Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Not The DLC and I Can Prove It (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Big Difference (none)
    Few Dem Senators come from States that Bush won by more than 7-10 points; actually, only Ben Nelson, Baucus, Landrieu, the 3 Dakotans and  Byrd/Rockefeller.  Of those 8, most are relatively safe, and only Nelson and the Dakotans come from states that aren't controlled or even dominated by Dems at the state level.  

    Pelosi, on the other hand, has Dems like Matheson from Utah who represents a disctrict that Bush won by something like 40 points, along with people like Conyers or Rangel who represent districts that are something like 95% Dem performance.  The differences between the two caucuses in diversity and size--45 vs 202--make the House Job much harder in terms of keeping everyone voting as a bloc.

    •  GOP (none)
      The differences between the two caucuses in diversity and size--45 vs 202--make the House Job much harder in terms of keeping everyone voting as a bloc.

      Then why doesn't the GOP have the same problem with their counterparts to Matheson, etc.?

      •  How Many GOPers' Represent Districts... (none)
        ...that Kerry won by 4 points, much less 40?

        Repubs tend to represent districts that range anywhere from 45% Repub Performance to about 70% Repub performance.  Dems represent districts that range from about 38% Dem performance to about 95% Dem performance.  

        •  40 (none)
          I admit I don't know - I assumed (ass, me, not so much you) that there were Republican Mathesons out there. So you're saying there're not?
          •  Pretty Sure There Aren't (none)
            I don't have the current Almanac of American Politics, so I only have the 2000 figures under the old district boundaries.  But in Matheson's old district--which I think was slightly more Dem--Gore lost by 15, and in Gene Taylor's MS district, Gore lost by 34%.  (I think I read that Matheson's district went Bush over Kerry by over 30%)  For the AL districts in 2004, Pomeroy's district went for Bush by 27%, and Herseth's went Bush by 21%.  By comparison, in 2000 Gore won Shays's district by 14%, and since CT was much closer this time, my guess is that Kerry's margin was less, and Shays is considered to be one of the republicans with the most pro-Dem district.  And in 2000, Connie Morrella's district went Gore by 16 points, and two-years later VanHollen took her out.  

            Think about it this way; the country as a whole is pretty even in partisan terms.  But the most Democratic areas, places like Detroit LA and Chicago and much of NYC and are often over 90% Dem, so the Dems are clustered into fewer Congressional Districts, but we're relatively close in members of Congress.  

            [OK, I just compared the 2000 numbers by CD in TX and NY; TX had 8 CD's where Gore got less than 30% and none where he got less than 20%...and Ralph Hall (Gore=22%) and Stenholm (Gore=28%) held two of those seats.  But in NY, there were not just 8 seats where Bush got under 20%, and in 4 of those seats the Bush total was under 10%. And the Repub congressional candidates weren't even competetive in those seats.]

            •  Correction (none)
              Actually, Gore pulled 28% in Hall's old district, and 29% in Stenholm's.  So, before they got screwed in the redistricting, they were winning seats where Gore lost by 41% (Stenholm) and 44% (Hall).  

              After that, their districts got more Republican...

              •  Ugh (none)
                So, what you're saying is, after Chris Shays, there's basically no low-hanging fruit in the House GOP. Ugh.
                •  In Part, Yeah (none)
                  I'm going to do a full post on this, but after the 2002 election, I read some papers arguing that one of the main factors was redistricting.  By the 2000 boundaries, Bush won something like a net of 14 more CD's than did Gore, and Dems held more Bush CD's than Repubs held Gore CD's.  After the redistricting, it went to something like a net of 22 Bush-won CD's.  Considering that Bush did better in 2004 than 2000, my guess is that Bush won almost every Repub-held CD.  

                  It's peoples' complete ignorance of information like this that drives me crazy when somebody looks at a net loss of (4?) seats in Congress from 2002 to 2004, which is almost completely attributable to the Texas redistricting, and conclude that Pelosi did a shitty job (or that Gephardt performed poorly in gaining seats in every election from 96 to 2000, and that the losses in 2002 were almost completely attributable to redistricting losses, especially in MI, OH and PA).  

                  The map is against us, but Dems still regularly outperform the Repubs vs. their presidential candidates.  That's why we hold several more Repub-performing seats than the Repubs hold Dem-performing seats.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site