts in Texas are different in 2014 than 2012.

[windjammer]

May be - this link will be of some help:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/09/1220127/-Daily-Kos-Elections-2012-election-results-by-congressional-and-legislative-districts?detail=hide

Don't worry, I already knew this link, but thanks!

Now, I will make the House PVI!

The House districts in Texas are different in 2014 than 2012.

[jimrtex]

May be - this link will be of some help:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/09/1220127/-Daily-Kos-Elections-2012-election-results-by-congressional-and-legislative-districts?detail=hide

Don't worry, I already knew this link, but thanks!

Now, I will make the House PVI!

The House districts in Texas are different in 2014 than 2012.

Texas Redistricting

I took a look at the two plans, and they are less interesting than I had thought.

14 districts were changed.

2 in Webb (42, 80)
3 in Tarrant (90, 97, 99)
6 in Dallas (103, 115, and minuscule to 109, 110, 111, 113).
3 in Harris (133, 137, 149)

The most politically significant drops Romney support in HD-115 from 55.37% to 55.26%.  The curiosity is that this is an exchange with HD-103 which takes it from 28.00% Romney to 28.77% Romney.

I'm pretty sure that there were some proposed changes that would simplify boundaries, but shift a district a percent or two in the right direction.   It appears that there was an attempt to prove that the legislature was reasonable, and considered minority interests.  Only four of the 14 districts are Republican.  The biggest political shift was -2.7% in HD-99 (from Romney 27.7% to 25.0%).

[windjammer]

May be - this link will be of some help:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/09/1220127/-Daily-Kos-Elections-2012-election-results-by-congressional-and-legislative-districts?detail=hide

Don't worry, I already knew this link, but thanks!

Now, I will make the House PVI!

The House districts in Texas are different in 2014 than 2012.

Texas Redistricting

I took a look at the two plans, and they are less interesting than I had thought.

14 districts were changed.

2 in Webb (42, 80)
3 in Tarrant (90, 97, 99)
6 in Dallas (103, 115, and minuscule to 109, 110, 111, 113).
3 in Harris (133, 137, 149)

The most politically significant drops Romney support in HD-115 from 55.37% to 55.26%.  The curiosity is that this is an exchange with HD-103 which takes it from 28.00% Romney to 28.77% Romney.

I'm pretty sure that there were some proposed changes that would simplify boundaries, but shift a district a percent or two in the right direction.   It appears that there was an attempt to prove that the legislature was reasonable, and considered minority interests.  Only four of the 14 districts are Republican.  The biggest political shift was -2.7% in HD-99 (from Romney 27.7% to 25.0%).

Thank you jimrtex.
But I just think I will ignore this potential problem, this could become much more complicate for me

[windjammer]

I have made half of the House PVI

[smoltchanov]

I have made half of the House PVI

Are there Democrats in R+30+ or Republicans in D+30+ seats)))

[windjammer]

I have made half of the House PVI

Are there Democrats in R+30+ or Republicans in D+30+ seats)))

There are Democrats in R+30+. For the republicans, I haven't made  Vermont yet, but I don't think so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And yes, in some states, republicans are too conservative and they could do much better if they were more moderate, the South Carolina Republican Party, and I fail to see where hackery is. I have said too that Republicans in some blue states were really competitive, like in Oregon, Nevada, Connecticut,... I have also critized the OH democrat party for being a mess and for failing to win some toss up/lean D state senate seat.

Huh?  The SCGOP at present controls all nine statewide offices, the General Assembly, and all but one member of the Congressional delegation.  While they aren't entirely dominated by wingnuts, they certainly are predominating and I fail to see how they could possibly do better than they are doing even if they did take a turn towards being moderate.

The SCDEM currently holds 5 senates seats in conservative area. So yes, they could do better.

You are not going to have every seat go monolithically the way of their PVI. IF that happend CT would look like HI and there would be next to no political competition in the state. In fact the sheer dominace of the one party would tend to push swing voters in those not as pro-Dem seats to vote for the right Republican. Western PA used to be Democratic, Philly Burbs and CT Republican and there are towns and cities with politicians that still reflect this phenomenon and thus produce candidates who can win districts their party otherwise would have no business winning.

Using that to judge the condition of a state party is over generalizing from too little data. "CT is strong, SC is a mess" simply because in the former the GOP holds a few contrarian PVI seats and vice versa illustrates plainly what I mean. SC is nearing Texas levels of Dem exclusion from statewide offices and the GOP has solid majorities even without those handful of districts. That said the SC GOP is a mess because it is factionalized and not just between tea party and moderate but also between upland former-Democrat porker barrels and more fiscally conservatives to libertarian types like Sanford on the coast.

CT failed to deliver a single House seat, the Senate seat or hold Governorship for the GOP in one of the best GOP years in decades.

[windjammer]

And yes, in some states, republicans are too conservative and they could do much better if they were more moderate, the South Carolina Republican Party, and I fail to see where hackery is. I have said too that Republicans in some blue states were really competitive, like in Oregon, Nevada, Connecticut,... I have also critized the OH democrat party for being a mess and for failing to win some toss up/lean D state senate seat.

Huh?  The SCGOP at present controls all nine statewide offices, the General Assembly, and all but one member of the Congressional delegation.  While they aren't entirely dominated by wingnuts, they certainly are predominating and I fail to see how they could possibly do better than they are doing even if they did take a turn towards being moderate.

The SCDEM currently holds 5 senates seats in conservative area. So yes, they could do better.

You are not going to have every seat go monolithically the way of their PVI. IF that happend CT would look like HI and there would be next to no political competition in the state. In fact the sheer dominace of the one party would tend to push swing voters in those not as pro-Dem seats to vote for the right Republican. Western PA used to be Democratic, Philly Burbs and CT Republican and there are towns and cities with politicians that still reflect this phenomenon and thus produce candidates who can win districts their party otherwise would have no business winning.

Using that to judge the condition of a state party is over generalizing from too little data. "CT is strong, SC is a mess" simply because in the former the GOP holds a few contrarian PVI seats and vice versa illustrates plainly what I mean. SC is nearing Texas levels of Dem exclusion from statewide offices and the GOP has solid majorities even without those handful of districts. That said the SC GOP is a mess because it is factionalized and not just between tea party and moderate but also between upland former-Democrat porker barrels and more fiscally conservatives to libertarian types like Sanford on the coast.

CT failed to deliver a single House seat, the Senate seat or hold Governorship for the GOP in one of the best GOP years in decades.

Yankee, the CT republican party is, I believe, effective. They lost by a slim margin the last gubernational race and the 2014 CT gubernational election will be competitive as well.
Sorry, but I think that when a republican party still holds many dem leaning seats, it shows this party is effective at the local level. I don't understand the problem with that. And with CT house of representatives I will soon post, the CT republican party holds many dem leaning seats as well. Yes, the CT republican party is relatively strong locally.

And for the SC GOP party, as you have said, this party is a mess: Sanford, Haley: LOL. But the SC DEM party seems to be relatively strong. SC is a bit a polarized state and the SC  democrats succesfully hold many rep leaning seats (and most of them aren't longtime DINOS), saying the SC democratic party is like the TX democratic party is untrue (if I have clearly understood what you wanted to say). They always line good recruits: Vincent Sheheen falls short last time, only 3 points, and he represents what a dem in a conservative state should be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never said SC was like TX, I said it was getting close to being like TX. Frankly, I don't see Haley losing, but we will have to see.

The Connecticut GOP produced a weak candidate in CT-04 and the establishment went with money above all else as their criteria for selecting a candidate once Dodd got out and ended up with a dud candidate for Senate. Simmons would have done far better, even with far less money. He had connections to eastern CT, better backstory contrast particularily once the scandal concerning Blumenthal's service emerged and a history of winning or coming close in tough races. McMahon had money, no political experience and a controversial business background to defend. I am pretty sure there was enough GOP money in Fairfield to float Simmons up to 46%-48% of the vote at a far lower price tag overall. I have read some analysis that says Simmons could have helped Foley in Eastern CT and possibly helped to boost him into the Governors mansion. It says something when Ann Coulter has a better feel for how to win then the state party.

[windjammer]

I don't see Haley losing too.

But at least, SC democrats align good recruits.
I'm not saying the CT GOP party is perfect, but when I see the number of state senate and house seats they hold, it's quite impressive.
Of course, they have screwed the last gubernational race, but except that, they do relatively well!

NV republicans have aligned a poor recruit against Reid in 2010. But seriously, I consider them as being effective too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with you about Nevada. Historically the party establishement has always gotten what is had wanted and it has usually been a beast. The one time that it didn't was in 2010 and then only for the Senate and then only because former NVGOP chair Sue Lowden imploded just in time to fall pray to Angle's TPE backed surge. Never would have happeend though had Lowden not provided that opening though, contrary to any claims by Paulists who like to think they took her out for stopping their attempt to take the delegation in 2008.

It says alot that the same NV GOP rimary electorate that nominated Angle, also primaried a Conservative Governor in favor of a moderate former prosecutor. Yes, yes, Gibbons was scandal plagued, but the same applied to Ernie Fletcher, yet he managed to shield himself by playing the Conservative card and in process costing us the Governorship of Kentucky. Basically in my view, the people really didn't know what they were getting with Angle and the best proof of that is that the last time she was polled for something (the NV-02 special) she was getting single digits in the GOP primary that the establishement went to court to avoid, not wanting take any chances if I recall.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They always line good recruits: Vincent Sheheen falls short last time, only 3 points, and he represents what a dem in a conservative state should be.

Actually, for him to lose by 3 points merely pointed out the problems the GOP had in this state in 2010.  Sanford had just recently hiked the Appalachian Trail and there were a lot of questions concerning Haley.  But those have largely been resolved and the GOP is back to its usual strong self.  I would not be surprised if Haley wins by 10 or more points this time and I would be shocked if Sheheen could managed to have the rematch be as close as the first time.

The SCDP is in awful shape.  Yes, they've been able to line up reasonably good candidates for the gubernatorial race, but the bench has been awfully thin, enough so that they've only been able to field one or two strong candidates in each election.  Even counting weak candidates, they've only managed to field candidates for six of the nine statewide offices this year and only five of the seven U.S. House seats, with no one bothering to contest Sanford in the 1st District.

[windjammer]

They always line good recruits: Vincent Sheheen falls short last time, only 3 points, and he represents what a dem in a conservative state should be.

Actually, for him to lose by 3 points merely pointed out the problems the GOP had in this state in 2010.  Sanford had just recently hiked the Appalachian Trail and there were a lot of questions concerning Haley.  But those have largely been resolved and the GOP is back to its usual strong self.  I would not be surprised if Haley wins by 10 or more points this time and I would be shocked if Sheheen could managed to have the rematch be as close as the first time.

The SCDP is in awful shape.  Yes, they've been able to line up reasonably good candidates for the gubernatorial race, but the bench has been awfully thin, enough so that they've only been able to field one or two strong candidates in each election.  Even counting weak candidates, they've only managed to field candidates for six of the nine statewide offices this year and only five of the seven U.S. House seats, with no one bothering to contest Sanford in the 1st District.

Once again, being effective doesn't mean you win elections. The SC democratic party is effective because they run good candidates for any statewides that aren't Safe Rep.
And yes, I believe Haley will be reelected too.

[windjammer]

I have made 40 PVI for the state house. It should be available at the end of the week

[smoltchanov]

I have made 40 PVI for the state house. It should be available at the end of the week

Excellent. DKE team still has 28 only..

[windjammer]

I have made 40 PVI for the state house. It should be available at the end of the week

Excellent. DKE team still has 28 only..

Well, to be honest, for some states, I don't have all the results.

I mean, for the state senates, if I had just one result, I was always able to approximately determinate the other results with NYT.  Except Illinois, most of the state senate districts were based on more than 1 county, and there were few county split (except Illinois).

But for the state house, I can't do that anymore, (much more distict= inaccurate), so some PVI will be based on only one result. Better than nothing, and I plan to make the results more accurate for Missouri and Indiana for instance where there were too many differences.

I hope all of you understand .

[windjammer]

And really sorry for the delay!

[nclib]

Great work, Windjammer. Can anyone map these states by Dem PVI and Rep PVI?

Any takers?

[windjammer]

Great work, Windjammer. Can anyone map these states by Dem PVI and Rep PVI?

Any takers?

You mean,
Hawaii
Vermont
.
.
.
Utah

This?
No problem, I can do that if you want, that wouldn't take me a lot of time!

[nclib]

Great work, Windjammer. Can anyone map these states by Dem PVI and Rep PVI?

Any takers?

You mean,
Hawaii
Vermont
.
.
.
Utah

This?
No problem, I can do that if you want, that wouldn't take me a lot of time!

You're probably joking, but I meant coloring the districts as D/PVI and R/PVI, even if without shading.

[windjammer]

Great work, Windjammer. Can anyone map these states by Dem PVI and Rep PVI?

Any takers?

You mean,
Hawaii
Vermont
.
.
.
Utah

This?
No problem, I can do that if you want, that wouldn't take me a lot of time!

You're probably joking, but I meant coloring the districts as D/PVI and R/PVI, even if without shading.

No, I wasn't joking . Sorry for the confusion!

Well, it would take a lot of time, maybe I would do that after having published the House PVI!