SSP Daily Digest: 3/28

Senate:

HI-Sen: Ex-Rep. Ed Case said he expects to decide by “mid-April” whether he’ll seek Hawaii’s open Senate seat. Case also says that the Merriman River Group took a poll for him and claims he kicked ass in both the primary and general-but he’s only released a couple of selected toplines (click the link if you want them). PPP will have an HI-Sen general election poll out on behalf of Daily Kos/SEIU in the next couple of days.

ME-Sen: Democrat Hannah Pingree, former Speaker of the state House and daughter of 1st CD Rep. Chellie Pingree, left the state legislature earlier this year. Only 34, she’s lately been managing the family’s inn & restaurant and serving on a local school board, so she seems like a good potential candidate to run for office once again-perhaps even to challenge Sen. Olympia Snowe. But Pingree just gave birth to her first child a week ago, which probably makes her less likely to get back into the game this year.

MI-Sen: A GOP operative passes along word to Dave Catanese that Pete Hoekstra is turning down the chance to appear at some Lincoln Day dinners-which this source thinks is a sign that Hoekstra isn’t planning to run for Senate. Hoekstra’s would-be pollster (the same guy who was basically spinning lies about PPP last week) vociferously disputes this interpretation. We’ll see, but I personally think Hoekstra is going to tell us he plans to spend more time building turtle fences with his family.

MT-Sen: Activist Melinda Gopher says she is contemplating a primary challenge to Dem Sen. Jon Tester. She explains her reasoning here. She received 21% of the vote and finished third in the Dem primary for MT-AL last year. I could not find any FEC reports for her.

ND-Sen, ND-AL: Another good catch by Greg Giroux: ex-Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) just closed his federal campaign account. While it’s not dispositive, of course, this probably means he’s not interested in seeking his old seat, or the retiring Kent Conrad’s spot in the Senate. Note that Pomeroy didn’t completely slam the door on a gubernatorial run, but I’m guessing that’s not terribly likely, either.

NM-Sen: New Mexico’s Republican Lt. Gov., John Sanchez, sounded very much like a candidate on a recent trip to DC. He spent some time slagging ex-Rep. Heather Wilson (the only declared candidate so far) in an interview with The Hill, criticizing her moderate credentials, but also being careful to try to put a little daylight between himself and the teabaggers. Sanchez indicated he’d decide “in the spring,” and perhaps hinted he’d announce on or around April 15th… because it’s totally not teabaggish to make a fetish out of Tax Day. He also says he’ll be back in Washington next week to meet with the NRSC (this trip was occasioned by a gathering of the all-important National Lieutenant Governors Association).

House:

FL-22: Ex-Rep. Ron Klein (D) definitively slammed the door on a rematch this cycle, saying he’s “looking forward to the private sector” (he’s taking a job with the law firm of Holland & Knight). But he did hold out the possibility he might return to office some day (he’s only 53). The same article also mentions a new possible Democratic candidate (despite the entrance of West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel in recent days): state Rep. Joseph Abruzzo, who says he’s keeping his options open. (Abruzzo, hardly alone among Democrats, backed Charlie Crist over Kendrick Meek in last year’s Senate race.)

In other news, a firm called Viewpoint Florida released a very questionable poll pitting Rep. Allen West against Frankel. Really, the only reason you’d put out a survey of a district which is guaranteed to get reshaped is because you’re hoping to set a narrative among people who don’t know better (like, say, the tradmed… this piece doesn’t even mention the word “redistricting”). In addition, the poll is way too Republican, and also purports to be of “likely” voters, about one billion years before election day.

MI-09 (?): The question mark is there because who knows what districts are going to look like, or where state Rep. Marty Knollenberg-who says he’s considering a run for Congress-will wind up when all is said and done. That name ought to sound familiar: Marty’s dad is, of course, George McFly ex-Rep. Joe Knollenberg, who lost to current 9th CD Rep. (and potential redistricting victim) Gary Peters in 2008. Of note, Marty sits on a redistricting committee in the state lege, so maybe a House race is his… density.

NY-25: This is the kind of news I like to hear! Dan Maffei, who lost a heart-breaker last year, sent an email to supporters saying that he is “strongly considering running again” for his old seat. Maffei was always a great vote and a strong progressive voice, despite his decision to take a job after the election with the annoying “moderate” group Third Way. (I don’t begrudge the guy needing to eat, though, and the market was pretty saturated with one-term Democratic ex-Congressmen in need of a job.) We don’t know how this district will wind up, of course, but I’d be surprised if there were nowhere for Maffei to run.

NY-26: Teabagger David Bellavia looks pretty doomed-despite having enough signatures (in theory), he failed to file a key piece of paperwork with the Board of Elections, which will probably terminate his candidacy. It’s all the more poignant because, according to this article, the other campaigns said they would not challenge his signatures-and seeing as he submitted just 100 more than the 3,500 target, it’s a good bet he was in the danger zone. (Is it really true that Republican Jane Corwin said this, though?)

Speaking of Corwin, she’s got a third ad out, once again returning to small business themes (as she did in her first spot), rather than the negative attacks in her second ad.

PA-17: Tim Holden could be in that rare bucket of Democrats who might not actually benefit from their seats being made bluer in redistricting. The conservative Holden could have Lackawanna County added to his district, according to a possible GOP plan, which might open him up to a primary challenge from the left. It would also move a couple of ambitious pols from the county into his district, including Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien (who attempted to primary ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski last year) and Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty. PoliticsPA also says that Holden’s 2010 primary challenger, activist Sheila Dow-Ford, is “rumored” to be considering another run. (Dow-Ford lost 65-35 in a race fueled in large part by Holden’s vote against healthcare reform.)

VA-05: Last cycle, few establishment figures were as absolutely hated by the teabaggers as now-Rep. Robert Hurt. He won his primary with just 48%, against a typically fractured People’s Front of Judea/Judean People’s Front field. (We really need an acronym for that. PFJJPF, anyone?) The teabaggers have now taken to protesting Hurt’s votes in favor of continuing budget resolutions outside of his district office, but given their feeble efforts to unite around a standard-bearer last time, I’m skeptical that they have the organizational power to threaten Hurt next year.

Other Races:

Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: The Greater Wisconsin Committee is running a very negative new ad against Republican Justice David Prosser, accusing him of refusing to prosecute a child-molesting priest back when he was a D.A.-and explaining that the same priest went on to molest other kids after a parish transfer.

Remainders:

Census: New York City pols, led by His Bloomberginess, got wiggy almost immediately after seeing the Census Bureau’s largely stagnant new population figures for the city. Pretty much everyone is convinced that NYC grew by more than 2.1%, because, they say, the bureau undercounted immigrants. And here’s a pretty good supporting piece of data: The city added 170,000 new homes over the last decade, so how could it grow by only 166,000 people? (There are no huge swaths of abandoned properties in New York, though the Census does claim vacancies increased.) As a result, city officials are planning to challenge the figures (which they think should be about a quarter million higher). But it’s worth noting that a similar challenge 20 years ago wound up failing.

Votes: The New York Times is getting into the party unity score game, finding that (according to their methodology) 14 Dems have voted with Team Blue less than 70% of the time this Congress. It’s pretty much just a list of the remaining white conservative Blue Dogs who sit in red districts, though three names from bluer districts stand out: Dennis Cardoza (CA-18); Jim Costa (CA-20); and Gary Peters (MI-09).

Redistricting Roundup:

Louisiana: A state Senate committee passed a plan for redistricting its own lines last Thursday; a vote by the full body could come this week. Notably, the new map increases the number of majority-minority districts from 10 to 11. Things are delayed on the House side, though.

Virginia: A teachable moment in Virginia: Democrats in the state Senate adopted a rule that would limit the population variance in any new maps to no more than ±2%, while Republicans in the state House are using a ±1% standard. This issue often comes up in comments, but it’s simple: For state legislatures, courts have said that a 10% total deviation is an acceptable rule of thumb-that is, if the difference in population between the largest district and the smallest district is no more than ±5% of the size of an ideal district, then you’re okay. However, at least one map which tried to egregiously take advantage of this guideline (total deviation of 9.98%) was nonetheless invalidated, so while the “ten percent rule” is still probably a reasonable safe harbor, it may not be a sure thing. For congressional maps, it’s even simpler: Districts have to be perfectly equipopulous unless the state can justify the difference as necessary to achieve legitimate state policy. (For instance, Iowa state law forbids splitting counties to draw a federal map; this is considered an acceptable goal by the courts, so Iowa’s districts have slight variances.)

SSP Daily Digest: 10/13 (Morning Edition)

  • AK-Sen: A new PAC called “Alaskans Standing Together” has spent $600K on ads for Lisa Murkowski, a pretty huge sum for the state. AST filed with the FEC as a so-called “Super PAC,” as the Washington Independent puts it, which allows them to “raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as they do so entirely independent of candidates or political parties.” Sounds a lot like a 527, except that AST will (supposedly) have to file its donor lists with the FEC. One of their ads is here – almost sounds like a Dem spot, except for the fact that Scott McAdams’ ads have been far better than this.
  • CT-Sen: Talking Points Memo went digging into an old story about a former WWF referee who, after making claims that Vince McMahon sexually assaulted her, was sued by both Vince and Linda McMahon in the early `90s. (They also sued Geraldo Rivera, on whose show the ref made her allegations.) The McMahons eventually dropped their suit after a year… but now that TPM is writing about it, their lawyer has threatened TPM with legal action.
  • WV-Sen: Trying to understand why Politico is presenting this as a new story, when we knew two weeks ago that zillionaire asshole John Raese loudly and proudly announced that he doesn’t support the minimum wage.
  • NV-Gov: Is this story going to blow up in the same way the Meg Whitman housekeeper story did? A woman says she cleaned Brian Sandoval’s home back in the late `90s while she was an illegal immigrant, and that Sandoval never asked her for documentation. Sandoval and his wife are claiming they don’t know the woman.
  • SC-Gov: Winthrop University (10/5-10, likely voters, no trendlines):
  • Vincent Sheheen (D): 37

    Nikki Haley (R): 46

    Undecided: 13

    (MoE: ±3.6%)

  • TN-08: Looks like Roy Herron is trying to make the most of the news that the DCCC’s abandoning him: He’s claiming it’s because he won’t support Nancy Pelosi. Gotta give the dude credit for trying – there’s lemonade in there somewhere!
  • UT-02: A poll by the Utah Policy Center apparently shows Rep. Jim Matheson leading Republican Morgan Philpot 46-30, with 20% undecided. The full details are behind a paywall, so we don’t know the field dates or voter screen.
  • DCCC: Ah, the panzers are definitely reconsolidating now, for real. The Fix’s Aaron Blake has a detailed writeup of the D-Trip’s ongoing triage efforts. As we mentioned yesterday, it looks like Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03), Steve Dreihaus (OH-01), and Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) are being left on the cutting room floor. In addition, Blake confirms his earlier tweet that Trent van Haaften (IN-08), Roy Herron (TN-08 – see above), and Stephene Moore (KS-03) are also apparently on their own as they defend open seats. Two “good” cancellations were also made in LA-02 and DE-AL, where Dem pickup chances are looking good. (Remember that even in 1994, Dems won four open seats.) But really, click through and read the whole piece, as Blake has details of cuts made all around the country – though he notes that many are small and may just represent resource shifts.
  • SSP TV:

    • NY-Gov: Andy Cuomo touts the Medicaid Fraud unit at the AG’s office, then attacks Carl Paladino as a shady insider
    • AL-02: Bobby Bright explains that he’s basically more-or-less a Republican
    • NH-02: Annie Kuster hits Charlie Bass on a common theme, “raising his own pay” while a member of Congress
    • PA-Sen: Two Joe Sestak ads on the same theme: the first points out what would have happened to retirement savings over the last couple of years had Social Security been privatized (per Pat Toomey’s wishes); the second features seniors saying basically the same thing

    Independent Expenditures:

    • PA-10: The DCCC spends $47K attacking Tom Marino – I’m wondering if some of this is for web ads, since there’s an $8 charge from GoDaddy (and the sums are smallish, though possibly radio-level)
    • Realtors: Spend $1.3 mil helping Dems Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), John Adler (NJ-03), and Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)

    SSP Daily Digest: 10/12 (Morning Edition)

  • AK-Sen: Joe Miller is taking a vow of omertà, insisting that he simply won’t answer any more questions about his personal background. He’s also taking a page right out of the Sarah Palin playbook, whining that he’s been the victim of “journalist impropriety,” and making up stories about reporters gaining access to his “confidential file,” in “violation of the law.” I despairingly think that Miller won’t pay the price for this that he ought to – look at Rick Perry, who refuses to meet with newspaper editorial boards, as an example.
  • Also of note: Miller is trying to unring that Seventeenther bell a bit – but not really. His stance now is that a constitutional amendment to eliminate the direct election of senators is not “practical,” but sure sounds like he’d love to do it if he could. What a weirdo.

  • NV-Sen: Clinton alert! The Big Dog will be in Nevada today to campaign with Harry Reid.
  • WV-Sen: Clinton alert (retroactive)! Bill Clinton was in Morgantown yesterday, campaigning for Joe Manchin. He made a point of saying that the “hick-y” ad “burns me up.”
  • KS-Gov: This creeptastic story is finally getting some play in the Kansas gubernatorial race. Back around 2002 or so, Sam Brownback was roommates in Washington, DC with a radical cleric named Lou Engle. You might remember Engle as the Talibangelist who led a “prayer” rally in Uganda right when the country was debating passage of a bill which would have implemented the death penalty for homosexuals. Though he later tried to distance himself from the measure, at the time, Engle “praised the country’s ‘courage’ and ‘righteousness’ in promoting the bill. In the past, Engle has also donated to Brownback’s campaigns, and Brownback has done events with him as recently as last year. Seemingly caught off-guard by all this, the Brownback campaign had no statement in response.
  • NY-Gov: When you’ve lost Rudy Giuliani… His Dingusness attacked fellow Republican Carl Paladino over his anti-gay remarks, calling them “highly offensive” and saying Paladino should apologize. Not really sure what Rudy’s angle is here, though.
  • TN-Gov: Republican gubernatorial nominee Bill Haslam poured in another $2.8 million of his own money in the third quarter, for $4.3 mil total. He’s also raised a pretty amazing $12.5 million from outside donors, all told; combined, this apparently makes for a new Tennessee record. (Recall that Haslam had a very competitive GOP primary.) Dem Mike McWherter hasn’t released 3Q nums yet, but he’s raised just a fraction of what Haslam has.
  • FL-22: Barack Obama did a fundraiser last night at the home of former NBA great Alonzo Mourning (which we mentioned to you back in SSP Amazing Digest #88). The event raised a million bucks, split between the Ron Klein campaign and the DNC. In attendance were Miami Heat players Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade (but not LeBron James), as well as Magic Johnson.
  • ME-02: Looks like Jason Levesque is going to have to beg his mom for rides to campaign rallies: the Republican just got his license suspended, after three speeding convictions in the past year. Lifetime, he has 18 driving-related convictions (including nine for speeding), and his licenses has been suspended three times.
  • NV-03: Joe Heck has a serious problem wrapped around his neck like a twenty-pound goiter. It’s called Sharron Angle, and he just doesn’t know what do with it. When asked directly by a voter whether he planned to vote for his own party’s senate nominee, Heck responded: “I’m waiting to see all of the evidence before I make my choice.”
  • NY-01: Biden alert! The VPOTUS is coming to NYC to do a fundraiser for Tim Bishop on Oct. 26th. Seems awfully late in the game to be raising scratch, but I suppose a Biden event is such a sure thing that Bishop can max out the campaign credit cards against the expected take.
  • OH-09: As he watches his candidacy circle the drain, Rich Iott lashed out at the top-ranking Jewish Republican in the Milky Way, Eric Cantor, who had repudiated him a day earlier:
  • “I think that Representative Cantor did what so many career politicians do. He reacted before he had all the facts. He didn’t know the whole story. He didn’t understand what historical reenacting is all about, or the education side of it. And he just made a decision without all the facts. My opponent here is cut out of the same cloth. Those are the people who passed the health care bill before they knew what was in it. The same folks who passed the stimulus bill….”

    Because comparing the minority whip to Democrats is a good idea for a Republican candidate with a future, right? Anyhow, for those of you who perhaps wanted to hold out hope that Iott was just some weird LARPer (but I repeat myself), please review this paragraph taken from the website of his fellow Nazi re-enactors:

    Nazi Germany had no problem in recruiting the multitudes of volunteers willing to lay down their lives to ensure a “New and Free Europe”, free of the threat of Communism. National Socialism was seen by many in Holland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and other eastern European and Balkan countries as the protector of personal freedom and their very way of life, despite the true underlying totalitarian (and quite twisted, in most cases) nature of the movement. Regardless, thousands upon thousands of valiant men died defending their respective countries in the name of a better tomorrow. We salute these idealists; no matter how unsavory the Nazi government was, the front-line soldiers of the Waffen-SS (in particular the foreign volunteers) gave their lives for their loved ones and a basic desire to be free.

  • OR-04: There’s no direct quote here, but the Douglas County News-Review reports that Rep. Peter DeFazio “says he favors replacing Pelosi as speaker if Democrats retain their majority.” DeFazio has long had an antagonistic relationship with Pelosi, most recently coming to a head with his refusal to vote for the stimulus, allegedly from the left.
  • OR-05: These Republicans have no respect for Godwin’s Law, do they? Speaking of the healthcare reform bill, Scott Bruun said:
  • “From a social perspective, it’s right up there, I would argue – probably the fugitive slave law was worse. But still, the healthcare bill was pretty darn bad.”

    The Fugitive Slave Act, which “required any runaway slaves who had escaped their bondage and were living free in the Northern states be returned to their owners” – and was one of the causes of the Civil War. Right on!

  • PA-03, PA-12: Biden alert (retroactive)! The VPOTUS did a fundraiser in Pittsburgh with both Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Mark Critz in attendance. The Hill makes a big deal out of the fact that this event didn’t take place in Critz’s district – but I’m just going to guess that there are a lot more wealthy Dems in the P’burgh area than in the 12th CD.
  • PA-06: Can an internal ever be too good? Well, you tell me if you believe this Susquehanna survey that Jim Gerlach is touting, which has him up by a massive 61-31 spread. Still, now would be a good time for Manan Trivedi or the DCCC to show us something different.
  • PA-11: If Paul Kanjorski somehow, improbably, survives once more, he will owe his fortune yet again to the realtors, who have already spent three-quarters of a million on ads on his behalf, after spending a million bucks last time.
  • Polltopia: Time to help PPP pick their next state to poll.
  • SSP TV:

    • FL-Gov: In a move we’ve seen a few times this cycle, Alex Sink is trying out the long-form political ad, this time with a 2-minute spot detailing Rick Scott’s Medicare fraud and his attempts to hide from it
    • WA-08: In her third ad, Suzan DelBene hits Reichert on raising taxes & shipping jobs overseas

    Independent Expenditures:

    • AFSCME: Throws down $750K against Republican roofer Reid Ribble (WI-08) and $628K against GOPer Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
    • NRA: Almost $3 million in senate buys (here & here)
    • NRCC: Huge $8.25 million buy
    • Realtors: CA-18 (for Dennis Cardoza); IL-14 & PA-11 (for Bill Foster & Paul Kanjorski)
    • TX-23: A group called “The American Worker, Inc.” is running some $200K worth of ads against Republican Quico Canseco

    How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Polls

    The boys down at SSP Shipping & Receiving are, frankly, completely overwhelmed with the influx of incoming polling to report. That’s why we gotta dish ’em out with no added frills, bulk-style. Our latest dose:

    KY-Sen: Braun Research for cn|2 (10/4-6, likely voters, 8/30-9/1 in parens):

    Jack Conway (D): 40 (37)

    Rand Paul (R): 43 (42)

    Undecided: 17 (20)

    (MoE: ±3.5%)

    NC-Sen: High Point University (9/25-30, adults, no trend lines):

    Elaine Marshall (D): 31

    Richard Burr (R-inc): 45

    Mike Beitler (L): 4

    Undecided: 18

    (MoE: ±5%)

    WI-Sen: Fairbank Maslin for the DSCC (10/4-6, likely voters):

    Russ Feingold (D-inc): 48

    Ron Johnson (R): 49

    (MoE: ±4%)

    FL-Gov: Mason-Dixon (10/4-6, likely voters, 9/20-22 in parens):

    Alex Sink (D): 44 (47)

    Rick Scott (R): 40 (40)

    (MoE: ±4%)

    OH-Gov, OH-Sen: Suffolk University (10/4-6, likely voters, no trend lines):

    Ted Strickland (D-inc): 42

    John Kasich (R): 46

    Dennis Spisak (G): 4

    Ken Matesz (L): 2

    Undecided: 5

    Lee Fisher (D): 37

    Rob Portman (R): 47

    Michael Pryce (I): 4

    Undecided: 7

    (MoE: ±4.4%)

    ME-Gov, ME-01: Maine Center for Public Opinion for Pine Tree Politics (Gov | -01) (10/4-7, likely voters, no trend lines):

    Libby Mitchell (D): 29

    Paul LePage (R): 30

    Eliot Cutler (I): 11

    Shawn Moody (I): 5

    Kevin Scott (I): 2

    Undecided: 24

    (MoE: ±3.8%)

    Chellie Pingree (D-inc): 46

    Dean Scontras (R): 38

    Undecided: 16

    (MoE: ±5.3%)

    MI-Gov: EPIC MRA (10/3-7, likely voters, 9/11-12 in parens):

    Virg Bernero (D): 29 (29)

    Rick Snyder (R): 49 (53)

    (MoE: ±4%)

    CA-18: SurveyUSA for KFSN-TV (10/5-6, likely voters, no trend lines):

    Dennis Cardoza (D-inc): 50

    Mike Berryhill (R): 44

    Undecided: 6

    (MoE: ±4%)

    CA-18: J. Moore Methods for Dennis Cardoza (9/27-29, likely voters):

    Dennis Cardoza (D-inc): 53

    Mike Berryhill (R): 37

    (MoE: ±5%)

    ID-01: Moore Information for Raul Labrador (10/5-6, voter screen unspecified, 7/12-13 in parens):

    Walt Minnick (D-inc): 37 (37)

    Raul Labrador (R): 31 (27)

    Dave Olson (I): 6 (4)

    Mike Washburn (L): 6 (4)

    Undecided/None: 21 (28)

    (MoE: ±6%)

    IN-07: EPIC-MRA (10/1-3, likely voters):

    Andre Carson (D-inc): 50

    Marvin Scott (R): 33

    Dav Wilson (L): 6

    (MoE: ±4.9%)

    KS-04: SurveyUSA (10/6-7, likely voters, 9/14-15 in parens):

    Raj Goyle (D): 40 (40)

    Mike Pompeo (R): 53 (50)

    Shawn Smith (L): 3

    Susan Ducey (RP): 2 (4)

    Undecided: 3 (4)

    (MoE: ±4.3%)

    MI-15: Rossman Group/Team TelCom (10/4, voter screen unspecified):

    John Dingell (D-inc): 40

    Rob Steele (R): 44

    Undecided: 11

    (MoE: ±5.6%)

    NY-04: McLaughlin & Associates for Fran Becker (10/6, likely voters, 6/10 in parens):

    Carolyn McCarthy (D-inc): 46 (45)

    Fran Becker (R): 45 (25)

    Undecided: 9 (31)

    (MoE: ±5.6%)

    NY-19: Iona College for RNN-TV/Westchester County Association (10/6, voter screen unspecified):

    John Hall (D-inc): 42

    Nan Hayworth (R): 42

    Undecided: 18

    (MoE: ±3.5%)

    NY-25: McLaughlin & Associates for Ann Marie Buerkle (10/4-5, likely voters, 7/10 in parens):

    Dan Maffei (D-inc): 39 (46)

    Ann Marie Buerkle (R): 40 (39)

    Undecided: 21 (17)

    (MoE: ±4.9%)

    Take that last one with a grain of salt, though — note that directly before the head-to-head top line question, McLaughlin asked if voters would like to send an Obama-supporting Democrat to Congress or a Republican who would provide a “check and balance”.

    PA-03: Mercyhurst College (9/22-10/5, registered voters):

    Kathy Dahlkemper (D-inc): 37

    Mike Kelly (R): 44

    Undecided: 12

    (MoE: ±3.9%)

    SSP Daily Digest: 8/26 (Afternoon Edition)

    AZ-Sen: Bad news! For John McCain! J.D. Hayworth still hasn’t conceded. He’s still waiting for those late-breaking absentee ballots to help him make up that oh-so-narrow 56-32 margin, apparently.

    CT-Sen: This doesn’t seem like it’ll end well for Linda McMahon, whose stance on WWE has been that it’s harmless soap opera. Harley McNaught, the father of recently-deceased pro wrestler Lance Cade (who died of heart failure at age 29 in the wake of painkiller addiction), is going on the offense against McMahon in response to her comments that she “might have met him once.” McNaught said that he’d been to several functions with his son where they’d met McMahon and she’d known him by name, and also ripped the company’s “Wellness Program,” which he says was more about PR than about helping employees.

    DE-Sen: There’s no third-party fallback option for teabagger Christine O’Donnell, challenging Mike Castle for the GOP Senate nomination. The Constitution Party had nominated O’Donnell for its ballot line, but didn’t even receive a ballot line after its membership dwindled to 287(!) members. (That’s less than something called the “Blue Enigma Party,” which still qualified for the ballot.) O’Donnell still can mount a write-in campaign after losing the primary to Castle (which she already did in the 2006 race after losing the primary to Jan Ting).

    KY-Sen: Our James L. summed this up pithily: “Douche Day Afternoon.” Losing Dem Senate candidate Dan Mongiardo’s latest statement of semi-support for Jack Conway was that Conway was “not the best” but that “he’s a heck of a lot better” than Rand Paul, whose “scare[s him].”

    PA-Sen, PA-Gov (pdf): The newest Franklin & Marshall poll is another one of their choose-your-own-adventure specials, which shows the dimensions of the enthusiasm gap the Dems are facing, especially in the Keystone State. In the Senate race, Pat Toomey leads Joe Sestak 40-31 among likely voters, but only 31-28 among registered voters, which isn’t much different from where we left off with their last general election poll in May. And in the gubernatorial race, it’s similar, with Tom Corbett leading Dan Onorato 38-27 among LVs, but only 29-28 (probably the best showing I’ve seen in a head-to-head in this race) among RVs.

    FL-Gov: With Hayworth and Murkowski already mentioned today, it’s just turning out to be the big day of GOP disunity and sour grapes all around. While figures like Jeb Bush and state party chair John Thrasher have gotten behind Rick Scott without any major hedging, Bill McCollum is continuing his sulk, flat-out not endorsing Scott.  

    KY-Gov: The aptly-named Republican Agriculture Commissioner, Richie Farmer (I guess “Rich Farmer” was a little too overly descriptive), is still mulling over a run for Governor in next year’s off-year election against Dem incumbent Steve Beshear, where early polling has shown he’d be competitive. He’s also been linked to a possible Lt. Gov. bid, as running mate to state Senate president David Williams.

    SC-Gov: In another sign that a chunk of the local political establishment prefers Dem Vincent Sheheen to GOPer Nikki Haley, Sheheen just got the endorsement of 30 mayors around South Carolina. Most of these mayors are in nonpartisan elected positions, although one, Greer mayor Rick Danner, said he was a two-time voter for Mark Sanford.

    VT-Gov: Faced with the unenviable task of certifying her own gubernatorial primary loss, SoS Deb Markowitz says that the final certification of the super-close race in Vermont will be done on next Tuesday. All five candidates appeared amicably at a unity rally yesterday, but only shortly after Doug Racine’s campaign manager called Peter Shumlin’s declaration of victory premature, saying to wait until Tuesday. Shumlin currently leads Racine by 192 votes.

    AL-02: Rep. Bobby Bright caused some hyperventilating today when it came out that, in meeting with constituents, had punted on the issue of whether or not he’d be voting for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker next session. He did so by listing a number of reasons why that might not be an issue, including the decidedly morbid “heck, she might even get sick and die.”

    CA-18: I don’t know who looks worse in this situation, Mike Berryhill (the Republican launching an uphill, but generally credible, challenge to Rep. Dennis Cardoza), or his former campaign consultant John Villareal. Apparently they parted ways in unpleasant fashion, as Villareal blasted Berryhill’s campaign as a lost cause… but did it in the form of a somewhat unhinged-sounding, 25-minute long rant posted to YouTube.

    OH-17: Jim Traficant may still yet be able to beam himself back into Congress. He just got an extension from Jennifer Brunner, giving him more time to prove that he did collect enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot as an independent. He previously got bounced for the ballot for not having enough valid signatures.

    OR-05: Hot on the heels of a too-good-to-be-true internal from Scott Bruun giving him a small lead a few days ago, Rep. Kurt Schrader hauled out his own internal from Lake Research giving him a pretty comfortable lead: 46-35. The poll’s from late July, though, so one wonders if there’s a more recent one that he’s not sharing.

    PA-08: The ubiquitous POS is out with an internal poll on behalf of ex-Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, giving him a 7-point lead (48-41) over Democratic sophomore Rep. Patrick Murphy. Murphy hasn’t been one of the Dems’ top worries in Pennsylvania, but as we’ve seen in recent weeks, the Dem brand in Pennsylvania seems to be waning particularly quickly.

    VA-05: Tom Perriello, in an interesting bit of distancing from national Dems that’s ambiguous enough that it works from both right and left, called for the replacement of Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner, at a local town hall. He didn’t say who his preferred replacement would be (Robert Reich, anyone?).

    Ads: Lead-off ad of the day is from Alan Grayson in FL-08; the Hotline actually says it makes Grayson look “angelic” and they refer to it as the most positive ad they’ve seen so far from anyone. That Grayson… always zigging when everyone else is zagging. Other Dems out with their first TV ads for themselves today include Kathy Dahlkemper in PA-03, Julie Lassa in WI-07, and Tom Hayhurst in IN-03.

    All the GOP ads today are anti-Dem ads being run by third party groups: America’s Future Fund running against Bruce Braley in IA-01, the Heritage Foundation’s lobbying arm against Mike McIntyre in NC-07, and Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity running against Gabrielle Giffords in AZ-08 and a weird two-fer (aimed at the Phoenix market, I guess) attacking both Anne Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell in AZ-01 and AZ-05. NWOTSOTB, on any of the ads.

    Rasmussen:

    CA-Gov: Jerry Brown (D) 40%, Meg Whitman (R) 48%

    FL-Sen: Kendrick Meek (D) 21%, Marco Rubio (R) 40%, Charlie Crist (I) 30%

    UT-Gov: Peter Corroon (D) 29%, Gary Herbert (R-inc) 60%

    UT-Sen: Sam Granato (D) 29%, Mike Lee (R) 54%

    Redistricting California 2010, v2.0: Let Only 6 Republicans Be Safe

    Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:

    Statewide Map, Version 2

    For comparison, here is Version 1:

    Statewide Map, Version 1

    Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.

    1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.

    2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.

    3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.

    4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.

    5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.

    Now, on to the substance:

    Political Impact

    The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.

    If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.

    Version 1 Change Version 2
    Dem 39 +3 42
    Lean Dem 5 -1 4
    Swing 5 -2 3
    GOP 4 +2 6

    Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.

    Northern California

    In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.

    Northern California, Version 2 map

    Districts Altered:


    CA-2

    Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+11
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 40% Obama, R+13.
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
    District 1.0 Demographics: 78% White
    District 2.0 Demographics: 77% White

    CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.


    CA-3

    Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
    District 1.0 Demographics: 56% White
    District version 2.0 Demographics: 45% White

    CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.


    CA-4

    Incumbent: ?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
    District 1.0 Demographics: 57% White
    District 2.0 Demographics: 78% White

    The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.


    CA-7

    Incumbent: George Miller (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+19
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 50% White, 28% Latino

    CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.




    CA-10

    Incumbent: John Garamendi (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+11
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
    New District Demographics: 46% White

    CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.

    Southern California

    An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.

    Southern California, Version 2 map

    South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map

    Districts Altered




    CA-22

    Incumbent: ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+16
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 57% White, 49% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 62% White, 24% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

    Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.


    CA-29

    Incumbent: Adam Schiff (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+14
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino

    As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.




    CA-40

    Incumbent: ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+8
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino

    CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.




    CA-41

    Incumbent: Jerry Lewis (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 58% Obama, D+5
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino

    CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.




    CA-43

    Incumbent: Joe Baca (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+13
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 65% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 23% White, 62% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 22% White, 63% Latino

    From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.




    CA-44

    Incumbent: ?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 42% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 60% White, 25% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

    Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…




    CA-45

    Incumbent: Mary Bono (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 55% Obama, D+2
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 45% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 35% White, 51% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 34% White, 52% Latino

    CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.




    CA-37

    Incumbent: Laura Richardson (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+26
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 67% Obama, D+14
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino

    For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.




    CA-46

    Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino

    Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.




    CA-48

    Incumbent: ?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
    District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 42% Obama, R+11
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino
    District 1.0 Demographics: 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino
    District 2.0 Demographics: 71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino

    In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and  Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.

    I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).

    Redistricting California 2010: Let Only 4 Republicans Be Safe

    I decided to try my hand at redistricting California’s Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave’s Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here’s what the map I came up with looks like overall:

    Here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:

    Read on for a detailed analysis and breakdown:

    California redistricting after the 2010 census presents a great opportunity for Democrats. In 2000, a bipartisan incumbent protection map was drawn, which very effectively protected all incumbents – both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, since that map was drawn, only 1 seat has changed hands. That was CA-11, lost by Richard Pombo to Jerry McNerney in 2006. With time, as California has continued to become more strongly Democratic, the Congressional map has effectively turned into a GOP gerrymander.

    My goal was to make as many seats as possible that voted about 63% for Obama, while making as many of the rest of the remaining seats as possible at least competitive and winnable for Democrats, and conceding as few seats as possible to the GOP. My vote estimates are not exact (I did not add up all the precincts), but should generally be accurate, and any errors should be small enough to not really effect the overall partisan status of each district. My vote percentages take into account only Democratic and Republican votes, disregarding 3rd party votes which do not alter the outcome – so 63% for Obama necessarily means 37% for McCain as well. However, if CA 3rd party voters cast votes for major party candidates in Congressional races, on net it should probably help Democrats – a majority of 3rd Party votes in California were cast for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. I also assumed that California will keep 53 districts, though it is possible that California will lose one (or who knows, even gain, if the census count is high).

    In theory, it would be possible to redistrict California so that every Congressional district voted for Obama. But that would require either a bit more gerrymandering than I was willing to contemplate (like running a district from downtown San Francisco to Shasta County), or would require weakening some Democratic seats to the point that they might actually become winnable for Republicans. So instead I settled on trying to create the maximum number of seats with a PVI at or near about D+10. If a Democratic incumbent in a seat which is about D+10 loses their seat to a Republican, they probably deserve to lose it – corruption, scandal, $100,000 in the freezer, and we are probably better off without them. But even if the GOP did manage to momentarily pick up a D+10 district, Democrats would have an excellent chance of picking it back up in the next cycle. Other than scandal, it would take a truly formidable national GOP wave, greater than that of 1994 or 2006, to lose more than a handful of D+10 seats. And in that case, the GOP would control Congress regardless of what happens in California.

    I also made a statewide precinct map showing the Obama/McCain vote in 2008 on the precinct level. It is not entirely complete, because no votes were cast in some irredeemably rural “precincts” and some precincts have changed. But for the most part it should get the job done in the areas where we have to worry about looking below the county level. I could have never done Southern California in particular without this. There are 8 shades of blue and red, equally incremented by 6.25 points each, so that for example, the lightest blue means that Obama won the precinct with 50-56.25% of the vote, while the darkest blue precincts voted 93.75-100% for Obama. There’s also a bigger version of the same map if you want to a more zoomed in view (big image, you were warned).

    In addition, here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote with the size of each precinct adjusted in proportion to the actual number of votes cast in the precinct, rather than its geographical size. With the caveat that this slightly understates Republican strength because the few counties missing in the previous map voted for McCain, this is in one sense a more true depiction of the the Presidential vote in California. It also really brings home what a great proportion of the vote was cast in the LA and Bay areas. There are really not that many substantial clusters of red precincts that cannot be overwhelmed with surrounding blue areas. While in the geographic precinct map, it looks like McCain won some substantial areas, the reality is that he won in very few places – McCain only won in the most sparsely populated areas of the state and in select CA suburbs and exurbs. (Click here for a zoomed in version of the same map).

    I’d also recommend anyone interested in California redistricting read Silver Spring’s earlier work on redistricting California, (which gave me some of the ideas that went into this map), which drew a map with 44 Democratic, 7 GOP, and 2 swing seats while increasing Latino and Asian American opportunity districts and generally respecting community/political boundaries. But I wanted to see if I could push the map further, conceding fewer GOP seats and further increasing Hispanic and Asian American representation, without endangering any existing Democratic incumbents.

    The future political shape of California

    California voted 61% for Obama to 37% for McCain. Disregarding 3rd party votes, Obama got 62% to McCain’s 38%. Obama also managed to narrowly win 8 of 19 GOP held districts which had been gerrymandered to be safe GOP, proving by example that there are potential progressive gains to be made in California.

    Because California is unlikely to become much more Republican over the next 10 years, the likelihood that an aggressive redistricting plan will backfire, like the 2000 GOP gerrymander of Pennsylvania, is minimal. The chief reason for this is that California is a Majority Minority state in which the white population will to continue to decline as a share of the population. Yet white voters made up 63% of the electorate in California in 2008 even though they only make up 42% of the population. Simply put, as time passes, the electorate in California will continue to become less white, and more racially representative of the population as a whole. So there are really only two ways that the GOP can gain any ground (or avoid losing it) in California – they must either suddenly start getting support from minority voters, or they must start receiving levels of white support that they only now really get in parts of the South and a few other places. Given the GOP trend on issues like the confirmation of Sonia Sotamayor, it seems unlikely that the GOP can possibly pick up any meaningful sort of ground among minoritiesby 2020, assuming that the GOP does not suddenly transform into a very different party.

    According to exit polls, the 2008 vote in California broke down by race as follows. White and black voters exceeded their share of the population, while the percentage of the electorate that was Asian American or Hispanic was only half the percentage of the population that was Asian American or Hispanic.



















































    Actual 2008 Vote
    % of Electorate Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
    White 63.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
    African American 10.0% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
    Latino 18.0% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
    Asian 6.0% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
    Other 3.0% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
    Total 62.3%

    Now, what would the 2008 vote in California have looked like if the electorate had the same racial breakdown as the population as a whole? Assuming that each racial group gave the same % to Obama, he would have done 3 points better (7 on net). And that even includes cutting the African American percentage of the electorate by nearly HALF. This is what the future of the California electorate looks like, and it looks hopeless for Republicans.




















































    What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
    % of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
    White 42.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
    African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
    Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
    Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
    Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
    Total 65.6%

    So what if the GOP were able to get a massive swing of white voters? With the 2008 electorate, McCain would have had to win white voters 2 to 1 to have pulled even in California (much less win it). In fact, he lost white voters 52-46. With the future electorate, things are naturally even bleaker for the GOP. In fact, with an electorate that looked like California’s population (the future electorate that CA is trending towards), Obama could have lost white voters 53-45 and still done better than he actually did in 2008.




















































    What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
    % of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
    White 42.0% 45.0% 53.0% 45.9%
    African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
    Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
    Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
    Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
    Total 62.6%

    It would obviously take much more for Republicans to even come close to winning Statewide elections. In fact, for McCain to have won California without making gains with minorities and with the 2008 electorate, he would have needed to win white voters 66-32. If the electorate had broken down by race the same way as the population, he would have had to win white voters 83-15. And that only just barely gets a narrow GOP win.

    Coming close to winning statewide elections is precisely what it would take for the GOP to start putting more than a handful of the D+10 seats in any danger at all. There’s just flat out no way that they can do that in California without appealing to a meaningful number of progressive voters in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. And frankly, if the GOP starts appealing in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, then they will have rejected most of what they currently stand for and progressive Democrats will have already won (or failed spectacularly to the point of creating a GOP wave far exceeding 1994 or 2006). It would be foolishly Rovian to claim that is impossible, but it is a very high bar to hurdle, especially because the national GOP is so deeply averse to even the facade of quasi-moderation of exhibited by Republicans like Schwarzenegger, Crist, and Snowe.

    Political Impact

    The political impact of this map would be to increase the number of Democrats in Congress from California. Barring major scandal, California should have an approximately 40-13 Democratic delegation (including all 33 current Democratic incumbents). That’s likely to be at least 44-9. And in a best case scenario, in which all the swing seats turn blue, California even has a chance to send an overwhelming 49-4 Democratic delegation to Washington. Moreover, most of the new Democrats elected would likely be reasonably progressive Democrats.

    The drawing of a Congressional map along these lines would also have the effect of neutering the net national partisan impact of Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida and Texas. While my personal preference would be to have all districts drawn by a non-partisan commission, it is no good if only Democrats do that in states where Democrats will control redistricting, while the GOP goes on a gerrymandering binge in states expected to gain seats like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Utah. But with an aggressive redrawing of the lines California, Democrats can in one fell swoop come close to making sure that redistricting will not be a net negative on the national level. By carefully drawing the seats so that newly Democratic districts have strong progressive bases in areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, we can also increase the likelihood that better Democrats will be elected from those districts.



















    District Political Status
    Dem 39
    Lean Dem 5
    Swing 5
    GOP 4

    Safe Democratic seats

    I classify 39 seats as reasonably safe Democratic seats. All of these districts voted 60%+ for Obama (D+7), and 28 of them voted 63%+ for Obama (D+10).

    Lean Democratic seats

    There are 5 Lean Democratic seats (3, 20, 42, 45, 50). The 20th is already in Democratic hands (and could probably be made safer pretty easily), and there would be a very good chance of picking up the other 4 seats in 2012, especially if Obama again does well in California. These seats all voted 55-58% for Obama and are likely to become more Democratic – 3 of them are new majority Latino seats, and the others have substantial minority populations whose turnout should gradually rise).

    Swing Seats

    These are seats that voted from 51% to 53% for Obama (4, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49). 40, 41, and 48 all have white populations that make up less than 50% of the district’s population, and should continue to become more Democratic as minority turnout increases. There is no guarantee that Democrats will necessarily be able to pick up all (or any) of these seats, but strong candidates ought to be able to run competitive races and win in these districts.

    GOP Seats

    Finally, there are 4 safe GOP seats. These all voted about 32-41% for Obama and are designed to be completely unwinnable for Democrats. These districts all serve to suck in the maximum number of Republicans possible, making surrounding districts more Democratic.

    In retrospect, if I were to redraw the map, I might consider conceding one more safe GOP seat in the Orange County/Riverside/San Bernadino area. If the most heavily GOP areas remaining were combined into one more district, it would be pretty easy to make a number of swing/lean Dem seats a bit more Democratic.

    The Voting Rights Act

    I endeavored to follow the requirements of the Voting Rights Act in full, and tried to even go a bit beyond its strict requirements. From the districts drawn in 2000, I managed to substantially increase minority voting strength for both Latinos and Asian Americans, while maintaining effective black control or at least substantial influence over 4 districts. :











































































    VRA Status of New Districts
    District Type # of Districts % of Districts % of Population
    Majority White 19 35.8% 42.3%
    Plurality White 11 20.8% 42.3%
    Total White 30 56.6% 42.3%
    Majority Latino 15 28.3% 36.6%
    Plurality Latino 1 1.9% 36.6%
    Total Latino 16 30.2% 36.6%
    Plurality Asian 3 5.7% 12.5%
    Effective Black 4 7.5% 6.7%

    Increase Latino voting strength

    5 new Majority Latino seats are added. They are the the 18th, 21st, 25th, 42nd, and 45th. CA-32 also changes to an Asian plurality district, which is offset by the change of CA-26 to a Latino majority district. Factors such as how complete the census count of Latinos is and how concentrated Latino population growth actually is will have a big effect on the actual location and shapes of these districts, but in reality it ought to be possible to add a number of new Latino majority districts.

    Increase Asian American voting strength

    The 12th, 15th, and 32nd districts become Asian American plurality districts. Although Asians are not a homogeneous group politically or ethnically, and although Californians have sometimes elected Asian Americans in districts without a particularly large Asian community (like Doris Matsui in Sacramento), Asian voters will now have more of a guarantee that they can elect candidates of their choice.

    Maintain African American voting strength

    I tried to maintain African American voting strength as much as I could, but trends are working against the maintanance of the existing 4 districts which are effectively controlled by African American voters (CA-9, CA-33, CA-35, CA-37). Particularly in the 3 LA districts, Latino population growth is gradually overwhelming the African American population, particularly in CA-35. Additionally, population growth has not kept up with the state average in these districts, meaning that they will need to expand – and there are really no more concentrations of black voters nearby that can be added to the 3 districts. On the basis of population, one could probably justify merging the African American areas of the 3 existing districts into two districts with higher African American populations, but I did not do this in order to try and protect all incumbents. If a merger of these districts does not happen in 2010, the voters may well make it happen anyway, making a merger in 2020 a near certainty. But despite these difficulties, I managed to actually slightly increase the black population % in CA-9 and CA-33. In CA-35 and 37, the African American percentage drops, but the main threat to effective black control of these districts (Latino voters) are decreased as a share of the population. By making these districts more white and more Republican, Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson are probably actually safer, because the main threat to their incumbancy is a primary challenge from a Latino Democrat. While one could arge that this disenfranchises Latinos, there is really no other way to maintain black VRA districts that I can see, and the Latinos removed from CA-35 and CA-37 help make it possible to create other Latino majority districts in the LA area.

    Breakdown of the Districts

    Finally, let’s look at the new districts themselves, in aggregate and individually. Because I de-packed many overly Democratic districts, the average and median district becomes more Republican, while a greater number of districts become Democratic.




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































    District Summary
    District New Dist Est. Obama% Old Dist Obama % Change in Obama % Designation VRA Status Region
    1 63 67 -4 Dem Majority White Northern California
    2 39 44 -5 GOP Majority White Northern California
    3 57 50 7 Lean Dem Majority White Northern California
    4 53 45 8 Swing Majority White Northern California
    5 62 71 -9 Dem Plurality White Northern California
    6 72 78 -6 Dem Majority White Northern California
    7 63 73 -10 Dem Majority White Bay Area
    8 81 87 -6 Dem Majority White Bay Area
    9 83 90 -7 Dem Effective Black Bay Area
    10 63 66 -3 Dem Majority White Bay Area
    11 61 55 6 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
    12 79 76 3 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
    13 64 76 -12 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
    14 73 75 -2 Dem Majority White Bay Area
    15 69 70 -1 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
    16 66 71 -5 Dem Plurality Latino Bay Area
    17 65 74 -9 Dem Majority White Central California
    18 60 60 0 Dem Majority Latino Central California
    19 63 47 16 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
    20 56 61 -5 Lean Dem Majority Latino Central California
    21 67 43 24 Dem Majority Latino Central California
    22 32 39 -7 GOP Majority White Central California
    23 62 67 -5 Dem Majority White Central California
    24 63 51 12 Dem Majority White Greater LA
    25 65 51 14 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    26 62 52 10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    27 62 68 -6 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
    28 76 78 -2 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    29 61 69 -8 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
    30 64 72 -8 Dem Majority White Greater LA
    31 73 82 -9 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    32 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality Asian Greater LA
    33 94 88 6 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
    34 65 76 -11 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    35 76 86 -10 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
    36 64 66 -2 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
    37 64 81 -17 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
    38 63 73 -10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    39 62 67 -5 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    40 52 48 4 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
    41 53 45 8 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
    42 58 46 12 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    43 63 69 -6 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    44 41 50 -9 GOP Majority White Greater LA
    45 55 52 3 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    46 60 49 11 Dem Majority White Greater LA
    47 60 61 -1 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
    48 52 50 2 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
    49 51 46 5 Swing Majority White San Diego
    50 57 52 5 Lean Dem Majority White San Diego
    51 62 64 -2 Dem Majority Latino San Diego
    52 38 46 -8 GOP Majority White San Diego
    53 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality White San Diego
    Average 62.17 63.37 -1
    Median 63.00 66.88 -4

    Northern California

    I defined the Northern California region as pretty much everything from Sacramento northwards. It includes 6 districts. 4 Should be Democratic, while CA-2 is Republican and CA-4 is a swing district. This is the whitest part of the State, and therefore probably the part of the State where there is the greatest potential for the GOP to make gains (even if it seems improbable at best that they will make much headway in liberal areas like Sonoma County). For that reason I decided not get too overly aggressive here. It would be possible to avoid conceding a GOP district in the far North-East, but unless you did something like draw a tentacle from Nancy Pelosi’s district up into rural GOP areas, it would be very hard to then also avoid creating a strong or leaning GOP district in the Sierra Nevada’s East and South-East of Sacramento. So I didn’t even try. Instead, I took advantage of the opportunity to move Nancy Pelosi’s district north without endangering the 1st or 6th districts, giving her Marin County across the Golden Gate bridge, which, as we will see, makes it possible to squeeze a great deal out of the Eastern side of the San Francisco Bay.

    Northern California





    Sacramento Area





    San Francisco Bay Area

    Every single seat based in the San Francisco Bay area is safely Democratic. A number of these districts also extend outwards to the east, in order to avoid wasting too many votes in ultra-Demacratic districts. But many districts remain entirely within the Bay area, and if one were willing to draw pinwheels flowing out from San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula to places like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Barstow, you could pretty easily squeeze out another one or two utterly safe Democratic districts.

    Northern Bay Area





    Southern Bay Area





    Central California

    Given the GOP lean of much of this region, having only 1 GOP district is not bad. Latino voting strength is greatly increased in this area. Although it might not be at all certain that all of the Latino districts will immediately have an effective Latino voting majority, they will with time. This is the most obviously gerrymandered part of the state, but that is necessary in order to increase Latino voting strength and to increase Democratic strength in less heavily Latino areas. The actual lines in this area will be greatly affected by the actual distribution of Latino population growth within counties.

    Central Coast





    Central Valley





    LA Area

    I am using a broad definition of the LA area, including areas beyond the city of Los Angeles proper, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties. In this area, and especially in LA County, some of the districts are better thought of as general ideas than specific exact proposals. I am fairly certain that someone who knows the area better than I do could draw the urban lines a bit more sensibly while maintaining or increasing all the political benefits and fully complying with the Voting Rights Act (a major cause of strange district shapes). Additionally, the 2008 Population Estimates are only available on the County level – so the actual population will be distributed somewhat differently than in the lines I drew. The exact lines should not be taken too literally, but it should be possible to draw roughly similar districts with the same basic demographic and political results. I may have mistakenly drawn some Democratic incumbents’ houses out of their district, but in reality that would probably be easy to avoid, if it matters. The greater LA area also has the greatest concentration of minorities in California.

    That is the chief reason why I was more willing to draw some districts that were only lean Democratic or swing seats – because of their high but still relatively low turnout Latino and Asian American populations, many districts are safe bets to become more Democratic as that turnout increases. So even if these seats do not all flip Democratic in 2012, there is a great chance that they will flip some time between 2014 and 2020. Still, you can make a good argument for either conceding another seat to the GOP (or sending another district or 2 deep into the heart of LA), and if I were redrawing the map I would probably concede a third safe GOP seat in the Orange/Riverside/Burnadino area in order to make the surrounding districts more Democratic. But the overall point is that there is no reason for any district in LA County to be Republican, and from LA County, a number of districts can be safely extended outwards to make even more Democratic seats. It also ought to be possible to create more Latino majority seats and an Asian American plurality seat.

    Southern California





    Northern LA area





    Southern LA area





    Eastern LA area





    San Diego

    Last but not least, the San Diego area. Democrats currently hold only 2 of 5 seats in this area, while Obama won 54-44. With the exception of CA-51, the minority population in San Diego is relatively small. But even without relying on votes from Los Angeles, it should be possible to make 3 fairly strong Democratic districts, one heavily GOP district, and a swing district out of this area.





    Breakdown of the Districts

    And now to all 53 of the individual districts, one by one.

























    CA-1

    Incumbent: Mike Thompson (Blue Dog D) v. Wally Herger (R)
    Previous District PVI: D+13
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 63% White
    New District Demographics: 66% White

    CA-1 pairs Napa Blue dog Mike Thompson with Butte County (which narrowly voted for Obama) Republican Wally Herger. The district basically consists of Napa, Yolo, Colusa, Sutter, ande Butte counties, along with the section of Sonoma County previously in CA-1. Those areas combined voted 60% for Obama, and that is the basic partisan orientation of this district. If that’s not Democratic enough, it could easily be made stronger by trading some Sonoma area territory with CA-6. Some relatively unpopulated parts of Yolo and Sutter Counties are cut out to provide a path for CA-4 to connect Yolo and Placer counties, and the city of Marysville in Yuba County is thrown in to equalize the population.

    In the event that Herger decided to actually run in this district, he would almost certainly lose. Half of the districts population lives in Napa, Yolo, and Sonoma counties, and would vote heavily for Thomson. In the other half of the district, Herger might win, but would have a lot of trouble winning by enough to offset the heavily Democratic Napa/Yolo/Sonoma margin. It is also easier to imagine Thomson appealing to voters in Butte County than it is to imagine Herger appealing to San Francisco Bay area liberals.

    But more than likely this is a moot point, because Herger would almost certainly take one look at CA-1 and opt to run in CA-2 instead, which includes a lot of his rural GOP base areas.

























    CA-2

    Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+11
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
    New District Demographics: 78% White

    CA-2 serves to pack as many rural Northern California Republicans as possible into one district. It is the whitest district in California, and is very strongly Republican. CA-2 includes compact rural counties in Northern California, and snakes down through Placer, El Dorado, and Amador counties to pick up rural/exurban GOP areas, leaving closer in Sacramento suburbs in Placer County to CA-4, and leaving the more Democratic Lake Tahoe area to CA-10.

    As discussed with CA-1, Wally Herger would probably run in this district, even though he lives in the new CA-1. Tom McClintock would also probably want prefer to run in this district than in a swing district, even though he lives in the new CA-5. In the event of a primary between Herger and McClintock, Herger would probably prevail because slightly more of the new CA-2 comes from Herger’s old district than from the old CA-4, and Herger has longer standing actual ties to the area than McClintock.

























    CA-3

    Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
    New District Demographics: 56% White

    CA-3 is now entirely within Sacramento County, and is substantially more Democratic than the old CA-3, which voted narrowly for Obama. There is a delicate balancing act here between hurting Lungren and keeping Matsui secure. It would be possible to make CA-3 even more Democratic, but not without dragging CA-5 under roughly D+10, which I wanted to avoid. It is not a complete certainty that Lungren would lose in this district, but it is a certainly that he would face very competitive elections every 2 years until he does.

























    CA-4

    Incumbent: None
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
    New District Demographics: 57% White

    The new CA-4 is a bona fide suburban swing district, combining 99% of Democratic Solano County (4/7 of the district) with GOP leaning Sacramento Suburban part of Placer county, and sparsely populated areas in between to connect them. There is no real incumbent in this district, but Charlie Brown would be well positioned to win here. This district is much less Republican than the old version, which he only barely lost in 2008. If not, a Democrat from Solano County would have a good chance of winning here. The only potential hitch is the fast pace of growth in Placer County. If that tends to increase GOP margins, this district will become more Republican with time. On the other hand, if the Sacramento suburbs liberalize as they grow, this district will stay roughly even or move slightly more Democratic. It would be pretty easy to make this district more Democratic by extending it further into the Bay Area, but I kept it more compact and suburban based.

























    CA-5

    Incumbent: Doris Matsui (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+15
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White
    New District Demographics: 46% White

    CA-5 becomes more Republican, but not Republican enough to put Doris Matsui in any realistic danger. It now crosses over (barely) into Yolo County to pick up West Sacramento, but otherwise is based very much in Sacramento proper.

























    CA-6

    Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+23
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 72% Obama, D+19
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 70% White
    New District Demographics: 71% White

    CA-6 ditches highly progressive Marin County to pick up less-progressive-but-still-progressive areas further North along the coast. Lynn Woolsey still has absolutely nothing to worry about, and could easily take on some more GOP turf or donate some heavily Democratic areas to CA-1. Alternatively, CA-2 could be sucked into CA-6/Marin and become a swing or Democratic district rather than being conceded to the GOP, but that would make it much more difficult to make CA-4 a swing district, and much more difficult to turn CA-10 into a Democratic district with a strong base in the Sierra Nevadas, and would also necessitate some more county splitting.

























    CA-7

    Incumbent: George Miller (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+19
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
    New District Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino

    CA-7 moves out of Solano County, and into San Joaquin where it picks up Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca (most of the county other than Stockton). The district also cedes areas around Richmond to CA-10 and CA-9, resulting in a more Republican District. My intention was to bring it down to about D+10, but it could be a couple points off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it would be very easy to fix that and make this district more Democratic. CA-7 isn’t D+19 any more, but it does not really need to be. Long time incumbent George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1974, will not be in any danger of suddenly now losing his seat simply becase it becomes a bit less Democratic.

























    CA-8

    Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+35
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 81% Obama, D+28
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 30% Asian
    New District Demographics: 61% White, 18% Asian

    Nancy Pelosi’s CA-8 plays a very important but subtle role in this overall map. By crossing the Golden Gate Bridge and taking in Marin County, her district becomes slightly less Democratic. But that’s not the main point. By taking in Marin County, it allows CA-6 to push northwards, and just as importantly, it sucks CA-12 into San Francisco (making it Asian plurality in the process), and sucks all the districts to the South-East of it towards San Francisco. This dominoes through the districts and ultimately provides the impetus to pull more Republican districts in the Central Valley further in towards areas like Santa Cruz, San Jose, and Alameda.

























    CA-9

    Incumbent: Barbara Lee (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+37
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 83% Obama, D+30
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 36% White, 20% Black, 17% Asian, 23% Latino
    New District Demographics: 37% White, 22% Black, 16% Asian, 21% Latino

    The percentage of African Americans in Barbara Lee’s new 9th District is not just maintained, but actually increased, even while the district becomes a little bit less Democratic. I did this by trading ultra-liberal but predominantly white areas of her district (principally Berkeley) for predominantly white liberal areas in Contra Costa County, along with Richmond, which has a fairly high black population. So the district now consists of Oakland, Richmond, and areas of Contra Costa county like Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasantville.

























    CA-10

    Incumbent: ?John Garamendi? (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+11
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
    New District Demographics: 60% White

    This new version of CA-10 is rather different from the previous CA-10, and is drawn under the assumption that John Garamendi wins the CA-10 special election. This district is probably the most bizarrely shaped of all the districts I drew, but it makes sense, at least from the perspective of drawing a distrcit that would be good for Garamendi. Republican George Radanovich also lives here (in Mariposa), but he wouldn’t have much chance if he ran in this district.

    Nearly 4/7 of the population of CA-10 live in Contra Costa or Alameda Counties, and those areas are all very heavily Democratic (Berkeley – where Garamendi went to college, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole). From there, it snakes through sparsely populated parts of Solano, Amador, and Sacramento counties, picking up Garamendi’s home along the way. Then it enters the Sierra Nevada mountain range through Calaveras county, where Garamendi was born and has a ranch. It picks up Republican leaning areas near Yosemite National Park (Garamendi was Deputy Secretary of the Interior), and picks up a mixture of Rural Republicans and more liberal Lake Tahoe/ski areas up and down the Nevada border, stretching from Inyo County in the south to Nevada County in the north. I have to say, I was sorely tempted to cross into Fresno and Tulare counties to pick up Sequoia and King’s Canyon National park, and into San Bernadino to take in all of Death Valley, but I restrained myself.

    Alpine, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, and Toulumne counties collectively voted McCain 52% to Obama 48%. If you assume that liberal areas around Lake Tahoe (parts of Placer and El Dorado counties) roughly cancel out extraneous GOP areas, and that the Contra Costa/Alameda county parts of the district voted about 75% for Obama, then you end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama, litte changed from the current partisan stance of CA-10. And there we have it – a district that takes care of some hard to deal with GOP areas in the Sierras, avoids wasting Democratic votes along the Nevada border on a GOP district, that opens up space in eastern Contra Costa County for CA-7 to dilute GOP votes in San Joaquin county, and that John Garamendi should be able to effectively represent despite the district’s bizarre geographic shape, given his background. Whew!

    As a more compact alternative to this, instead of reaching all the way to Berkeley, the district could combine the Sierras with a different and nearer Democratic area, such as the city of San Joaquin. But then this district would not include Garamendi’s home, would be only weakly Democratic rather than safe, would be less progressive, and would really be more like a reconfigured 19th than the 10th.

























    CA-11

    Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (D)
    Previous District PVI: R+1
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 51% White, 26% Latino
    New District Demographics: 45% White, 27% Latino

    CA-11 is altered significantly to make it more Democratic. It now takes in all of the city of Stockton, in exchange for which it gives up some relatively conservative areas to CA-7. It also expands a bit more in Alameda County, taking on Livermore as well as a bit of territory from Pete Stark and Barbara Lee. The end result is a much safer district for McNerney. I guesstimate that it voted roughly 61% for Obama, but that could be off by a few percentage points. If it is too Republican, that is easy to fix.

























    CA-12

    Incumbent: Jackie Speier (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+23
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 79% Obama, D+26
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 31% Asian
    New District Demographics: 35% White, 38% Asian

    CA-12 moves further into San Francisco to accomadate Pelosi’s shift into Marin County. In the process, it turns into a district with a slight Asian American plurality.

























    CA-13

    Incumbent: Pete Stark (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+22
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 29% White, 35% Asian, 23% Latino
    New District Demographics: 37% White, 26% Asian, 28% Latino

    CA-13 is still primarily based in Alameda County, where 2/3 of the district is located, retaining Pete Stark’s home town of Fremont, along with Union City, Newark, and most of Hayward. It then crosses through unpopulated mountains to the east and reappears on the outskirts of Modesto, where it basically picks up the parts of Stanislaus County that were formerly in the 19th district. The end result is a district which is still strongly Democratic, but not packed as full of progressive Alameda County voters as before.

























    CA-14

    Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+21
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 73% Obama, D+20
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 53% White, 21% Asian, 19% Latino
    New District Demographics: 52% White, 22% Asian, 20% Latino

    Like CA-12 before it, CA-14 is sucked towards San Francisco because of CA-8’s trip across the Golden Gate Bridge. In San Mateo County, it adds San Carlos, Foster City, and San Mateo. Saratoga in Santa Cruz County along with CA-14’s old section of Santa Cruz County are removed. This has no real political impact, and CA-14 remains a veritable Democratic fortress.

























    CA-15

    Incumbent: Mike Honda (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+15
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 69% Obama, D+16
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 36% Asian
    New District Demographics: 35% White, 39% Asian

    Moving parts of CA-9 and CA-13 out of Alameda County has left some people there that need to go somewhere. They go into Mike Honda’s 15th district, which is now up to 39% Asian American. No real partisan effect, except CA-15 may get a bit more Democratic.

























    CA-16

    Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+16
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 66% Obama, D+13
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 28% White, 26% Asian, 40% Latino
    New District Demographics: 29% White, 19% Asian, 45% Latino

    60% of CA-16 remains within Santa Clara County. To get to the rest of the district, it crosses the mountains and ends up in Stanislaus County, where it takes in the city of Modesto. strengthening the Latino plurality in the process. This only makes the district 3 or 4 points more Republican, and Zoe Lofgren has nothing to worry about.

























    CA-17

    Incumbent: Sam Farr (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+19
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 41% White, 48% Latino
    New District Demographics: 60% White, 19% Latino

    Sam Farr’s district becomes much whiter than before, principally because it gives up predominantly Latino areas inland (Salinas, Hollister, Watsonville) to the 21st district in order to help give that district a strong Latino majority. In exchange, Farr adds the rest of Santa Cruz county (except for Watsonville), parts of Santa Clara county (Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno), as well as some conservative inland areas in San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. But 78% of the population lives in Monterrey, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, all of which are strongly Democratic, so Farr’s district remains strongly Democaratic even while becoming much whiter. As a rough estimate, this district probably voted about 65% for Obama.

























    CA-18

    Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+4
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 32% White, 50% Latino
    New District Demographics: 28% White, 52% Latino

    In order to keep CA-18 majority Latino while also making CA-21 and CA-19 into 70% Latino districts, CA-18 dumps its sections of Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties. Instead, it takes in all of Merced county, then runs south through Madera County and then into Fresno, where it takes just about every precinct in the city that voted for Obama. This makes the district a couple of percentage points less white and more Latino, which also makes it a few points more Democratic.

























    CA-19

    Incumbent: None
    Previous District PVI: R+9
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 52% White, 5% Asian, 36% Latino
    New District Demographics: 47% White, 16% Asian, 30% Latino

    This new CA-19 is the prime beneficiary of Nancy Pelosi’s shift northwards. It is radically different from the old CA-19, and shares no constituents with it at all. Whereas the old version was safely GOP, the new one is safely Democratic. 5/7 of the district is in San Jose, and it is an effective certainty that this district will elect another progressive San Jose Democrat. The other 200,000 people are mostly white Republicans in the Central Valey, running through farmland to pick up as many GOP voters as possible in the Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area. It is a measure of just how large the Latino population is now in the Central Valley that even though these 200,000 people are the least Latino leftover areas from after making 2 70% Latino districts, 40% of the people here are still Latino, and only 50% are white. In the end, near 70% support from Santa Clara county combined with 40% support from the Central Valley should end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama.

























    CA-20

    Incumbent: Jim Costa (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+5
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 56% Obama, D+3
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 68% Latino
    New District Demographics: 21% White, 70% Latino

    If it is possible for a district that is 70% Latino to vote Republican, it will be this new, more rural version of CA-20 that leads the way. The cities of Fresno and Bakersfield are cut out entirely, and the district becomes focused on the small towns and farms of the Central Valley.

    Jim Costa should be well positioned to win in this district even if it is not as immediately Democratic as one might wish, because of his background in farming, and because he has previously represented much of it. I am guessing that this district voted about 56% for Obama, but that could be way off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it should be fairly easy to make it more Democratic by rearraning the division of territory amongst the 18th, 20th, and 21st districts (the Central Valley Latino districts, possibly returning Bakersfield or Fresno). Regardless of how Democratic this district is now, over time it will steadily become more Democratic as Latinos gradually come to make up a share of the electorate closer to their share of the population. Who knows, eventually this district might elect a latter day Cesar Chavez.

























    CA-21

    Incumbent: None
    Previous District PVI: R+13
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 67% Obama, D+14
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 40% White, 49% Latino
    New District Demographics: 20% White, 70% Latino

    This new CA-21 has absolutely nothing in common with the old CA-21. It is mainly carved out of the old CA-17 and CA-20. It is fully 70% Latino, which might be high enough for Latino voters to actually have effective control over the district. A number of the white voters in urban Bakersfield and in the Salinas area are Democrats, which should make this district solidly Democratic and progressive. I estimate that it voted about 67% for Obama, but there is a high margin of error to that estimate, and much depends on exactly how high Latino turnout in this district will be.

























    CA-22

    Incumbent: ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+16
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 57% White, 49% Latino
    New District Demographics: 62% White, 30% Latino

    This new CA-22 is a dumping ground for Republicans from Fresno to Bakersfield and everywhere in between. About 1/7 of this district is carved from the old 19th, 1/3 from the old 21st, and half from the old 22nd. It should have voted somewhere in the low 30s for Obama. This is the only solidly Republican district left in the Central Valley, and it is very, very solid. Even so, it is only 62% white!!! This district should make for an interesting GOP primary, as fully 3 GOP Reps have the potential to run in this ultra-GOP district.

























    CA-23

    Incumbent: Lois Capps (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+12
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 43% White, 47% Latino
    New District Demographics: 51% White, 39% Latino

    CA-23 is no longer confined entirely to the coast, and now includes the entirety of Santa Barbara county. In San Luis Obispo county, it retains the same areas along the coast, but now takes in all of the city of San Luis Obispo. That shouldn’t hurt her, because essentially every precinct in the city voted for Obama. It still extends into Ventura County, but no longer picks up all of Oxnard. This makes CA-23 slightly less Democratic, but not by enough to endanger Lois Capps.

























    CA-24

    Incumbent: Elton Gallegly (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+4
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 64% White, 26% Latino
    New District Demographics: 62% White, 25% Latino

    The racial demographics of CA-24 remain virtually the same. But politically, it is a district transformed. 38% of the population is now in LA County, and in liberal parts of LA County – Malibu, Santa Monica, and some other parts of West LA. It should now be about 63% Obama, give or take a percentage point. Elton Gallegly, who does not even live in the district any more, would have a tough time in this new iteration, if he bothered even running.

























    CA-25

    Incumbent: ?Howard McKeon? (R), ?Howard Berman?
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 38% Latino
    New District Demographics: 29% White, 55% Latino

    CA-25 contracts entirely within LA County, and becomes much more Democratic. It is transformed into a 55% Latino Majority district, composed mainly of Lancaster, Palmdale, and areas around San Fernando taken from both the old 27th and 28th districts. Santa Clarita, where McKeon lives, is cut out of the district. For that reason, it is probably more likely that McKeon would run in the 27th, if he runs at all. Howard Berman (D) could also potentially opt to run in either the 25th or the 28th, both of which contain substantial chunks of his old district (but he’ll probably prefer the more strongly Democratic 28th). The 25th district is strongly Democratic, probably somewhere in the mid-60s for Obama.

























    CA-26

    Incumbent: ?David Dreier? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 30% Latino
    New District Demographics: 18% White, 63% Latino

    David Dreier doesn’t really have anywhere to run, as fully 7 districts now include pieces of his old district. His best shot would probably actually be CA-40. The district numbered 26, which includes Dreier’s home in San Dimas, turns into a district with a strong 63% Latino majority. Only GOP leaning Glendora and San Dimas are retained from the old 26th, while predominantly Latino areas like West Covina, La Puente, El Monte, and Irwindale are added from the old 32nd and 38th districts. It probably voted somewhere in the general range of about 62% for Obama, which ought to be enough to doom Dreier here.

























    CA-27

    Incumbent: Brad Sherman (D) v. Howard McKeon (R)
    Previous District PVI: D+13
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 38% White, 43% Latino
    New District Demographics: 48% White, 35% Latino

    The new 27th district adds Santa Clarita, where Howard McKeon lives, and which makes up 2/7 of the new district. To try and avoid making the 27th too Republican, I tried to get rid of the relatively less Democratic parts of his old district in exchange, keeping the more Democratic areas around Northridge. This causes the 27th to become less Democratic, but not much. Sherman should be strongly favored to take out McKeon in this district. It would also be easy to make this district a bit more Democratic if necessary.

























    CA-28

    Incumbent: Howard Berman (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+23
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 76% Obama, D+23
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 30% White, 59% Latino
    New District Demographics: 27% White, 55% Latino

    The new 28th district shifts a bit to the south, picking up part of Burbank and some Latino areas to the east of Hollywood from the 31st district. I’ll just say that it in partisan terms it remains about the same as it is, and may even have become more Demacratic. The 28th should have voted about 76% for Obama – the least Democratic precincts in the district (in Burbank) still voted 65% for Obama! So if any other districts nearby need to become more Democratic, the 28th could be modified to lend a hand without breaking a sweat.

























    CA-29

    Incumbent: Adam Schiff (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+14
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino
    New District Demographics: 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino

    Adam Schiff’s 29th district takes on the role of diluting GOP votes in San Bernadino County. The San Bernadino portion of the 29th takes in vast expanses of San Bernadino County taken from the former 25th and 41st districts, including Hesperia, Victorville, and Barstow, which make up just under half the population of the district. In The LA County portion, heavily Democratic areas around Pasadena are combine with strongly Democratic areas around Schiff’s home in Burbank to make this district Democratic – the parts of his old district that he gives up are the relatively more GOP parts. Even given that the San Bernadino part of the district voted for McCain by several points, the LA County part (especially Pasadena) is strongly enough Democratic that the district overall voted about 61% for Obama.

























    CA-30

    Incumbent: Henry Waxman (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+18
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 75% White
    New District Demographics: 68% White

    The white voters in Henry Waxman’s district are liberal enough that redistricting Waxman’s district to make it more Republican actuall actually ends up making it less white. The base of Waxman’s district remains in Beverly Hills/West Hollywood, and then snakes up through the hills towards Ventura County. It crosses over, taking in Simi Valley, Moorpark, and some smaller areas surrounding. In sum, the Ventura component of the district makes up a third of the total population. Waxman remains very much safe.

























    CA-31

    Incumbent: Xavier Becerra (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+29
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 73% Obama, D+20
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 12% White, 68% Latino
    New District Demographics: 20% White, 62% Latino

    CA-31 becomes less overwhelmingly Democratic and less overwhelmingly Latino by giving up some Latinos (indirectly to the 25th) to turn that district into a Latino majority district. In exchange, Nevertheless, it retains a very strong Latino majority (62%). Becerra picks up some less Democratic (but not really GOP) areas in Glendale and La Canada Flintridge from the old 26th and 29th districts. These new areas only make up 1/4 of the district, which remains heavily Democratic. It should be something like 73% for Obama now, which could easily be off a couple points depending on Latino turnout. Not that it matters – Becerra is utterly safe.

























    CA-32

    Incumbent: Judy Chu (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+15
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 12% White, 20% Asian, 65% Latino
    New District Demographics: 24% White, 44% Asian, 28% Latino

    CA-32 is transformed from a Latino majority district into a strong Asian-American plurality district (with Dreier’s 26th becoming a Latino majority district to offset the change). I will say up front that Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, and I have no real idea how the “Asian” population breaks down. I just tried to make the district as “Asian” as possible. The best I could figure out how to do while keeping it relatively compact was 44%. With an earlier version I was able to get the Asian population higher, but that district was a true monstrosity, stretching here and there all over the place and even had a tentacle reaching into Irvine in Orange County.

    The district is substantially reworked, combining areas within the old 32nd with areas from the 26th, 29th, 38th, and 43rd. It includes in the north/west Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Arcadia, San Marino, South Pasadena, Temple City, Gabriel, Alhambra, Monterey Park, and Rosemead. Then it crosses through Whittier and La Habra Heights to pick up substantial Asian populations in Diamond Bar and Walnut. This district is definitely Democratic – it contains only a few McCain precincts – but it is hard to say how much without actually taking the time to calculate partisanship on the precinct level, because it takes from so many different old districts and I don’t know much about the voting patterns or turnout of Asian Americans in this area. I’d guesstimate it is in the low 60s for Obama, but someone that knows the area could probably make a better estimate.

























    CA-33

    Incumbent: Diane Watson (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+35
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 94% Obama, D+41
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 21% White, 27% Black, 13% Asian, 37% Latino
    New District Demographics: 10% White, 29% Black, 11% Asian, 47% Latino

    In order to try and keep the African American percentage in this district relatively high, I cut out some white areas of the district and added some Black/Latino areas. CA-35 has a lot of precincts that voted near unanimously for Obama, and becomes even more Democratic than it already was.

























    CA-34

    Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+22
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 8% White, 81% Latino
    New District Demographics: 21% White, 65% Latino

    In order to increase Latino voting power in other districts while simultaneously diluting GOP votes, this district shifts, while retaining its base in the general area of Vernon. From Vernon/Maywood, the 34th now stretches east through Downey, La Mirada, and then into Orange County, where it adds Fullerton. The Orange County portion makes up only 20% of the district, which is now only 65% Latino. Even given low turnout in Latino LA County areas relative to in Fullerton, this district probably also voted about 65% for Obama – and that will go up with time as Latino turnout gradually increases.

























    CA-35

    Incumbent: Maxine Waters (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+31
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 76% Obama, D+23
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 10% White, 28% Black, 6% Asian, 54% Latino
    New District Demographics: 17% White, 26% Black, 11% Asian, 43% Latino

    What to do with the McCain precincts in South-West LA County around Palos Verdes/Rolling Hills? Why, give them to Maxine Waters, of course! Doing this makes it possible to preserve African American voting strength (by decreasing the Latino percentage) and dilute GOP votes all at once. So this district becomes substantially more White, Asian, and GOP, without becoming much less Black. It is brought down to about 76% for Obama.

























    CA-36

    Incumbent: Jane Harman (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+12
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 15% Asian, 33% Latino
    New District Demographics: 44% White, 16% Asian, 33% Latino

    There are no real changes to Harman’s district, I only altered a tiny fraction of the district in the North. At most this might make CA-36 1 point more Republican, with emphasis on “might.”

























    CA-37

    Incumbent: Laura Richardson (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+26
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino
    New District Demographics: 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino

    The 26th district is altered to become less overwhelmingly Democratic. In LA County, the 37th retains Compton and its immediate environs, then approaches the county line through Long Beach. It extends in Orange County through inland parts of Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Fountain Valley, up until it reaches the Santa Ana river. 40% of the district is in Orange County, while 60% is in LA county. Although the OC part voted for McCain, the LA part, rooted around Compton, is enough to make the district about a 64% Obama district that preserves African American political influence.

























    CA-38

    Incumbent: Grace Napolitano (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+10
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 10% White, 76% Latino
    New District Demographics: 28% White, 58% Latino

    The 38th district has to change a good deal in order to accomodate the transition of CA-32 to an Asian plurality district. It sits south of the 32nd, following it as it loops around from the Pico Rivera area through La Habra and Brea in Orange County, and through Chino Hills in San Bernadino County in order to cross back into LA and get to Pomona. At Pomona, it expands further North and West into predominantly white areas (like Claremont) that voted for Obama. The Latino percentage drops more than one might like, but Latinos still make up a strong 58% majority of the district that will be a dominant political force, and with time that majority will increase. The drop also enables the 26th to have a strong 63% Latino majority. This district definitely gets more Republican, but I am not sure precisely how much. I estimate it is something close to D+10 now.

























    CA-39

    Incumbent: Linda Sanchez (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+9
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 18% White, 65% Latino
    New District Demographics: 20% White, 63% Latino

    CA-39 now extends into Orange County, where it picks up 3/7 of the district in the Buena Park/Anaheim area. But the section of Orange County that is added is 40% Latino, 20% Asian, and voted for Obama. The area of LA County retained, which stretches all the way to Southgate, is heavily Latino and heavily Democratic. So the change should have relatively little political effect, with the district becoming maybe a few points more GOP friendly. Linda Sanchez’s district also now borders with her sister’s district (CA-47).

























    CA-40

    Incumbent: ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R) ?David Dreier? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+8
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino
    New District Demographics: 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino

    The new CA-40 retains only a small portion of its old constituents around Anaheim. CA-40 has a very sinuous shape because it is an attempt to hobble together one last winnable Democratic district out of the leftovers from neighboring districts with inflexible shapes (because they are majority minority or are made as heavily GOP as possible). From Irvine, the 40th reaches north through Anaheim, and then through a verynarrow strip of Yorba Linda to cross into San Bernadino County, where it includes Chino, Montclair, and Upland. Most precincts in this district voted for Obama, although not by huge margins. Areas of Democratic strength are Irvine, Anaheim, and Montclair. Areas of GOP strength are included as well, including Upland and Lake Forest at the far Northern and Southern edges of the distict. This district is more a swing district than a Democratic district, but with its large minority population it can probably be expected to continue trending Democratic. Theoretically this is Ed Royce’s district, but he does not live in it any more, and as mentioned earlier it is very different. It bears more in common with the 48th, and GOPer John Campbell lives in this district (in Irvine). But Campbell might rather try his luck in the new 48th or attempt to prevail in a GOP primary in the 44th rather than run here.

























    CA-41

    Incumbent: Jerry Lewis (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino
    New District Demographics: 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino

    CA-41 contracts entirely within San Bernadino County due to population growth. At first blush, this might seem to be a good thing for Jerry Lewis, because the San Bernadino portion of his district voted more strongly for McCain than the Riverside county portion. But within San Bernadino county, there are some substantial shifts. Conservative areas around Hesperia are shorn off and given to the Pasadena-Burbank based 29th district, and the 41st expands into strongly Democratic San Bernadino city (about half of the district’s population), taking most of the city except the heavily Latino south-west of the city, which remains in the 43rd to maintain the Latino percentage in CA-43 high.

    This causes the white population percentage of the district to plummet 15 points to 40%, with about equal parts of the drop made up for with increased Black and Latino populations. Moreover the white voters in the district become more progressive as the population center shifts towards the City of San Bernadino. In the short term, the doubling of the African American population is more politically significant than the Latino increase, because of higher turnout and greater Democratic support than Latinos. But over the long term, the Latino population is likely to drive a continuing Democratic trend as turnout increases. It is at least conceivable that Lewis could survive in the short term in this district, but if he does, he’ll have great difficulty continuing to hold it. But this district is more a swing district than a Democratic district, and probably gave Obama about 53%, which could be off by a few points either way. This district would have a good chance of electing a progressive San Bernadino Democrat, especially after a few more years of Latino population growth.

























    CA-42

    Incumbent: None
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 58% Obama, D+5
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 48% White, 2% Black, 17% Asian, 29% Latino
    New District Demographics: 32% White, 7% Black, 6% Asian, 51% Latino

    CA-42 disappears from Orange County and reappears in Riverside County. This district consists of the city of Riverside, Perris and parts of Corona and Moreno Valley. This new district has nothing in common with the old 42nd, and most of the district is carved out of the Riverside County portion of the old CA-44. It also has no real incumbent (Ken Calvert lives in Corona, but would almost certainly much prefer to run in the heavily GOP 44th, where he would be well positioned to win the GOP primary).

























    CA-43

    Incumbent: Joe Baca (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+13
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 65% Latino
    New District Demographics: 23% White, 62% Latino

    CA-44 shifts slightly to the west, away from the city of San Bernadino and into Rancho Cucamonga, making it just slightly more Republican. But Baca is in no trouble, and his district retains a strong Latino majority.

























    CA-44

    Incumbent: ?Ken Calvert? (R) ?Darrell Issa? (R), ?Gary Miller? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 42% Latino
    New District Demographics: 60% White, 25% Latino

    CA-44 is another one of the few, the proud, the California GOP districts. It combines McCain’s best parts of Orange County (stretching through the North-East of OC, from eastern Anaheim to San Clemente) with some more GOP areas in Riverside County – Norco, part of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Hemet.

























    CA-45

    Incumbent: Mary Bono (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 55% Obama, D+2
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 45% Latino
    New District Demographics: 35% White, 51% Latino

    CA-45 has to contract due to population growth. It does this by giving up GOP Hemet, while keeping Moreno Valley. This makes a district that Obama won as it was just a bit more Democratic, making it just a bit more difficult for Mary Bono to survive here and actually more sensible geographically as well. CA-45 now has a slight Latino majority, which should continue to make CA-45 more Democratic. Bono faces the choice of struggling to hold on in an increasingly Democratic district, retiring and moving to Florida, or losing the GOP primary in CA-52.

























    CA-46

    Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino
    New District Demographics: 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino

    CA-46 is changed dramatically. The LA County part of the district is altered to become much more Democratic, while the Orange County bit stays pretty competitive. Just under half of the population in CA-46 is now in Los Angeles County, now taking in most of Long Beach. In Orange County, CA-46 stretches along the coast until it gets to Newport Beach and then inland to Aliso Viejo/Laguna Niguel/Laguna Hills, where it most of the districts’ Orange County population base now lives. CA-37 has more of Rohrabacher’s old constituents, but he does not have any chance at winning there, and he does not have much chance of continuing to win in this new 46th district either.

























    CA-47

    Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog D)
    Previous District PVI: D+4
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 12% White, 16% Asian, 69% Latino
    New District Demographics: 15% White, 15% Asian, 65% Latino

    CA-47 changes little from the existing district, only really changing by adding all of Santa Anna. It becomes slightly less Latino and a bit more white, but only about a point more Republican. CA-47 is now the only district contained entirely within Orange County.

























    CA-48

    Incumbent: ?John Campbell? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+6
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino
    New District Demographics: 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino

    CA-48 is something of a gerrymandered monstrosity, stretching thinly all the way from Santa Margarita in the eastern part of Orange County all the way to South-Central LA around Lynwood. 4/7 of the population is in Orange County, and that part of the district is demographically quite similar to the current 48th but a bit more Republican. The rest of the district, in LA County, is only 23% white, is carved mostly out of the old 39th, and is strongly Democratic. The result is a swing district that probably voted for Obama, but not by that much.

























    CA-49

    Incumbent: ?Darrell Issa? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+10
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 51% Obama, R+2
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 52% White, 35% Latino
    New District Demographics: 54% White, 34% Latino

    CA-49 is an attempt to squeeze one last winnable district out of San Diego County, after drawing 3 safely Democratic districts (CA-50, CA-51, and CA-53), and one extremely Republican district (CA-52). It is Darrell Issa’s district, but because substantial portions of the heavily GOP 52nd come from his old district, there is a good chance he would run there instead – where he would be in a good position to beat Duncan Hunter the younger in a GOP primary. The vast majority of the population is based in San Diego County, including Carlsbad, Vista, and Oceanside. Parts of Encinitas and Escondido are also included. To the north, all of Camp Pendleton is included, and then CA-49 crosses into Orange County, picking up competitive to Democratic leaning areas along a sliver of the coast, running up to Laguna Beach (only 10% of the district is in Orange County, though). This district is something of a hedge – if the swing to Obama in the San Diego area was merely a one time event, especially around Camp Pendleton (a one time Iraq War effect?), this district will likely stay Republican. But if it is a continuing trend, Democrats will have a good shot at picking this district up.

























    CA-50

    Incumbent: ?Brian Bilbray? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+3
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 60% White, 22% Latino
    New District Demographics: 61% White, 15% Latino

    All but a small portion of CA-50 is dragged within the city limits of San Diego (with the remainder in the Democratic Del Mar/Solana Beach/Encinitas area). The most Republican parts of the district are excised and donated to CA-52, while some relatively swingy areas in the north go to the 49th. Given the close races Bilbray has run in the past, a strong Democratic candidate should have a very good chance of defeating him in this district.

























    CA-51

    Incumbent: Bob Filner (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+8
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 60% Latino
    New District Demographics: 18% White, 58% Latino

    CA-51 stays basically the same, but becomes marginally more Republican as it adds population (although the PVI gets more Democratic, the Obama vote decreases because there was a large swing to Obama from Bush). Filner will have no difficulty here against the GOP. It’s possible he might one day face a Latino primary challenger, but this is after all a Latino majority district.

























    CA-52

    Incumbent: ?Duncan Hunter Jr?, (R) ?Darrell Issa?, (R) ?Brian Bilbray? (R)
    Previous District PVI: R+9
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 38% Obama, R+15
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 63% White, 22% Latino
    New District Demographics: 73% White, 17% Latino

    The new CA-52 is 2/3 in San Diego county and 1/3 in South-West Riverside County. It takes the most heavily Republican precincts it can find in the area, resulting in a very very conservative district. The question is not whether it will elect a Republican, but which Republican will win the GOP primary – it takes GOP heavy parts from CA-45, CA-49, CA-50, and CA-52. It may well actually be even more Republican than I estimated it was (38% Obama).

























    CA-53

    Incumbent: Susan Davis (D)
    Previous District PVI: D+14
    New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
    Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 51% White, 30% Latino
    New District Demographics: 46% White, 35% Latino

    CA-53 stretches to the east, adding competitive areas from CA-52, so that CA-50 can stretch down further into Democratic San Diego. It becomes a bit more Republican in order to make CA-50 a bit more Democratic.

    That’s all, folks!

    If you liked this diary, do me a favor and contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to support strong Health Care Reform. A strong public option, no trigger, no opt-in, no opt-out. Strong subsidies to make the mandate affordable, open the exchange to everyone, and for crying out loud there’s no reason we should have to wait all the way until 2013 to have it go into effect!

    SSP Daily Digest: 8/25

    CT-Sen: CQ looks at how Rob Simmons has been consolidating all of the establishment support in the GOP primary, despite it being a crowded field: he just got the endorsement of state House #2 GOPer (and former state party chair) Bill Hamzy. He’s also endorsed by state House minority leader Larry Cafero and 20 members of the state party’s central committee. Meanwhile, looking all the way ahead to 2012, Alec Baldwin backed down from earlier provocative statements, saying that he doesn’t actually intend to run against Joe Lieberman.

    FL-Sen: Another indicator of a bumpy ride for Charlie Crist in the upcoming primary: he lost a straw poll vote among the Bay County GOP to Marco Rubio by the lopsided margin of 23 to 2. Bear in mind, of course, this is the hardcore party activist faithful in one of the state’s most conservative counties in the Panhandle.

    UT-Sen: The Club for Growth has leaped into the circular firing squad in Utah, with a letter-writing campaign targeted at the 3,000+ delegates going to the state GOP’s nominating convention next year. AG Mark Shurtleff and potentially Rep. Jason Chaffetz consider taking out long-time Sen. Bob Bennett, who’s only very conservative and not super-duper-extra conserative.

    CA-Gov: Two separate polls (from little-known local pollsters) of the Democratic gubernatorial primary show San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom way behind ex-Gov. Jerry Brown. Moore Methods finds Brown leading Newson 49-20 statewide among Dems, while David Binder polled only Dems in San Francisco, where Newsom’s support should be its strongest, but finds Brown leading 51-34 even there, with Newsom winning only among the 30-and-under set.

    NJ-Gov: There’s a weird feeling in the air that things may actually be starting to turn around in New Jersey… the main question remains whether Jon Corzine got himself into too deep a hole to dig all the way out in time. A lot of that has to do with the ethical malfeasance spotlight swinging back toward Chris Christie, as possible Hatch Act violations and unreported loans tarnish him, stories that dominated a disastrous Christie conference call with reporters yesterday despite Christie’s intent of using the call to tar Corzine with the Wall Street brush.

    But most significantly, there was the poll that came out yesterday from Republican internal pollster Neighborhood Strategies that showed Christie up only 39%-36% over Corzine among “definite” voters, with Chris Daggett at 6% (and 37-35-6 among likely voters). Even more ominously for Christie, the poll found that the undecided electorate “skews heavily to the left.” One big caveat, though: this isn’t Christie’s pollster, but rather a firm run by Rick Shaftan that worked for Christie’s ultra-conservative primary rival Steve Lonegan (it also has a big fat margin of error). Does the Lonegan camp still have an axe to grind? But if they do, how would releasing a juiced poll long after the primary help them out?

    NY-Gov: Tea leaf readers think that Rudy Giuliani is moving closer to running for Governor in 2010. Rudy says he’ll decide within the next 30 to 60 days, but some see his involvement in the state GOP party chair imbroglio as evidence of his desire to have the party machinery working smoothly behind him if he runs. Rudy apparently successfully talked state party chair Joseph Mondello into resigning yesterday, but he still has one more hurdle, steering key ally Henry Wojtaszek into the chairman position instead of the presmued frontrunner for the position, Ed Cox (who was a McCain backer in 2008). (Of course, Giuliani’s most daunting problem would be one he has no control over — getting the Democrats to not force David Paterson out to make way for Andrew Cuomo, who all polls show flattening Giuliani.)

    SC-Gov: The South Carolina GOP is back to talking about impeachment again at their legislative retreat next weekend, as Mark Sanford is at a bit of a low point again, thanks to disclosures about his abuses of state and private planes. Meanwhile, AG Henry McMaster made it official that he’s getting into the gubernatorial race for the GOP, McMaster launched his bid with a swipe at Sanford, saying there’s been too much dishonesty and scandal in the state.

    AL-05: Freshman Rep. Parker Griffith has announced he won’t be voting for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker again, saying she’s too divisive. Griffith is girding for a difficult first re-election in this R+12 district.

    CA-18: Republicans nailed down a challenger against Dennis Cardoza: Turlock Irrigation Board member Mike Berryhill. This Hispanic-majority district hasn’t seen a competitive race in a long time, but at D+4 isn’t exactly a slam dunk for Dems.

    GA-04: DeKalb County Commissioner Lee May is now considering a primary challenge to Rep. Hank Johnson, in this district that has seen its share of successful primary challenges recently (although both were against Cynthia McKinney). Based on his closeness with DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones, it seems like he’d be coming at the very liberal Johnson from the right.

    NE-02: Speaking of primary challenges from the right, here’s one in an unusual place: Nebraska’s 2nd, where Lee Terry is a reliably conservative vote (although he did vote in favor of TARP, and also famously tried to sell himself to Obama-Terry voters last year). Still, he’s facing a possible serious challenge from health care technology company president Matt Sakalosky, who seems to have the money to self-fund. Sakalosky just confirmed he’s in the race and has his first campaign event set for Saturday.

    OH-16: Calling all Arena Football fans! (All 2 of you!) Co-owner of the Columbus Destroyers (and former mayor of Akron suburb Wadsworth) Jim Renacci has filed to take on freshman Dem John Boccieri in the Canton-based R+4 district.

    TN-05: Daily Kos is bird-dogging Blue Dog Jim Cooper, and finds he’s got some mediocre numbers among the folks back home, with 47-41 favorables and a re-elect of 36% (with 41% consider someone else and 23% definitely replace). R2K also finds that he’d lose support among both Dems and independents if he opposed public option.

    TN-09: Mercurial Memphis mayor Willie Herenton says that he won’t, after all, run in the special election to succeed himself, caused by his resignation. Instead, he’ll focus on his primary challenge to Steve Cohen in the 9th, which was the point of his original resignation.

    KY-St. Sen.: There’s a big special election tonight in northeastern Kentucky, where a vacant state Senate seat will be filled. The two candidates are Democrat Robin Webb and Republican Jack Ditty, who are trying to replace GOPer Charlie Borders, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear to the Public Service Commission. Republicans currently control the Senate 20-16-1 (and this 1 vacancy).