Month: December 2009

UPDATE: Thanks for mentioning Flickr as an alternative. Now the maps display correctly.

Way back in March I mapped Texas using my own low-tech method. Now, using Dave’s redistricting tool with brand new 2009 estimates, I’ve finally taken on Texas the new and improved way. Again I attempted a Republican gerrymander, but using 35 seats instead of 36 (2009 estimates show growth in Texas slowing enough that the state may gain “only” three seats rather than four).

Below the fold…

Some maps:

Dallas-Fort Worth:

Houston:

Really, the map doesn’t look that different from my original computer-painted one, except that there is no “west-central” district, and that affects the shape of several large districts in Central Texas. I will only make comments for districts that are new, substantially altered from their current forms, or statistically amusing.

OVERALL OUTCOME OF A GOP GERRYMANDER IN 2012:

22 Republicans, 13 Democrats (23-12 when Edwards retires, but may revert to 22-13 as districts like the 22nd and 24th diversify)

District 1 – Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler)

Geography: East, from Wood and Smith Counties in the northwest to Sabine County in the southeast

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 68% white

District 2 – Ted Poe (R-Humble)

Geography: Southeast, from Humble and eastern Harris County in the west to the Gulf in Chambers and Jefferson Counties

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 62% white

District 3 – Sam Johnson (R-Plano)

Geography: Entirely within Collin County

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 65% white

Still solidly Republican and plenty white and suburban, but it’s only logical at this point that Collin County have its own district.

District 4 – Ralph Hall (R-Rockwall)

Geography: Northeast, from Grayson, Collin, and Rockwall Counties in the west to the Arkansas and Louisiana borders

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 75% white

District 5 – Jeb Hensarling (R-Dallas)

Geography: Stretching east from Dallas to Wood County in the north and Cherokee County in the south

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 63% white

District 6 – Joe Barton (R-Ennis)

Geography: Stretches south and east from Fort Worth to Johnson, Ellis, and Navarro Counties

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 62% white

Demographically, the district doesn’t change much, but geographically it does. Gone are all those rural southern counties, mostly ceded to Chet Edwards. Barton instead picks up a lot more Fort Worth, and by the end of the 2010s, that may make the district a lot less white and a lot less Republican.

District 7 – John Culberson (R-Houston)

Geography: west Houston

Politics: fairly safe Republican

VRA stats: 59% white

By the end of the decade this may be a swing seat, despite my best efforts to keep it crimson red.

District 8 – Kevin Brady (R-The Woodlands)

Geography: Southeast, from Grimes County in the west to the Louisiana border

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 73% white

Now this is as hardcore a GOP seat as one can draw east of the Hill Country.

District 9 – Al Green (D-Houston)

Geography: south Houston, Mission City, etc.

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 42% black, 38% Hispanic

District 10 – Mike McCaul (R-Austin)

Geography: McLennan and Limestone Counties in the north; in the south, stretches east from Austin to west Harris County

Politics: fairly safe Republican

VRA stats: 51% white, 31% Hispanic

The look of this district changed dramatically as I needed to accommodate a bulging Central Texas population and new seats to the south and east of McCaul’s district. Also, Edwards’ district had to be screwed with, so I gave McCaul part of McLennan County (including George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, long represented by a Democrat) and a few Chet-friendly counties like Falls and Robertson, leaving Edwards with tougher territory like Brazos County and a split home base. But really, how much tougher can you make the 17th for a Democrat? And meanwhile, McCaul’s district looks like it’s about to rip from being pulled in too many directions.

District 11 – Mike Conaway (R-Midland)

Geography: West, including Midland and San Angelo

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 62% white

Doesn’t get much more Republican than this.

District 12 – Kay Granger (R-Fort Worth)

Geography: much of Tarrant County, plus Wise and Parker Counties

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 75% white

District 13 – Mac Thornberry (R-Clarendon)

Geography: Panhandle / North, including Amarillo

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 68% white

District 14 – Ron Paul (R-Surfside)

Geography: coastline, from Galveston in the northeast to Refugio County in the southwest

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 58% white, 26% Hispanic

Anyone else think it’s odd that the 13th is in the northwestern-most portion of the state and the 14th just about the southeastern-most?

District 15 – Ruben Hinojosa (D-Mercedes)

Geography: South, from Karnes and DeWitt Counties to the Mexican border

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 82% Hispanic

District 16 – Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso)

Geography: El Paso

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 81% Hispanic

District 17 – Chet Edwards (D-Waco)

Geography: Central, from Hood and Johnson Counties in the northwest to Brazos, Madison, and Houston Counties in the southeast

Politics: leans Democratic while Edwards runs, likely Republican once he retires

VRA stats: 67% white

All relevant comments listed under District 10.

District 18 – Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Houston)

Geography: arc around central Houston

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 46% Hispanic, 35% black

Unfortunately for VRA perfectionists I could not get a black plurality here without severely upsetting the balance in other Houston-area districts. Like the “black opportunity” districts in California, Texas’ three VRA black districts are quickly becoming plurality-Hispanic, though turnout models still favor an African-American candidate in seats like this one. If I had made this district less Hispanic, it would only have made the 9th more so. There is simply no way to make both of them much more than 40% black.

District 19 – Randy Neugebauer (R-Lubbock)

Geography: West, including Lubbock and Abilene

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 60% white

District 20 – Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio)

Geography: central San Antonio

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 71% Hispanic

District 21 – Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio)

Geography: Stretches from Kerr and Bandera Counties in the west to Hays County in the east and down to north San Antonio

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 64% white

District 22 – Pete Olson (R-Sugar Land)

Geography: Fort Bend County, southwest Houston

Politics: likely Republican (for now)

VRA stats: 45% white, 25% Hispanic

Demographically, this district is about to pop. No map can simultaneously keep the 9th VRA-protected and secure Culberson, McCaul, and Olson, unless the Republicans cede the new Houston seat (and they definitely don’t have to). If I were them I’d draw a simple district like this that will stay in GOP hands until the clock runs out on Olson (which could well be before the end of the decade).

District 23 – Ciro Rodriguez (D-San Antonio)

Geography: Southwest, from the eastern outskirts of El Paso to south San Antonio

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 71% Hispanic

Rodriguez’s current district was designed for a competitive race between him and Henry Bonilla in 2006. Now that Bonilla is out of Congress it seems probable that the Hispanic pop. here will go up significantly to preempt any trouble Lamar Smith may run into.

District 24 – Kenny Marchant (R-Coppell)

Geography: Dallas-Fort Worth, meandering through Tarrant, Dallas, and Denton Counties

Politics: likely Republican (for now)

VRA stats: 44% white, 35% Hispanic

Another ticking time bomb for the GOP? These middle-class-to-upscale suburban/urban districts are getting a lot harder for Republicans to hold. I suppose I could have made life a lot easier for Marchant by messing with the boundaries in Fort Worth and diluting the heavily white natures of the 12th and 26th, but really, Hispanic numbers are increasing rapidly in just about every urban or suburban county.

District 25 – Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin)

Geography: most of Travis County

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 60% white

District 26 – Mike Burgess (R-Flower Mound)

Geography: Denton and Tarrant Counties

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 69% white

District 27 – Solomon Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi)

Geography: Southeast / coastline, from San Patricio County to the Mexican border

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 72% Hispanic

District 28 – Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo)

Geography: South, from Frio and Atascosa Counties to the Mexican border

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 89% Hispanic (most heavily Hispanic district in the nation? Probably.)

District 29 – Gene Green (D-Houston)

Geography: central and east Houston

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 76% Hispanic

Here’s the deal here: Republicans have never cared for Gene Green, and his district has always been majority-Hispanic and is getting more so. To make this an unambiguous VRA seat, remove Hispanics from nearby Republican districts, and possibly guarantee an ethnicity-based primary challenge, I imagine the GOP packing as many Houston Latinos as they can into this seat.

District 30 – Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas)

Geography: central and south/west Dallas

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 44% black, 35% Hispanic

District 31 – John Carter (R-Round Rock)

Geography: Central, around Williamson and Bell Counties

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 61% white

The explosive growth in and around this district will cause it to shrink dramatically in area.

District 32 – Pete Sessions (R-Dallas)

Geography: north Dallas

Politics: likely Republican

VRA stats: 56% white, 27% Hispanic

I helped Sessions a lot here demographically, but at Marchant’s expense. One could even out the numbers to make both districts about 50% white, 30% Hispanic, but in rapidly diversifying Dallas, that’s not a lastingly secure position for a Republican anyway.

And the new seats:

District 33 – likely to elect a Latino Democrat

Geography: stretches east from Fort Worth to Dallas

Politics: safe Democratic

VRA stats: 65% Hispanic

At long last, a majority-Hispanic Metroplex district, and a second Democratic seat in the area. The Hispanic population should be robust enough to elect a Latino, but the total ethnic minority population is even more overwhelming at 85%. The Texas legislature is likely to cede a new Dallas-Fort Worth seat like this one to the Democrats, in exchange for saving increasingly vulnerable GOP seats in the suburbs and snatching the other two new seats for the Republicans.

District 34 – likely to elect a Republican

Geography: South-central, from east San Antonio to the Hill Country in the north and Victoria County in the southeast

Politics: likely Republican

VRA stats: 53% white, 36% Hispanic

This district will get more Hispanic as time gets on, but for the first decade it should be fine for a military-friendly white Republican.

District 35 – likely to elect a Republican

Geography: north and east Harris County, outskirts of Houston

Politics: safe Republican

VRA stats: 62% white, 23% Hispanic

Packing the Latinos into the 29th made a big difference here, ensuring a GOP victory in Houston’s new district. Unlike Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston still has room for another Republican seat, though the 22nd may switch columns within the next decade.

So there you have it. Texas may gain a 36th district after 2010; we’ll know once the Census numbers are released. But for now, we can be fairly sure there will be 35 at least. And surprisingly, the map isn’t that different for a 35-district Texas from a 36-district Texas.

Well I really liked Johnny Longtorso’s map of North Carolina, so I decided to expand on that and create a similar map while figuring out the partisan data for each district. Nothing fancy, just county level voting for the 2008 election. The map is 9-4-1, either 9-5 or 10-4 depending on whether a Democrat can defeat Myrick.

Unfortunately, according to the new census report North Carolina will probably not get a 14th district. Plus it probably violates VRA, but it’s an example of how the VRA hurts Democrats in redistricting. So this map is a bit useless, but I like it.  

Congressional District 1: Butterfield (D)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Vance	13,166	7,606
Warren	7,086	3,063
Franklin	13,085	13,273
Nash	23,099	23,728
Wilson*	19,652	17,375
Greene	3,796	4,272
Edgecombe	17,403	8,445
Halifax	16,047	8,961
Northampton	6,903	3,671
Hertford	7,513	3,089
Gates	2,830	2,547
Bertie	6,365	3,376
Martin	6,539	5,957
Pitt	40,501	33,927
Washington*
Total	183,985	139,290
New %	56.91%
Old %	62.72%

This is now a 41% Black district (still majority minority) down from 50.6%. And probably a violation of the VRA. Butterfield Got 70.28% in the old district. Likely Democratic (Safe with Butterfield).

Congressional District 2: Etheridge (D)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Harnett	16,785	23,579
Johnston	26,795	43,622
Wake*	110,410	76,809
Wilson*
Total	153,990	144,010
New %	51.67%
Old %	52.33%

Leans Democratic. (Safe with Etheridge).

Congressional District 3: Jones (R)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Brunswick	21,331	30,753
Onslow	19,499	30,278
Craven	19,352	24,901
Carteret	11,130	23,131
Pamlico	2,838	3,823
Beaufort	9,454	13,460
Hyde	1,241	1,212
Dare	8,074	9,745
Tyrrell	933	960
Washington	3,748	2,670
Chowan	3,688	3,773
Perquimans	2,772	3,678
Camden	1,597	3,140
Pasquotank	10,272	7,778
Currituck	3,737	7,234
Pender*	9,907	13,618
New Hanover*	49,145	50,544
Total*	119,666	166,536
New %	38.14%
Old %	41.81%

District 3 basically gets all the Republican friendly coastal counties in one district. It’s also is the most visually gerrymandered district as it avoids taking Wilmington from the the 7th district. Safe Republican.

Congressional District 4: Price (D)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Alamance	28,918	34,859
Orange	53,806	20,266
Durham	103,456	32,353
Chatham	17,862	14,668
Lee	10,784	12,775
Total	214,826	114,921
New %	65.15%
Old %	63.32%

District consists of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Burlington. Looses parts of Wake, gains the entirety of Almanace, Chatham and Lee counties. It’s a very compact district and keeps all the counties together, but I think that there are a bit too many Democrats in this district (I’d aim for more around 60%). Safe Democratic.

Congressional District 5: Foxx (R)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Mitchell	2,238	5,499
Avery	2,178	5,681
Watauga	14,558	13,344
Caldwell	12,081	22,526
Alexander	5,167	11,790
Iredell	27,318	45,148
Wilkes	8,934	20,288
Ashe	4,872	7,916
Alleghany	2,021	3,124
Surry	10,475	18,730
Yadkin	4,527	12,409
Davie	6,178	13,981
Stokes	6,875	14,488
Total	107,422	194,924
New %	35.53%
Old %	39.37%

Ugh. So this one really hurt as I passionately hate Virginia Foxx. So that’s probably the best news about this map being ruined with North Carolina only getting 13 districts. Hopefully more  Republican areas can get eaten up by 10th district and Winston-Salem can be incorporated into the 5th to make at least a 45%+ area where Foxx shouldn’t be able to win. As it stands, this Northwestern congressional district is Obama’s worst district aptly home to batshit insane Foxx. Safe Republcian.

Congressional District 6: Coble(R)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Rowan	23,391	37,451
Davidson	22,433	45,419
Randolph	16,414	40,998
Rockingham*	17,255	23,899
Guilford*	45,000	45,000
Guilford*	142,101	97,718
Total*	124,493	192,767
New %	39.24%
Old %	36.52%

Without the 14th district, this too probably will get more Democratic as it will get Greensboro and cede some Republican area to the too Democratic 4th district. But as it stands it is Safe Republican.

Congressional District 7: McIntyre(D)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Columbus	11,076	12,994
Bladen	7,853	7,532
Duplin	8,958	10,834
Sampson	11,836	14,038
Lenoir	13,378	13,401
Wayne	22,671	26,952
Jones	2,378	2,817
Pender*	9,907	13,618
New Hanover*	49,145	50,544
Cumberland*	15,400	10,000
Total	152,602	162,730
New %	48.39%
Old %	47.20%

Considering that this is a McCain district, I made sure that I kept all of McIntyre’s base intact I gave most of Robeson County to the 8th to strengthen Kissell, though I attempted to snake McIntyre’s home (Lumberton) into the district.  This district is a percentage better than before. My reason for adding the rest of Sampson, all of Lenoir and Wayne is because while the counties are all either Republican or Tossup, they all seem like McIntyre can do well and build a Democratic base in.

Since from what I can see Generic Democrat did about 3% better than Obama this district is Tossup Democratic. (Safe for McIntyre).

Congressional District 8: Kissell(D)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Total	138,448	118,982
Anson	6,456	4,207
Montgomery	4,926	6,155
Richmond	9,713	9,424
Moore	17,624	27,314
Scotland	8,151	6,005
Hoke	9,227	6,293
Robeson	23,058	17,433
Cumberland*	59,293	42,151
Total	138,448	118,982
New %	53.78%
Old %	52.96%

I made Kissell’s district a bit more Democratic by  grabbing more of Fayetteville and Robeson and Republican Moore, but loosing all the Republican territory in Cabarrus, Stanly, and Union and Republican part of Mecklenburg (Charlotte) which he lost 34.7k to 46.4k. This is now Leans to  Likely Democratic.

Congressional District 9: Myrick (R)

County	Obama Vote	McCain Vote
Union	31,189	54,123
Stanly	8,878	19,329
Cabarrus	31,546	45,924
Mecklenburg*	76,958	30,848
Total	148,571	150,224
New %	49.72%
Old %	45.11%

This is a pretty spiteful gerrymander specifically to get rid of Myrick  

The most hilarious, devastating, and insightful smackdown of the nightmare that was “The Phantom Menace,” part one:

The rest can be found here. Happy holidays!

This is the fourth part of an analysis of the swing state Pennsylvania. It focuses on the industrial southwest, a once deep-blue region rapidly trending Republican. Part five can be found here.



Pittsburgh and the Southwest

Pennsylvania’s southwest has much in common with West Virginia and Southeast Ohio, the northern end of Appalachia. Electoral change in the region is best understood by grouping these three areas together as a whole.

Socially conservative (the region is famously supportive of the NRA) but economically liberal, the industrial southwest voters typify white working-class Democrats. These voters can be found in unexpected places: Catholics in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, loggers along the Washington coast, rust-belt workers in Duluth, Minnesota and Buffalo, New York.

It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal that brought the working-class to the Democratic Party; before his time, the party constituted a regional force confined mainly to the South. In Pennsylvania, a Republican stronghold that had voted for President Herbert Hoover, Mr. Roosevelt laid the foundations for a lasting Democratic coalition.

For decades, voters in southwest Pennsylvania constituted this coalition’s foundation. Take, for instance, Democratic nominee Walter Mondale:

In 1984, the industrial southwest, badly hurting from a receding recession, cast a strong ballot for Mr. Mondale. It did so again for Governor Mike Dukakis, and twice for President Bill Clinton.

Ironically, it was during the presidency of Mr. Clinton – a man much liked by Appalachia – that the Democrats became regarded as the party of the coasts and the elite. Ever since his time, Pennsylvania’s industrial southwest has been in a bad way for Democrats.

More below.

Thus, whilst metropolitan Philadelphia has been moving steadily left, Pittsburgh and the industrial southwest have been marching in the opposite direction.

To get a sense of the movement in this region, compare these two maps:

In less than a generation’s span, one sees Democratic strength in northern Appalachia utterly vanish.

In a state where things have been going badly for Republicans, southwest Pennsylvania provides some consolation. Were it not for the southwest’s rightward trend, Pennsylvania would today be a fairly solid Democratic state.

Nevertheless, if I were to choose between Pittsburgh and the industrial southwest or Philadelphia and the suburban southeast, I would much prefer the latter. While Philadelphia itself is in declining, its metropolitan area as a whole has experienced rapid growth. The southwest’s population, on the other hand, remains basically stagnant, suffering the effects of economic decline.

In absolute terms, moreover, eastern Pennsylvania holds far more votes:

Republicans might take comfort in Allegheny County’s vote reservoir – were it not consistently blue. Indeed, Democratic strength in Pittsburgh ensures that, as a whole, the southwest will still vote Democratic for some time yet. Although – unique to practically every other major city – Republicans have been improving in Pittsburgh, its substantial black population limits their potential.

The puzzling thing, however, is why Appalachian working-class whites are moving so rapidly right. It cannot be simply race: both Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry were white, after all, yet they still did progressively worse. It cannot be simply elitism, either: Governor Mike Dukakis and Governor Adlai Stevenson were intellectual technocrats, yet they won what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore could not.

Finally, it is not as if all the white working-class has suddenly turned Republican: voters in Michigan, northeast Ohio, upstate New York, and Silver Bow and Deer Lodge Montana, amongst other regions, still retain the Democratic habit. In Pennsylvania, working-class strongholds such as Scranton and Erie, surrounded by a sea of Republican counties, also continue to vote deep blue. They will be the topics of the next post.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Happy Holidays, everybody! Here’s a mercifully brief edition of the Daily Digest for your perusal today.

• CO-Sen: Former GOP Lt. Gov. Jane Norton is looking to “channel” the passion of teabaggers who insist that Barack Obama is a baby-killing Muslim into a fearsome GOTV operation for her campaign against Sen. Michael Bennet. Sadly, this is no exaggeration.

• CT-Sen: In the wake of Joe Lieberman’s nutfuckery in the healthcare reform process, a new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that his standing has taken a big hit back home across the country — his favorable rating is at 31-34, down from 40-28 two weeks earlier. (Update: Whoops; I didn’t realize that this was a poll of “adult Americans”, not Connecticut voters. That’s not exactly as useful.)

• AL-05: Democrats have a pair of credible candidates giving consideration to a run against newborn GOP Rep. Parker Griffith. State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks has stated that he’s thinking about switching from his gubernatorial bid over to a Congressional campaign. Another very appealing candidate is state PSC Commissioner Susan Parker, whose ties to the district are stronger than Sparks’. Parker says she’s giving the race consideration, and will make an announcement after the holidays.

• MN-06: PPP has some up-ballot observations from their latest House poll. Namely, Norm Coleman and Mark Dayton are damaged goods.

• PA-10: It’s looking more and more clear that John McCain and other national Republicans completely crumbed the play in their efforts to snag a second defection from the Democratic House ranks. Not only did they hand Carney a beautiful talking point (“Hey, John McCain thinks highly enough of me to ask me to join the GOP caucus!”), but they’ve also set the state Republican Party scrambling to disassociate themselves from the national play. The PA GOP says that they had no part in the recruitment effort, saying that they’re looking for “real Republicans” to beat Carney. Meanwhile, Snyder County Commissioner Malcolm Derck, himself the only candidate of note in the GOP primary, called McCain’s efforts “a slap in the face to all rank-and-file Republicans working to take back the seat”. At least this is still excellent news… for John McCain!

• NY-State Sen: SSP data guru jeffmd takes a look at Obama’s performance in each of New York’s state Senate districts in an effort to answer the question: why does the GOP control so many seats?

• Judges: Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is leading a new campaign to eliminate the election of judges. (Good idea.)

The Census Bureau has released its annual population estimates, so that means the usual players are in the field with their reapportionment projections. First up is Election Data Services. (You can check out their prior studies as well: 2007 | 2008.)

EDS now offers six different projection models. The column headers indicate the range of time used to calculate each projection.

The biggest losers in this new batch of projections are, not too surprisingly, the sun-belt states of Arizona and Florida. Last year, Arizona was expected to gain two seats under every single projection model. Now, in a stark demonstration of how southern migration has slowed in the midst of the Great Recession, the three nearest-term projections all show it picking up just one seat. Meanwhile, Florida, which still looked to gain two seats according to longer-term projections in 2008, now grabs just one new seat under all models.

Other losers include Oregon, which was slated to grab a new district under four of five models last year – it’s off the list entirely this time. North Carolina was in a much more marginal situation in 2008 (gaining a seat under two of five models), and it too drops from the list. Texas shows a teeny bit of wobble, as the longest-term projection now shows it picking up three rather than four seats, but it seems like the odds still favor four. California, on the other hand, stabilizes some more, with four of six models (including all the nearer-term ones) indicating it won’t lose any seats (last time, only two of five did).

The biggest gainers? That would be Missouri, which isn’t on this list at all – and for the Show Me State, that’s a good thing. In 2008, all five models projected a one-seat loss, and in fact, in 2007, all three models did as well. Now EDS thinks Missouri won’t lose any seats. Meanwhile, Washington state is brand-new to the list, gaining a tenth district acoss the board.

Polidata also has an analysis out. They only do one projection, based on the most recent year’s numbers, which matches EDS’s 2008-2009 projection in all respects. They also offer a list of which states barely hang on to their final seats and which states are oh-so-close to nabbing one more:

EDS has a similar chart with “last six/next six” on the final page of their PDF, with different iterations for each of their models. The bottom line is that right now, Missouri looks very lucky and Minnesota looks very unlucky. But given the small numbers involved and the fact that we’re dealing with estimates rather than actuals counts, I would not be surprised at all if things changed by the time we get final numbers in from the 2010 Census.

P.S. Check out Dave’s diary for some more discussion of these new studies.

As long as I’ve been interested in politics, I’ve never understood how the NYS Senate was controlled by Republicans for so long, especially in a state as Democratic as New York.

So the purpose of my diary was two-fold: to understand the situation as it is now (our tenuous 2-seat majority), and to look at what a potential redistricting would look like that would cement Democratic control (for the next time…I don’t feel like formatting too much html.)

I started by analyzing Obama’s performance in each Senate district – after Pres-by-CD and the NY political data in Dave’s app, this wasn’t too difficult. Just follow me over the flip…

Here’s the massive table with results from Pres-by-SD.

In case you’re wondering, McCain won a scant 9 districts of 62. Since one, the 27th, is represented by Carl Kruger, there are a whopping 22 “Obama Republicans” in the NY Senate. There are 8 black-majority districts: 2 in Queens, 4 in Brooklyn, 1 in Manhattan, and 1 in Bronx/Westchester. There are 6 Hispanic-majority districts, 1 in Queens, 1 in Brooklyn, 2 in the Bronx, and 2 Bronx-Manhattan hybrids.

Is this surprising? Not really – Presidential toplines aren’t necessarily indicative, and this is certainly true here. But looking at the results a little differently, a pretty clear line is drawn in the Obama 58-60% range.

So I’d like to propose Obama at 59% as the ‘safe’ line for a Democrat in the NY Senate – only two Republicans live above this line, and six Democrats below: Brian Foley (54.69%) and Craig Johnson of Long Island (55.55%); David Valesky (58.46%), whose district which runs between Rome, Syracuse, and Auburn; Darrel Aubertine of the North Country (49.75%); and Bill Stachowski (56.30%) of Buffalo, and Carl Kruger of Sheepshead Bay, who I don’t think counts for many reasons maybe better saved for a diary on voting patterns in Brooklyn.

Only two Republicans live above this line – both of whom faced stiff challenges in 2008 and nearly fell victim to the Obama tide, Frank Padavan of Bellerose (Obama+26) and James Robach of Greece (Obama+33) (!!…Robach is a former Democrat).

There aren’t too many other surprises on this list, except for maybe that the most Republican district in all of New York is Andrew Lanza’s Staten Island district…

So now you’re asking…what does this mean for redistricting?

Well, a few things moving forward:

• the goal, unlike Congressional redistricting, is no longer solely to squeeze every Democratic district out possible, it’s to get to the magic number for control first.
  

• at a certain point, the weakening effect (on the margin) from creating another Democratic district becomes greater than the effect of that marginal Democrat. (For example, is there really that much of a difference between 43 and 44 Democrats out of 62?) [Sidenote: Yes, in some cases, like marriage equality, it does…but if we had 11 more Dems in the Senate, I’m pretty sure the bill would have passed…]
  

• the NYS GOP pushed the 5% up-or-down rule to the limit. Given the ideal district size of 306,072, districts in the city, on Long Island, and in Westchester have an average population of 311,344; the average population upstate is 298,269!
  

• the GOP gerrymandered well upstate: they conceded two districts in Buffalo and one in Albany, but split Syracuse and Rochester two-ways, and Ithaca three to dilute Democratic votes. This happens on Long Island as well, where the Democratic center of Nassau County in Uniondale and Hempstead are split between Kemp Hannon (who did almost lose), Carl Marcellino, and Dean Skelos.
  

• in a revised upstate (and Long Island) map, we simply need to uncrack these Democrats. This isn’t like congressional redistricting where Republicans need to be cracked so we can preserve our overwhelming advantage; we can concede a few districts without too much trouble. The same holds for Long Island and in the Hudson Valley.
  

• the opposite holds true in the city, where we have a large surplus of Democratic votes that we can dilute the influence of Republican voters.
  

My plan made 43 districts above the safe line. Assuming we can’t knock off Robach and we keep both Stachowski and Kruger, we’d be talking 44 or 45 Democrats. Funny how much tweaking boundaries can change things. Stay tuned for the map itself.\

Update:As Andrew says, maps would be helpful. Here’s the senate as it currently is. I’m working on final maps for my proposed districts.

From the Politico:

“I am flattered by the overtures of Sen. McCain and other Republican Party officials and consider their outreach a sure sign that I have worked in a truly bipartisan manner,” Carney said in a statement.

“I always put my district above political party and have maintained an independent voice. I have enjoyed widespread Republican support throughout my district and will continue to work closely with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike. I appreciate the Republican Party’s outreach, but I have no plans to change parties.”

And as an update to their original piece:

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen spoke to Carney Wednesday and received assurance that the Pennsylvanian was not switching, according to a senior Democratic aide.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s aides talked to Carney staffers, as well, and received the same assurance.

Well, that proves one thing: Carney is not the fool that Parker Griffith is.

Election Data Services posted their reapportionment projections yesterday…and there are some big surprises.

Polidata has a good summary

States gaining based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: AZ +1; FL +1; GA +1; NV +1; SC +1; TX +4; UT +1; WA +1.

States losing based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: IL (1); IA (1); LA (1); MA (1); MI (1); MN (1); NJ (1); NY (1); OH (2); PA (1).

Thus, changes in seats compared to the previous projections based upon 2008 estimates would be: AZ gains only 1 seat while MO stays even and OR stays even while WA gains 1 seat.

Check it out: Washington would gain a seat; Arizona only gains 1; Oregon doesn’t gain any.

This table is from the EDS PDF.

From the table you can see that Washington jumps to 432nd or 433rd in all the estimates. Also, Missouri, which had been projected to lose a seat would not lose any. Texas is still projected to gain 4 seats, but that 4th seat is much more tenuous.

2010 is going to be very interesting….