The GOP is facing a deep hole. The McCain camp is in disarray, Mitch McConnell has admitted that there’s no way for the GOP to pick up seats in the Senate, and in the House… well… the fact that Tom Cole is up to Deathwatch No. 9 says it all.
With the Republicans finally realizing that rebuilding their permanent majority is going to be a long, multi-step process, it seems like they’re engaged in some soul-searching about where to start the demolition work. And today’s thought-bubble isn’t about rebranding their line of dog food, let alone deciding not to try to sell poisoned dog food in the first place. It’s about doing what the Republicans do best: manipulating the electoral process, in this case via gerrymandering. This means seizing control of the statehouses in 2010, which is something that we’ve already talked about at length at Swing State Project.
Sam Stein at HuffPo has the dirt.
“The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. “We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them.”
Now it may not be surprising to see the spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association doing the over-selling of the importance of the role of governors in the redistricting process; after all, the RGA has funds to raise, and they need a fresh new angle to do so in an environment where GOP donors are increasingly sitting on their wallets while looking for a sign of a pulse.
But he’s got a point: in many of the states where new House seats will be added or lost via the 2010 census, there’s also a 2010 governor’s race… California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada among the gainers, and Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania among the losers. (Plus one likely lost seat in a state with its gubernatorial race this year: Missouri, where luckily we’re on track to pick up the governor’s seat.)
Now, of course, the governor doesn’t actually draw the lines (that’s generally the legislature’s job, with disputes usually winding up in the courts rather than on the governor’s desk). But via veto power in some states, or redistricting commission appointment in other states, the governor has a huge role in the process.
And while it’s easy to be sanguine about many of these 2010 governor’s races (is there any Republican in California who can retain the governor’s seat post-Arnie?), don’t underestimate the Republicans’ ability to fight back with their favorite methods when backed against the wall:
“In the worst case scenario, 2010 would be the first, most important evidence that there is life in the Republican Party,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist. “The elections that year will be vitally important because it will put on stage the worst creative skills of ever politician… Members of Congress aren’t bright about handling Social Security, Medicare and the budget but they are astonishing bright at self-preservation… and drawing favorable [political] districts.”
2010 seems like it will be a lot like 2002 in that there will be a huge number of open governorships. In 2002, 12 Republican and 7 Democratic governors stepped down, mostly due to term limits, and of those, Republicans held on to just 3 and Democrats held on to 1. Of the governors running for reelection, Republican lost only Wisconsin and Democrats lost three southerners (AL, GA, SC). That’s 20 out of 36 seats that flipped.
In 2010, 10 Dems and 8 Reps will be leaving office due to term limits. Rick Perry in Texas probably can’t win another election, so that’s 9 open Rep seats. In terms of redistricting, the most important open seats to hold onto are Michigan and Pennsylvania, while we need to capture Texas to prevent even worse redistricting than we have now.
Repubs have already tapped out most of the big states between 2002 maps in several states and the 2004 Texas map. Yes, they’ll still control Florida and probably GA and TX redistricting, but good luck squeezing out more than a couple more republican seats there. We’ll also likely have either total or partial control in many states where repubs had control over the 2002 maps like MI, PA, OH, and NY. Also, key states like IA and AZ have independent redistricting.
At this point I’ll say 2012 redistricting will probably be a wash. At best it could net repubs 5 seats TOPS, but could just as easily give us a few net seats.
http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/…
After 2006 the GOP only has control of 5 states with potential redistricting gains (MO, TX, FL, SC, and Georgia),
This year Nixon will win the MO governor race, removing GOP control of that states government.
I don’t think SC will be losing or gaining a seat so that state is fine. How ever I have a question, can states redistrict even if they are not gaining or losing a seat?
I can’t remember if the GOP did that in Texas or not.
so the GOP will have 3 states to work with unless they lose a state legislature or governor between then.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but here is my breakdown of who currently controls redistricting:
Dem Control:
AR
CO
HI *Has Repub. Gov. but we have veto proof majorities
IL
MD
MA
NH
NM
NC
OR
RI
WV
Rep Control:
FL
GA
ID
IN *Dems control State House but still wouldn’t have a say
MO *Dem almost certain to win Gov. to break rep. control
NE
SC
TX
UT
The rest of the states have either split control, independent redistricting or only one congressional district.
States currently with split control where we have a decent chance of having total redistricting after 2010: CA, NY, MI, MN, NV, WI
I recently found this article at The Nation-
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2…
It suggests that Texas will be the next California in terms of Democratic strength. It mentions a number of reasons this could be the case but what caught my eye was the potential implications for 2010 redistricting. I guess most of the Republican strategists in the state are highly pessimistic about Rethugs retaining the governorship.
Anyway, I used to ballyhoo TX but this article is incredible. Texas could be the next California. Unbelievable.
P.S. Sorry if this is considered dairy pimping. I couldn’t contain myself.
Since were on the topic of state legislatures. Utah state rep Mark Walker resigns after being accused of bribing his opponent.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9807783
This whole diary and all the comments underline why it is firstly important to focus more on the state legislatures. And I think a key element here is a strong DLCC (the DCCC/DSCC for state legislatures). The support and tools the DLCC provides for legislative candidates may make the little difference that tips the scales in many races.
They provide help with organization, databanks, polls, web pages, fundraising and much more. So for building the Democratic Party in the long run, and really reap the benefits of Deans 50 state strategy, I think donating to the DLCC might be one of those that gives the best value for the money.
http://www.actblue.com/entity/…
They also have a really good blog on their new web page http://www.dlcc.org