Posted on 06/19/2011 11:05:49 AM PDT by arista
Six months ago, before redistricting had even begun, Republicans were optimistic they would gain additional seats, or, as former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie put it, that they would “gain or protect” 15 to 25 seats.
Not surprisingly, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) disagreed, arguing the process wouldn’t be the “disaster” for his party that some thought it would be (though he never said exactly who had predicted that).
In January, I estimated in this space that redistricting would be close to a wash, with neither party making major gains, but with Republicans solidifying many of their unexpected 2010 gains.
With redistricting completed in only a few states but the writing on the wall in many others, it now appears that Democrats — not the GOP — will make a small, single-digit gain from redistricting when the process finally is complete.
Republicans will indeed protect a substantial number of the marginal seats they won last year, though probably toward the bottom of the 15-25 seat range (or even below it).
Democratic gains in just two states, Illinois and California, will almost completely offset the party’s losses elsewhere. On the GOP side, gains in North Carolina, Texas and Georgia almost offset Republican losses in Illinois and California.
There are two caveats about reading too much into any bottom line on redistricting results. First, actual House “gains” and “losses” in November depend on more than district fundamentals. The candidates matter a great deal, as does the broad political environment.
Second, there is considerable subjectivity in these estimates — there is no official handbook to tell anyone at what point a gain or loss has occurred. Estimates are just that: informed guesses about what outcomes are most likely, making them inherently tentative and subject to second-guessing.
For example, some are estimating Democratic gains in California of four or five seats, and that’s possible. But I have put Democratic gains (and Republican losses) in the state at only three.
Two California Republican incumbents, Reps. David Dreier and Gary Miller, are without good districts or good options, while a third, Elton Gallegly, is in only slightly better shape.
Beyond those three, Reps. Brian Bilbray, Dan Lungren, Jeff Denham and Mary Bono Mack face difficult re-election races. But, according to data supplied by the National Republican Congressional Committee, all are in districts won comfortably by 2010 GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorina, and all start off no worse than even money for re-election.
At least three California Democratic incumbents are in districts made substantially more Republican and are at various degrees of risk next year: Reps. Jim Costa, Loretta Sanchez and Lois Capps. In addition, at least one new district could be competitive depending on the year, and vulnerable Rep. Dennis Cardoza’s (D) district was made even more competitive.
If my estimate for California is at the low end of the range for Democrats, my estimate for Illinois (a Democratic gain of five seats and a GOP loss of six) is toward the top end of the range.
Elsewhere, I have treated Iowa as a draw, while others will see a one-seat GOP loss. While registration figures in the new 3rd district slightly favor Rep. Leonard Boswell (D), Republican Rep. Tom Latham should have some advantages and is no worse than even money in the contest. I regard the district as a “fair fight.”
I’ve given Republicans the new seat in Georgia and also assumed they can make Rep. John Barrow’s (D) district significantly more Republican, seriously threatening his hold on it.
Like others, I have assumed Democrats will gain new seats in Arizona and Nevada. I give Republicans a new seat in Utah, but I have not assumed Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson’s seat will also become reliably Republican, even though that is very possible. I also have not assumed that Democrats will add a third district in Nevada.
I assume the loss of a seat for New Jersey results in a fair-fight district pitting Democratic and Republican incumbents against each other. And while Republicans should be able to solidify some of their incumbents in Ohio, I have assumed each party will lose a seat.
I have not assumed partisan changes in Minnesota (split control, with Republicans hoping to solidify Rep. Chip Cravaack’s district), Wisconsin (Republican control could change after recall elections this summer) or Washington state, where a new district could be either competitive or clearly Democratic. Or in New York, where the outlook is murky.
In addition, I haven’t made assumptions about two states where Democrats control the process but where outcomes remain unclear: West Virginia and Maryland.
I have also intentionally not included Florida, where Republicans already hold a 19-6 advantage in the House delegation and where a new state law limits what Republicans can do to improve their standing, even with the state getting two new seats.
Given all of this, Republicans so far look headed for no change from redistricting, while Democrats are poised to add a seat, with more opportunities pending. If Democrats press their advantage in both West Virginia and Maryland, they could add a couple of more districts, with corresponding GOP losses. Changes in Florida would also affect the national bottom line.
If all of this analysis and these assumptions hold — and they probably won’t — it is the Democrats, not the GOP, who could gain slightly from redistricting, though Republicans would indeed solidify themselves in some districts where they looked very vulnerable following the 2010 midterms.
I think it’s more the courts that are the problem. The Dems have heavily gerrymandered most of the States, and they are successfully arguing to the courts that any redistricting that undoes that gerrymandering is itself gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. As long as the liberal court system has the final say on redistricting, you should not be surprised at the result.
I think it’s more the courts that are the problem. The Dems have heavily gerrymandered most of the States, and they are successfully arguing to the courts that any redistricting that undoes that gerrymandering is itself gerrymandering in favor of the GOP. As long as the liberal court system has the final say on redistricting, you should not be surprised at the result.
Actually, replacing a RINO with a Rat effectively results in little, if any, change. Therefore, I look at the changes as basically a wash for the Rats, and fortification of Tea Party seats. That's not altogether bad.
It's hard to believe that in Illinois, which has 19 seats in the House and will have only 18, the 'Rat legislature, according to Rothenberg, can create five new Dem seats and six fewer GOP seats. That's almost a third of the seats switching simply by putting a pen to a map. You might think you could only make such a drastic change by banning Republicans from the voting booths (or getting enough dead folks to the polls - but that usually occurs in already 'Rat districts).
It’s because the GOP is already over-extended in many large states.
In 2000, PA. Republicans got greedy and tried to create a 12-7 GOP advantage. Democrats took over nearly half of the “GOP” seats because the GOP margin was too tight.
It took 10 years (last year) to actually win the 12 districts which were designed to be GOP.
I’m sure they will be more conservative this time around.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal impediment to "gerymandering" in and of itself. If you look at some of the maps of congressional districts, you will see that many have very weird shapes. Districts do have to be contiguous (You have to able to theoretically get between any two points in the district without going into another district) and be as equal as possible in population to other districts within the same state.
I think that the biggest argument that 'Rats might use in court against a districting map which they don't like is that minority voting is diluted.
Chicago is so heavily Democrat that the new 2nd district can absorb all of Kankakee County (Kinzinger’s home) and still be safe Democrat.
It appears that the analysts are relying on Obama’s ‘08 numbers for the 5 new seats. If you look at ‘10 governor/US Senate/Treasurer, the results don’t look nearly as bad.
Chicago is so heavily Democrat that the new 2nd district can absorb all of Kankakee County (Kinzinger’s home) and still be safe Democrat.
It appears that the analysts are relying on Obama’s ‘08 numbers for the 5 new seats. If you look at ‘10 governor/US Senate/Treasurer, the results don’t look nearly as bad.
Actually few legal challenges to maps from either side are successful.
That old man Boswell is lucky to still be there. I give us the edge.
In Illinois they want to undo the results of the last election where we gained 4 and held a seat they wanted to take.
He's a little quick to foretell Cali being a big win for the rats.
Gerrymandering should be ended.
He’s also trying to make the actual eventual results look illegitimate. Thanks justiceseeker93.
Thats what appears to be happening in Texas as well...They redistricted to put Republicans against each other in the primaries in the next cycle...Thanks to a Rino Speaker of the house and his Rino thugs...
Those that lost out in that deal were primarily the opposition to his continued position as speaker in our state house...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.