Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

RRH's 2014 General Election Preview Series:

Part 7 - Senate

Part 6 - Eastern Governors

Part 5 - Western Governors

Part 4 - Northeast/South House

Part 3 - Midwest/West House

Part 2 - Row Officers

Part 1 - Legislatures and Local

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Senate

Governor

House

Row Officers


(Pretty much) Final PVI change before and after redistricting

by: Left Coast Libertarian

Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 11:29:33 AM EDT


I'm making assumptions:

1. New York is the judge's map
2. Kansas is the map that passed the House
3. New Hampshire doesn't change
4. RI-1, RI-2, and KY-3 didn't change. I don't have Obama #s on them.

These are Obama-McCain PVIs only.  

Left Coast Libertarian :: (Pretty much) Final PVI change before and after redistricting
R+8 or better: Safe Republican
Before: 134 districts
After 151 districts

R+5-7: (Likely to Safe Republican in most of the country
Before: 40 districts
After: 33 districts

R+5 or better:
Before: 174 districts
After: 184 districts

Democrats hold 12 such seats now. They are mostly Southern, with a few seats like UT-2 and OK-2 mixed in. These are likely safe in a non-wave year. Nice net gain for GOP

R+3-4:
Before: 26 districts
After: 27 districts

Little change.

R+1-2:
Before: 22 districts
After: 25 districts

Republicans removed or moved past 10 districts. So they've pretty much replaced them.

E
Before: 9 districts
After: 7 districts

D+1-2:
Before: 25 districts
After: 13 districts

D+3-4:
Before: 22 districts
After: 19 districts

The D+ lean/likely drop from 47 to 32. That can't be good for Democrats.

D+5-7:
Before: 28 districts
After: 30 districts

Slight increase here.

D+8:
Before: 129 districts
After: 130 districts

Summary:
R+5+: 184
R+1-4: 52
E: 7
D+1-4: 32
D+5+: 160

The number of R+ Obama-McCain seats went from 222 to 236, with the number of D+ going from 204 to 192.

The GOP is clearly the redistricting winner. It's not by as much as some people might've predicted, but the largest states (Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois, California) were states where the GOP couldn't gerrymander as much as they wanted.

This supports my contention that Democrats won't take the House back. If Democrats are to win the House they need to do something resembling the following:

D+5+: 100%
D+1-4: 80%
E-R+4: 55%

I'm aware that each side will hold +5 or greater seats. For these purposes I'll assume that's a wash.

That's certainly not impossible, but capturing 55% of R leaning seats while winning 80% of your own is a tall order in a non-wave year.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Great diary
and I appreciate the post.  I happen to agree with you.  I think some experts see this as "status quo" or just GOP gains around the margin.  I myself see otherwise.  Yes a shift from D+3 or whatever in various PA seats like PA6, PA7 and PA15 to plus R +2 might not mean anything because there strong incumbents in those seats.  Yet over the ten years it is so much more likely these seats stay R.  

What GOP needs
The GOP currently holds 27 D+ Obama seats and 66 seats that are R+3 or more D. In November if Republicans hold all the seats that are R+2 or more Republican, they'd get 224 districts. Most of the current R+ districts held by Democrats (OK-2, AR-4, NY-26 et al) are expected to flip. So Democrats are unlikely to have many R+4 or greater seats to count on.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Absolutely great diary
This is the first diary or article that gave the hard numbers.
You should email this to guys like Trende and others in the media.
Thanks a ton.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Agree, this type of analysis was needed
It gives a different dynamic of redistricting that goes mostly unreported. I would email it as MosheM said.

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
Request
Could you list out for us all the "new" R+5 (or greater) districts currently held by D's?

I'd like to try and figure out how many of those Dems will still hold after the election...  


McCain districts
OK-2, AR-4, UT-2, WV-3, PA-12, KY-6, NC-7, NC-11, NY-26, MN-7, NC-13, NC-8, GA-12

Unfortunately for the Democrats, 4 of these districts are now open.

That's 13, the same as before. PA-4, PA-17, and AZ-2 drop off the list, as PA-4 has been eliminated and the others are Obama districts. New on the list are NC-8, NC-13, and GA-12.


R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
OK, Looks Like Dems Will Hold...
...at least of 4 of those going forward (WV-03, I'll assume PA-12 or UT-02, KY-06, and MN-07).

So they could hold 4 or 5.

But the rest look like they're going down...  


[ Parent ]
I'm bullish but
I think only WV-3 and MN-7 hold on.  

[ Parent ]
how does chandler lose?
his district got bluer.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Here's my best guess
AR-04 (Ross, Open) R+9
GA-12 (Barrow) R+10
KY-06 (Chandler) R+9
MN-07 (Peterson) R+5
NC-07 (McIntyre) R+11
NC-08 (Kissell) R+12
NC-11 (Shuler, Open) R+12
NC-13 (Miller, Open) R+9
NY-27 (Hochul) R+8
OH-16 (Sutton, vs. Rennacci) R+5
OK-02 (Open) R+14
PA-12 (Critz/Altmire) R+5
TX-25 (Doggett, Open) R+10
UT-04 (Matheson) R+13
WV-03 (Rahall) R+6

We have a good shot at all of these except MN-07 and WV-03 this year, although Chandler, Altmire, and Matheson will all be tough.


[ Parent ]
Seats they can win
Doggett's seat has been renumbered TX-35. TX-25 is a new seat. OH-16 is a McCain seat and it is Sutton's seat, but it's also Renacci's seat. Winning it would be the same net value as any other Republican held seat.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Agree
I think for argumentation's sake that TX-35 is the new seat, as it is a Hispanic-influence seat drawn to reflect the growing Hispanic population in Central TX. TX-25 is the white seat in Travis, although it's obviously been reconfigured.

I included OH-16 because it is technically an R+5 seat with a Democratic incumbent running, although I do consider it more Renacci's seat than Sutton's. A win here would feel like the status quo.


[ Parent ]
Correct this
he number of R+ Obama seats went from 222 to 236.
You mistakenly added Obama.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Weird script rule
For some reason Obama/McCain deleted McCain, while Obama-McCain does not.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Twitter followers
I wanted to communicate this to some of the pundits. So I checked my Twitter followers. I only have 98, but some are interesting ones. Most of these I don't follow, so it's not like they added me after I added them.

Nan Hayworth ‏ @NanHayworth
NHayworthTracker ‏ @NanHayworthNews

Somehow I have Rep. Hayworth and a Twitter feed opposing her.

Mike Allen ‏ @mikeallen
CathyMcMorrisRodgers ‏ @cathymcmorris
Michael Steele ‏ @Steele_Michael
Fred Barnes ‏ @FredBarnes
JohnCornyn ‏ @JohnCornyn
Lynn Jenkins ‏ @RepLynnJenkins
Jason Chaffetz ‏ @jasoninthehouse
Steve Pearce ‏ @Pearce4NM
Eric Cantor ‏ @GOPLeader
Shira Toeplitz ‏ @shiratoeplitz

Some of these are people I interviewed for the film, but others, e.g. John Cornyn, I've never been in touch with.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Great Analysis
It truly was a tour de force. Do you have a list of the seats anywhere to view?  I am particularly interested in the 1%-2% GOP PVI seats, to assess which ones are probably pretty safe, and which are not, based on whatever local PVI adjustments I do based on varying regional baselines, and who the local players are. Thanks.

CA-48 (R) 60 (M)

Update your SC numbers
I think I've posted these before but you might have missed it. 2012 SC-1 56.1(M) 42.7(O) SC-2 59.4(M) 39.5 SC-3 63.5(M) 35.1 SC-4 60.6(M) 37.7 SC-5 54.9(M) 43.9 SC-6 70.1(O) 28.9(M) SC-7 53.6(M) 45.3

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
Posts like this make me
think this site has a huge future in front of it. This is just a terrific diary.

On a related note, I don't see Peterson retiring this year, although 2014 is highly likely given his health and likely lack of control of the House.

That said, the DFL organization in MN-7 was just savaged in 2010 and redistricting wasn't helpful.

Here is most likely DFL candidate when Peterson retires (at this point):

http://www.house.leg.state.mn....

Another option:  http://www.senate.mn/members/m...

This guy will try and fail:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn....

Our bench on the other hand, is fairly strong though you won't see many jump in til he actually retires.

Because of the nature of the district, it is very hard to win it without being an already elected official.  You need name recognition for the local newspapers and radio stations to talk about you, otherwise you really struggle in a primary, much less forget the advantage of being an incumbent in a party endorsement race.

I think we have a great shot at PA-12 and Matheson - I see Chandler, Peterson, and Rahall as the tough outs going forward with Chandler being the most vulnerable.

If anyone has any information on how Nick Rahall's seat could be won before WV loses a seat in 2020, that would be sweet.

Moderate R


My final thought
on this diary.  For the day that is.

Yes in politics you make scrambled eggs out of broken ones. In LA the GOP had to lose a seat so the egg was broke but the surviving R seats are much safer now.  Several seats are improved and less likely to be lost.

Painful as it even in IL. There are 5 nice safe GOP seats.  If you have to get wacked at least look on the bright side.  The five GOP incumbents left with safe seats, after this primary, should be fundraising horses for the GOP as they have no GE worries.  


A great addition would be
The Median seat, before and after.

27, R, PA-07.

Before I think it was Paul Ryan's seat
WI-1, which was R+2.  I don't know what it is now.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Thanks so much
I'm really bullish on Mia Love. I think she can really take out Matheson. I also just believe in my gut that Chandler is going to lose.

Someone asked about WV. West Virginia kills me. There is NO excuse for the continued success of the Democratic party in West Virginia.  


UT-04
The CW in Utah right now is that Wimmer is the favorite. I have some friends in UT who are, well, involved in UT politics and that's what I've heard.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
The Steve Plan for a resurgent GOP: Fewer Steve Kings, more Steve Litzows


[ Parent ]
2 Things
1. Wimmer looks more likely than Love as of now.

2. The "excuse" is simply the sad state of the GOP in WV.  Not meant as a diss at all, but its a pretty bad state party.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
sure there is
WV, more than nearly any other state, prioritizes economic issues more than social ones.

It makes perfect sense for the poor West Virginian to support Democrats.  I'd be angry about Connecticut, honestly.  Wealthiest state and still liberal.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
This
My thoughts exactly. It's why I'm more angry about places like PA-13 and VA-11 being D than places like WV-03 and PA-12.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
Agree
The fact PA-13 slipped from us is disturbing.  We should run away with elections in places like Montgomery County, PA and Westchester, NY.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
You're assuming
That anyone who isn't wealthy will vote Democratic if they prioritize economic issues more than social ones. If that were the case, then Democrats would get 70% of the vote and this board wouldn't have so many people between the ages of 17 and 22.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
if they vote selfishly, then yes
(which isn't an attack on anyone, the selfish thing to do is for lower income people to vote Dem and upper income to vote GOP, but people have different ideologies and care about other issues)

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
There are a lot of people who disagree
If you think that government's responsibility is to give you or others free stuff (e.g. unemployment insurance, healthcare, bailout main street), then you want the Democrats. If you believe in individual responsibility and government's role is to get out of the way, then you want the Republicans.

I suppose you could call supporting the Democratic actions selfish, but that's only if you're getting free stuff. Many people vote Democratic, so the government will give other people, i.e. poor, free stuff.

I've struggled for a few years and haven't been upper income, but my philosophy of government hasn't changed. I don't want stuff whether I'm doing well or poorly. I think you'll find most people on this board aren't wealthy but feel they are still voting economically.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
How does Chandler lose?
Considering that Republicans called it the "Ben Chandler Lifetime Employment Act"

Is Barr really that strong?  


[ Parent ]
I heard the same
thing about Taylor in MS.  The seat is certainly several % better for him but Chandler will also have Obama on his back.  Plus Pelosi & the D agenda.

Not saying he will lose in 2012 but he certainly will not be coasting.  


[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox