Most Republican and Democrat district
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:33:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Most Republican and Democrat district
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Most Republican and Democrat district  (Read 17055 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2007, 10:32:59 PM »

Not sure.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2007, 08:11:45 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2007, 08:15:36 PM by Verily »

I would guess NJ-5 as the most Republican and NJ-13 as most Democratic but I'm not sure

NJ-10 is definitely more Democratic than NJ-13.

NJ-10 was 82.7% Kerry. NJ-11 was 57.6% Bush. (NJ-05 was 57.3% Bush.)

The Republicans hold three very marginal seats in NJ (NJ-02, NJ-03 and NJ-07), but the least Democratic Democrat-held district, NJ-12, was 54.5% for Kerry. (Thus the very slight 7-6 Democratic seat advantage.) The 2001 redistricting was billed as nonpartisan but was very much a Republican-favoring gerrymander.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2007, 01:27:59 PM »

The 2001 redistricting was billed as nonpartisan but was very much a Republican-favoring gerrymander.

Republican-favoring gerrymander?  That may be your opinion, but NJ Democrats gladly signed off on the plan.

The redistricting was billed as "incumbent protection," not nonpartisan.  But indeed the lines were drawn in a nonpartisan way: Democrats recognized that they had no shot of defeating Saxton, LoBiondo, Garrett/Roukema, Smith, or Frelinghuysen, so making those districts fractionally more Republican was a no-brainer.  And so too for Republicans was it a no-brainer to trade those few points to make Andrews and Pallone safer, as well as shoring up NJ-8 and NJ-9 for the Democrats.

The real wheeling and dealing was that Democrats happily traded away their shot at defeating the highly vulnerable Ferguson in 2002 to make sure Republicans didn't have a shot at the highly vulnerable Holt in 2002.  Both were marquee races in 2000.

And it worked just as planned.  Neither party could field a solid nominee in their respective districts, and the two incumbents cruised.  Democrats could not have envisioned such a spectacular "perfect storm" environment as they had in 2006.

The only "gerrymander" in New Jersey were the State Legislative lines.  Unlike the congressional lines, that was *not* a bipartisan agreement: the GOP and Democrats could not agree on a plan, so an "independent observer" had to be called in; he ultimately chose a plan virtually identical to the Democrats' agreesive lines over the more conservative Republican lines (or a fairer third set).

This had an effect of defeating a number of Republican incumbents a year before the election even happened, and all but guaranteed enough pickups for Democratic control of the Assembly without having to spend a dime.
Logged
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2007, 12:38:43 PM »

Best Bush District:
UT-3
Bush (R) 77%
Kerry (D) 20%


Best Kerry District:
NY-15
Kerry (D) 90%
Bush (R)   9%   
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.