Skip to main content

Map of redistricting changes
America's once-a-decade adventure in political geography is nearly over, with redistricting season finally on the verge of wrapping up. As you probably know, America's census is taken once every 10 years, in the year ending in "0," and for the election immediately after that (the one in the year ending in "2"), all political boundaries must be redrawn to reflect the decade's new population data. Most importantly, that means redrawing the boundaries of all the U.S. House districts, at least in all the states with more than one district. (It also, of course, means redrawing state legislative districts and even city and county council districts, but we’re going to focus just on the House.)

Unfortunately, the redistricting cycle came at a particularly inopportune time in the political ebb and flow for Democrats. In most states, redistricting of House seats is handled by state legislatures, with the state's governor able to veto. The Democrats lost control of a number of important legislatures and governor's seats as part of the 2010 wave election, though. That limited their ability to draw Dem-favorable maps in some states (as in the case of New York, where losing control of the state Senate took the legislative trifecta away from the Dems), and it also limited the Democrats' ability to force compromise or court-drawn maps in other states by giving the GOP complete control over the process (for instance, loss of the governor's chair and state Houses in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania).

Why was that important? Because when there's a wave election, usually a lot of dead wood gets washed up on the beach, and left there when the wave retreats. A lot of fluky Republicans won in 2010; in an ordinary cycle after a wave, there are usually pickups aplenty for the opposing party as the electorate returns to its normal balance and those fluky winners are left exposed. However, when the wave happens in a census year, that means the party swept into power also has more control over the redistricting apparatus, and is in a position to redesign districts to protect and entrench many of those fluky winners.

Blake Farenthold and Renee Ellmers are two cases in point: those Republican freshmen, if running in the same-configured districts this year as they did in 2010, would probably be on their way out the door. However, because Republicans in Texas and North Carolina, respectively, had control of the redistricting processes, they were able to craft entirely new districts for those two frosh that should preserve them for the next decade, even against any future Democratic waves. As you can see, elections have consequences ... especially state legislative elections!

So, over the flip, we’re going to look over how the redistricting process shook out, state-by-state (leaving out, of course, the states with one at-large congressional seat). Rather than simply going through alphabetically, our look will try and look at which states were the big winners for Dems, and which ones were the big losers. As you'll see, there are definitely more states where the GOP, on the balance, won. That doesn’t mean that the GOP will be gaining seats overall in the House; the effect of redistricting, as a whole, was more or less a wash, thanks to some Dem gains concentrated in a few blue states. However, as this article's title implies, the fact that the Republicans were able to use redistricting to lock in so many gains from 2010 and protect many of their members from the usual fall-off that happens after a wave election, means that, by not losing ground, the Republicans should be viewed as the overall winners here. It's more likely the effect will be felt by holding Democrats to a smallish but decent gain in the House, maybe 10 or 12 seats overall, instead of one in the 20+ range that would threaten the GOP's newly-found majority.

The predicted changes in each state's delegation isn't a prediction of how every House race will actually shake out; it's merely a description of how many seats are expected to shift purely (or mostly) as a result of the effects of redistricting. In some cases, it's a pretty simple call, for instance, in states that needed to lose a seat and where the party in charge forced two members of the opposite party into one seat together (like Michigan and Pennsylvania), or in states where a new district was created and the new district leans pretty clearly in one direction (like Georgia and Washington). In other cases (like California, Illinois, and North Carolina), where a number of tossup races were created, there's a lot of subjective guesswork involved. (We've calculated the Obama percentages of all new districts, if you want to see all the details, as well as maps in Google Maps of all the new boundaries.)


California (+3 D, - 3 R)
California's maps were drawn, for the first time, by an independent commission instead of by the legislature. Perhaps because that was an initiative that Arnold Schwarzenegger championed, there were a lot of fears that the deck would somehow be stacked against the Dems and a map that improved matters for the GOP would result. Whoever might have feared that, however, would have to have ignored the huge growth in California's Hispanic population in the last decade, which would result in a more Dem-friendly map no matter who was drawing it. In addition, using an independent commission may have led to a better result than even if a Dem-controlled legislature had drawn it, because they would have opted for incumbent protection. This map, however, by shaking things up for Dems as well, pushed even more previously-GOP districts into play, amping up the potential number of Democratic pickups (at the cost of making a few Dems less secure).

Three seats flipping from GOP to Democratic is a rough guess; no map in any other state got as thoroughly scrambled as California's, with more than half a dozen seats truly up for grabs. It's perfectly plausible that the Dems could pick up five seats or more; it's just as plausible that, if things go kerflooie, that the GOP could still wind up breaking even. Here's the basic idea, though: two Republicans, David Dreier and Gary Miller, saw their seats in the San Gabriel Valley completely blown up, and Dems are favored to pick up the Hispanic-majority seats that replaced them, CA-31 and CA-41. The formerly Republican-held seat in Ventura County also got turned into a Dem-leaning seat, enough that it forced Elton Gallegly to retire, but Democratic recruiting trouble and a weird independent candidacy may help the GOP snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in CA-26. Brian Bilbray's CA-52 in the San Diego area also got transformed into a lean-Democratic seat, but he may have enough staying power to survive. Several other seats with GOP incumbents (Sacramento's CA-07, Modesto's CA-10) also moved in the Dem direction.

On the flip side, the Fresno-area CA-21, currently Dem-held, got turned redder, and then got left open thanks to a Dennis Cardoza retirement and Jim Costa district-swap; that gives the GOP a legitimate pickup opportunity. Several other Dem seats (CA-03 in the Sacramento Valley, Santa Barbara's CA-24, Long Beach's CA-47) got weakened to the extent that they're competitive now too, giving the GOP a path to limiting the damage.

Florida (+2 D)
It's pretty remarkable that Florida turned out to be a big Democratic win despite the fact that the process was controlled entirely by Republicans. However, their ability to wreak mayhem was hampered by minority growth in Florida, and also by the Fair Districts initiative that voters passed in 2010 in order to limit gerrymandering. (While there's still some pretty transparent gerrymandering in the map, especially around Tampa, it did at least keep the GOP from getting greedy).

Population growth gave Florida two new districts, and the map was drawn to give one to the Dems and one to the GOP. The new Hispanic-plurality Orlando-area FL-09 (60 percent Obama, which will probably see Alan Grayson's return to Congress) was one; the other is a safe Republican seat (43 percent Obama) centered in Charlotte County. However, a funny thing happened, as individual Republicans scrambled to save themselves: Tom Rooney jumped to the new FL-17 from the swingier FL-18 (51 percent Obama), and in turn, Allen West jumped to FL-18, a safer bet than his previous FL-22, which got quite a bit more Democratic (from 52 percent Obama to 57 percent Obama). West's decision to turn tail instead of falling on that grenade leaves the GOP with a Dem-leaning open seat in the Palm Beach area to defend, making two new Dem seats likely.

Illinois (+4 D, -5 R)
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn's super-narrow re-election in 2010, was, from a purely tactical standpoint, maybe the biggest win of the entire 2010 election, because it preserved the Democratic hold on the legislative trifecta, letting them seriously rearrange the map. (The previous decade's map was essentially a Republican-drawn map.) There were fears that the Dems might chicken out and draw a wimpy good-government map, but no; this is one state where the Dems were willing and able to play hardball on the same level as the GOP in North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or, well, just about any other state where they were in control.

The Democratic map severely re-edits four seats, taking four seats held by Republicans (Joe Walsh's IL-08, Bob Dold's IL-10, and Judy Biggert's IL-11, all in Chicago's suburbs, and Bobby Schilling's IL-17 further downstate) and turning them into districts where Barack Obama got 60 percent or more of the vote. That makes those four districts instantly into the four bluest districts held by Republicans anywhere in the country. While the blowhardish Walsh no doubt already has the color of his parachute picked out, and Schilling seems to have little hope either, Dold and Biggert are moderate (and well-funded) enough that those aren't slam-dunk pickups for the Democrats, though they'll certainly have to be pickups, if the Dems want to entertain thoughts of flipping the House. The Dems also dealt with the problem of needing to eliminate one seat by smashing  GOPers Adam Kinzinger and Don Manzullo into one Republican vote sink in Chicago's most distant exurbs, a race that Kinzinger won.

There's also a fifth possibility for Dems in the downstate IL-13, which is now a narrowly Dem-leaning (55 percent Obama) swing district, with pickup chances bolstered by GOPer Tim Johnson's abrupt retirement… and one potential problem in the form of the similarly swingy St. Louis-area IL-12, a Dem-held seat left open by Jerry Costello's retirement.


Arizona (+1 D)
Despite the fact that Arizona uses an independent commission, this was certainly one of the most dramatic redistricting battles, with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's attempt to impeach the commission's chair Colleen Mathis (and her subsequent reinstatement by the state Supreme Court). I suppose it makes sense that Brewer tried to fight the map, though, as it wound up being a modest boon to Dems. It made already-safer GOP seats even safer, while creating a new Tempe-area open seat, AZ-09, that's a tossup for now but that, at least based on the presidential numbers, leans slightly Democratic (51 percent Obama). It also made it easier to hold Gabby Giffords' former seat (now AZ-02) and makes a Dem pickup of the rural AZ-01 more plausible.

With split control of the trifecta, Colorado wound up using a court-drawn map, and the court wound up choosing a Democrat-drawn map. No seats seem poised to change hands because of redistricting, but the map did turn the formerly red CO-06 in Denver's suburbs into a swing district where Dems can compete (once 46 percent Obama, now 54 percent Obama). That comes at the cost of making rural CO-04 redder, diminishing Dem hopes of picking that one back up.

Kentucky's compromise map, the result of a Dem House and GOP Senate, didn't move the boundaries much at all. The Dem win here is a small one but a potentially important one in the event of another Republican wave election at some point this decade: the GOP-leaning KY-06 in the Lexington area, where Blue Dog Dem Ben Chandler barely survived 2010, got two points friendlier (from 43 percent to 45 percent Obama).

Maryland (+1 D, -1 R)
The Democrats control the trifecta in Maryland, and they used it to their advantage. (Whether they used it to maximum advantage is up for debate, though; they went for a safer 7 D/1 R map, while we've seen plenty of hypothetical but plausible 8 D/0 R maps suggested.) By turning MD-01 into even more of a GOP vote sink, they were able to turn the state's other GOP-held seat, MD-06, into a Dem-leaning one (from 40 percent Obama to 56 percent Obama). In that new environment, polls show long-time Republican incumbent Roscoe Bartlett on his way to defeat this year.

Nevada (+1 D)
Split control in Nevada meant another court-drawn map, but thanks to explosive growth in the Las Vegas area, much of it non-white, the map turned out favorable to the Democrats. The newly-created district in the Vegas suburbs, NV-04, is 56 percent Obama; that's not a slam dunk in an open seat, but likelier than not to go our way. In addition, the other suburban seat, NV-03, picked up by Republican Joe Heck in 2010, stayed well within Dems' reach, falling only to 54 percent Obama from 55 percent Obama before.

Rhode Island
There wasn't much moving of furniture in Rhode Island, but what happened worked to Dems' advantage. The Dems who control the legislature shored up potentially vulnerable freshman David Cicilline in RI-01 by a few points, at the expense of the more moderate and more entrenched Jim Langevin in RI-02, who doesn't especially need any help.

Washington (+1 D)
Washington does redistricting by independent commission; with most of the state's growth occurring in the Dem-friendly Puget Sound region, the big question wasn't so much whether a new Dem-leaning seat would be created but where. In the end, new WA-10 wound up linking Olympia with Tacoma's southern suburbs; at 57 percent Obama it's likely to elect Democrat Denny Heck. The not-so-good tradeoff for that, though, was that the formerly solid-blue WA-01 in Seattle's northern suburbs got turned into a swing district (dropping from 62 percent Obama to 56 percent); combined with an open seat left by Jay Inslee's resignation, that shift sets up the potential for a GOP pickup. (Of course, the tradeoff for that tradeoff is that the occasionally-vulnerable Dem Rick Larsen in WA-02 now gets a much safer district, at 60 percent Obama.)


The special master-drawn map in Connecticut is very much a stand-pat map, with every district's Obama percentage staying exactly the same. (Alternatively, you might argue that, in itself, is a small Dem victory, since they got the map they were pushing for, as opposed to the Republicans' big idea, which was to move Bridgeport out of CT-04 in order to push it back toward swing district status.)

The lines hardly needed to move in Hawaii, and that's exactly what happened. Both districts are still strongly Democratic.

Boise, once split between ID-01 and ID-02, is now mostly in the 2nd, which makes that district slightly friendlier to Democrats. At 37 percent Obama, though, it still isn't electing a Democrat any time soon.

Iowa (-1 R)
Iowa is a good-government redistricter's dream: they use a legislative commission and somehow always manage to be the first state done and to have compact, uniform-looking districts that don't even deviate from county lines. Iowa needed to lose one seat because of depopulation and, at first glance, it looks like the GOP were the losers here, with the elimination of Tom Latham's seat. However, rather than retire, Latham decided to run against Dem Leonard Boswell in the new Des Moines-area IA-03 (52 percent Obama); the majority of the constituents here are already Boswell's rather than Latham's, but Latham is a strong competitor and if this tossup race breaks his way, well, make it -1 D instead.

Louisiana (-1 R)
Louisiana didn't give the GOP very many good options, despite being in firm control. The state needs to lose a seat because of hurricane-related population loss, and the state's one Dem, Cedric Richmond, sits in a Voting Rights Act-protected seat in New Orleans. That meant the state Republicans had to toss one of their own overboard, and it looks like it's freshman Jeff Landry, whose district got vaporized (and who apparently plans to run in a tough primary against fellow member Charles Boustany in a merged LA-03). They did manage to use the remnants of Landry's district to make another member much safer, though; John Cassidy's LA-06 dropped from 41 percent Obama to 31 percent.

Massachusetts (-1 D)
Although the Dems control the trifecta in Massachusetts, they were pretty much screwed no matter what: they needed to lose a seat, and with a delegation of 10 Dems and no Republicans, one Dem had to go. John Olver made the decision easier, though, by announcing  his retirement. Beyond losing that seat, though, Dems made the best of the circumstances, by making sure all the remaining districts stayed at least 57 percent Obama, and shoring up the district of their potentially weakest link, freshman William Keating. (One small potential, problem, though: the weakest district (MA-06, at 57 percent) now belongs to the Dem, John Tierney, with the state's strongest Republican challenger.)

The Republicans actually control the trifecta here, but thanks to the state's geography their options for trying to improve their lot at the Congressional level are pretty limited. Fearing a people's veto via referendum of a more aggressive map, they settled for a map that left the two districts' percentages the same.

With a Republican legislature and Democratic governor in Minnesota (where, as with Illinois, Mark Dayton's narrow victory in 2010 was huge), a court-drawn map had to be used, and, overall, there was very little change. Dems and GOPers can each claim a minor victory, with Michele Bachmann getting a few points safer in MN-06, but with a potentially new target opening up for the Dems in MN-02, where John Kline's district correspondingly got a few points bluer. The district that will see the state's biggest battle, MN-08, where accidental GOP freshman Chip Cravaack fights for his first re-election, barely changed at all.

The boundaries changed very little in Mississippi. The delegation's 3 R, 1 D split is most likely locked in for the next decade, barring the emergence of some sort of Blue Dog superstar in one of the state's three dark-red districts.

The numbers barely changed in the Cornhusker State. In a way, you might consider that a bit of a fail on the Republicans' part (seeing how they control the process). By cracking Omaha between two districts to dilute its Dem core, they could have made NE-02 a distinctly redder district, keeping the lightly-endangered Lee Terry safer but more importantly taking that district off the table for the Obama campaign this time. Instead, they just stood pat.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire may have had the least change of any state with two or more districts: only a few thousand people got switched from one district to the other. The overall percentages stayed the same.

New Mexico
A court-drawn map in New Mexico (where there's a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor) stuck with least change; the overall percentages in all three districts hardly budged.

New York (-1 D, -1 R)
Most of the states in the "wash" category are the small states with two or three districts, but there is one very, very complicated wash, and that's New York. With the Republicans controlling the state Senate, that means split control, and that led to a court-drawn map that tried to split the difference. Retirements by two members, one of each party, one from Upstate and one from the City, made the task of deciding which two seats to eliminate (thanks to depopulation) much easier: those two seats, the Poughkeepsie-area seat held by long-time Dem Maurice Hinchey and the Queens seat picked up in a special election surprise by GOPer Bob Turner, easily fell to the axe.

However, there was a lot of scrambling of the remaining seats, with a number of seats getting pushed into the "tossup" or "lean" realm that we wouldn't necessarily have expected to see being competitive. In fact, two freshman incumbents, one from each party, seem likelier than not to lose their next races: Dem Kathy Hochul (another surprise special election victor in the Buffalo area, whose NY-27 fell from 46 percent Obama to 44 percent Obama, the reddest district in the state), and GOPer Ann Marie Buerkle (one of 2010's narrowest winners and now facing a rematch with Democratic ex-Rep. Dan Maffei in a district that's now 56 percent Obama). In addition, there are slightly bluer swing districts for three other upstate GOP frosh: Nan Hayworth, Chris Gibson, and Tom Reed, any of whom could also fall. (Several other Dems got tougher rows to hoe, though, too, including a couple who haven't had competitive races in ages: Louise Slaughter and Nita Lowey.)

Democrats are very likely to lose one seat in Oklahoma in 2012, but it has nothing to do with redistricting. Oklahoma was one of the first states to finish, and they tinkered very little with the lines of OK-02, the only Dem-held seat in the state, which stayed 34 percent Obama (or with any other district's line, for that matter). Dan Boren subsequently issued a surprise retirement announcement. Expect a 5 R, 0 D state after 2012, but not because of any gerrymandering.

Despite split control (a Dem governor, a Dem Senate, and a 30-30 House), the parties managed to iron out a compromise map, basically sticking to the principles of least change. The GOP may have emerged with the tiniest of advantages here, making swingy OR-05 a point less blue in exchange for the already-ridiculously-blue OR-03 becoming two points more blue. But even the 5th (down to 53 percent Obama from 54 percent) seems poised to stay in Dem Kurt Schrader's hands except under the most extreme wave conditions.

West Virginia
West Virginia is kind of the flipside of Nebraska: is it a wash, because the map barely changed, with every district's percentages exactly the same? Or is it a win for the out-party (in this case the Republicans), because the party in charge (here the Democrats, who despite their lack of luck here at the presidential level, still dominate the state legislature) failed to do anything to push their advantages? (Here, that would have meant making WV-02 safer for the Republicans in exchange for making WV-01 swingier, to help make it easier for a Dem to pick that one back up.)


This is a very minor win for the Republicans, who already have a 6 R, 1 D edge in this state but locked it in a little further. They managed to shore up the weakest link in their delegation, Mike Rogers, whose district, AL-03 went from 43 percent Obama to 37 percent Obama. That came mostly at the expense of fellow GOPer Robert Aderholt, who could safely afford to go from 23 percent (!) Obama up to 26 percent in AL-04.

Arkansas (-1 D, +1 R)
The single biggest redistricting fail on the Democrats' part is, without a doubt, Arkansas, a state where they control the legislature and the governor's chair and yet managed to make things worse for themselves. After experimenting with ways of making their one remaining House seat in the state (AR-04, held by Mike Ross) safer via the so-called "Fayetteville Finger," the Dems instead opted to make AR-04 a few points redder in exchange for making AR-01 (picked up by GOPer Rick Crawford in 2010) a point bluer, probably figuring that Ross could take care of himself and that Crawford was a decent target. Ross's response was… to retire. So, now the Dems find themselves defending an open seat that's 37 percent Obama, while chasing after a different seat (the 1st) that they only managed to bump up to 39 percent Obama and are in little condition to get back.

Indiana (-1 D, +1 R)
The Republicans control the trifecta in Indiana, and they were able to exploit that to draw a map that, most likely, will flip one more seat in their direction. They managed to drop the Obama percentage in the South Bend-area IN-02 from 54 percent Obama to 50 percent. (Bear in mind that that's no swing district anymore; that reflects an extreme high water mark for Dems, based on Obama's overperformance in Indiana.) That may not have been enough in itself to defeat Dem Joe Donnelly, but, lured by the prospect of facing Richard Mourdock (rather than Richard Lugar) in a Senate race in addition to getting dealt a worse district, he retired, leaving an open seat. Beyond that, though, it wasn't a terribly aggressive GOP map; they strangely didn't do anything to shore up freshman Larry Buchson in the 48 percent Obama IN-08, and they let suburban IN-05 (open because of Dan Burton's retirement) creep up to 47 percent Obama.

Michigan (-1 D)
With Republicans controlling the trifecta here, and most of the state's population loss having occurred in the strongly-Democratic Detroit area, the results in Michigan were a foregone conclusion. With the need, because of the VRA, to keep two African-American majority seats in Detroit, the axe fell further out in the suburbs, with long-timer Sander Levin and sophomore Gary Peters getting mashed together in a new safely-Democratic MI-09. (Interestingly, Peters may yet survive, not by challenging Levin, but by challenging Hansen Clarke in one of the black-majority seats.) The GOP also managed to strengthen their hand slightly in rural MI-07 (from 52 percent to 51 percent Obama).

Missouri (-1 D)
Missouri is a split-control state, with Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon balanced against a Republican legislature – although with most of the state's population loss happening in the St. Louis area, Democrats would have been hard-pressed to preserve a Dem seat even if they'd been in charge. In the end, though, Missouri was one of the more egregious cases of legislative Democrats laying down their arms and letting the GOP do what they wanted. The result was elimination of Russ Carnahan's swingy suburban MO-03, with Carnahan opting to run in a Dem primary against Lacy Clay in the St. Louis-based MO-01. The tradeoff is that Republican-held MO-02 became a few points bluer (from 44 percent to 46 percent Obama); if Carnahan had run here, we might have had a small shot at picking it up, but as it stands it looks off the table.

South Carolina (+1 R)
The Republicans control the trifecta in South Carolina, and most of the growth has happened in GOP-friendly parts of the state, so whipping up one more red district in the state (which already has a 5 R, 1 D delegation) was no real problem for them. The new SC-07, centered on Myrtle Beach, is likely to end up in the Republican column, though it's worth noting that, at 45 percent Obama, it's the state's second least-red district (after the black-majority SC-06 at 70 percent Obama), and, if he survives the primary, the Dems have a good contender here in the form of Ted Vick.

The Republicans' House delegation grew by three in Tennessee in 2010, so their interests lay in consolidating their gains at 7 R, 2 D, and not expanding the map. This ranks as a "small win" rather than a "wash" simply because they did so very well at that. Their theoretically most vulnerable freshman member, Stephen Fincher, found his TN-08 drop from 43 percent Obama to 35 percent. And they did that without pushing any of their other members up into the 40s, either, probably locking the entire delegation in for the next decade.

Texas (+2 D, +2 R)
Texas was the big redistricting bonanza, gaining four new seats as a result of the 2010 Census. (Florida was the only other state to gain more than one seat.) The Republicans control the trifecta in Texas, but there were two big obstacles preventing them from going completely nuts: the fact that more than three-quarters of the state's massive growth over the last decade was among non-whites, and the fact that the Obama administration's DOJ seemed intent on playing hardball with them over complying with the Voting Rights Act. In the end, the Democrats made out OK in Texas, but the fact that the GOP managed to wrangle a "compromise" map that led to a +2 D, +2 R (instead of the +3 D, +1 R result that the population growth would seemingly dictate) makes it a small GOP win.

The plan has the initial appearance of creating that +3 D, +1 R result, in that three of the four newly-created districts (TX-33 through TX-35) have Hispanic majorities and 60 percent+ Obama percentages. However, what happened below the surface is that the GOP managed to gerrymander two existing seats, thanks to massively cracking apart Austin's Travis County. Dem Lloyd Doggett's TX-25 is now a strongly-GOP open seat (Doggett opted to run in the Hispanic-majority 35th). They also shored up GOP freshman Blake Farenthold (one of 2010's most surprising winners, and a probable loser had he run again under the old lines), moving TX-27's center of gravity from Corpus Christi to Victoria, taking it from 53 percent Obama to 40 percent Obama).

So, really, the Dems are gaining the Dallas-area TX-33 and the Rio Grande Valley's TX-34, while the GOP gains the Austin-to-Ft. Worth TX-25 and the Houston-suburbs TX-36. In fact, now that the dust has settled, there's only one swing district left in the whole state; that's the San Antonio-area TX-23, a 50 percent Obama seat that GOPer Quico Canseco will have to fight to hold.

Virginia is one more state where, faced with a bounty of pickups from the 2010 harvest (three new seats), the GOP had to focus on locking in gains rather than targeting more Dems. In exchange for conceding a much safer Fairfax County seat to Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly in VA-11 (which went from 57 percent to 61 percent Obama), they managed to boost each of their troublesome seats by a few percentage points. That includes VA-02 and VA-05, where they're defending freshmen, and VA-01 and VA-10, where rapid exurban growth is increasingly letting Beltway liberals establish a beachhead.

And the same story applies in Wisconsin, where the GOP picked up two seats and needed to focus on protecting those, rather than expanding. Their top priority was protecting freshman Sean Duffy in WI-07, which they managed to drop from 56 percent to 53 percent Obama, which may make all the difference in a close election. This came at the expense of a slightly safer WI-03 for Democrat Ron Kind, in the state's other rural district. The other GOP freshman, Reid Ribble, didn't see his fortunes improved, though; his WI-08 stayed flat at 54 percent Obama.


Georgia (+1 R)
It was pretty clear all along that the Republicans (who control the trifecta here) would gain a seat in Georgia, with much of the state's population growth occurring in the mostly-white exurban reaches far to the north of Atlanta. That's exactly what happened, with Republicans placing dark-red new GA-09 there (with former GA-09 getting the new GA-14 designation). They also put another seat strongly into play, taking Blue Dog Dem John Barrow's GA-12 down from 54 percent Obama to 44 percent. Barrow's conservative voting record finally comes in handy, but if he still isn't able to hold on, the Republicans will have converted it to a -1 D, +2 R map instead. Finally, they also protected freshman Austin Scott in GA-08, although they did so at the expense of conceding a safer GA-02 (58 percent Obama, up from 54 percent) to Dem Sanford Bishop, who narrowly won in 2010.

North Carolina (-3 D, +3 R)
Think state legislative elections don't matter? North Carolina certainly proves that they do. In a rather unexpected result, the Republicans managed to take control of both chambers of the legislature in North Carolina in 2010, and that gave them unfettered control of the redistricting process (although it has a Democratic Governor, North Carolina is one of the few states that doesn't give the Governor veto power over redistricting). Considering that the map during the 2000s was a Democratic gerrymander – and also considering that in 2010, unlike in many other states, a number of Blue Dogs (Larry Kissell, Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre) survived the wave -- the counter-gerrymander turned into the GOP's single biggest offensive windfall of the cycle.

North Carolina used to have six (out of 13) districts greater than 50 percent Obama, but thanks to some creative map drawing, there are now three super-blue districts (each more than 70 percent Obama), and ten strongly-GOP districts that are 45 percent Obama or less. That locks in 2010's one surprise GOP pickup, Renee Ellmers (whose NC-02 went from 52 percent Obama to 43 percent), forced Dem Brad Miller to retire (as his NC-13 went from 59 percent Obama to 45 percent), and gave Kissell a terribly steep hill to climb (with NC-08 going from 53 percent Obama to 42 percent). Two Blue Dog Dems in GOP-leaning districts also got dealt worse hands: Shuler (whose NC-11 went from 47 percent Obama to 40 percent) chose to retire, while McIntyre finds himself in a tossup (with NC-07 dropping from 47 percent Obama to 42 percent).

New Jersey (-1 D)
Managing to eradicate one Democratic seat in a blue state isn't a showy result as far as "big wins" go, but the way the state GOP went about it was particularly Machiavellian. New Jersey uses a bipartisan commission to do redistricting, with a neutral tiebreaker in charge. (Although there was some doubt as to whether this year's tiebreaker, law school dean John Farmer, was really that neutral to begin with.) With conventional wisdom dictating that the map would create a "fair fight" district that would pit one Democrat and one Republican against each other in the suburbs, the GOP put together a map that created the appearance of a fair fight but was, functionally, a Dem loss.

Their approach: move Democratic Rep. Steve Rothman's house into GOPer Scott Garrett's NJ-05, but keep the 5th an unappealing GOP-leaning seat (49 percent Obama) and move most of Rothman's constituents into fellow Dem Bill Pascrell's much safer NJ-09(64 percent Obama) in the hopes that Rothman would follow them there, instead of starting off with a disadvantage against Garrett. That was the map that got picked, and Rothman did exactly that, running against Pascrell in the new 9th and leaving Garrett with only minor opposition instead of that promised "fair fight." (The GOP also managed to strengthen their most vulnerable members, Jon Runyan in NJ-03 and Leonard Lance in NJ-07, in fact moving the 7th from 51 percent Obama to 47 percent.)

Ohio (-1 D, -1 R)
Ohio Republicans controlled the trifecta after flipping the state House and the Governor's seat in 2010, but they were limited by their ability to create much mischief by the need to wipe out two seats while locking in their gains from 2010 (five seats!). Most pundits expected them to have to toss one Republican overboard in addition to one Democrat. To most people's surprise, the two who got mashed up turned out to be veterans Mike Turner and Steve Austria in new OH-10 (rather than frosh Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson, as expected); Austria decided to retire rather than lose a primary to Turner. Pundits also wondered whether the GOP would target Dennis Kucinich or Betty Sutton for elimination, among the Dems. In the end, the GOP managed to target both of them.

They did that by putting Kucinich in a safely-Dem Cleveland-to-Toledo OH-09 with Marcy Kaptur (a primary which he already lost), and by creating a new Democratic vote sink in the Columbus area. That latter action potentially saved the two Columbus-area GOPers, Steve Stivers and Pat Tiberi, both of whom previously had Dem-leaning swing districts, and created a containment pool for the one part of the state where the Dems seem to be rapidly gaining. More significantly, it also let them pit Sutton against GOP frosh Jim Renacci in a combined Akron/Canton-area OH-16 that leans GOP (47 percent Obama, a far cry from Sutton's old seat, which was 57 percent Obama). Polls have shown this race to be a tossup, but if this gambit pans out with a Renacci win, the GOP will have gotten the -1 D, -1 R result. managed to turn the -1 D, -1 R compromise into a -2 D wipeout.

Pennsylvania (-1 D)
Despite only phasing out one Democratic seat, the GOP needs to receive some sort of chutzpah award for their map in Pennsylvania, perhaps the most aggressively ugly map anywhere in the country. The decision of where to eliminate the seat was a pretty easy one for the GOP (who controlled the trifecta, after picking up the state House and Governor's chair in 2010): much of the state's population loss occurred in the counties around Pittsburgh, and the mashup of Dems Jason Altmire and Mark Critz in PA-12 was an obvious solution. (In the end, Critz won a surprise victory in that primary.) However, that still left the problem of trying to make their districts in the eastern part of the state safer; by zigzagging their way across the landscape in a crazy quilt, they managed to replace GOP freshman Lou Barletta's 57 percent Obama district, PA-11, with one that's 47 percent instead, and then pushed three other potentially troublesome GOP-held suburban districts (PA-06, PA-07, and PA-15) way to the right (each moving from the 56-58 percent Obama range to 51-53 percent).

Utah (+1 R)
The debate among GOPers in Utah (who, naturally, control the trifecta in the nation's reddest state) was whether to go with a "pizza" or "donut" map; the pizza would have cracked the Salt Lake City area four ways in attempt to dislodge the delegation's lone Democrat, Blue Dog Rep. Jim Matheson, while the donut would have carved out the state's most Democratic (or least Republican, as we're talking about Utah) areas in a concession to Matheson. In the end, "pizza" won out, with no seat featuring a stronger Obama performance than 41 percent. That 41 percent was in the new UT-04, and Matheson opted to run there, leaving 38 percent Obama UT-02 as a dark-red open seat. Facing mostly new constituents in the 4th, Matheson's race is a serious tossup; if the GOP opponent Mia Love can pull it off, change that +1 R to -1 D, +2 R.


There's one state left that hasn't finished, and no one really knows when they'll be done: Kansas. Whatever they do, it won't change the calculus much; they already have a delegation that's 4 R, 0 D. The main question is how much the GOP, who controls the trifecta here, decides to crack apart KS-03, the Kansas City-area district that's the lone swingy district in the state at 51 percent Obama.

+3 D, -3 R

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun May 06, 2012 at 12:44 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  sometimes 1981 doesn't seem so bad a time to be (3+ / 0-)

    alive despite being in the era of Reagan. At least the democrats had people like Phillip Burton who could put the rocksuckers in their place.

    also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

    by demographicarmageddon on Sun May 06, 2012 at 12:46:55 PM PDT

  •  They voted we didnt; we get moldy crumbs nt (12+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Redistricting seemed like such an abstract... (7+ / 0-)

    ...and obscure, perhaps even an irrelevant factor to many members of this community in the run up to the 2010 elections.

    I fear this lesson will be forgotten long before 2020.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

  •  and yet, Nancy Pelosi confidently says +35 (13+ / 0-)

    It's possible, even given your analysis.  Taking California by itself, if Obama and Feinstein and an interesting initiative give voters a reason to turn out, it's possible that the Democrats hold all three swingy seats and defeat Bilbray, and the top 2 primary makes Ventura County a more likely pickup than it would have been in a separate party primary. +5 is possible, and +7 (beating Dan Lungren and Mary Bono) isn't impossible given the demographics of the two districts.

    So net +7 Dems just there.  I'm not up to date enough with the rest of the country yet, and I know you've been purposely conservative.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:02:51 PM PDT

    •  Pelosi's a good politician (7+ / 0-)

      but what do you expect her to say?  "Yeah, maybe if there's a wave election we'll take the House, but it's not that likely."?

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:32:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, in the context (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        she was on Jennifer Granholm's show, and she could have wildly overestimated.  I don't think what she said was impossible either.

        How do you see California?

        -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:35:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not great at making predictions (4+ / 0-)

          I can say that I'm very interested in the Safe D CA-02 and in CA-52 and CA-51 (as much in the primaries as in the general elections, although CA-52 might have a fascinating general election).

          I'm a bit suspicious of major gains in CA, perhaps because I think Obama over-performed by a fair amount in CA, and so I'm not sure if his percentages are much of a baseline--while Boxer and Brown were running in a GOP wave year and also had very strong minor-party performances.  

          A good reference (also by David Jarman) is the California Cheat Sheet, if you haven't seen it.  

          26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

          by Xenocrypt on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there's a strong chance we do better in CA (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The fact that the GOP Wave in 2010 didn't even wash onto California's shores puts them in a bad position in 2012.  Statewide we had no trouble winning the governorship in a GOP year.  

            Now in a more normal year, how are they going to do?  California's demographics are moving against the Republicans.  We're not too far from holding the 2/3rds majority we need in the state government to finally ignore their obstructionism.  

            •  Yes it did (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jncca, Xenocrypt
              the GOP Wave in 2010 didn't even wash onto California's shores
              I used to make the same statement you just did, but it was shown to me that it's incorrect. Republicans did do better in CA in 2010, they just didn't quite win.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:44:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                But the wave was not as large as it was in the rest of the country. In the rest of the country, Republicans won house seats that were marginal and unexpected to go for them like the NY-25 and TX-27.

                In California, they came close in a few seats such as CA-20 and CA-11 but it was not quite enough, showing how the wave certainly came to California but since California is trending towards the Democrats, the wave was not significant enough to cause damage.

                For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog CA-2 (former CA-6)

                by Alibguy on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:21:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I don't think Blake Farenthold is… (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  …going to win TX-27. Most people look at the 2008 Presidential numbers and saw McCain 59-Obama 40 and see a district that should be easily GOP. But look at the Congressional numbers (just plugging McCain's numbers in TX-14 since Ron Paul had no opponent) and the new TX-27 was just 47-51 in 2008 for the Democrats (Hinojosa-15, Doggett-25, Ortiz 27, ghost of Obama-14).

                  In 2006 and 2004 it was an even more clear cut 53-45 both years for the Democrats (Hinojosa-15, Doggett-25, Ortiz 27, Shane Sklar/06 and the ghost of Kerry/04-14).

                  But that is going to require the right candidate, the only progressive, Rose Meza Harrison to win the Democratic primary. For Rose is, as a friend of Blake told me, "the only Democrat that scares Blake."

                  Give me a sorry Mitt Romney on top of the ticket that keeps the evangelicals home, the support of people like you, and we will shatter the GOP's dream gerrymander.

                  Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

                  by DemSign on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:09:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That Cheat sheet is out dated (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Xenocrypt, MichaelNY, LarryNM

            David needs to update CA-26, by making it show Linda Parks as an Indie candidate, and CA-49 having democratic Candidate Jerry Tetalman running.

            Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college) Join r/elections on reddit! Support Sukhee Kang for CA-45!

            by Daman09 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah and it left the biggest city off CA-17 (0+ / 0-)

              listing the next two in size.  Not only was Sunnyvale split among districts before, so was my zip code.  Every petition I filled out needed my street address to find the right Congress critter.  I wish those petition websites just asked me as I knew who she was.

              Maybe because Sunnyvale was split it wasn't on the old sheet, but come on, this is the second largest city in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) and the 39th biggest city in California.  And while 39th may not sound like much, it is also the 176th largest city in the entire US!  That means it's larger than places you HAVE heard of, such as Savannah, Georgia; Pasadena, California; McAllen, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; or Topeka, Kansas.


              Sunnyvale, pop 140,000
              Santa Clara, pop 116,000
              Milpitas, pop 67,000
              Cupertino, pop 58,000
              Newark, pop 43,000

              A really great tagline appearing here soon! Watch this space!

              by madhaus on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:43:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I totally agree. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, Odysseus

            Picking up 7 seats is highly unlikely. I think people were motivated to vote for Obama in 2008 in a way they aren't now. Look at Obama's percentages versus Boxer's or better yet Kamala Harris' percentages in the new CDs  1, 8, 22, & 23.
             I also think the open primary is going to have an effect on the race in ways that nobody fully understands or will understand until June 6th.  The story on June 6th will be the race nobody saw coming.

            ex-SSP. What would Machiavelli do?

            by hankmeister on Sun May 06, 2012 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I revere the Once and Future Speaker (6+ / 0-)

      But I suspect that at this point she's performing more "Pep Talk" than anything else. The GOP could well talk themselves into losing more than the 15-18 seats I believe their over zealousness encouraged them to draw up and approve.

       If by late September 25 seats are acknowledged by The Village as "endangered" then that would probably mean 35 or more actually are.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:48:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It really depends on the Presidential campaign (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, Odysseus, bear83

        If Obama runs a strong campaign and Romney remains as unlikeable as he was during the primary, then we could see the House flip again.  

        If the House doesn't flip then frankly Obama's second term is just about as DOA as Bush's.  He's not going to get anything done, and the economy is probably going to continue going down the crapper thanks to House obstructionism.  

    •  Also nationalization vs. localization (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I feel that we need to look at the races from a national perspective instead of just a local perspective. During the 2010 election, there were some races that I thought the Democrats would win because the Democratic candidate was either really strong or the Republican candidate was weak. As the national tide and turnout turned against the Democrats though, these specific candidates were still swept away.

      In 2012, the same could happen in California where Obama turns out enough Democrats to make the local part of the race a non issue. I could see that happening to Bilbray.

      For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog CA-2 (former CA-6)

      by Alibguy on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:19:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kansas... (5+ / 0-)

    The congressional redistricting here seems to largely be about what metro area is going to get screwed.  

    Will it be Wyandotte County, the most Democratic in the state, being separated from the rest of Kansas City and shoved into either the 2nd District with Topeka or the Big Farm First with Hays & Garden City?  

    Will it be Manhattan, the planned home of NBATF, by being put into the Big Farm 1st, represented by one of the most anti-science legislators in Congress?  

    Will it be Topeka, the Capital City, with the potential of being split between 2nd and Big Farm 1st?

    Will it be Wichita, with the nibbling away of the aircraft industry into the Big Farm 1st?

    How about all 4?  Maybe they are just going to put up a giant dartboard in the capital building?

    Me, bitter?  No, why do you say that?  Just because they have been sitting with their thumbs up their butts and wasting money since January?

  •  Heh. It's actually not as bad as I feared (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wary, Churchill, TofG, MichaelNY, bear83

    So we netted +2 after a slaughter.

  •  I'm noticing an important shift in this voter (3+ / 0-)

    All there is is bad news and I'm getting tired of it.  As "examined" I try to be life wise.   It's bad....all the time.  

    In all seriousness,  I wonder if others are feeling a despair tipping point too.

    •  ..... (0+ / 0-)

      As "examined" a life as I try to lead.......there.  

    •  I felt despair in Aug '09 w/Public Option Cave-In (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Asak, WisJohn

      or actually, a pre-Cave-In without a fight, a sort of planned cave-in, no fight, no drama well, you know-who

      80 % of success is showing up

      Corporate is not the solution to our problem

      Corporate is the problem

      by Churchill on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:27:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I felt a dispair last March and April. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, LordMike

      Scott Walker. 'Nuff said.

      Farm boy who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.88, -4.26, 6/5/2012- the day the great error of Wisconsin history will be corrected!

      by WisJohn on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:10:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Late last year, a month before state legislature (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisJohn, lordpet8, MichaelNY, LordMike

        elections in New Jersey, I made a mini-speech to my chapter of the College Democrats on why we must make sure to vote and to remind voters.  I pointed to WI as my example of what happens.

        "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

        by KingofSpades on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:18:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was really a sad time. (4+ / 0-)

          I told my state employee mom that I was I was consoling one of my teachers at school, and that I wished I could do something more. She said, "You've written your letters to the legislature, as I have too, and that's really all we can do."  It was a very sad time. But, we are trying hard to fix it now. However, the deep divide that has happened in our once, fairly bi-partisan state may take a long time to heal.

          Farm boy who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.88, -4.26, 6/5/2012- the day the great error of Wisconsin history will be corrected!

          by WisJohn on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:25:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Despair is an inappropriate reaction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This simply means the House elections are more challenging, not that they are lost. The Democrats are still well able to recapture the House in a wave.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what about the Issa (R-49 or 50?) CA seat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, MichaelNY

    I hate that mother with a blue passion

    German Constitution, Article 1 (1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.

    by Mark B on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

    •  It became bluer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, sacman701

      At least by its Presidential vote: It went from being a 45O-53M district to one that Obama narrowly won by 49-48 split. In 2010, though, the Dem ticket didn't fare very well in the district: Jerry Brown lost the new 49th by 37-55, and Barbara Boxer lost it by 36-56.

      Even with a Presidential year rebound, I wouldn't expect much here: Issa's Democratic opponent has only raised chump change so far.

      Editor, Daily Kos Elections

      by James L on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:30:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And given Obama's strong performance in CA (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hankmeister, MichaelNY

        we might consider rating an Obama 49/McCain 48 seat as even more Republican-leaning than we would elsewhere.  

        26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

        by Xenocrypt on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:11:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  only on the coast (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

          Obama overperformed in a bunch of historically red but culturally moderate/liberal coastal districts. He didn't outpace Brown and Boxer by nearly as much in the rest of the state, including almost all of the inland areas.

          SSP poster. 42, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

          by sacman701 on Mon May 07, 2012 at 08:40:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Orange County/San Diego area (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Seemed to swing toward Obama partially because of Hispanic growth and the fact that many independent upper class white voters swung to Obama. I am not sure if they will return to the Democratic fold or vote the Republican route.

        For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog CA-2 (former CA-6)

        by Alibguy on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:24:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The reason Bilbray is shaky (4+ / 0-)

      is that the Issa district was shored up, for some unknown reason, and Bllbray was moved closer to San Diego proper.  I know, I'm disappointed too, but the vaporization of the Dreier district almost makes up for it.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:33:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Again Remember that's a high water mark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Boxer and Brown both fared poorly in that district

      "Endings are new beginnings! Learn from your mistakes. Vulnerability makes you stronger! Don't be afraid to try.." -Connor Ross

      by lordpet8 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:20:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Glad to know about the Caly outcome (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R30A, MichaelNY

    With the polls making it look like there's any question in the electoral mind, at least, as far as whether Romneybot could be any kind of a viable president - frankly - I'm glad to know about the redistricting outcome is in California, at the least. Maybe it's one step towards a wingnut-free* political climate in the nation, again...? "Of all things!" One can hope...

    * Wingnuts, as in, the kind who compare political situations to skeet-shooting, or who compare people concerned about climate change to mass murders - the kinds of wingnuts making those insanely illogical comparisons, namely.

    Not to ramble on any further about it, though, I'm just happy to see that redistricting outcome in California, frankly.

  •  If I read the map correctly, Democrats only -2 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    from preallignment. Seems like a remarkably small GOP gain given the 2010 election returns. And the 3 Phila. area districts are still slightly Democratic (at least in theory). Pelosi could have a narrow win, say 220-215. But with some blue dogs could anything get done, although just ending Issa's ridiculous witch hunting expeditions would be a plus.

    •  yes... and no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, LordMike

      the main point of the diary is that the Republicans were able to protect a bunch of freshman republicans that would likely have lost re-election this year thereby locking in their wave election of 2010.

      So only, as the summary at the end shows a +2 Dem map, it can actually be interpreted as much more favorable to Republicans since they get to keep a bunch of seats they probably would have lost this year under the old map.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:59:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A blue dog coalition would actually govern (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Maybe not that as well as we'd hope, but you probably wouldn't have shutdown fights, there would actually be some important legislation through the pipeline (jobs act, dream act, new budget), and the congresscritters would have to go to work Mon-Fri week-to-week, just like everyone else.

      Obviously, I'd love to have big House and Senate majorities to tick off the progressive achievement list, but it probably won't happen in 2012. I DO think Democrats can gain in the Senate, and take over the House, but not like what happened in 2008. However, a majority in both chambers, however small, would at least ensure that our nation's decisions are being made by the adults in the room.

  •  I hate to think of where we might stand if (9+ / 0-)

    Quinn hadn't been elected in 2010 as Gov. in Illinois.  Only 32,000 vote difference.  And I have no idea how Scott Lee Cohen affected the outcome.

    And I really think there's a good chance of winning IL-13.

    Thanks for a great summary in this diary.  There's ample evidence here why Dem voters shouldn't be overly fixated on just the Presidential contest.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:36:54 PM PDT

  •  Even in the corrupt disgrace (6+ / 0-)

    that defines the American political system, it seems like there should be enough people who actually care about the country to abolish the way redistricting is done. Of all the aspects of our political life, the one that should be most insulated from partisan interference is redistricting. Only the insane would accept that one election should determine state and national representation for another decade, no matter who wins the next elections.

    It was easy to buy into Democratic jiggering of the districts in the name of giving minority groups a chance to right historic wrongs. Having succeeded, Dems now need to bring that era to and end. Get legislators out of the business of jimmying their own political advantages and substitute hard rules on compactness, rationality, municipal boundaries, and fairness. Make them enforceable by nonpartisan commissions, subject to rejection in whole by legislatures and/or governors. We have enough corruption and failed structures to deal with without putting up with this shameless game playing.

    In America, a rising tide lifts all yachts and drowns the workers who built them.

    by DaveW on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:51:30 PM PDT

    •  There are enough people to care (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      But they are not in the "decision making room." Switching to what some call the Iowa system (which I believe could co-exist with most minority representation concerns) would have to be started no later than 2015 in order to have a chance to impact a dozen or more states in 2020.

      But what usually happens is other, more immediate "stuff" pushes the topic - for us in the reality-based community - of more fair, more equitable Redistricting to the back burner.  GOP "demographic specialists" are compensated to actively and aggressively plan for this coming next round and all future rounds in perpetuity. Just ask any Democratic legislator in or near leadership in any state, and s/he will probably confirm that the GOP makes this a permanent priority, while we only get concerned about it after the election ending in "0".

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:12:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect what happens is also (0+ / 0-)

        that both sides would rather take their crumbs of the corrupt pie than stand up and risk attack and retaliation from every political side.

        In America, a rising tide lifts all yachts and drowns the workers who built them.

        by DaveW on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:21:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've had at minimum a "mezzanine seat"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... for the Redistricting process in three different states, and the GOP has increasingly moved away from taking the "easy to gather crumbs" to grabbing as much of the pie as they are able.

          Part of this (from my perspective) flows from Democrats being the "bad guys" in voting suppression up until the early 70s, and the reformists who followed them decided that Redistricting was a sin they had to atone for, and did that by championing non-partisan methods of drawing lines. The GOP step into the power vacuums which were still very much exclusively partisan processes, and by the time the Reagan Era was in full swing, much ground was lost.

          When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Egalitare on Sun May 06, 2012 at 03:12:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There aren't enough people who care (0+ / 0-)
      it seems like there should be enough people who actually care about the country to abolish the way redistricting is done.
      It's inside baseball.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So -- What does this mean in 2012? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Will the electoral college reflect the new Congressional delegation sizes?

    If so, Texas might be 50/50, but in a winner-take-all electoral college election, doesn't it tend to pick up four Republican electoral votes?

    And contrast that to Illinois, which may gain 4 Democratic Congresspeople, but was always going to go Dem in the Presidential election, so it's Dems -1 there.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:53:28 PM PDT

    •  Reapportionment works to the GOP's advantage (9+ / 0-)

      in terms of electoral votes. Blue states mostly lost: WA +1, MI -1, IL -1, NJ -1, MA -1, NY -2.

      Swing states were a wash: NV +1, IA -1, OH -2, PA -1, FL +2, MO -1

      Red states mostly gained: UT +1, AZ +1, TX +4, SC +1, GA +1, LA -1.

      Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

      by David Jarman on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  AZ (0+ / 0-)

        You're not considering it a tossup yet, I see. What are you calling it, Lean-R?

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  also interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          how he called MI a blue state but PA a swing state.

          22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

          by sapelcovits on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if Swing State has to necessarily = Tossup. I think Arizona and Missouri sort of form the red outer limit on "Swing State" -- and, yeah, speaking for myself (I don't think we're gonna do a DKE matrix for electoral votes) I'd call them "Lean R," but on the tossupish cusp (Tossup/Tilt R, if I were Stu Rothenberg). And conversely, Michigan and Pennsylvania would be the blue outer limit for "swing state," though I'd feel pretty confident calling Michigan "Lean D" while leaving Pennsylvania "tossup" (or, again, tossup/tilt D, if you wanna Rothenberg it).

          Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

          by David Jarman on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:00:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think PA is Lean-D (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Am I discounting some good polling showing the election very close, at this point?

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:47:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it depends on the year (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, TofG

              in a neutral year, PA would be a swing state, AZ/MO would be pink, and MI would be light blue.

              2012 is more Dem leaning so far, according to polling, than a neutral year would be.

              19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

              by jncca on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:14:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I get your thinking (0+ / 0-)

                I would say that AZ is in a state of flux, though, given demographic trends in the Southwest. MO seems to be in a clear Republican trend. PA's trend is not clear to me. Swing state, yes. Leans Democratic, yes, I think so.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:31:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  PA is the reverse of WV… (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  …whereas in WV you get lots of Ds elected on the state level, but they always go R for the Presidency, in PA you get lots of Rs elected at the state level (witness the current Gov and lege), but they always go D for the Presidency.

                  I would dare to put that to blame on the low info voters in each state where they come out in massive numbers in Philly or Pittsburgh (or the hinterlands in the case of WV) for the Presidency, but ignore the other races.

                  Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

                  by DemSign on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:14:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, that's correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, LarryNM

      if you would like to see the changes in regard to the electoral college map you can try some of the options here:

      You'll see a box on the left beneath the map that lets you flip the map showing each states electoral votes based on the current,, or 2008, count and how it will be for 2012.

      For instance, Obama won in 2008 365-173. But even if he won the exact same states in 2012 he would only win 359-179 so a 6 vote disadvantage right off the bat.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI's GOP Gov & Houses are effectively blocking... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, MichaelNY, LarryNM, LordMike

    all progressive legislation, and passing as much repressive legislation as possible.  And they are blocking any efforts to block them in any way:  

    They instituted the undemocratic process of replacing elected mayors with GOP gov appointed Emergency Managers to (supposedly) "help" financially struggling cities--by implementing deep austerity measures.  Meanwhile, those unelected Emergency Managers aren't suffering much personal austerity with their "Six Figure Salaries at the Expense of Local Communities."  

    Coalitions of Michigan citizens worked months gathering signatures on petitions to put the Emergency Manager issue on the ballot.  When they got enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot, the GOPer canvassers disqualified the petitions to overturn the (EM) act because they claimed that the font was "too small" even though that claim was a lie.  

    So, even if your federal Senator(s) and/or Rep. are Dems, if your state gov. is dominated by republicans, many of your rights can--and will be taken away.  Elections do matter.

  •  Mathematical error in Ohio? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, David Jarman, MichaelNY

    Combine Turner (R) and Austria (R) : -1 R

    Combine Kucinich (D) and Kaptur (D): -1 D

    Eliminate Sutton (D): -2 D

    New Columbus area Dem seat: -1 D.

    So overall, -1 R, -1 D, assuming Sutton loses to Renacci. Not sure how you got to -2 D above.

  •  Who is working to reform districting? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, bfen

    What can I do as an individual to achieve some degree of de-politicization of the redistricting process?

    I think it could be a means of electoral college reform/money influence/shortening the campaign window/ and generally energizing the civic life.

    We just had an inaugural primary election using the new districts.  It should have been an energizing moment for an engaged electorate.  It should have shift alliances. Brought forth fresh faces.  It did none of those things.  

    The legislators drawing the maps have shitty short term goals and zero long term goals.

  •  Iowa did not lose population. It actually went up. (5+ / 0-)

    It did not go up enough. I like the idea of doubling the size of the House to have a better representative House. The number was set at 435 in 1929 when the nation was less than 1/2 of what it is now.

  •  This was evident from the start of the process (0+ / 0-)

    All they could really do is lock in their gains, which was all they really had to do, but in the process they spread themselves out rather thin in some places and some of those seats may not hold up as well as they hoped.

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:46:28 PM PDT

  •  Dems do bad in redistricting (7+ / 0-)

    because the important states where we can really get screwed... PA, OH, MI, WI... hold their Gov races in non-presidential years, and our voters turnout better in Prez years (especially the first three of the above states).

    Progressives wanna not get fucked in redistricting?  Start a movement in every pink/purple/light-blue/blue state to move the statewide office races to Presidential years.

    Winning back these gerrymandered legislatures may not be possible for decades, but winning Governorships, leading to court maps, is the way to take back the House in ten years.

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:58:44 PM PDT

    •  this was compounded by the fact that (5+ / 0-)

      2010 was a midterm year.

      2020 will be a Presidential year, so that'll be helpful in terms of state legislatures as well.

      19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

      by jncca on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:05:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but unfortunately it won't matter with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the Governors.  They'll be chosen in 2018.

        2020 will being a Prez year will only help with the state Assembly/House and State Senates.

        Our key disadvantage is the Govs, and they are substantially chosen in midterms.... only WA, MO, WV and IN have Gov races that matter in Prez years.  (NC Gov has no veto, so we even got screwed there too.  That needs to be changed too.)

        The sad fact is basically zero important redistricting states choose their Governor in presidential years.

        Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

        by tommypaine on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:14:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The PA legislature isn't gerrymandered. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY, LarryNM, LordMike

      Commission draws it.  Also, Dems got a better deal when they were forced to redraw the maps.

      "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

      by KingofSpades on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:16:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not just congressional redistricting (5+ / 0-)

    that breaks the heart. In North Carolina, which has long been seen as "not the south" by whites in other southern states, the Republicans may very well have locked in state legislative majorities for themselves for at least the next decade, and perhaps longer. Unless there's a big switch in public mood, expect to see more crap like the anti-domestic-partnership amendment coming down the pike.

    One bright side is that now maybe the state Democratic Party will get on board when it comes to non-partisan redistricting, but will it matter if they do?

    •  A court is still reviewing the case for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Odysseus, LarryNM

      the legislative districts and is pressing the NC GOP for their redistricting documents that they're hiding.  If they find something damning, Republicans will get what Democrats got in 2003 (i.e. the state Supreme Court knocking down a redistricting of the state legislative map and forcing a new one that's much less egregious).

      "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

      by KingofSpades on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:14:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you can't perpetually draw yourselves into a (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, LarryNM, LordMike

      majority forever. Most gerrymanders are done for fear of losing power. All it does is delay a loss of power by a few years. Texas Democrats thought they would draw themselves into a permanent majority in 1991, but its only a matter of time before karma catches up to you.

      also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

      by demographicarmageddon on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:09:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IA-03 Is Tough Sledding For Boswell.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Keep in mind that Obama got 52% in the current configuration of IA-03 while fiercely contesting the Omaha media market, which serves southwestern Iowa.  Obama got unusually high numbers for a Democrat in and around Council Bluffs because of it, but in a neutral political environment, this would not be a 52% Democratic district.

    The entirety of the Democratic vote in IA-03 lives in the city of Des Moines.  Not Polk County, but only the city of Des Moines as every other jurisdiction in Polk County leans Republican.  Des Moines has 200,000 residents.  The rest of the district has more than 500,000 residents and Democrats have effectively no toeholds anywhere else in the district.  I don't like the math.

    In a good Democratic year, Boswell can hold this, but in an even narrowly bad environment, it's a GOP pickup.  And can any other Democrat but Boswell win here against a decent GOP recruit?  Time will tell because I doubt Boswell makes it to 2022 before throwing in the towel.  I'd rate Iowa's redistricting as a net Democratic loss.  

    •  Council Bluffs is still in the district (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and Obama will contend for it the same or more as last time.

      The environment is the same, so for this election it remains favorable to Boswell.  If this were an off year, Latham would have an edge, but it isn't.  In 2014, Boswell wouldn't be facing an incumbent, whoever it is.  If Boswell retires in 2014, then it will be a tougher district.

      Basically, both the Dems and the GOP lost a half seat.  A Dem should be favored in prez years, and a Rep in off years... so ideally Boswell wins this year, and retires in 2016, with incumbency helping that Dem retain the seat in 2018, just like incumbency could make the difference for Boswell in 2014.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:28:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's If Obama Chooses To Contest Omaha Again.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        .....while Romney chooses not to.  That was the situation in 2008.  Obama contested it....McCain saved resources by blowing it off.  Not sure we'll have such a perfect arrangement again in 2012.  A lot depends on how much money both candidates end up having, but it seems unlikely the advantage will tilt to Obama as decisively as it did four years ago.

        •  Actually it is close to a certainty (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, R30A, TofG

          Why would you imagine no one knows how those CD EV's are allocated?

          Face it, Obama will contest Omaha; and Boswell outran Obama last time (both in the area in the new district and that which is not).  Both these things are evidence that the 52% Obama nature of the district is measure of the starting point of this race.

          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

          by tommypaine on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:53:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Only County Still In IA-03 Is Polk..... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            In 2008, Obama won Polk 57-42 and Boswell won it 57-41 so I suppose technically Boswell outpolled Obama there, but the difference is negligible and Boswell wasn't exactly up against a top-tier challenger in 2008.

            Obama may contest Omaha, but unlike four years ago, I'm doubtful he'll have the market to himself.  If Romney matches him dollar for dollar, he loses his advantage.  None of this is particularly relevant unless you believe Leonard Boswell has any chance of riding hypothetical Obama coattails in rural southwest Iowa, which seems far-fetched.  

        •  Obama will probably contest the whole state (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, TofG

          because Iowa is a swing state. He will bring the ground game again. It depends on what Romney does. I agree that McCain didn't contest Iowa in '08 (or in '07 for the precinct caucuses).

      •  Also, Boswell ran ahead of Obama in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        especially in counties other than Polk.

        Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

        by tommypaine on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:44:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, that's a big switch for IL.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, MichaelNY

    considering that the maps were court-drawn in '01 and '91.   I think what happened in 2001 is that the Democrats' liaison in the redistricting case, Rep. Bill Lipinski, didn't care much for the other Democrats in the state.  So he, Speaker Hastert, and the court agreed on an incumbent protection map that axed Democratic Rep. Phelps downstate.  The only real concession Lipinksi got was to have his own district tailor-made so that his son could carpetbag to it from Tennessee.

    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

    by KingofSpades on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:23:22 PM PDT

  •  Does Anybody Know Who's Running in OK-02?? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, HoosierD42, MichaelNY

    Given the depth of its ancestral Democratic lean, I don't think we should write it off completely.  There must be a strong Blue Dog recruit there somewhere.

    •  Our best chance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Is probably Rob Wallace, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He was also elected the district attorney for both LeFlore and Latimer counties.

      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Gregg for Governor! Donnelly for Senate! Mullen for Congress!

      by HoosierD42 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:44:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IN-02's not a lost cause. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, MichaelNY, Odysseus

    It's tough, for sure. But I think Obama can at least match his 2008 performance, and maybe even do better in Elkhart, which was one of the cities hit hardest by the recession (in the country, not just the state).

    Brendan Mullen is a great candidate, endorsed by the Blue Dog Coalition, and he's running against Wacky Jacky, who couldn't even win in 2010. In a presidential year, I think Mullen can win by driving up turnout, even ticket-splitters, in LaPorte, Elkhart, Knox and St. Joseph Counties to outperform Obama.

    24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Gregg for Governor! Donnelly for Senate! Mullen for Congress!

    by HoosierD42 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:40:40 PM PDT

  •  In Louisiana, it is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, sapelcovits

    Bill Cassidy, not John.

    Farm boy who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.88, -4.26, 6/5/2012- the day the great error of Wisconsin history will be corrected!

    by WisJohn on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:44:33 PM PDT

  •  Pennsylvania (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, GradyDem, bfen

    I do believe you guys should add that there is a distinct possibility PA will be +2 R, -1 D.

    Home: IL-10. College: PA-07 (starting this upcoming fall).

    by IllinoyedR on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:06:27 PM PDT

  •  The whole Republican plan was to take the House (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, LordMike, TofG

    and as many state legislatures they could so they could do this redistricting.

    By 2020, we will have forgotten all of this again.

  •  Somebody Needs to Tell Chris Van Hollen..... (0+ / 0-)

    Recently he said he had 75 strong candidates for 25 House seats.  That's what we need to retake the House.

    Van Hollen is the chair of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee).  It sounds like both he & Nancy Pelosi have no idea what is going to happen.....per this diary.

    And.....Mitt is going to get 500,000 jobs a month or 6 MILLION in his first year in office.  Well....Well.....Well.  

    •  Van Hollen can't do much there (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sapelcovits, MichaelNY, itskevin

      as the chairman of the DCCC is Steve Israel.

      •  i think we retake the house during the next (0+ / 0-)

        republican midterm. And if Republican's don't win the presidency like they did from 1932 through 1948, is it really that bad?

        also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

        by demographicarmageddon on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:52:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it really bad for the Republicans to control (6+ / 0-)

          the House? What do you think? Are we even having this discussion?

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:59:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what i'm saying is that (0+ / 0-)

            during the Reagan years, they never controlled the U.S. House yet almost all Republicans think of his presidency as a success and something to worship. So if the democrats fail to retake the house, it will be because they have put a lock on the presidency, sort of like how the republicans did from 1968 through 1988.

            Unified control never lasts very long:

            Republicans 1921-1930
            Democrats 1933-1946
            Democrats 1949-1952
            Republicans 1953-1954
            Democrats 1961-1968
            Democrats 1977-1980
            Democrats 1993-1994
            Republicans 2003-2006
            Democrats 2009-2010

            also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

            by demographicarmageddon on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:42:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're ignoring something extremely crucial (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GradyDem, jncca, bumiputera, lordpet8

              Reagan and other Republican presidents were able to get enough support from Democratic members of Congress to get important legislation and appointments through. The Republicans currently in the House and Senate, with very few and dwindling exceptions, are unwilling to even allow a vote on anything, if they can successfully filibuster it. You need to take present conditions into account and not just fall back upon previous history as a way to baselessly soothe yourself.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:24:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I get a net Dem gain of 11 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    + or - a couple of seats.

    So, the 2013 house should look something like 231-204.

    "We calmly accept our uncertain position." Joey Rathburn.

    by Paleo on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:52:54 AM PDT

  •  you didn't mention other changes in Oregon (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoosierD42, MichaelNY

    that were more important.  The 5th barely changed, and while areas that were added are less blue than the areas removed, they are growing areas that are shifting blue, generally because they're becoming more Hispanic and Asian.

    The 1st district moved the most, from a D+8 to roughly D+5.5, but the only part of the district that doesn't seem to be becoming more blue or staying the same is Columbia County, while the two biggest counties in the district (WashCo and Yamhill) seem to be becoming more Democratic and in Yamhill's case either getting bluer or standing still.  Since WashCo is like 62-63% of the district, and its trending D hard, even with it weakening we should be fine.  And Congresswoman Bonamici's base is in WashCo, so we're set.

    The best change for Democrats is in OR-04, where we moved the rest of Corvallis and most of the rest of Benton County into the district.  Since Corvallis is one of the bluest places outside of Portland in the state, while it didn't shift the PVI much, that does make the trend of the district better for us, and gives us a tiny boost.  Corvallis is becoming more solidly Democratic, and if we continue moving CD-04 in this direction, it'll go into pinkish Polk and blue Lincoln County and out of deeply red counties in Southern Oregon in the future.

    Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

    by James Allen on Mon May 07, 2012 at 11:12:27 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site