Author: abgin

The Democrats begin this process with a clear disadvantage from previous redistricting. Following the Cook Partisan Voting Index there are:

194 D+ seats

9 EVEN seats

232 R+ seats

We can not forget it.

This diary seeks to give a preview about what the Republicans can do in the redistricting process and about the best ways for the Democrats in certain states (IL, MD, AR, WV, OR, CO, NY…) to have some success after the current redistricting process.

The diary is focused to see the most direct potential or likely effects of the redistricting process.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I’m not optimistic about this group of states because the Republicans never lose a chance for take advantage. The Republicans will have full control of the redistricting process in many states, and I will go state by state.

Utah

One new district for the Republicans.

UT-02 J Matheson (D) surely will run in a R+20+ the next time and without part of the current basis that send him to the house now.

Wyoming

No effect.

Oklahoma

OK-02 D Boren (D) surely will run in a R+20+ district. The same as J Matheson.

Alabama

No chance for B Bright to return.

Alaska

The Alaska Redistricting Board (Commission) is in Republican hands.

No changes.

Nebraska

NE-02 will be surely safer for the Republicans. There is no chance Obama wins again this electoral vote.

Kansas

KS-03 safer for the Republicans.

Louisiana

Thanks to some party switches, the Republicans have control of both state chambers and because of this they will have control of the redistricting process. But Louisiana will lose one seat and that cannot be LA-02 thanks to the Voting Rights Act. That means the Republicans will lose one district here.

No chance for C Melancon to return.

LA-03 seems the district that would disappear.

North Dakota

No effect.

Texas

Here I do not expect gains for the Democrats. As a maximum, one if we recover TX-23 and TX-27, but I think it is very difficult. If there are not a law requiring the creation of new VRA districts, the Republicans will create none. Finally, there are 36 districts for Texas, I would expect 7 D+, 3 R+low approximately and 26R+10 or higher, but things still can be worse. The three “swing” districts can likely be the successors of TX-28, TX-27 and TX-23. These would be again the districts to fight.

Four new districts for the Republicans.

TX-25 L Doggett (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district or against one of the neighboring democratic incumbents.

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) can likely run in a R+low district.

South Dakota

No effect.

Tennessee

No chance for L Davis to return.

TN-05 J Cooper (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district. The same as L Doggett.

South Carolina

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Spratt to return.

Georgia

If I’m not wrong the Republicans can decrease the percentage of African-Americans in GA-02 and GA-12 because there are districts with a white majority (over 50% white) and would have less VRA protection. That means these will be new R+ districts.

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Marshall to return.

GA-02 S Bishop (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

GA-12 J Barrow (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Indiana

If the Republicans wish they can draw all the districts with R+6 rating. If they keep one Democratic seat (likely IN-01), they can draw all the other districts with R+8 rating. If they keep two Democratic seats (likely IN-01 and IN-07), they can draw all the other districts with R+10 rating. Looking at the recent history of IN-08 and IN-09 districts, I think they will want the safest seats, so I think they will keep IN-01 and IN-07 as Democratic seats.

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) will need to run for a R+10+ district or will need to run a primary against P Visclosky.

North Carolina

The Republicans have full control of the redistricting process here. They will take advantage of this, but North Carolina is a swing state with a strong tradition of moderate to conservative Democrats. The most competitive district that the Republicans won in 2008 was R+11. First they need to protect NC-02. And later I think they will bid to make NC-08, NC-07 and NC-11 enough Republican to try to defeat the Democratic incumbents. It is more likely they will go after these seats because the Democrats here can be more dangerous for them for statewide races. NC-01, NC-12, NC-13 and NC-04 would keep D+ rating. NC-01 in the North East, NC-12 in Charlotte, NC-13 in Raleigh-Durham, and NC-04 in the area of Fayetteville toward Chapel Hil toward Greensboro. D Price may get out his NC-04.

NC-08 L Kissell (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-11 H Shuler (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Florida

The current redistricting of Florida is very pro-Republican and the new procedure for redistricting will not change it. All the current swing districts are in Republican hands and the legislature (Republican majority) will not approve a map that does not protect their incumbents in 2012. FL-22 surely will become a R+low district. Florida will have some R+low districts that the Democrats can fight for.

Two new R+ seats for the Republicans.

Ohio

Despite having full control of the redistricting process, including the trifecta and the commissions that draw the legislative maps, the Republicans do not have a chance of improving in Ohio. The Republicans have enough work to keep the incumbents, including their gains of 2010 (5 seats) and surely it will not be possible they win more. They will lose at least one district, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating, including OH-01, OH-12 and OH-15.

OH-13 B Sutton (D) surely will get out of the game.

One Republican seat will disappear too. Maybe OH-06.

New Hampshire

No changes.

Pennsylvania

The Republicans control the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission that draws the state legislative districts and the state legislature that draws the congressional map. But redistricting Pennsylvania is more difficult than Ohio for the Republicans. They have enough work protecting incumbents, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating. I expect 5 D+ safe districts (PA-01, PA-02, PA-13, PA-14 and PA-17). T Holden does not seem vulnerable and surely the Republicans will give to his district a D+ rating. PA-11, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 can be R+ low in 2012. And here there are two Democratic incumbents in R+ districts that can have trouble.

PA-12 M Critz (D) surely will be without his own district and surely will need to run against a Republican incumbent, but the district will likely have R+low rating.

PA-04 J Altmire (D) will likely run in a R+10+ district.

Wisconsin

After winning full control of the redistricting process, I think the Republicans will work to keep their incumbents in 2012. Surely WI-07 will be a R+low district. Because of it, all the Republican incumbents will be in swing districts. The recall can affect the process giving, some chance to the Democrats.

Michigan

Again the same. The Republicans have more than enough work keeping their incumbents, and surely MI-06 and MI-11 will end as R+low districts. Michigan must lose one district and will likely be MI-09.

MI-09 G Peeters (D) can likely get out the game. Surely G Peeters will need to run against other incumbent, maybe against S Levin (D).

RECOUNT

+22 new R+ districts

-18 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

+1 – +2 Utah (1 new and maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

=0 – +1 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

– 1 – – 1 Louisiana (1 seat less LA-03)

=0 – =0 North Dakota

+4 – +6 Texas * (4 new and maybe TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

=0 – +1 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

+1 – +1 South Carolina (1 new)

+1 – +3 Georgia (1 new and maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

=0 – +1 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

=0 – +3 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

+2 – +2 Florida * (2 new seats)

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-06)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

=0 – +1 Pennsylvania * (maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

=0 – =0 Michigan *

———–

+7 – +19 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Utah (maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

– 1 – =0 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

=0 – =0 Louisiana

=0 – =0 North Dakota

– 2 – =0 Texas * (maybe lose TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

– 1 – =0 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

=0 – =0 South Carolina

– 2 – =0 Georgia (maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

– 1 – =0 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

– 3 – =0 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

=0 – =0 Florida *

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-13)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

– 2 – – 1 Pennsylvania * (1 seat less PA-12 and maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

– 1 – – 1 Michigan * (1 seat less MI-09)

———–

– 15 – – 3 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

STATES WITH BIPARTISAN OR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS AND STATES WITH CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

COMMISSION

Idaho (R majority ID Supreme Court)

No effect. Maybe ID-01 be a little more Republican.

Montana (D majority MT Supreme Court)

No effect.

Arizona (R majority AZ Supreme Court)

Arizona will win one house seat that can go to the Republicans and in exchange the Democrats will seek to protect AZ-08 until they have a D+5+ district.

New district for the Republicans.

Iowa (R majority IA Supreme Court)

Iowa will lose one seat. Yesterday was published the first draft of the Commission for redistricting. I think the first map will be rejected. Two of the current incumbents must run at least in the same district. Likely one Democrat and one Republican but the rest would keep their own district. Surely the most likely option is L Boswell (D) and T Latham running in something like a merger of the current IA-03 and IA-04 that can be very close to EVEN rating. I would not accept anything worse. Surely a merger of the current IA-01 and IA-04 would be more favorable for the Democrats but the Republicans would reject this.

New Jersey (D majority NJ Supreme Court)

The commission in this state is keeping one of the most pro-Republican maps in all the bluest states. This year the prospect is favorable because the Democrats are a little favored in the control of the process for drawing new maps, but still the final map can keep pro-Republican details. The state will lose one US House seat and the first candidate can be NJ-03 if they are not open seats. It seems none of the Republican representatives would challenge R Menendez before losing his US House seat in the redistricting process. Later surely the damaged Republican will challenge him. I think NJ-02 can become also R+.

Maine (D majority ME Supreme Court)

Maybe ME-02 becomes a little safer.

Washington (D majority WA Supreme Court)

There will be a new district likely in the north of King County that can go Democratic, while WA-03 can be R+low district, but WA-08 would countinue as D+low. I hope WA-02 also becomes a little safer district, while other Democratic seats do not get weaker.

California (R majority CA Supreme Court)

I’m so skeptical about the result of the new system for redistricting California. I think we have lost an opportunity of drawing a good map having the trifecta (the governor and the majority in both state chambers). At least, CA-11 should become a D+ district, but the redistricting in California is the most unpredictable process (with Texas), and we can have surprises here.

New York (R majority NY Court of Appeals but D CJ)

The first goal for the Democrats must be up to D+5+ level NY-02, NY-27, NY-01 and NY-23. NY-25 surely will be the first district that gets out the game. The Democratic votes of Syracuse can help making safer the NY-23. Still I think the Democrats must find more here. I think the Democratic members of the legislature must want the Republicans to lose a second seat. I would select NY-13, but if there is some trouble about Staten Island, the next option would be NY-03. This still would leave 6 R+low swing districts in New York. This is little improvement. I think the little advantage of the Republicans in the state senate should not be enough to stop these improvements and maybe more.

Vermont (D majority VT Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

Hawaii (D majority HI Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

RECOUNT

– 2 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

+1 – +1 Arizona * (1 new seat)

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-04)

– 1 – – 1 New Jersey * (1 seat less)

=0 – =0 Maine

=0 – =0 Washington *

=0 – =0 California *

– 2 – – 2 New York * (2 seats less)

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———-

– 3 – – 2 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

=0 – =0 Arizona *

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-03)

=0 – =0 New Jersey *

=0 – =0 Maine

+1 – +1 Washington * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 California *

=0 – =0 New York *

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———–

=0 – +1 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, California, and New York in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

Some people think the “independent” commissions are the right procedure for redistricting, but the Republicans have an advantage here because these commissions keep some pro-Republican maps and contribute to the advantage that the Republicans have in other states where they work with full control.

In the R+ states working with commissions, the Democrats only have 2 Hispanic representatives in Hispanic majority districts, and 1 (G Giffords) in a R+ district. While, in the EVEN or D+ states working with commissions, the Republicans have 39 representatives.

CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

Kentucky (R majority KY Supreme Court)

No important changes. The Republicans will block every improvement for the Democratic representatives.

Mississippi (R majority MS Supreme Court)

No changes.

No chance for T Childers or G Taylor to return.

Missouri (D majority MO Supreme Court but R CJ)

Missouri will lose one seat and that will give trouble to both parties. There are very few options for keeping the current MO-01 as an African-American majority district, so little discussion about the borders of this distric. For the rest, I think the most likely scenario can be a merger of MO-03 (D+7 R Carnahan) and MO-02 (R+9 T Akin) in a district that surely can not be EVEN, but can be R+1 approximately. Another option would be a merger of MO-05 (D+10 E Cleaver) and MO-06 (R+7 S Graves), but I think the Democrats will dislike losing the balance between St Louis and Kansas City and the Republicans will dislike leaving some Democratic votes to MO-04, endangering a second seat, or giving to the new seat from the merger a D+ rate.

MO-02/03 R Carnahan (D) can need to run in a R+1 seat against T Akin (R) if the Republican does not run for senate.

Virginia (R majority VA Supreme Court)

The Democrats will seek to protect VA-11 and the Republicans some of their districts. Still this state will have some swing district with R+low rating.

Colorado (D majority CO Supreme Court)

Here the Republicans have a very weak majority in the state house (32D-33R) but the redistricting is made by a commission where the Democrats can have the control thanks to the three members appointed by the governor, who has veto power. At a minimum I think the Democrats can be successful with a 3D-3R-1S map that gives EVEN or little better rating to the current CO-03. Nothing to lose here.

Nevada (D majority NV Supreme Court)

Nevada will have a new district. Surely NV-03 will be a R+low district while the new district will be a D+low.

Minnesota (R majority MN Supreme Court)

I think the Republicans can find MN-03 and MN-08 become R+ while the Democrats can find MN-01 and MN-07 become D+.

New Mexico (D majority NM Supreme Court)

Here I do not expect big changes. I think the Democrats can have some advantage making NM-02 a little less Republican.

Oregon (D majority OR Supreme Court)

I think the Democrats can be able to make safer OR-04 and OR-05. I would like to see a 5-0 map here and I think it would be possible. Despite the tie in the state house, the Republicans have a very weak prospect because if the state legislature fails drawing the maps, the Secretary of State (Democrat) would draw the maps of the state house and the state senate seats.

Connecticut (R majority CT Supreme Court)

The current map only needs a little mix of the current CT-05 and CT-01. A bipartisan commission will draw the paps that need the approval of 2/3 of both chambers. The Republicans are now just over 1/3 in both chambers.

RECOUNT

=0 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

– 1 – =0 Colorado * (maybe lose CO-03)

=0 – =0 Nevada *

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———-

– 2 – =0 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

=0 – +1 Colorado * (maybe win CO-03)

+1 – +1 Nevada * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———–

=0 – +2 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota and New Mexico in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. Again, the effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

This would be the recount until now:

+20 new R+ house seats

– 18 new D+ or EVEN house seats

(+2,+17) range for Republican gains *

(- 15,=0) range for Democratic gains *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in many states (emphasized with *). But the large majority of these districts would be R+low districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

NH-01, NH-02, WA-08 and CO-03 are the only Republican districts in all these 43 states that surely would be EVEN or D+ after the redistricting process. The Republicans have a low chance of making or keeping these districts as R+, so these districts should be obvious targets for the Democrats in 2012 from now on.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

From this group of states must come the improvements that balance the gains of the Republicans. I think the Democrats must find here the necessary gains to balance the Republican gains in other states. And just I will find it for this group (less to preview or predict and more to propose where is possible).

Arkansas

The Democrats have the control of the Board of Apportionment (Commission) that draws the state legislature districts and also control the state legislature that draws the congressional districts. The best way to keep the Democratic congressional delegation from Arkansas in the long-term would be to have a black district protected by the Voting Rights Act. Surely this is the last chance to make a black district in Arkansas protected by the VRA. If the Democrats from this state do not do this, the Republicans will have a 0D 4R map the first chance they have. It is possible to create a district with more African-American population than white, but for me the goal would be a D+ (D+5?) district that keeps the white population under 50%, to draw a R+5 district district for M Ross (including parts of Washington County, and to leave two R+20+ for the Republicans, approximately.

West Virginia

I think the Democrats will want to protect N Rahall (WV-03) and endanger WV-01. My goal would be both districts become R+5-. If it is necessary breaking the county borders.

Delaware

No effect.

Illinois

Illinois will lose a house seat too. The Democrats from Illinois surely can put every Republican incumbent running in a D+5+ district for 2012. I hope they do it. It is necessary. The redistricting in Illinois is key in this cycle for the Democratic Party for balancing the Republican gains in other states.

IL-06 seems the most likely district to disappear.

Maryland

I think the Democrats from Maryland will make MD-01 and MD-06 D+5+ districts, winning two seats for the Democratic side. The Democrats of the rest of the country need it to balance the Republican gains in other states.

Rhode Island

No effect.

Massachusetts

MA-10 W Keating (D) This state will lose one district after the redistricting process. I think we will not have open seats for 2012 here, and because of this MA-10 would be the most likely seat to disappear.

RECOUNT

– 3 to – 11 new R+ districts

+1 to +9 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

– 1 – =0 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

– 11 – – 1 Illinois

– 2 – =0 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

=0 – =0 Massachusetts

———-

– 15 – – 1 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – +1 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

=0 – +1 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

=0 – +10 Illinois

=0 – +2 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

– 1 – – 1 Massachusetts

———–

– 1 – +13 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in 2012. They are not in this group of states.

This would be the total recount without including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+17 new R+ house seats

– 17 new D+ or EVEN house seats

183 D+ seats

3 EVEN seats (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

249 R+ seats

(- 3,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+3) range for Democratic gains *

This would be the total recount including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+9 new R+ house seats

– 9 new D+ or EVEN house seats

191 D+ seats

3 EVEN seat (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

241 R+ seats

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains *

* = This does not include many swing districts in Republican hands in many states (emphasized with *). But except NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01, all the other seats would be R+(low) districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

California and Texas are the most difficult states to predict and can give the biggest surprises. California can give likely some good surprise, but Texas can give a likely worse result.

Gerrymandering Illinois can be the alone way to keep the current number of D+ seats in the US House and to balance the likely Republican gains that the redistricting process in other states will give to them.

——————————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————————-

RESUME

1 THE NEW DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTS TO DISAPPEAR

Republican safe gains = 10

UT-04 (new)

TX-33 (new)

TX-34 (new)

TX-35 (new)

TX-36 (new)

SC-07 (new)

GA-14 (new)

AZ-09 (new)

FL-26 (new)

FL-27 (new)

Democratic safe gains = 2

NV-04 (new)

WA-10 (new)

Republican safe losses that can not be Democratic gains = 6

LA-03 (disappear)

OH-06 (disappear)

IL-06 (disappear)

NJ-03 (disappear)

NY-25 (disappear)

NY-13 (disappear)

Democratic safe losses that can not be Republican gains = 4

OH-13 B Sutton (D) (disappear)

PA-12 M Critz (D) (disappear)

MI-09 G Peeters (D) (disappear)

MA-10 W Keating (D) (disappear)

In the middle = 2

MO-02/03

IA-03/04

From this group the Republicans will gain 2 to 4 seats (only 2 if L Boswell and R Carnahan can keep the districts).

2 THE DISTRICTS STRONGLY AFFECTED BY THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

Democratic seats that can be Republican gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 12

TX-25 L Doggett (D) as R+10+

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) as R+10+

GA-02 S Bishop (D) as R+10+

TN-05 J Cooper (D) as R+10+

NC-08 L Kissell (D) as R+10+

UT-02 J Matheson (D) as R+20+

GA-12 J Barrow (D) as R+10+

PA-04 J Altmire (D) as R+10+

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) as R+10+

NC-11 H Shuler (D) as R+10+

OK-02 D Boren (D) as R+20+

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) as R+low

Republican seats that can be Democratic gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 15

MD-01 as D+5+

IL-08 as D+5+

MD-06 as D+5+

IL-14 as D+5+

CO-03 as EVEN

WV-01 as R+5-

AR-02 as D+5+

IL-17 as D+5+

IL-10 as D+6+

IL-11 as D+5+

IL-15 as D+5+

IL-19 as D+5+

IL-13 as D+5+

IL-16 as D+5+

IL-18 as D+5+

The order goes from the most vulnerable to the less vulnerable to the change for every party.

After the two groups the range for both parties (if Illinois is gerrymandered) would be:

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains

3 THE REST

Other Democratic endangered seats = 0

Only KY-06, WV-03 and AR-04 would have R+ rating.

Other Republican endangered seats = ?

Only NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01 would have D+ or EVEN rating.

A good number of swing R+low districts.

If the Democrats work well in group 2, other possible gains would help to reduce the Republican majority in the US House. If the Democrats do not work enough in group 2, some possible gains would help to balance the Republican advantage after the redistricting but not to gain new seats. It is very important to do a good work in the redistricting process.

The senate seat of Massachusetts is one of the best opportunities of the democrats for win new seats in 2012. It is obvious. No doubt here.

D+12 state + presidential race would be not a bad prospect despite the republican incumbent is still so popular.

The last new for this race is what V Kennedy will not run. Well, it is not a good new, but it is not enough for be pessimistic still. Where is my hope now?

In 2009, before T Kennedy dies, a poll of Suffolk in march give the next ressult:

Q26. If Ted Kennedy were to vacate his U.S. Senate seat, who would you like to

see run for the U.S. Senate seat?

N= 400 100%

Charlie Baker (R) ………………………… 01 ( 1/123) 3 1%

Tim Cahill (D) …………………………… 02 3 1%

Mike Capuano (D) …………………………. 03 3 1%

Andy Card (R) ……………………………. 04 5 1%

Martha Coakley (D) ……………………….. 05 24 6%

Chris Gabrieli (D) ……………………….. 06 7 2%

Bill Galvin (D) ………………………….. 07 2 1%

Joe Kennedy (D) ………………………….. 08 32 8%

Vicky Kennedy (D) ………………………… 09 3 1%

Stephen Lynch (D) ………………………… 10 3 1%

Marty Meehan (D) …………………………. 11 1 0%

Tom Menino (D) …………………………… 12 3 1%

Christy Mihos (R) ………………………… 13 5 1%

Tim Murray (D) …………………………… 14 1 0%

Mitt Romney (R) ………………………….. 15 22 6%

John Kerry ………………………………. 16 5 1%

Barney Frank …………………………….. 17 4 1%

Name ……………………………………. 97 25 6%

Undecided (DO NOT READ) …………………… 98 246 62%

Refused (DO NOT READ) …………………….. 99 3 1%

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/…

Here Joe Kennedy was the most liked politician for run for the senate seat of T Kennedy, but here, as example, they are not important options like D Patrick, E Markey and some others.

Later, in September 2009 the first poll of Suffolk about the democratic primary, where Coakley was leading tell the next:

Poll: Coakley has Early Lead in U.S. Senate Race9/16/2009

Voters expect Attorney General Martha Coakley to be elected to the U.S. Senate in the January 2010 special election, but they express a marked preference for Joe Kennedy to succeed his uncle, according to a poll released today by Suffolk University/7NEWS.

Voters also said they support a move to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator, with 55 percent favoring a change in state law to make this possible, and 41 percent opposed.

Kennedy preference

Fifty-nine percent of Democratic voters polled said they would have voted for Joe Kennedy in the Senate primary race, and 62 percent of all voters have a favorable opinion of the former congressman, who has said that he will not run for the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“If Joe Kennedy runs, Joe Kennedy wins,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.  “Across every demographic, Kennedy was strong.  In fact, fifty-four percent of Martha Coakley Democratic Primary voters said they would vote for Joe Kennedy, if he ran.”

Coakley’s favorability rate is 53 percent. Her favorability was 56 percent in a March 2009 poll by the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

Name recognition a factor

Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano, who is expected to announce his candidacy this week, had a favorability rate of 16 percent, but 33 percent of those polled had never heard of him. Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca’s name was added to the poll for the last of the four days the poll was conducted — after his name was floated as a potential candidate. Again, name recognition was a problem: 72 percent had not heard of him, and 3 percent viewed him favorably.

On the Republican side, state Sen. Scott Brown, who has declared his candidacy, had 20 percent favorability; 39 percent did not recognize his name. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, said to be considering a run, had no trouble with name recognition; 12 percent did not know him. His favorability was 29 percent in the Suffolk/7News poll, outweighed by his unfavorable rate of 39 percent.

Voters were asked to choose from among potential Democratic Primary candidates, some of whom have since withdrawn from the fray. They chose Coakley (47 percent), Capuano (9 percent), U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (6 percent) and City Year founder Alan Khazei (3 percent). Thirty-three percent were undecided. Voters who chose Lynch were surveyed again after he dropped out of the race on Tuesday.

When asked whom they would choose in a head-to-head race between Coakley and Brown in the final election, 54 percent chose Coakley, and 24 percent chose Brown, with 20 percent undecided.

Voters said the most important issues facing the next U.S. senator from Massachusetts are health care (45 percent) and the economy/jobs (27 percent).

Methodology

The statewide survey of 500 Massachusetts registered voters was conducted Sept. 12-15, 2009. Of those polled, 39 percent were registered Democrats, 15 percent Republicans, and 44 percent independent. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence.  Marginals and 140 pages of cross-tabulation data will be posted on the Suffolk University Political Research Center Web site at 10 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16.  For more information, contact David Paleologos at 781-290-9310.

Back to News »

http://www.suffolk.edu/37947.html

Suffolk tell what J Kennedy would defeat all the democratic candidates for 2010 senate election if he would run then.

Martha Coakley was second in the first poll and was leading the second, but finally she lost.

In 2010, the last PPP poll tell:

Vicki Kennedy (D): 22

Barney Frank (D): 17

Mike Capuano (D): 15

Deval Patrick (D): 13

Ed Markey (D): 7

Stephen Lynch (D): 7

Tom Menino (D): 3

Tim Murray (D): 1

Undecided: 15

MoE: ±6.2%

Vicki Kennedy (D): 41

Scott Brown (R-inc): 48

Undecided: 11

Deval Patrick (D): 42

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 9

Ed Markey (D): 39

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 13

Mike Capuano (D): 36

Scott Brown (R-inc): 52

Undecided: 12

Stephen Lynch (D): 30

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 20

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Here V Kennedy lead, and D Patrick have the same result. But unfortunatelly we have not again a complete information because important people like J Kennedy are not here, and give not the result for B Frank in a face to face. Now V Kennedy and D Patrick run not. It is not the end.

My first conclussion looking to these polls is what some or many people want a Kennedy as candidate. And if both are in the list, like in the Suffolt poll of March 2009, they prefer J Kennedy.

From the three polls (and leaving M Coakley out) I think we must take into account the results of:

of J Kennedy in first place

of V Kennedy (out) in second place

and of D Patrick (out), B Frank, E Markey and M Capuano in third place.

I would not be surprised if J Kennedy would be under – 5% against S Brown. Or in tie.

I think we must find new polls. I think it is very important to give to the people what they want. It is very important what the people feel what the candidate what they want is in and is ready for serve in the senate. If not the people will feel less hope for this race.

Well, here is my bid for find the limits of a Gerrymander redistricting of California. Really a lot of work for balance all the map. Only for read and paint all these precincts it is a lot of work, I can imagine the work of include all the the data and do these maps. And the work for update the maps after the census.

Like you will see in the forms of the districts, many of them with a lot of corners I force the big majority of the districts until the extreme, and other what seems better are too following the same extreme rules.

My goal doing this map is not do a nice map with nice districts, my goal here is find the limits respecting the rules for redistricting in the best way what I can do. I wish the people know and see the limits for have a good idea about the maps what we will see for California.

California has now 20 R+ districts and 19 republican incumbents. Here they are a lot of room for improve the numbers of the democratic delegation. I know not if the new commission will do something possitive for the democratic side.

All the new districts in this bid are over 59% Obama (at least D+6). I think they are enough hard for the republicans, few can survive, the map keep not their current basis.

In California is not a condition to live inside the district, but I try give to every democratic incumbent his district. For the incumbents what lives in small towns and cities I try to keep all inside his new district, and for the people what lives in the biggest cities I try to keep his home or his office inside every district. I hope do it enough well.

South California is a little less democratic than North California, but still I’m able for keep this D+6+ level for all the south. For North California I can up to 60% Obama as minimum despite to be a little more difficult find the geographic ways.

You can see the color and the data of every district in the image. The counter of the population leaves a remaining population what I see not where are, and the map have some little areas what get not colored. Nothing important for this way of use the application.

MINORITIES

HISPANIC

Hispanic majority (>50% hispanic)

Old map: 10 districts

My map: 10 districts

Hispanic-White (minority-majority district with Hispanic as first group and White as second)

Old map: 2 districts

My map: 7 districts

Hispanic-Black (minority-majority with Hispanic as first group and black as second)

Old map: 3 districts

My map: 1 district (the other 2 will be White-Black)

Hispanic-Asian (minority-majority with Hispanic as fist group and asian as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

ASIAN

Asian-Hispanic (minority-majority with Asian as fist group and Hispanic as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

White-Asian (minority-majority district with White as first group and Asian as second)

Old map: 4 districts

My map: 3 districts

Hispanic-Asian (minority-majority with hispanic as first group and asian as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

BLACK

White-Black (minority-majority district with White as first group and Black as second)

Old map: 1 district

My map: 3 districts

Hispanic-Black (minority-majority with hispanic as first group and black as second)

Old map: 3 districts

My map: 1 district

As resume my map gives:

– 6 White majority districts

– 1 White-Asian minority-majority

+2 White-Black minority-majority

+5 Hispano-White minority-majority

– 2 Hispano-Black minority-majority

+1 Hispano-Asian minority-majority

+1 Asian-Hispano minority-majority

In this work the most difficult is to keep the level for the asian minority in North California and for the Black minority in South California. New hispanic districts appear without effort despite this map use not the data of the 2010 census.

I would need to see if the new census data make not possible the White-Black districts. If it is not possible, the map would change a little but the limit would be the same. If you take the right way more or less hispanic population in every district affect not to the limits.

MAPS

All the state

North California

South California

CA-01

Incumbent: M Thompson (D)

White majority district.

CA-02

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-03

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-04

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-05

Incumbent: D Matsui (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-06

Incumbent: L Woolsey (D) vs W Herger (R)

White majority district.

Not the best moment for her retirement since the point of this map.

CA-07

Incumbent: G Miller (D) vs D Lungren (R)

White majority district.

CA-08

Incumbent: N Pelosi (D)

White-Asian minority-majority district.

The safest district. Not casual.

CA-09

Incumbent: B Lee (D)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-10

Incumbent: J Garamendi (D) vs T McClintock (R)

White majority district.

CA-11

Incumbent: J McNerney (D)

White majority district.

CA-12

Incumbent: J Speier (D)

White-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-13

Incumbent: P Stark (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-14

Incumbent: A Eshoo (D)

White majority district.

CA-15

Incumbent: M Honda (D)

Hispanic-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-16

Incumbent: Z Lofgren (D) vs D Nunes (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-17

Incumbent: S Farr (D) vs E Gallegly (R)

White majority district.

CA-18

Incumbent: D Cardoza (D) vs J Denham (R)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-19

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-20

Incumbent: J Costa (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-21

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-22

Incumbent: –

White-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-23

Incumbent: L Capps (D)

White majority district.

CA-24

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-25

Incumbent: H McKeon (R)

White majority district.

CA-26

Incumbent: D Dreier (R)

White majority district.

CA-27

Incumbent: B Sherman (D) vs K McCarthy (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-28

Incumbent: H Berman (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-29

Incumbent: A Schiff (D)

White majority district.

CA-30

Incumbent: H Waxman (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-31

Incumbent: X Becerra (D) vs K Calvert (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-32

Incumbent: J Chu (D) vs G Miller (R)

Asian-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-33

Incumbent: K Bass (D) vs J Campbell (R)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-34

Incumbent: L Roybal-Allard (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-35

Incumbent: M Waters (D)

Hispanic-Black minority-majority district.

CA-36

Incumbent: J Harman (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-37

Incumbent: L Richardson (D)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-38

Incumbent: G Napolitano (D) vs E Royce (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-39

Incumbent: Linda Sanchez (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-40

Incumbent: M Bono Mack (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-41

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-42

Incumbent: –

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-43

Incumbent: J Baca (D) vs J Lewis (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-44

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-45

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-46

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-47

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-48

Incumbent: D Rohrabacher (R) vs B Bilbray (R)

White majority district.

CA-49

Incumbent: D Issa (R)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-50

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-51

Incumbent: R Filner (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-52

Incumbent: – (likely D Hunter (R))

White majority district.

CA-53

Incumbent: S Davis (D) vs D Hunter (R)

White majority district.

Just the remaining votes what leaves the counter and some need in the area of north San Diego county make I need to leave the CD-33, CD-35 and CD-37 with higher deviation than the other districts. Still is inside the limit what gives the law if I’m not wrong, and cause of this I make not more corrections. I would need to move a decent number of districts for down the deviation, but I would not have major trouble cause of this.

Not always I want leave in 0 to the republicans. Iowa is not a state for want it. My map for Iowa find 2D-1Swing-1R.

Habitually I bid not for the states without political data, because still I have enough with California or Pennsylvania (maybe later) for think in other states, but I have a idea what make so easy the calculus and I think the result of the bid help for it.

This is the map:

CD-01: B Braley (D)

57.98% Obama => D+5 (Currently D+5)

Based in Davenport (3rd city in Iowa)

Includes all of: Scott, Clinton, Jackson, Dubuque, Delaware, Clayton, Allamakee, Buchanan, Fayette, Winneshiek, Black Howk, Bremer, Chickasaw, Howard, Grundy, Butler, Floyd, Mitchell, Worth, Cerro Gordo and Franklin counties.

CD-02: D Loebsack (D)

57.97% Obama => D+5 (Currently D+7)

Based in Cedar Rapids (2nd city in Iowa)

Includes all of: Jones, Cedar, Muscatine, Louisa, Des Moines, Linn, Johnson, Washington, Henry, Lee, Benton, Iowa, Keokuk, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tama, Poweshiek, Mahaska, Wapello, Davis, Monroe, Appanoose, Lucas and Wayne counties.

CD-03: L Boswell (D) and T Latham (R)

53.75% Obama => D+1 (Currently D+1 and EVEN)

Based in Des Moines (1st city in Iowa)

Includes all of: Hardin, Marshall, Jasper, Marion, Hamilton, Story, Polk, Warren, Clarke, Boone, Dallas and Madison.

CD-04: S King (R)

46.05% Obama => R+7 (Currently R+9)

Based in Sioux City (4th city in Iowa)

Includes all of: The rest of the counties.

They are compact districts what respect the boundaries of the counties and respect the unity of the metropolitan areas in the state.

The new CD-01 and CD-02 districts are in risk of lose some point in the Cook PVI rating because both districts must asume new areas from districts with less democratic rating. Still I think this model for redistricting Iowa keep booth enough safe. The same reason make the future CD-04 down from R+9 until R+6.

The new CD-03 can give a decent chance to L Boswell because every bid for make a new district here what keep all the Polk county inside the district will give a strong position to L Boswell against T Latham.

The democrats begin this process with a clear disadvantage from previous redistricting. Following the Cook Partisan Voting Index they are:

194 D+ seats

9 EVEN seats

232 R+ seats

We can not forget it

This diary find to give a preview about what can do the republicans in the redistricting process and about what can be the good ways for the democrats have some success after the current redistricting process.

Update: My first preview was giving – 1 NY, = MO, +3 TX and +1 FL.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I’m not optimistic about this group of states because the republicans never lose a chance for take advantage. The republicans will have full control of the redistricting process in many states, and I will go state by state.

Utah

One new district for the republicans.

UT-02 J Matheson (D) surely will run in a R+20+ the next time and without the current basis what send him to the house now.

Wyoming

No effect.

Oklahoma

OK-02 D Boren (D) surely will run in a R+20+ district. The same than for J Matheson.

Alabama

No chance for B Bright return.

Alaska

The Alaska Redistricting Board (Commission) is in republican hands.

No changes.

Nebraska

NE-02 safer for the republicans. No chance Obama wins again this electoral vote.

Kansas

The Reapportionment Commission is in republican hands.

KS-03 safer for the republicans.

Louisiana

The republicans will have the control of both state chambers thanks to some party switches and cause of this they will have the control of the redistricting process. But Louisiana will lose one seat and can not be LA-02. Then, the republicans will lose one here.

No chance of C Melancon return.

North Dakota

No effect.

Texas

Not gains prospect. I’m habitually optimistic, but here I expect not gains for the democrats. As maximum one if we recover TX-23 and TX-27. If they are not a law requirement of create new VRA districts, the republicans will create no-one. If finally they are 36 districts for Texas, I would expect 7 D+, 3 R+low approximately and 26R+10 or higher, but still the things can be worse. The three “swing” districts would be the successors of TX-28, TX-27 and TX-23. These will be again the districts for fight.

Four new districts for the republicans.

TX-25 L Doggett (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district or (less likely) against one of the neighboring democratic incumbents.

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) can run likely in a R+low district.

South Dakota

No effect.

Tennessee

No chance for L Davis return.

TN-05 J Cooper (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district. The same than L Doggett.

South Carolina

One new district for the republicans.

No chance for J Spratt return.

Georgia

If I’m not wrong the republicans can decrease the percentage of african-americans in GA-02 and GA-12 because they are districts with white majority. That mean these will be new R+ districts.

One new district for the republicans.

No chance for J Marshall return.

GA-02 S Bishop (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

GA-12 J Barrow (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

Indiana

If the republicans wish they can do all the districts with R+6 rating. If they keep one democratic seat (likely IN-01), they can do all the other districts with R+8 rating. If they keep two democratic seats (likely IN-01 and IN-07), they can do all the other districts with R+10 rating. Looking to the recent history of IN-08 and IN-09 districts, I think they will wish safest seats, then I think they will keep IN-01 and IN-07 as democratic seats.

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) will run for a R+10+ district or will need run a primary against P Visclosky.

North Carolina

It will be not easy for the republicans take advantage of the control of the redistricting process cause of the hability of the democratic candidates for win R+low districts in North Carolina.Still, they can do somethings. They first need to protect their new NC-02 district. Later surely they will find attack NC-11 (the easier tarjet). Later surely they will find attack NC-08, the second easier target. But fortunatelly they can not draw less than four D+ seats and they can not attack enough strongly NC-07 and NC-08 at same time. I expect four D+ districts, what can keep the current incumbents and one R+5 district (approximately). Not easy to leave M McIntyre out of this district without endanger other options.

NC-11 H Shuler (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

NC-08 L Kissell (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

Florida

The current redistricting of Florida is very pro-republican and the new procedure for redistricting will not change it. All the current swing districts are in republican hands and the legislature (republican majority) will not approve a map what protect not their incumbents in 2012. FL-22 surely will become a R+low district. Florida will have some R+low districts what the democrats can fight.

Two new R+ seats for the republicans.

Ohio

Despite to have the control of the redistricting process, including the trifecta and the Ohio Redistricting Commission what draw the legislative maps (not the congressional), the republicans have not chance of improve in Ohio. They have enough work for keep the incumbents, including their gains of 2010 (5 seats) and surely it will be not possible. At least they will lose one district, and they will leave a lot of swing districts with R+low rating, including OH-01, OH-12 and OH-15.

OH-13 B Sutton (D) surely will get out of the game.

One republican seat will disappear too. Maybe OH-06.

New Hampshire

The republicans have here enough majority for the democratic governor can not veto the new map. No changes.

Pennsylvania

The republicans control here the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission thank to their control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and they control also the trifecta what must approve the plan. But redistricting Pennsylvania is more difficult than Ohio for the republicans. They have enough work protecting incumbents, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating. I expect only 4 D+ districts (PA-01, PA-02, PA-13 and PA-14). PA-11, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 can be R+ low since 2012. And here they are three democratic incumbents in R+ districts. I expect some troubles for one of them.

PA-12 M Critz (D) surely will be without own district and surely will need to run against a republican incumbent, but surely the district will have R+low rating. Then, they are some chance.

Wisconsin

After win full control of the redistricting process, I think the republicans will work for keep their incumbents in 2012. Surely WI-07 will be a R+low district. For it all the republican incumbents will be in swing districts.

Michigan

Again the same history. The republicans have more than enough work keeping their incumbents, and surely MI-06 and MI-11 will up until R+low districts.

MI-09 G Peeters (D) will get out the game. Surely G Peeters will need run against one incumbent, maybe against S Levin.

RECOUNT

+23 new R+ districts

-18 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:

+1 – +2 Utah (1 new and maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

=0 – +1 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

– 1 – – 1 Louisiana (1 seat less)

=0 – =0 North Dakota

+4 – +6 Texas * (4 new and maybe TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

=0 – +1 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

+1 – +1 South Carolina (1 new)

+1 – +3 Georgia (1 new and maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

=0 – +1 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

=0 – +2 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

+2 – +2 Florida * (2 new seats)

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less and unknown still)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

=0 – =0 Pennsylvania * (unknown still)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin * (unknown still)

=0 – =0 Michigan * (unknown still)

———–

+7 – +17 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Utah (maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

– 1 – =0 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

=0 – =0 Louisiana

=0 – =0 North Dakota

– 2 – =0 Texas * (maybe lose TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

– 1 – =0 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

=0 – =0 South Carolina

– 2 – =0 Georgia (maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

– 1 – =0 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

– 2 – =0 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

=0 – =0 Florida *

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-13)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

– 1 – – 1 Pennsylvania * (1 seat less PA-12)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

– 1 – – 1 Michigan * (1 seat less MI-09)

———–

– 13 – – 3 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2012, despite the republican full control of the redistricting process. The effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

STATES WITH BIPARTISAN OR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS AND STATES WITH CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

COMMISSION

Idaho

No effect.

Montana

No effect.

Arizona

Arizona will win one house seat what can go to the republicans and in change the democrats will find to protect G Giffords in AZ-08 until have a D+ district.

New district for the republicans.

Colorado

Here the republicans have a very weak majority in the state house (32D-33R) but the redistricting is made by a commission where the democrats can have the control thanks to the three members appointed by the governor, who has veto power. As minimum I think the democrats can be successful going to the court with a 3D-3R-1S map what gives EVEN rate to the current CO-03. Nothing for lose here.

Iowa

Iowa will lose one seat. IA-03 and IA-04 can merge in one house seat what can be very close to EVEN rating. I give not L Boswell as sure loser.

New Jersey

The state will lose one house seat and the first candidate can be NJ-03 if they are not open seats, but maybe some republican representative challenge R Menendez. In change of lose one seat, the republicans can find NJ-02 become R+ if this district disappear not. The commission in this state is keeping one of the most pro-republican maps in all the bluest states.

Maine

Maybe ME-02 becomes a little safer.

Washington

Here will be a new district what can go to the democratic hands, while WA-08 and WA-03 can be R+low districts, and I hope WA-02 become too a little safer.

California

At least, protecting incumbents, CA-11 should become a D+ district.

Hawaii

No effect.

RECOUNT

=0 new R+ districts

– 1 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

+1 – +1 Arizona * (1 new seat)

– 1 – =0 Colorado * (maybe lose CO-03)

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-04)

– 1 – – 1 New Jersey * (1 seat less)

=0 – =0 Maine

=0 – =0 Washington *

=0 – =0 California *

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———-

– 2 – =0 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

=0 – =0 Arizona *

=0 – +1 Colorado * (maybe win CO-03

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-03)

=0 – =0 New Jersey *

=0 – =0 Maine

+1 – +1 Washington * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 California *

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———–

=0 – +2 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, Washington and California in 2012. Again, the effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

Some people think this system is the right procedure, but the republicans take advantage from here because these commissions are keeping some pro-republican maps and contribute to keep the republican advantage what the republicans take in other states.

In the R+ states working with commissions, the democrats only have 2 hispanic representatives in hispanic majority districts, 3 black representatives in black districts, and 4 white representatives in white districts (3 of them jews). It seems like only they are democrats from these minorities.

While, in the EVEN or D+ states working with commissions, the republicans have 40 representatives.

CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

Kentucky

No important changes. The republicans will block every improvement for the democratic representatives.

Mississippi

No changes. No chance for T Childers or G Taylor return.

Missouri

Missouri will lose one seat and that will give troubles to both parties. I think the most likely scenario can be a merge of MO-03 (D+7 R Carnahan) and MO-02 (R+9 T Akin) in a EVEN district. Other option would be a merge of MO-05 (D+10 E Cleaver and MO-06 (R+7 S Graves), but I think the democrats will dislike to lose the balance between St Louis and Kansas City and the republicans will dislike leave some democratic votes to MO-04 endangering a second seat or give to the new merging seat a D+ rate.

Virginia

The democrats will find to protect VA-11 and the republicans some of their districts. Still this state will have some swing district with R+low rating.

Nevada

Nevada will have a new district. Surely NV-03 will be a R+low district while the new district will be a D+low.

Minnesota

I think the republicans can find MN-03 and MN-08 become R+ while the democrats can find MN-01 and MN-07 become D+.

New Mexico

No changes.

Oregon

I think the democrats can be able for make safer OR-04 and OR-05. I would like to see a 5-0 map here and I think it would be possible. Despite the tie in the state house, the republicans have a very weak prospect because if the state legislature fail drawing the maps, the Secretary of State (democrat) would draw the maps of the state house and the state senate seats.

Connecticut

The current map only need a little mix of the current CT-05 and CT-01. A bipartisan commission will draw the paps what need the approval of 2/3 of both chambers. The republicans have now just the minimum for be over 1/3 in both chambers.

New York

The first goal for the democrats must be up to D+5+ level NY-02, NY-27, NY-01 and NY-23. NY-25 surely will be the first district what get out the game. The democratic votes of Syracuse can help making safer the NY-23. Still I think the democrats must find more here. I think the democratic members of the legislature must find the republicans lose a second seat. I would select NY-13, but if they are some trouble about Staten Island, the next option would be NY-03. This still would leave 6 R+low swing districts in New York. This is little improvement. I think the little advantage of the republicans in the state senate will not be enough for stop these improvements and maybe more.

RECOUNT

– 2 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

=0 – =0 Nevada *

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

– 2 – – 2 New York (2 seats less)*

———-

– 3 – – 2 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

+1 – +1 Nevada (1 new seat)*

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

=0 – =0 New York *

———–

=0 – +1 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Virginia, Nevada, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York in 2012. Again, the effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

This would be the recount until now:

+21 new R+ house seats

– 19 new D+ or EVEN house seats

(+2,+15) range for republican gains *

(- 13,=0) range for democratic gains *

* = This include not many swing districts in republican hands in many states (emphasized with *) what the democrats can fight. But the big majority of these districts would be R+(low) districts. That mean the republicans have advantage here. NH-01, NH-02 and CO-03 are the alone republican districts in all these 42 states what surely would be EVEN or D+. The republicans have low chance of make these districts R+, then these districts should be obvious targets for the democrats in 2012 since now.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

Well, from this group must come the improvements what balance the improvents what will give to the republicans the full control in other states.

Arkansas

(Updated) The democrats have the control of the Board of Apportionment (Commission) what decide about the maps what draw the legislature, what have democratic majorities in both chambers. The best for keep the democratic congressional delegation from Arkansas in the long-term would be to have a black district protected by the VRA, but under the current laws this seems not possible. I would like some change in the laws for can do it, because surely this is the last chance for do a black district in Arkansas protected by the VRA. If the democrats from this state make not this, the republicans will have a 4-0 map in the first chance what they have. My point would be create a black district what would be D+, keep a R+5 district for M Ross, and leave two R+20 for the republicans. Aproximately.

West Virginia

I think the democrats will find to protect N Rahall WV-03 but I doubt if they can do a D+ district here.

Delaware

No effect.

Illinois

Illinois will lose a house seat too. The democrats from Illinois have the chance of put to every republican incumbent running in a D+5+ district for 2012. I wish they do it. The redistricting in Illinois is key in this cycle.

Maryland

I think the democrats from Maryland will make MD-01 and MD-06 D+5+ districts, winning two seats for the democratic side. The democrats of the rest of the country need it.

Rhode Island

No effect.

Massachusetts

MA-?? ? This state will lose one district after the redistricting and I hope the new districts become a little safer for the democratic incumbents.

Vermont

No effect.

RECOUNT

-4 new R+ districts

+2 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

=0 – =0 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

– 11 – – 1 Illinois

– 2 – =0 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

=0 – =0 Massachusetts

=0 – =0 Vermont

———-

– 14 – – 1 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – +1 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

=0 – =0 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

=0 – +10 Illinois

=0 – +2 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

– 1 – – 1 Massachusetts

=0 – =0 Vermont

———–

– 1 – +12 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in 2012. They are not in this group of states.

This would be the total recount without include the effect of a gerrymander redistricting of Illinois:

+17 new R+ house seats

– 17 new D+ or EVEN house seats

182 D+ seats

4 EVEN seats (maybe IA-03/04, MO-02/03, CO-03 and NH-01)

249 R+ seats

(- 2,+14) range for republican gains *

(- 14,+2) range for democratic gains *

This would be the total recount including the effect of a gerrymander redistricting of Illinois:

+10 new R+ house seats

– 10 new D+ or EVEN house seats

189 D+ seats

4 EVEN seat (maybe IA-03/04, MO-02/03, CO-03 and NH-01)

242 R+ seats

(- 12,+14) range for republican gains *

(- 14,+12) range for democratic gains *

* = This include not many swing districts in republican hands in many states (emphasized with *) what the democrats can fight. But except NH-01 and NH-02, all the other seats would be R+(low) districts. That mean the republicans have advantage here.

Gerrymander Illinois (and Maryland) can be the alone way for keep the current number of D+ seats in the US House and for balance the likely republican gains what the redistricting process in other states will give to them.

RESUME

Republican safe gains = 10

UT-04 (new)

TX-33 (new)

TX-34 (new)

TX-35 (new)

TX-36 (new)

SC-07 (new)

GA-14 (new)

AZ-09 (new)

FL-26 (new)

FL-27 (new)

Republican safe loses what can not be democratic gains = 6

LA-?? (disappear)

OH-06 (disappear)

NJ-03 (disappear)

NY-25 (disappear)

NY-13 (disappear)

IL-19 (disappear)

Democratic seats what can be republican gains as consecuence of important changes in the redistricting process = 10

TX-25 L Doggett (D) as R+10+

TN-05 J Cooper (D) as R+10+

GA-02 S Bishop (D) as R+10+

GA-12 J Barrow (D) as R+10+

NC-08 L Kissell (D) as R+10+

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) as R+10+

UT-02 J Matheson (D) as R+20+

OK-02 D Boren (D) as R+20+

NC-11 H Shuler (D) as R+10+

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) as R+low

In the middle = 2

IA-03/04

MO-02/03

Republican seats what can be democratic gains as consecuence of important changes in the redistricting process = 14

MD-01 as D+5+

MD-06 as D+5+

AR-02 as D+5+ I would wish black majority

IL-15 as D+5+

IL-18 as D+5+

IL-16 as D+5+

IL-08 as D+5+

IL-11 as D+5+

IL-13 as D+5+

IL-14 as D+5+

IL-06 as D+5+

CO-03 as EVEN

IL-17 as D+5+

IL-10 as D+5+

The effect of include not the gerrymander redistricting of Illinois would be to quit this 10 districts of this group or at least some of them.

Democratic safe loses what can not be republican gains = 4

OH-13 B Sutton (D) (disappear)

PA-12 M Critz (D) (disappear)

MI-09 G Peeters (D) (disappear)

MA-?? (disappear)

Democratic safe gains = 2

WA-10 (new)

NV-04 (new)

In this resume is not included the fight in other districts. The democrats can have 6 R+ district what can be safer (NC-07, PA-04, PA-17, KY-06, WV-03 and AR-04). The republicans would have only three EVEN or D+ (CO-03, NH-01, and NH-02) and they will have many R+low districts what can be vulnerable but where they will have advantage.

MARYLAND

(Updated) An example of 8-0 map from my previous diaries:

CD1: (Blue) Frank Kratovil (D)

– D+6 Obama 59% McCain 39%

– Include all of Kent, Queen Anne’s, Caroline and Talbot counties.

– Include part of Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties and part of Baltimore city.

– White 65% Black 26%

– Deviation of population: +6012

CD2: (Green) Dutch Ruppersberger (D)

– D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%

– Include part of Harford, Baltimore, Carrol, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

– White 50% Black 26% Hisp 15%

– Deviation of population: -4800

CD3: (Purple) John Sarbanes (D)

– D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%

– Include part of Harford, Baltimore, Howard counties and part of Baltimore city.

– White 64% Black 25% Asian 6%

– Deviation of population: -2980

CD4: (Red) Donna Edwards (D)

– D+17 Obama 70% McCain 29%

– Include part of Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties.

– Black 50% White 42%

– Deviation of population: +3968

CD5: (Yellow) Steny Hoyer (D)

– D+6 Obama 59% McCain 40%

– Include all of Charles, Calvert, St-Mary’s, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset and Worcester counties.

– Include part Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties.

– White 63% Black 30%

– Deviation of population: +3283

CD6: (Greenish blue) Roscoe Bartlett (R)

– D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%

– Include part of Carroll, Frederick and Montgomery counties.

– White 61% Black 14% Hisp 13% Asian 10%

– Deviation of population: -1859

CD7: (Gray) Elijah Cummings (D)

– D+16 Obama 69% McCain 30%

– Include all of Cecil county.

– Include part of Harford and Baltimore counties and part of Baltimore city.

– Black 50% White 44%

– Deviation of population: +1739

CD8: (Lilac) Chris Van Hollen (D)

– D+7 Obama 60% McCain 38%

– Include all of Garrett, Allegany and Washington counties.

– Include part of Frederick and Montgomery counties.

– White 73% Black 9% Hisp 8% Asian 8%

– Deviation of population: -5366

ARKANSAS

(Updated) With Illinois and Maryland, Arkansas can be the third state where the democrats can win some seat redrawing current districts thanks to the redistricting process. Arkansas has chance of create a D+ district, and if they are some change in the laws, has chance of create a black district for the future with the protection of the VRA despite the republicans can have a majority.

David has not still political data for this state, but yes demographic data, and I have a draft what shows so close areas with the higher percentage of black population. I wish publish it here for the people can see one area with the population of a US House district with over the 50% of black population in Arkansas. Surely we would down some point connecting all the terrytories but I think it is available to do a district with 48-49% black and a little less white population in Arkansas if they are some change in the current law for can divide the counties in different districts.

This is the draft: