« Chess not Checkers: Dean in '08 not DNC in '05? | Main | Tim Roemer: Not my choice for DNC Chairman »
Monday, December 27, 2004
2010 Reapportionment
Posted by Bob BrighamJerome Armstrong continues the discussion he started two years ago about how Democrats failure after the 2000 census may have cost us the lower chamber for a decade.
Many of the status quo Democrats in DC are claiming that Democrats didn't do that bad because Kerry came close to winning Ohio which would have elected him President. This CYA group-think attempts to hide the fact that Democrats were a good 10 points shy of a performance quotient that would have delivered a governable congress.
Positioning for the 2010 reapportionment is important goal for Democrats considering a 50 state strategy with greater emphasis on non-federal races. While California state senate seats are larger than congressional districts, this is the exception to the rule that non-federal races provide high-value return on investment.
Jerome provides the following projections for the next reapportionment:
Reapportionment Factors Seat-loss R-D Delegation Governor Legislature New York 2 9-20 R R-D Ohio 2 12-6 R R-R Illinois 1 9-10 D D-D Iowa 1 4-1 non-partisan Louisiana 1 5-2 D D-D Massachusetts 1 0-10 R D-D Missouri 1 5-4 R R-R Pennsylvania 1 12-7 D R-R Seat-gain R-D Delegation Governor Legislature Texas 3 21-11 R R-R Florida 2 18-7 R R-R Arizona 1 6-2 non-partisan California 1 33-20 R D-D Georgia 1 7-6 R R-R Nevada 1 2-1 R D-R Utah 1 2-1 R R-R
Remember, controlling congress is a zero-sum game -- states both losing and increasing representation offer potential for Democratic gains in congress. However, from both a defensive and offensive position it is clear that we are currently in poor position to dominate redistricting.
Jerome does a great job explaining how the GOP has used redistricting to expand their potential while Democrats continue to lose field position. Considering we probably won't be able to in in 2006, here is Doctor Armstrong's presciption:
publically shoot for gaining 6 seats in each of the next two elections, and figure out where to get the extra 3 seats along the way. Combined with the fielding candidates in every seat across the nation, with financial (say, $100K in resources each) backing(see 2004's CO 4th & PA 8th expendidtures by the GOP for why), and I think there's an opportunity. If that strategic path were taken, then I could see the potential of a majority by '08 or '10 for the Democrats in the House. Otherwise, following the same 1996-2004 strategy, means 3 more cycles of the same failure.
This strategy for congress could tie in well with the 50 state strategy Chris Bowers has relentlessly advanced. Also, a non-federal focus of bottom-up strengthening of the party will help position Democrats for redistricting. Supporting Democrats early in their careers will pay dividends years from now when they are playing in the big leagues.
What are your ideas on winning back congress?
Posted at 02:09 PM in Redistricting | Technorati
Comments
The right was all over this before the 2000 census. Check out POLIDATA at http://www.polidata.org/. (I'm unable to find the correct page now, but I was reading something on their site at one time that made it pretty clear they were funded by Republican interests.)
Posted by: Dan Hogan at December 28, 2004 02:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment