Help Support Dave’s Redistricting App

(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)

Guys, it’s time to shell out to help Dave’s Redistricting App. I mean it.

For two years, countless Swingnuts have drawn innumerable maps using Dave’s App, which filled a huge void in an enormously crucial way. Indeed, as we wade further and further into redistricting season, it’s almost impossible to imagine what things would be like without the app. If it weren’t for one man’s vision, energy, talent, and dedication, we’d still be mucking around with Microsoft Paint. In short, Dave’s has been a total game-changer for us, and we owe him a great deal.

Until now, we haven’t had a good way to show our appreciation for Dave’s generosity, but fortunately Dave’s app recently became a project of Progressive Congress – and we can support his efforts through his new partner to improve and expand the app. As Dave himself explained:

This means that more members and visitors of Progressive Congress will get to know about DRA and that more users of DRA will get to know about Progressive Congress. This means that the Progressive Congress team will be providing advice and guidance for DRA. (Some of Darcy [Burner]’s suggestions have already been included in the app, in fact.) This means that Progressive Congress and DRA will be teaming up to help you better understand what’s going on with redistricting and what you can do about it. And this means working together to make government better for the people!

In seven-and-a-half years of running SSP, I don’t think I’ve ever solicited money for anyone or anything other than Democratic candidates running for office. This is going to be my one big exception, and I’m going to be blunt here:

If you’ve ever drawn a map with Dave’s App, or enjoyed a diary that featured maps drawn with the app, you need to plunk down some change to support Dave.

It’s important that we support Dave’s hard work over the last two years and his continued work in the future, so any amount is appreciated. I know you can skip Starbucks for a week to find $5 or $10. (If a monetary contribution is genuinely beyond your means, then you should contact Dave to see how you can help with adding new data to the app.) And here’s a nice side-benefit: All contributions are tax-deductible.

I just threw down $100, and I hope everyone else here joins in. While there are many things which have made the Swing State Project a great site, I think it’s safe to say that Dave’s Redistricting App is definitely one of them, and I’m proud to support him. I hope you’ll do the same.

UPDATE: I just got a report from Progressive Congress, and we’ve raised $590 from 18 people so far. I’d love to hit $600 and 20 donors. Who can put us over the top?

What If Mexico Was Part of the United States?

The previous two posts in this serious dealt with what would happen if Canada’s electoral votes were added to the United States. This post will examine what would happen if the same occurred with Mexico.

A note to all Mexican readers: this post was written for serious political analysis along with it. It is not meant to offend, and sincere apologies are offered if any offense at all is taken.

More below.

Mexico is a lot bigger than Canada. Canada has a population of 34 million; Mexico has a population of 112 million. Indeed, it’s one of the most populous countries in the world. The effect of adding Mexico to the United States would have far more of an impact than adding Canada.

One can calculate the number of electoral votes Mexico has this way. The first post in this series noted that:

A state’s electoral vote is based off the number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. For instance, California has 53 representatives and 2 senators, making for 55 electoral votes.

The United States Census estimates its population at approximately 308,745,538 individuals. The House of Representatives has 435 individuals, each of whom represents – on average – approximately 709,760 people. If Canada was part of the United States, this would imply Canada adding 48 (rounding down from 48.47) representatives in the House.

This is a simplified version of things; the process of apportionment is quite actually somewhat more complicated than this. But at most Canada would have a couple more or less representatives than this. It would also have two senators, adding two more electoral votes to its 48 representatives.

Mexico’s population in 2010 was found to be exactly 112,322,757 individuals. Using the same estimates as above, one would estimate Mexico to have 158.25 House representatives. Adding the two senators, one gets about 160 electoral votes in total:


This is obviously a lot of votes. For the sake of simplification let’s also not consider Mexico’s powerful political parties in this hypothetical.

How would Mexico vote?

Well, it would probably go for the Democratic Party (funny how that tends to happen in these scenarios). This is not something many people would disagree with. Most Mexican-Americans tend vote Democratic. The Democratic platform of helping the poor would probably be well-received by Mexicans, who are poorer than Americans. Moreover, the Republican emphasis on deporting illegals (often an euphemism for Mexican immigrants, although some Republicans make things clearer by just stating something like “kick out the Mexicans”) would probably not go well in Mexico.

Here’s what would happen in the 2004 presidential election, which President George W. Bush won:


Senator John Kerry wins a pretty clear victory in the electoral vote. He gains 409 electoral votes to Mr. Bush’s 286 and is easily elected president.

What states would Mr. Bush need to flip to win?

In the previous post, where Canada was added to the United States, Mr. Bush would merely have needed to flip one: Wisconsin. Given his 0.4% loss in the state, this would require convincing only 6,000 voters to switch.

Mexico is a lot harder. In order to win, Mr. Bush needs to shift the national vote 4.2% more Republican. This flips six states: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and finally Oregon (which he lost by 4.2%). They go in order of the margin of Mr. Bush’s defeat to Mr. Kerry:


But there’s a caveat here: in this scenario the entirety of Mexico is assumed to only have two senators. The fifty states have 435 representatives and 100 senators, making for 535 electoral votes in total (plus Washington D.C.’s three). Mexico, on the other hand, has 158 representatives and two senators, making for only 160 electoral votes. Obviously, Mexico’s influence is strongly diluted.

Mexico itself is organized into 31 states and one federal district. Assume that instead of the entire country voting as one unit, Mexico is divided in the electoral college into these districts. Each Mexican state (and Mexico City) would receive two senators, giving Mexico 222 electoral votes instead of 160.

But that’s not all. There are several states in America – Wyoming, for instance – whose influence is magnified due to their low population. The “Wyomings” of Mexico are Baja California Sur, Colima, and Compeche – which each have less than a million residents. Overall, this would probably add three more electoral votes to Mexico.

This means that Mr. Bush has to flip three more states to win:


New Jersey, Washington, and Delaware go Republican under this scenario. To do this, Mr. Bush would have to shift the national vote 7.59% more Republican (the margin by which he lost Delaware).

One can see that Mexico has a far more powerful effect than Canada; a double-digit Republican landslide has turned into a tie here. That’s what happens when one adds a country of more than one hundred million individuals.

Before Democrats start celebrating however, one should note that this the hypothetical to this point has been in no way realistic. It assumes that the residents of America will not alter their voting habits in response to an extremely fundamental change.

The next post explores some conclusions about what the typical election would look like if the United States became part of Mexico.


Massachusetts Redistricting: Eliminating Tierney

Right now, Massachusetts redistricting is just a big guessing game. John Olver, the oldest member of the Massachusetts delegation and arguably the easiest to get rid of, has said he’s running for re-election, and his allies in the state legislature probably aren’t rushing to press him for retirement. Speculation has turned to which member of Congress will run against Scott Brown, because that would solve the problem of whose district to eliminate. But what if no one runs against him? None of the Mass congresscritters are really that ballsy, and if rumors are true that John Kerry is going to be tapped for SoS and create an easier shot at an open seat, it makes sense that they would be biding their time. So what if every incumbent files for re-election? What would the legislature do?

More after the flip.

Although I admittedly have little to back up this theory, I propose the possibility that John Tierney could be the lucky winner. Fairly or unfairly, he has an ethical cloud over him because of his wife, and he represents the second-most Republican district in the state. While the folks on Beacon Hill are far from squeaky clean themselves, the ethics problems combined with an aversion to having to prop him up should his problems get worse could provide motivation to eliminate his district. Admittedly, given the location of the district, it’s a bit hard to slice it up in a way that won’t give Tierney a shot at re-election. But this map should make his life a lot harder, and his ethics problems combined with establishment support for the other nine congresscritters and his district being split up should mean that there will be no Tierney in 2013.

In addition to eliminating Tierney, this map also attempts to shore up relatively shaky Democratic incumbents.

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

MA-01 Incumbent: John Olver (D-Amherst

This district mostly stays the same, although it drops Westfield and West Springfield and gains the college towns of Northampton and South Hadley, in addition to some R-friendly Worcester suburbs. In the end it should be about a wash and not much changed from the current D+14. Still safe, even for someone as liberal as Olver.

MA-02 Incumbent: Richard Neal (D-Springfield

Drops its stupid tail into Northampton and South Hadley and gains West Springfield and Westfield, as well as some more Worcester suburbs. It probably becomes a bit more Republican, but nothing too intense, going from D+9 to maybe D+6 or 7 (note that the most Democratic Republican-held district outside of IL, even after 2010, is D+4, and this area is not nearly as traditionally Republican as PA-06 or IL-10). Neal’s a big boy and he clearly wants to appeal to Republicans with his douchey praise of Scott Brown and conservadem record, so he’ll be alright.

MA-03 Incumbent: Jim McGovern (D-Worcester)

Drops some more Worcester suburbs, gains Framingham/Natick, and now contains the vast majority of Fall River. It was already D+9 and gets even safer. Sorry, Republicans, this one’s Safe D even in a 2010 repeat, and might have even voted for Coakley (I’m not sure).

MA-04 Incumbent: Barney Frank (D-Newton)

This is my favorite district just because it has 0 population deviation. Delicious! Frank represents a D+14 district and won by double digits in the worst Dem year imaginable against a legitimate opponent, so he can afford to take one for the team. He drops most of his part of Fall River and gains some conservative Plymouth County towns. Nevertheless, he retains the liberal Jewish Democratic strongholds of Brookline, Newton, and Sharon as well as the working-class Dem cities of Taunton and New Bedford. He even gains a few precincts from liberal Needham. At the very worst this should be like D+9 or 10, still more than safe.

MA-05 Incumbent: Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell)

And now we start with the dismantling of Tierney. I didn’t want to weaken Tsongas too much; although she won by double-digits in 2010, that was the second-weakest incumbent congressman performance in Massachusetts, only behind Barney Frank. And while Barney Frank faced a fairly strong challenger, Tsongas only had to deal with a some dude. Besides, she won by a surprisingly narrow single-digit margin in her first election to the seat in 2007. So I gave her solidly Dem parts of Tierney’s district like Bedford and Newburyport while retaining heavily Hispanic Lawrence and liberal MetroWest suburbs like Acton and Concord, while adding new ones like Lexington and half of Waltham (including Brandeis University). Tsongas should be able to breathe easier now.

MA-06: Incumbent: John Tierney (D-Salem), Ed Markey (D-Malden)

And now the dismantling of John Tierney really begins. This district eats up Republican parts of Tierney’s old district, but also includes Tierney’s hometown of Salem as well as Democratic suburbs from Markey’s district like Medford, Malden, and Arlington. It also contains the other half of Waltham, including Bentley University. This district contains about ~250,000 people or so from Tierney’s district, but it should contain more from Markey’s (it also contains a few ten thousand people from Tsongas’). Given that Markey will have the establishment behind him and is a superior fundraiser (unlike Tierney, Markey wasn’t in a competitive race at all and still outraised Tierney more than 3-to-2), not to mention Markey’s part of the district is more Democratic and will have disproportionate pull in a primary, I wouldn’t call this a viable option for Tierney. After Markey beats Tierney, he should be golden in the general; even though this district will drop from D+15 to D+10 or 11, Markey won 2-1 in a year when many Dem incumbents in safe districts were held to below 60.

MA-07 Incumbent: Michael Capuano (D-Somerville)

Aside from the new 6th, this is the district with the most of Tierney’s territory. Again, it’s safe D in the general, as it adds heavily Democratic Lynn from Tierney’s district and retains Cambridge, Somerville, Allston-Brighton, Back Bay, and Fenway (bounded by JP to the south and Northeastern University’s campus to the east). All of those areas will have disproportionate pull in a primary, and with the exception of Lynn, they will all support Capuano. As with Markey, Capuano should easily dominate Tierney in fundraising, as he raised $3.7 million dollars in his unsuccessful Senate primary campaign (Tierney only raised about a million dollars in his whole 2010 House campaign). In 2006, when both Tierney and Capuano faced Some Dude opponents but were absolutely safe, Capuano outraised Tierney 3-2 despite representing the safer district. Don’t really see Tierney winning here either.

MA-08 Incumbent: Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston)

Drops Brockton and gains most of Boston from Capuano. Should be a wash PVI-wise, if anything it might get slightly more Democratic. Maybe Sonia Chang-Diaz can primary Lynch’s sorry ass now. Needless to say, if we’re looking at a wash or even improvement in a district that’s already D+11, the general is not an issue.

MA-09 Incumbent: William Keating (D-Quincy)

Helped by facing a flawed opponent in 2010, Keating overcame two indies siphoning the Dem vote to win by a semi-comfortable 5 points. He should be even more comfortable now that his district adds heavily Democratic Brockton.  

That’s it for the map. I would love to hear everyone’s comments and suggestions.

But wait! As a bonus, I present to you…the ScottBrownmander!

Isn’t it wonderful? Scott Brown, with his newfound and curiously politically convenient love of minorities, would agree. Scott just wants to see a minority congressman from Massachusetts so badly, he would do anything to make a minority-majority district, even creating an ugly gerrymander! Unfortunately for Scott, even this ultra-packed gerrymander is 40% white VAP, with the next highest groups being blacks at 25% and Hispanics at 20%. With such a splintered electorate, no way any one minority group can get enough votes to overcome the white plurality. Fortunately for Scott however, this map is okay! Turns out his goal is to pack Democratic minority voters into one district, not to ensure minority representation. Phew! Crisis averted.

2010 Outlooks



Image and video hosting by TinyPic

State Incumbent Outlook Margin
Richard Shelby
Solid GOP
Lisa Murkowski
Solid GOP
John McCain
Lean GOP
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Boxer
Likely DEM
Michael Bennet
Connecticut (Open)
Chris Dodd
Lean DEM
Delaware (Open)
Ted Kaufman
Florida (Open)
George LeMieux
Lean GOP
Johnny Isakson
Solid GOP
Daniel Inouye
Solid DEM
Michael Crapo
Solid GOP
Illinois (Open)
Roland Burris
Evan Bayh
Solid DEM
Charles Grassley
Solid GOP
Kansas (Open)
Sam Brownback
Solid GOP
Kentucky (Open)
Jim Bunning
Lean GOP
David Vitter
Solid GOP
Barbara Mikulski
Solid DEM
Missouri (Open)
Kit Bond
Lean DEM
Harry Reid
New Hampshire (Open)
Judd Gregg
New York A
Chuck Schumer
Solid DEM
New York B
Kirsten Gillibrand
Lean DEM
North Carolina
Richard Burr
North Dakota (Open)
Byron Dorgan
Lean GOP
Ohio (Open)
George Voinovich
Tom Coburn
Solid GOP
Ron Wyden
Solid DEM
Arlen Specter
South Carolina
Jim DeMint
Solid GOP
South Dakota
John Thune
Solid GOP
Robert Bennett
Solid GOP
Pat Leahy
Solid DEM
Patty Murray
Likely DEM
Russ Feingold
Likely DEM


AL-02 (Bright)

AL-03 (Rogers)

AL-05 (Griffith)

AK-AL (Young)

AZ-01 (Kirkpatrick)

AZ-03 – OPEN

AZ-05 (Mitchell)

AZ-08 (Giffords)

AR-02 – OPEN

CA-03 (Lungren)

CA-04 (McClintock)

CA-11 (McNerney)

CA-44 (Calvert)

CA-45 (Bono Mack)

CA-48 (Campbell)

CO-04 (Markey)


FL-08 (Grayson)

FL-24 (Kosmas)

GA-08 (Marshall)

GA-12 (Barrow)

HI-01 – OPEN

ID-01 (Minnick)

IL-10 – OPEN

IN-02 (Donnelly)

IN-09 (Hill)

KS-03 – OPEN

LA-03 – OPEN

MD-01 – Kratovil

MI-07 (Schauer)

MN-03 (Paulsen)

MN-06 (Bachmann)

MS-01 (Childers)

NV-03 (Titus)

NH-01 (Shea-Porter)

NH-02 – OPEN

NM-02 (Teague)

NY-01 (Bishop)

NY-13 (McMahon)

NY-19 (Hall)

NY-20 (Murphy)

NY-23 (Owens)

NY-24 (Arcuri)

NY-25 (Maffei)

NY-29 (Massa)

NC-08 (Kissell)

OH-01 (Driehaus)

OH-02 (Schmidt)

OH-15 (Kilroy)

PA-03 (Dahlkemper)

PA-07 – OPEN

PA-11 (Kanjorski)

PA-12 (Murtha)

SC-01 – OPEN

SC-02 (Wilson)

TN-06 – OPEN

TN-08 – OPEN

TX-17 (Edwards)

VA-02 (Nye)

VA-05 (Perriello)

Prediction Margin
0 – 2.49%
2.5 – 4.99%
5 – 9.99%
10 – 14.99%
15 – 19.99%
20% +

(update 7) Rolling Canadian Election Discussion

Since a few of us are into Canada, and what’s happening up there, I thought I’d set up a separate diary for the discussion….

and predictions….. for the 308 seats in the Canadian House of Commons. (Sorry, I’m not providing Tim Horton’s doughnuts for the winner.) Right now, I’m projecting (just an eyeball guess, I haven’t analyzed the 308 ridings, and I reserve the right to change this until voting starts to close in Atlantic Canada Monday — 8:30 PM newfie time — that’s 4 PM Pacific daylight time, if I’m translating correctly.)

update 5, part 1, revised projection, based on May 1 Nanos and Apr 30 Angus Reid. I’m surprised that the NDP hasn’t continued falling in the daily Nanos tracking, which suggests some recovery yesterday after Layton’s rapid response.)

update 7 — my final predix

Conservative: 142 145 144

Liberal: 75 57 48

NDP: 70 85 100

BQ: 20 15

Greens: 1

(I think Elizabeth May will pull off that district in and North of Victoria. If I’m eyeballing the map right, it’s the district that includes Buchart Gardens.)

Inspired by others, I’m also showing my splits by region:


BC           17/6/12/1 (green)

AL           27/0/1/0

Sas/Man 23/1/4/0

Ontario  60/25/21/0

Quebec  6/5/49/15 (BQ)

Atlantic   10/10/12/0

North      1/1/1/0

(end update 7)

One excellent resource for projections seems to be the guy I’m calling the Canadian Nate, aka Eric Grenier. He’s getting as much play up in Canada as Nate does here. He has daily analysis and a riding by riding projection, on his site, http://www.threehundredeight.b…

PROVISO: Everything in this diary is based on my personal finger to the air guesses. If you want to say that I’m talking out of my whatchamacallit, you’re free to do so, The intent of this diary is for fun — and perhaps for lessons learned that we can use here.

(update 5, part 2: Nanos poll released May 1)

Latest Nanos suggests that the NDP surge has stopped, and may be somewhat reversing but has stabilized at 37/23/31/5.5 (Cons/Lib/NDP/BQ), ref…  Normal provisos apply, the Nanos rolling 3 day poll has very small daily sample sizes (400 nationally in Canada), esp for the individual regions. (e.g. 50/day in BC, if memory serves)

Perhaps the NDP misstep on monetary policy is hurting. Perhaps the stupid Sun thing is throwing the NDP off message. It’s unclear which other parties are benefiting in each region.

Looks like a Cons/Lib bump in the Atlantic is a tight 3-way race, a small lib bump in the NDP is coming back to earth in Quebec, a small Cons lead Liberal recovery in Ontario, Cons dominance in the Praries seems enhanced, and stability in BC -(which suggests a drop in a day or two as good NDP numbers cycle out).-

end update 5

As long as the Conservatives stay below 39%, the key to preventing a Tory majority is a two or three party split in Ontario (which seems to be the case at the moment, but watch out if the gap between the Conservatives and whomever is in 2nd in that province gets above 10 points.)

(update 1 for other seat projections)

(update 2 for the new 308 projection)

308’s 4/30 seat projection (in his notes, Grenier is still anticipating more of a move from the PQ to the NDP.)



(end update 2)

EKOS’s 4/29 seat projection:


(Cons/Lib/NDP/BQ/random Quebec indie)

(end update 1)

update 3 – Angus Reid poll suggests NDP surge continues…

(percentage) 37/19/33/6


No seat projections (that I see) from Angus, but they’re looking at a substantial Tory lead in Ontario, which would bring them close to a majority, with substantial NDP leads in the Atlantic and Quebec, along with a near tie in BC, which I think would get them closer to 90 seats.

Their poll was Apr 28-29, with 2100 “absolutely certain voters”

end update 3

(update 6: Latest EKOS Poll — near statistical tie between Conservatives and NDP!)

They do like 3000 voters in a rolling 3 day poll, so I’m using an extra significant digit.



(It’s actually closer among committed voters)


BC: 36.3/15.3/36.5

Alberta: still a Tory runaway

Sas/Man: 46.5/13.5/30.1

Ontario: 39.8/26.7/26.2

Quebec: 14.6/15.2/39.9/22.8

Atlantic: 24.4/28.3/41.3

EKOS doesn’t have their latest seat projection up yet, except to suggest that the NDP s/b within 20 seats of the Tories

Quebec is abandoning the Bloc Quebecois even further and the NDP could virtually sweep that province in a breathtaking development.

Sounds like EKOS is ready to project 60+ NDP seats in Quebec alone.

(end update 6)

update 4 — 308’s “best case scenarios” for the 3 parties

The 38 states of America – Part 2

Welcome SSPers to Part 2 of my ongoing series about the “38 states of America”.  For those that don’t know what I’m referring to, the 38 states of America are a redrawing of the United States based on grouping together of economic, social, and political interests – sometimes referred to as “communities of interest”

The Map:  

In part 1 I went through the states in the Northeast Region, with the intention of giving the states ratings a la Charlie Cook, Stewart Rothenburg, et al, with regard to the 2012 presidential election and future federal elections in general.  Here’s a quick recap of part 1:

Kennebec – Solid D

Plymouth – Solid D

Mohawk – Toss Up

Hudson – Solid D

Susquehanna – Solid D

Allegheny – Lean D

Chesapeake – Likely D

Appalachia – Solid R

In part 2, we’re going to investigate the states within the Midwest Region.  There are 9 states in this region, Erie, Wabash, Mackinac, Dearborn, Osage, Prairie, Superior, Dakota, and Platte.

Erie – (South OH/North KY) – Total vote 2,904,184

Obama – 1,323,907 (45.6%)

McCain – 1,580,277 (54.4%)

PVI – R+7

Rating – Solid Republican

Now here’s a state that I thought would be much more competitive.  Erie basically consists of central and southern Ohio as well as parts of western Indiana and most of northern Kentucky.  As it turns out, most of the rural areas in this district are absolutely toxic for the Democrats, whether it be in western Ohio, northern Kentucky, or most notably of all the suburbs and exurbs surrounding Cincinnati.  In order to win, the democratic candidate would have to find a way to get the margins down in the rural counties while running up big margins in Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati.  If Columbus and Cincy keep moving leftward this could be competitive by end of the decade, but for now, Safe R.  

Mackinac – (Greater Michigan) – Total vote 4,305,104

Obama – 2,571,298 (59.7%)

McCain – 1,733,806 (40.3%)

PVI – D+7

Rating – Solid Democratic

Mackinac state is the opposite of Erie state, one I figured would be more competitive but it turns out to be a democratic stronghold.  The trouble here for the republicans is that some of the most republican parts of Michigan get cut out and given to Dearborn, and the state doesn’t extend far enough south into Ohio to pick up the vast red voting populations of the rural west.  As a result, the cities like Detroit, Toledo, Lansing, Flint, and Ann Arbor end up basically dominating the state’s politics.  The remaining rural areas aren’t all that republican either.  Safe for Dems.

Wabash – (Indiana/Kentucky/West IL) – Total vote 3,102,991

Obama – 1,499,893 (48.3%)

McCain –  1,603,098 (51.7%)

PVI – R+5

Rating – Likely Republican

Wabash state is a state based in Indiana and Kentucky, and covers a lot of Midwestern and upper South territory in between.  It would seem that this would be more of a republican stronghold than Erie state, but that’s actually not the case, as Obama took over 48% here.  He got that margin by running very strongly in the democratic bastions of Indianapolis and Louisville.  The rural areas are fairly tough though, especially down in Kentucky and in the suburbs and exurbs around Indy.  For the democrat to win they’d have to win big in the cities, and also engage voters in the mid-size cities and college towns like Evansville, Bloomington, Lexington, West Lafayette, and Muncie while not getting killed in the exurbs and rural country.  My guess is that this state would get some ads and visits, but if the republican isn’t winning here, he or she is definitely not winning nationally.

Dearborn – (Lake Michigan Corridor) – Total vote 7,104,345

Obama – 4,363,393 (61.4%)

McCain – 2,740,952 (38.6%)

PVI – D+8

Rating – Solid Democratic

Dearborn state surrounds the lower end of Lake Michigan, and it centers on Chicago but is actually a mix of big cities, mid-size towns, and rural area.  What little republican base there is in Dearborn seems to be centered on lower western Michigan, northern Indiana’s rural reaches, and the suburbs/exurbs of Milwaukee.  Ostensibly Chicago’s collar counties would be an opportunity for some republican votes too, but these areas all went blue in 2008 behind native son Barack Obama.  Kerry didn’t do nearly as well as Obama did in this state but I can’t imagine that he took less than 55% in a not so great year.  The combination of Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, and college towns like Kalamazoo, Dekalb, and South Bend is simply too much for any republican to overcome.  Safe D.

Osage – (Western IL & Eastern MO) – Total vote 2,486,318

Obama – 1,317,244 (53.0%)

McCain – 1,169,074 (47.0%)

PVI – Even

Rating – Toss Up

Osage state is a quintessential swing state.  It consists of most of southern and western Illinois along with most of eastern Missouri.  The state is centered on Saint Louis, which is the primary democratic stronghold within the state.  Obama was able to carry the state with 53% of the vote in 2008, equaling his national tally, and the PVI is even.  The republican base here is in the Missouri rural counties, and to a lesser extent those in central and lower Illinois, as these counties tend to be a little more swingish in national elections.  The democrat to win would have to ring up big margins in greater STL and do very well in the river counties just north and south of STL on both sides of the Mississippi.  There would be huge money, huge advertising, and many visits given to this state from both sides as this state is probably one of the few that will end up deciding most presidential races.

Prairie – (Iowa & Upper Mississippi Valley) – Total vote 1,600,690

Obama – 915,632 (57.2%)

McCain – 685,058 (42.8%)

PVI – D+4

Rating – Likely Democratic

Prairie state encompasses what amounts to the eastern two-thirds of Iowa combined with the extreme north of Missouri, northwestern Illinois, and southwestern Wisconsin.  This district comprises some of the most democratic rural territory in the US outside of New England, and though there aren’t any major cities in the state, the cities that do exist, like Des Moines, Iowa City, and the Quad Cities, all break heavily democratic as well.  Still, it’s not an impossible state for the republicans, if they were to pump a lot of effort into Prairie they might be able to turn it red.  This is the smallest state so far, so I’m not sure just how a big a deal it would be electorally.  I’m calling it Likely D.  

Superior – (Upper Midwest MI/WI/MN) – Total vote 4,039,225

Obama – 2,239,234 (55.4%)

McCain – 1,799,991 (44.6%)

PVI – D+2

Rating – Leans Democratic

Superior state stretches across the Canadian frontier of the Midwest from the upper peninsula of Michigan across most of Wisconsin and Minnesota.  At first glance, this would seem to be a favorable setup for the republicans with cities like Madison and Milwaukee drawn into nearby Dearborn, but alas, so were their cherry red suburban communities in SE Wisconsin.  The rural areas in Wisconsin are actually quite liberal aside from greater Green Bay, and the major metroplex of Minneapolis-St Paul is a real boon to the democratic candidate, as is the iron range of northeastern Minnesota.  The key area for the republican candidate is undoubtedly the “Bachmann zone” in the exurbs north and west of Minneapolis.  At D+2, this state would be a fight most cycles, similar to the battles fought in the upper Midwest that we’ve seen in the recent past.  Lots of time and effort would go into this state.

Dakota – (west MN, most of ND and SD) – Total vote 738,833

Obama – 357,984 (48.5%)

McCain – 380,849 (51.5%)

PVI – R+5

Rating – Likely Republican

Dakota state is roughly similar to the two Dakotas now, shifted slightly eastward into the western reaches of Minnesota.  It’s by far the smallest state we’ve seen thus far, and I believe is the smallest state of the lower 36.  I figured at the outset that this would be a walkover for the republicans, but surprisingly, Obama took nearly 49% of the vote and finished just 3% behind McCain.  Looking at the map, the key region for the democrats in Dakota is the Red River valley, Obama performed very well in the river counties of upper Minnesota as well as in Grand Forks and Fargo on the other side.  The Indian reservations are also a source of votes.  For the republicans, their strength comes in the western part of the state and from the farmland in general.  This state doesn’t provide an abundance of electoral votes and likely wouldn’t swing a presidential race, but would probably see campaign dollars because of its mild competitiveness and extremely cheap media.

Platte – (Central Plains, parts of IA, MO, KS, NE) – Total vote 2,732,639

Obama – 1,258,798 (46.1%)

McCain – 1,473,841 (53.9%)

PVI – R+7

Rating – Safe Republican

Platte state is a mostly rural state right in the heart of the country’s midsection.  It encompasses the western third of Iowa and Missouri and the eastern two-thirds of Nebraska and Kansas, along with a very small piece of South Dakota.  Just looking at the map, you’d think that the democrats got murdered here in 2008, but that isn’t completely true.  Bolstered by very strong performances in places like Kansas City, Omaha, Lincoln, and Lawrence, Barack Obama strung together a fairly surprising 46% of the vote.  Now of course the farm country out in these parts is very, very red, and it would be very hard for Team Blue to pick this state off in anything but a great democratic year, but it’s not as impossible as I thought initially.   Still, it’s red enough for me to call it Safe R.  In a 2010-style year Team Red probably puts up 60% or higher here.

That concludes part 2.  In part 3 we’ll look at the Southeast Region.

Weekly Open Thread: What Contentious Ridings Are You Interested In?

Although you wouldn’t know it from Swing State Project (it’s a little outside both our coverage area and our expertise), Canada is poised for a national election on Monday night. The last round of polls has hinted at the real possibility of a late surge by the leftish New Democratic Party. Would that actually translate into a plurality in seats in Parliament for the perpetual third wheels? Given the vagaries of the parliamentary system, non-binary parties, and strategic voting, we have no idea, which isn’t to say that Canadian prognosticators have much more of an idea either.

When faced with parliamentary elections, SSP’s fancies inevitably turn to a slightly different question, though… the system of naming ridings for their cities and/or neighborhoods, rather than just numbering them like we do here. (Case in point: one of the big ridings to watch this cycle is the remarkably cumbersomely-named West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country.) So here’s a rainy day activity, one that we also explored a bit during last year’s UK elections: suppose we had delightful names for our House constituencies, instead of giving them unimaginative appellations like NY-26. What would they be? You can play the question straight (calling AL-01 Mobile–Prichard, for example), or opt for the silly if you choose. To wit:

AR-01: Oil Trough–Possum Grape

OR-05: Boring–Wankers Corner

PA-16: Blue Ball–Intercourse

WA-06: Sappho–Humptulips

WV-03: Odd–Cucumber–Pie–War

Of course, feel free to discuss actual ongoing U.S. races too, as always.


NY-26: Corwin Leads by Just Five

Siena (PDF) (4/26-27, likely voters, no trendlines):

Kathy Hochul (D): 31

Jane Corwin (R): 36

Jack Davis (T): 23

Ian Murphy (G): 1

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.5%)

I have to say, I wasn’t expecting numbers like this, not at all, for a whole host of reasons. Republicans looked very unified in tapping Assemblywoman Jane Corwin – she was acceptable to the conservatives and even quite a few teabaggers, despite her establishment pedigree, and she also was personally very rich. Meanwhile, Democrats dithered, waiting weeks to pick a candidate after Corwin was already in the race. Furthermore, the one bona fide teabagger who hoped to run, Iraq war vet David Bellavia, screwed up his paperwork and failed to get on the ballot. And on top of that, Ian Murphy, the writer who achieved his 15 minutes with his fake David Koch prank call to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, decided to hop into the race on the newly-reconstituted Green Party line. And oh, yeah, the 26th is the most Republican district in the state. The GOP seemed poised to avoid the mistakes they’d made in the NY-20 and NY-23 specials. It didn’t seem promising for Dems.

But the one wild card has proven much wilder than I had anticipated: zillionaire nutball Crazy Jack Davis is having a much bigger impact than his shot-to-hell reputation would seem to warrant. Prior to this year, Davis had run for this seat in three successive cycles from 2004 to 2008, losing twice in the general and once in the primary – all three times as a Democrat. But he cut a strange figure for a Dem, sound like the most unhinged of right-wingers on his favorite issue, immigration. He also has a well-deserved reputation as a lunatic who is impossible to work with, abuses people, and can’t hold on to staff. Thus he earned the epithet “Crazy,” and he’s been Crazy Jack Davis for about as long as I’ve known of him.

He looked to cement that reputation a few months ago, when he decided he’d get into the mix for this seat yet again, following Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation. But this time, Davis wanted to score the Republican and Conservative Party lines – well, I told you he was crazy. He was quickly rebuffed by both, but this is where that unusual “T” line comes in next to his name in the blockquote at top. Thanks to his millions (he’s always spent his own money freely), Davis was easily able to get on the ballot as an independent, and cannily chose to name his ballot line the “Tea Party.” This caused an entertaining split among teabaggers in western New York, with the “real” teabaggers insisting that Davis was just trying to bogart their good name (yeah, I know, LOL)… but there was nothing they could do about it.

And thanks to his free-spending ways, it seems like Davis is screwing up what should have been a sure thing for Corwin. At the same time, he’s also hurting Hochul. Looking at the cross-tabs (PDF), Davis gets 24% of the Republican vote, 20% of the Democratic vote, and 27% of the independent vote. Rare to see a candidate with such cross-spectrum appeal! I figured Dems would be disgusted with him, and Republicans would want nothing to do with him given his Democratic past. But evidently that’s not the case, at least for everyone.

It’ll be very interesting to see how the major-party candidates react. Surely the campaign committees are doing their own polling, but even if it doesn’t match Siena’s, these numbers will have to make operatives second-guess themselves a bit. Does Corwin start attacking Davis? Or does she try to pound Hochul? Or both? As I see it, though, the strategy for Hochul is a lot simpler. As Siena notes:

They strongly oppose cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits to help close the deficit (59-38 percent); however, they strongly support increasing personal income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans (62-35 percent)….

Hochul’s most recent ad attacked Corwin on Medicare – Corwin said she’d have voted for the Ryan Republican budget – and I said the other day that she should make this her unrelenting theme for the final weeks of the campaign. The poll numbers bear that out. (I’m sure that Hochul won’t call for tax increases on the rich, despite that being super-popular in a red district, but that wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.)

We’ll also have to see if the DCCC and NRCC decide to get involved here. If Hochul can use Medicare the way ex-Rep. Scott Murphy beat Jim Tedisco over the head with the stimulus in the spring of 2009, this could be a real race – coupled, of course, with the Jack Davis factor. All of a sudden, things just got exciting in western New York.

UPDATE: I meant to include this new bit of news in the post, and was reminded in comments. Davis just said he would caucus with the GOP if he wins. That can only help him with would-be Republican voters and hurt him among Democrats. In other words, good news for us!

SSP Daily Digest: 4/29


FL-Sen: Do you remember Craig Miller? I barely do. He’s the wealthy former steakhouse exec who was the Republican Plan C in the FL-24 primary last year… and in an amusing bit of synchronicity, came in third, behind now-Rep. Sandy Adams and the batshit nuts Karen Diebel. Hoping to fail upward, Miller is now looking at the Senate race and plans to decide “within the next few weeks.” I have no idea what he thinks he niche might be, and it’s not clear to me that he has the money to overwhelm the field.

IN-Sen, IN-Gov: Former Rep. Tim Roemer says he’s stepping down as ambassador to India. Could this presage a return to Hoosier politics? I’m skeptical, as Dems already have legit candidates lining up for both marquee statewide races. (And for what it’s worth, an unnamed source told The Hill last month that Roemer wasn’t likely to run for Senate.)

MA-Sen: This is just weird. Despite repeatedly saying he isn’t interested in running for Senate, Deval Patrick somehow keeps finding himself talking about the subject. This time, he said that he had talked with the President about other jobs, but wouldn’t say whether Obama had asked him to run against Scott Brown. Patrick again said he doesn’t want to run, and added: “I would say no to the president of the United States.”

ND-Sen: When the Club for Growth takes aim at an otherwise top-tier Republican candidate, you know you have premium-grade cat fud ready to be served. Le Club’s target now is freshman Rep. Rick Berg, who went from a seemingly distant possibility to not-running-but-virtual-frontrunner status almost instantly a week ago. They’re accusing Berg of being insufficiently pro-dystopia, i.e., not supporting enough cuts to federal government spending. I really hope they can find a dog… er… cat for this fight.

NV-Sen: Sometimes PPP deliberately polls for the lulz, and sometimes, the lulz find them. In this case, it’s the latter: Tom Jensen’s band of merry robodialers found Dean Heller beating Sharron Angle in a hypothetical GOP primary by a score of… LOL… 84-8. (“El Exigente, what more could you want?” “Their names.”) Meanwhile, on the Dem side, where there does appear to be an actual primary, Rep. Shelley Berkeley leads wealthy attorney Byron Georgiou by a 65-8 margin. Good times.

PA-Sen: Apparently, there’s two things Quinnipiac won’t do: a) release sample compositions and b) test incumbents against hypothetical opponents whose names don’t start with “Generic.” Anyhow, Sen. Bob Casey has inched up to a 46-34 lead against “the Republican candidate.” He was 45-35 two months ago.

UT-Sen: Speaking of the Club for Growth, they just put out their 2010 scorecard, and Orrin Hatch’s numbers really demonstrate the Club’s power. Despite a lifetime score of 74% (30th among Senators in office last year), Hatch managed to rack up a 97% rating last year, tying him with several other Republicans for third place. What a difference a sword of Damocles makes.

VA-Sen: Hmm. Ultra-wingnut Del. Bob Marshall’s 2008 campaign manager just got hired by George Allen… and the dude didn’t even tell his old boss first. Marshall’s been looking at a possible Senate run, and I think he’s the best hope (albeit not a great hope) we have of knocking off Allen in the GOP primary, but it’s not clear what impact this will have on his plans. One positive tea-leaf: In response to the news, Marshall said, “You can tell who the candidates are not by where the consultants go, but where the volunteers go.”


PA-Gov: Uhh… did Gov. Tom Corbett just say that state universities sitting atop the Marcellus Shale should plug their budget gap by allowing exploitation of the natural gas reserves beneath them? Why yes he did. If you aren’t familiar with the deeply fraught issue of hydraulic fracturing (also known as “hydrofracking” or just “fracking”), this NYT piece is a good place to start. Fracking is a devastatingly poisonous method of extracting gas, and Pennsylvania is at the epicenter of the fracking debate. Indeed, the EPA is investigating a fracking spill that took place there just last week. UPDATE: Hah, sheez. Corbett literally lifted this idea from an episode of Saved by the Bell! NOT kidding! Click the link!

WV-Gov: Former Republican SoS Betty Ireland is finally out with her first TV ad, which I think has a weird soundtrack, odd staccato pacing, and (at least in the version her campaign posted to YouTube) crappy audio quality. I think she could definitely lose.


AZ-06: Yesterday we noted that state House Speaker Kirk Adams was resigning his post. Later that day, he formally announced he was, as expected, running in the GOP primary in the open 6th CD. Retiring Sen. Jon Kyl immediately endorsed Adams, while Rep. Trent Franks endorsed Matt Salmon, who is also running for this post

NV-02: Roll Call’s Kyle Trygstad does a nice job digging up some facts about a 1954 special election to replace Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran, who passed away in September of that year. (If you’ve ever flown to Vegas, that’s the guy the airport is named after.) There was some legal wrangling as to whether a special election was actually required, but once the state Supreme Court ruled yes, the parties selected their nominees by committee, not primary. That could possibly serve as precedent as SoS Ross Miller decides whether state law requires that parties choose their candidates, but Nevada’s current statutes were revised only a decade ago, so the McCarran case may not be applicable.

NY-23: A few weeks ago, the NRCC mocked a batch of miniscule radio ad buys by the DCCC and said: “At what point does a campaign committee blush when launching a ‘paid advertising campaign?'” Apparently, that point must lie somewhere below $4,550, which is the amount the NRCC is spending on a tiny TV buy in Rep. Bill Owens’ district. (It’s some lame Pelosi-related attack.)

I’d also like to give some props to Steve Peoples of Roll Call for basically ignoring the contents of the ad and focusing on exactly what the NRCC is trying to accomplish here. I don’t know if he wrote the headline, but it can’t be what Republicans were hoping for: “NRCC Takes Turn With Small Ad Buy Targeting Earned Media.” And in referring a radio ad against Rep. Mike Ross that we noted the other day, Peoples used the kind of language you might find on SSP, saying that the NRCC “convinced a local paper to write a story about the radio buy but refused at the time to disclose the size of the investment.” (It turned out to be $2,550.) If you’re going to write up a story like this, this is how it should be written.

Other Races:

IN-SoS: The GOP-held state legislature has backed off a bit on attempting to rewrite the law in order to get around the Charlie White mess. (If this is the first you’re hearing of the whole saga, I would suggest checking out our IN-SoS tag.) The proposed new law would give the governor the power to appoint replacement officers only on a prospective basis, so it won’t affect the White situation. However, the legislation will still prevent the GOP from losing their major-party status (which was keyed to the SoS race) if the worst happens.

NJ-St. Sen.: The legal wrangling over Democrat Carl Lewis’s ballot eligibility has heated up quickly. Lewis has filed suits in both state and federal court, and a federal court judge has already ordered LG/SoS/Chris Christie goon Kim Guadagno to explain her decision booting Lewis from the ballot earlier this week. Lewis is still busy campaigning, and if he’s ultimately declared eligible, I think all this rigmarole might wind up helping him, given that it’s free media.


Colorado: I’m guessing that Republicans are wishing state Sen. Greg Brophy hadn’t cracked out of turn and admitted that proposed GOP maps had been deliberately “skewed to the right.” That certainly won’t help them when the entire matter winds up in court, which Republican state Rep. Don Coram acknowledged was inevitable anyway. In a bit worthy of Stephen Colbert, Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post writes: “Brophy said Republicans got nervous when they heard Democrats were pushing so-called competitive seats, which he said favor Democrats….” Ah, indeed, the facts do have a well-known liberal bias.

Connecticut: According to the Greenwich Time, Dem state House Speaker Christopher Donovan has his eye on Rep. Chris Murphy’s open 5th CD, and would very much like to have the blue stronghold of Bridgeport drawn into it. That would remove it from Rep. Jim Himes’s district, but if you look at a map, it’s rather hard to envision this happening without doing a lot of reshuffling. Of course, anything is possible, but given how minor CT’s population deviations are, a serious reconfiguration of the map would seem to be uncalled for.

Indiana: The Hoosier State is poised to become the fourth to finalize a redistricting map. The Republican-held state legislature has given its approval to a new plan, which now goes to GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels for his signature.

Massachusetts: A seemingly clever bit of politics by Scott Brown, but there’s a “but.” Brown sent a letter to the state legislature’s redistricting committee, advocating for a majority-minority congressional seat to be drawn in the Suffolk County region, and also to press for more maj-min districts in the state lege. Who knows whether the idiots in the legislature will listen to him, but Brown of course is simultaneously pushing for new district lines which will ultimately favor Republicans (by packing minorities) and, more importantly, he gets to look like he’s protecting minority interests, all at no cost to himself.

Here’s the “but”: Brown doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. Rep. Mike Capuano, who would be most affected by Brown’s proposal, fired back, saying his 8th CD already is majority-minority. It’s about 54.5% “white” according to the Census, but that includes Hispanics who also identify as white, so the non-Hispanic white %age is almost certainly below 50%. (Some 19% of 8th CD residents identify as Hispanic, of any race.) Oops.

Nevada: I’m not going to get into this one in too much detail (my brain can only hold so much redistricting-related information), but Nevada Republicans are now bitterly split over new maps that GOPers in the state Senate drew for the state Assembly. Why didn’t the Assembly draw its own maps? They did, but the morons who drew them were advised not to release them because lawyers thought they didn’t comply with the VRA. Meanwhile, Dems in both chambers worked together to release a joint set of plans. However, they still haven’t released their congressional map. Anyhow, you can find more details under the “Related Documents” sections at both links.

Oklahoma: Unsurprisingly, the map that the state House unanimously approved appears ready to sail through the state Senate, too. Shira Toeplitz suggested in her writeup (which is a few days old) that the new plan could be signed into law this week, but it hasn’t actually been voted on by the full Senate as of this writing.

Texas: The cat fud is ready to fly in Texas redistricting, where ruthless Republican leaders are prepared to run roughshod over their own incumbents in the aims of preserving and maximizing their advantage to the greatest extent possible. In other words, they’re staying true to the spirit of Tom DeLay. In the abstract sense, it’s a ruthlessness I admire, and I wish Dems would adopt it. In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised if the final maps pass in spite of a lot of GOP defections – though maybe a few horse heads in a few beds will solve that problem.

Virginia: I’m glad to see that Republicans in the state Senate are as happy to act like sheep as Democrats in the state House. The Democrats’ new map passed yesterday by a 32-5 margin. Reading the linked article really makes me feel like this whole thing has been a grand kabuki, with Gov. Bob McDonnell playing everyone – even members of his own party – like puppets. McDonnell simply had to show he could extract a price from Democrats, and so he has. However, I note that the congressional map is now completely untethered from the legislative maps. If Democrats agree to an 8-3 map now, well, fuck them. Once McDonnell signs the lege plans into law, there’s no going back, and there’s no reason at all not to force the courts to draw a federal map.

SSP Daily Digest: 4/28 (Part Deux)

Other Races:

Philly Mayor: Even though several labor organizations endorsed his crazy ex-con nobody of an opponent, Philadelphia’s largest union, the Federation of Teachers, came out for incumbent Michael Nutter earlier this week. But Nutter’s been having problems with the municipal unions, with the city’s white collar union (known as District Council 47… I’ve always wondered where they get these numbers) declining to endorse. (Several others have either backed Milton Street or no one at all.)

Wisconsin Recall: As expected, Democrats filed signatures against Rob Cowles, making him the sixth Republican to face a possible recall election. Republicans have filed against three Dems and missed the deadline against three others. Meanwhile, the state’s Government Accountability Board asked a judge to give them more time to review the petitions, which would allow the agency to consolidate the elections on July 12. However, the MSNBC article linked first in this bullet suggests the elections may not take place until the fall.

WI Sup. Ct.: Under state law, the Supreme Court recount must be completed very quickly, by May 9. It’s apparently only the third statewide recount in Wisconsin history. The most recent one took place in 1989… and the one before that in 1858! Unsurprisingly, things are off to a bumpy start in Waukesha, though fortunately the now-notorious Kathy Nickolaus has recused herself from the process.

Grab Bag:

EMILY: EMILY’s List announced its first four endorsements of the cycle: Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Lois Frankel (FL-22), Christie Vilsack (IA-04), and Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02).

Pennsylvania: PPP did something on their new PA poll that I like, and that I hope we’ll see more of: They included a statewide generic House ballot, which in this case showed respondents favoring Dems by a 42-36 margin, despite weak numbers for Obama.

Town Halls: With Congress on recess and members back home doing town halls, we’re seeing some turnabout from the summer of 2009, with motivated liberals showing up to castigate Republicans for their votes to kill Medicare. Ordinarily, this would be the sort of topic we’d love to cover in the Daily Digest, but the good news/bad news is that there are just too many of them for us to keep track of. What’s more, other outlets are doing a great job of covering them, like ThinkProgress and the DCCC.

Redistricting Roundup:

Michigan: We’ve been saying this for some time ourselves, but now the MI state lege is hearing it, too: In order to preserve Detroit’s VRA seats, a redistricting expert for the legislative black caucus agrees that new district lines will have to be drawn that cross the traditional “8 Mile” boundary separating the city of Detroit from its suburbs. Michigan’s maps must be complete by Nov. 1.

Missouri: Republicans finally reached an agreement on a map at the 11th hour, sending it to Gov. Jay Nixon. (You can see the new map here.) Democrats in the state House are urging Nixon to veto the plan, where the map fell 13 votes short of a veto-proof majority. The governor has not yet said what he’ll do, but there’s also a dispute brewing as to whether the legislature will be even able to schedule an over-ride vote this session, or if they’ll have to wait until September.

Nevada: Republicans have released their proposed maps, which you can find here. Democrats will put theirs out later today. Anjeanette Damon describes the congressional map as a 2-2 plan, but you be the judge.

Texas: Score one for Rep. Lloyd Doggett: He snarfed up a copy of what he believes is the congressional map that Republican congressmen have proposed to leaders of the legislature. A copy is here (PDF). An unnamed source tells the Austin Statesman that they think the map is out-dated, but that Republican plans for splitting Travis County (home of Austin) four ways, as shown by the map, are in fact correct.

Virginia: Well, it sure sounds like the Democrats have caved on the Virginia Senate map. A deal is reportedly done, and the key changes are summarized by the Richmond Times-Dispatch as follows:

Under the deal, the proposed new Democratic-leaning district in the Richmond area would be eliminated, according to Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan. Republicans would lose one of two senators in Virginia Beach and new districts would be created in Loudoun County and east of Lynchburg.

Also, the idiot Democrats in the House voted yet again for the newest Republican gerrymander (which makes mostly cosmetic changes). How stupid are these people? You don’t fucking vote for the other side’s gerrymander. I mean, it was one thing to act like this the first time around, when it appeared a multi-way deal was in place. But now these schmucks are like chickens voting to elect Col. Sanders. Hope you enjoy getting dipped in 11 herbs and spices and getting deep-fried to your doom, morans.