Comments on: Beyond 2010 census: Will redistricting help Democrats? (Hint: Maybe not.)

By: Dave Farley

Dave Farley — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:43:55 +0000

There is no doubt that Democrats won’t lose ground in 2010 in the mid-terms if Obama gets a health care plan passed that will provide affordable care to people. I think he can give the GOP a deadline in the Senate, since it will likely pass in the house. Perhaps Snow, and Collins in Maine may consider Obama’s plan. If not, Democrats need to be vigilant. Getting affordable health care to America is not a partisan issue, and this will be a case where Democrats have to do this for the American people. Doing something is better than doing nothing. It as as simple as that. Of course historically the party in party loses some ground in mid-terms, but there are key differences in American between now and the GOP slaughter of the Democrats in 1994. Our non-white population has increased in many swing states, especially Hispanics, Obama replaced a president with a 23 percent approval rating. Bill Clinton in contrast won the election in 1992 Ross Perot got a lot of center-right voters who would have voted for George H. W. Bush. Clinton came into the White house 4 years removed from one of the most popular presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan.

It is up to the same registered voters who supported Obama in 2008 to continue to turn out in the mid-terms. Even if Obama has had some defeats, he needs to work with Michelle Obama, Biden, Hillary and others to help win crucial senate races. The GOP has been succesful in misleading the public. Their are some smart business people in the GOP and when it comes to spin, and using fear tactics, they have had success. They helped make a tragedy like 9/11 into a quick patriotic crusade against terror, twisted the constitution and allowed many suspects of Islamic origin to be wrongfully inprisoned without an adequate defense.

If the GOP is a success in 2010 it will likely be because progressive voters and those who are not considered likely voters failed to make the difference. It isn’t the GOP’s election to win, it is ours to lose. Lets keep the same spirit we had a year ago. Obama’s victory was the beginning. If Obama doesn’t accomplish what he hopes to in the next year, there is still time. We have to be patient and continue to bring more leaders that will help implement his policies. We have to help elect new senators like Vilsack in Iowa, Rep. Cestak in PA and be sure to keep Senators Dodd, Boxer and Harry Reid. Don’t give up!

By: Neal Patel

Neal Patel — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:10:23 +0000

2010 IL Congressional Redistricting .
Make IL-6,IL-8,IL-10,IL-11,IL-13,IL-14, and IL-16 Democratic leaning Districts and get rid of a Southern IL Republican District.

1) IL-16(Manzullo-R) who is tough to defeat can be forced in a Incumbency vs Incumbency matchup against Foster-D (IL-14).
The Ogle,DeKalb,and Southern Winnebago portion of IL-16 goes to IL-14(Foster-D). The new IL-16 will take in IL-8(Bean-D) McHenry County base. Manzullo’s home will be in IL-14.
2)IL-8(Bean-D) picks up the Northern Kane portion of IL-14(Foster-D).
3) IL-13(Biggert-R) who the second Republican tough to defeat will have her District carved up.
Cook County goes to IL-1(Rush-D).Will County goes to IL-11(Halverson-D). DuPage County goes to IL-3(Lipinski-D). Look for an Incumbency vs Incumbency matchup (Lipinski-D vs Biggert-R).
4)A new district is created from the leftover parts of the IL-3 and the northern parts of IL-1 and IL-2.
5)IL-2(Jackson-D) picks up the Eastern Will County portion of IL-11(Halverson-D).
6)IL-6 (Roskam-R) picks up the Western part of IL-4(Guiteriez-D) and IL-7(Davis-D). An increase of Black and Hispanic voters in the new IL-6 will hurt Roskam’s chances of getting elected.
7)IL-4(Guiterriez-D) takes the Centeral part of IL-7.(Davis-D).
8)IL-7(Davis-D) takes the Eastern part of IL-5(Quigley-D).
9)IL-5(Quigley-D vs Roskam-R)- Western Part of IL-5 and Northern part of IL-6. Quigley’s Chicago base is greater than Roskam’s DuPage base. (Roskam’s home is in the new IL-6 which has absorbed Black and Hispanic voters from the old IL-4 and IL-7.
10)The Western portion of IL-9(Schakowsky-D) goes to IL-10. The Eastern Cook County and SouthEastern Lake Portion of IL-10 goes to IL-9.
11)IL-12(Costello-D) Picks up the Springfield portion of IL-19.(Schimkus-R).
12)IL-17(Hare-D) Picks up the Peoria and Springfield portion of IL-18(Schrock-R).
13)The leftovers of IL-18 gets added to the Western Part of IL-15(Johnson-R).
14)The leftovers of Il-19 gets added to the Eastern part of IL-15(Johnson-R).

The New IL CDs
1) IL-1(Rush-D)- The OLD IL-13 Cook County Base.
2) IL-2(Jackson-D)- The OLD IL-11 Eastern Will County Base.
3) IL-3(new-D)- Eastern Part of the OLD IL-3 and Northern Part of the OLD IL-1 and IL-2.
4) IL-4(Guitteriez-D)- The Central Part of the OLD IL-7.
5) IL-5(Quigley-D vs Roskam-R)- Western Part of OLD IL-5 and Northern Part of the OLD IL-6.
6) IL-6(new-D)- Southern Part of the OLD IL-6 and Western Part of OLD IL-4 and IL-7.
7) IL-7(Davis-D)- Eastern Part of the OLD IL-7 and OLD IL-5.
IL-8(Bean-D)- The OLD IL-14 Northern Kane County Base.
9) IL-9(Schakowsky-D)- The OLD IL-10 Eastern Cook and Southeastern Lake County Base.
10)IL-10(new -D)- The Western Part of the OLD-IL-9.
11)IL-11(Halverson-D)- The OLD IL-13 Will County Base.
12)IL-12(Costello-D)- Springfield portion of the OLD IL-19.
13)IL-13(Lipinksi-D vs Biggert-R). DuPage County Portion of the OLD IL-13 and the Western Chicago portion of the OLD IL-3. Lipinksi’s Chicago base is greater than Biggert’s DuPage base.
14)IL-14(Foster-D vs Manzullo-R)- The Southern Winnebago,Ogle,and DeKalb portion of the old IL-16. 75% of the OLD IL-14 is in the new IL-14. while 25% is from the OLD IL-16.
15)IL-15(new-D)- Most of the Area from the OLD IL-16 plus McHenry portion of the OLD-IL-8.
16)IL-16(Hare-D)- The OLD IL-17 plus Peoria and Springfield portion of the OLD IL-18.
17)IL-17(Schrock-R vs Johnson-R)- OLD-IL-18 plus Western Part of OLD-IL-15.
18)IL-18(Shimkus-R vs Johnson-R)- OLD-IL-19 plus the Eastern Part of OLD IL-15.

By: Neal Patel

Neal Patel — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:06:52 +0000

2010 IL Congressional Redistricting Plan.

1)IL-1(Rush-D)- The new IL-1 picks up the Cook County portion of the old IL-13.
2)IL-2(Jackson-D)- The new IL-2 picks up the Eastern Will County portion of the old IL-11.
3)IL-3(new-D)- Eastern part of the OLD IL-3 and Northern part of the old IL-1 and IL-2.
4)IL-4(Guitteriez-D) picks up the Centeral part of the OLD -IL-7.
5)IL-5(Quigley-D)- The new IL-5 consists the Western part of the old IL-5 and Northern Part of the OLD IL- 6.
6)IL-6(Roskam-R)- The new IL-6 consist the Southern part of the old IL-6 and Western Part of IL-4 and IL-7.
7)IL-7(DEM-D)- The new IL-7 consists of the Eastern Parts of the OLD-IL-7 and IL-5.
8)IL-8(Bean-D)- loses McHenry County to IL-16 but picks up Northern Kane County from IL-14.
9)IL-9(Schakowsky-D)- Remains the same but picks up the Eastern Cook county portion of IL-10.
10)IL-10(DEM-D)- Remains the same but picks up Western Cook County portion of IL-9.
11) IL-11(Halverson-D)- The new IL-11 will pick up the Will County portion of the old IL-13.
12) IL-12(Costello-D)- The new IL-12 picks up the Springfield Portions of the OLD IL-19.
13)IL-13(Lipinski-D vs Biggert-R)- Western part of the OLD IL-3 and DuPage County portion of OLD IL-13.
14)IL-14(Foster-D)- loses Northern Kane County to IL-8 but picks up the Western Part of IL- 16. Jo Davis,Whiteside, Carroll, and Stephenson.
15)IL-15 (Johnson-R vs Shimkus-R)- Southern Part of the OLD IL-15 and IL-19. (IN,KY) boarder.
16)IL-16(Manzullo-R)-picks up McHenry County from the OLD -IL-8.
17)IL-17(Hare-D) picks up the Peoria Portion of IL-18.
18)IL-18 (Schrock-R vs Johnson-R)- Southern part of the OLD IL-18 and Northern Part of the OLD-IL-15.

Tim Johnson’s IL-15 seat gets eliminated.
Bean(IL-8),whoever replaces Kirk(IL-10) Halverson(IL-11),and Foster(IL-14) will get safer districts.
Judy Biggert’s district gets carved up. – she will be forced to run against Conservative Democratic Dan Lipinski in a conservative Democratic District. A more progressive Democrat takes the new IL-3.
Roskam’s loses re-election since he will have to face additional Hispanic and Black voters from IL-4 and IL-7. – Roskam can run against Quigley in the new IL-5 which he is most likely to lose since IL-5′ Chicago base is stronger than IL-6’s Cook County and DuPage County base.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:51:46 +0000

Dman,

Thanks very much for 1) correcting my errors and 2) adding more substance to the discussion. ‘Preciate it.

In New York, where I live, the Dems gained a seat by taking District 29 from the GOP. I expect redistricting will enlarge what is essentially GOP terroritory, making it more difficult for Rep.-elect Eric Massa to hold his seat. Because western New York has lost population in relation to downstate, Democratic seats are vulnerable to redistricting.

By: Dman

Dman — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:56:57 +0000

Dr. Denny – Louisiana is governed by Jindal-R not Blanco-D also Tim Kaine-D of VA was considered as a VP for Obama not Tim Pawlenty-R MN so Pawlenty in an Obama administration is not probable.
Having said that, the importance of who is currently Governor or who controls the state legislature currently will largely be moot in two years as a number of these individuals will no longer be in office. The 2010 election holds very little upside for the Democrats. That is not to say they will have widescale loses ala 1994 but after two strong back to back election performances and now solidly in control it is very unlikely that voters will reward them with even more seats. An even slight wind going against the Democrats in 2010 would allow the GOP to gain several Governorships and state legislative seats at a pivotal time, do to redistricting.
Fester-the VRA is very important to consider but also makes it much more difficult to do as you suggest and unpack theses heavily DEM districts. One example: because of the VRA it would not be possible (without risking legal challenge) to add heavily African-American areas of Corrine Brown’s Jacksonville based district that snake down into Orando and add to rep-elect Grayson’s-D or Kosmas’s-D districts to help shore them up. If anything (barring a state constitutional admendment passing in 2010 taking redistricting out of legislatitve hands), Crist (who is likely to be reelected) and the overwhelmingly GOP controlled Legislature will add more minority voters to districts like Brown’s to make surrounding districts more GOP friendly.
In Texas you could see an alliance of Latino Democrats and Anglo Republicans at the expense of Anglo Democrats. Districts like those of Chet Edwards-D will be targeted for takeover while at the same time making districts like Lloyd Doggett’s-D more Latino thus creating a primary challenge for him. The GOP will probably try to take 3 out of the 4 new districts with the other one for a Latino Dem. The result would be an increase of 4 seats for the GOP no net change for the DEMS and 1 to 2 new Latino DEMS.
In some states where Democrats sre in control and probably will continue to be they may be a victim of their own success. In New York, for example, it would be very hard to make the 26-3 delegation 26-1 by shedding two GOP districts. The Democrats would risk several of there own members by trying to split and absorb two GOP seats. In Colorado, Democrats will be more concerned with shoring up the districts they have taken over rather then going for more gains. This may end up being the case in California too.

By: Gerrymandering › Another One

Gerrymandering › Another One — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:27:02 +0000

[...] in one day! This article at Scholars and Rogues discusses the likely changes in apportionment after the next census, who currently controls which [...]

By: fester

fester — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:39:38 +0000

One of the ways that Dems can minimize the pain is unpacking and uncracking multiple urban districts that are D+20 or D+30 seats that coincidentally produces a penumbra of slightly lean GOP seats in the suburbs. This counter-gerrymander in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and potentially Illinois will first protect Dem incumbents in lean GOP seats (see PA-3 and PA-4 for instance) and then push a lot of GOP seats from R+8 or more down to a more competetive R+2 to R+5 zone. The key is the margin of control in each state, so if Dems in Pennsylvania can still hold 12 seats and force the GOP to lose a seat, they come out of PA net even, as the Republicans make up that lost PA seat with a Georgia seat for instance.

Now onto Texas — at least two of those new seats are most likely going to be Hispanic minority-majority seats that are overwhelmingly likely to favor Democrats. Keep the VRA in mind when analyzing redistricting.

By: earthmuse

earthmuse — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:42:13 +0000

Cant see where this favors the DEMs at all.
This is just yet another reason to throw out the
Electoral College once and for all. With the advent
of supercomputers that can count all of the nations
votes in a couple of hours, the Electoral College is both
antequated and outdated. But more alarmingly, it has
become a way to throw election results into doubt/chaos
(ala Al Gore in 2000). It should be done away with now,
while there is still a chance.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:43 +0000

I’m pessimistic. I don’t believe redistricting will ever be non-partisan. Any attempt to create such a plan would itself be mired in a partisan process.

Too much power is at stake. No one surrenders control over political power willingly. As I wrote, the Dems control states in which they’re likely to lose seats. We’re going to watch Dem-icide of the first order. It won’t be pretty.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:23:54 +0000

Fair point. It’s not likely that the Democrats will voluntarily give away their control if they perceive a partisan advantage, but they’re far more likely to do so than the Republican party as it’s presently defined (and has been since about 1994).

That doesn’t negate the necessity of reform, however. It just makes reform more difficult to accomplish. Putting redistricting into the hands of partisans is a nightmare, and strictly non-partisan redistricting is the only solution I can see.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:04:55 +0000

Which legislature are you counting on to legislate how redistricting works in a non-partisan manner, exactly?

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:50:40 +0000

I like the Bill Richardson quote, especially since it was partly via redistricting that the Democrats kept control over the House for so many decades prior to 1994. “Steal back Congress” indeed.

And this is why the Federal Government needs to legislate how redistricting works, and legislate that boundaries be redrawn to be as geographically continuous and diverse as possible – no more 8 mile long/3 feet wide corridors to include a single ranch (a la Texas, IIRC). The operation of the federal government is too important to leave to rank partisanship on the state level.