Month: May 2010

If you post or lurk here, you must be the political junkiest of the junkiest. That’s why you’ve probably been looking forward to Gerrymandering, a documentary about redistricting directed by filmmaker Jeff Reichert.

I don’t pretend to be a movie aficionado. Not at all. Hopefully this review will be somewhat coherent 🙂

I’ve seen a lot of users here posting that they were looking forward to seeing the film. I, as an avid user of the time-draining DRA, couldn’t wait to see it. Fortunately, I got a chance to witness the film at the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend. My thoughts about the documentary are below the jump.

I came into the movie with high expectations because I’ve done too much research on the issue of gerrymandering and redistricting over the past few months. I also was expecting many issues to be touched upon that one would expect, like partisan motivations for gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act.

I discuss specifically the movie in the block quote, so please skip if you want to go into the movie without knowing anything about Reichert’s style.

At the beginning of his documentary, Reichert employed animation of lines carving up states while explaining the definition of gerrymandering succinctly, a definition that anyone could easily understand. I would be content if all people took away from this movie was the definition he gave–everyone should know what gerrymandering is!!

Obviously, he went beyond it. The movie contained many interviews from activists, lawmakers, and pundits that gave their own anecdote about the issue. Personally, I felt that one of the most effective parts was the (brief) interview he got with Fmr. Rep. Martin Frost; Frost detailed exactly how he was affected by the DeLaymander, and the graphics that showed it firsthand were extremely effective.

Reichert covered pretty much everything that is pertinent to the redistricting process today: partisan motivations; racial motivations and the VRA; independent commissions; prison counting; Texas’ mid-decade redistricting; incumbent homes, etc.

I feel that people who constantly review and create maps here at SSP and know a lot about the process will know almost all of the information provided in the film. However, I thought it was cool to see personal stories behind the data we analyze here. There was one story from a non-establishment Brooklyn Democrat who had his house removed from a district so that he couldn’t re-challenge an entrenched incumbent in the ensuing election. The lawmaker, who called the process “gangsta,” now is an assemblyman.

The documentary spent a lot of time with background from the campaign on Prop 11, which you may know as the thing that will create independent commissions to deal with California redistricting. I felt as though the film didn’t do enough to explain how that would affect the state, and I also felt that it was kind of boring at times to keep hearing about the campaign behind it. Not that this was that much of a bother; in fact, it was still interesting, but the time could have been better spent explaining the background behind the VRA or other history.

I’m not going to talk more about the film, as I don’t want to give anything more away. The movie was extremely successful in teaching an important, yet under appreciated topic. It was easy to understand and follow, while it explored the ways that gerrymandering can hurt our democracy. Undoubtedly, the movie was extremely biased against legislators drawing districts, but the movie is still an extremely important teaching tool. Reichert is knowledgeable about the issues–he took questions from the audience after the movie and I was extremely impressed that he knew all of the factual answers. The only problems I had were that the VRA wasn’t explained enough, the Prop 11 campaign part was too long, and the prison-counting part was way too short.

All in all, though, the movie is extremely important for any citizen of this country. I highly recommend it for anybody in the SSP community. Also, it was nice to hear Ed Rollins call us–the people into reconfiguring districts–“nerds.” Rollins also said our work was important though.

Thanks and I hope that was coherent…

This diary has the baselines for the Nevada Senate race this time. Reid is currently unpopular because the Senate is unpopular and Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. Also, the economy in Nevada is bad after the foreclosure crisis and the decrease in tourists so Nevadans will be blaming the incumbent. About 20 candidates are running against Reid in the Republican primary. Since the primary does not occur until June 8th, I do not know who the Republican nominee will be. Most polls suggest Sue Lowden (R), a former State Senator from  Clark County will be the nominee. Recently, she damaged her chances by talking about bartering healthcare for chickens. Still, a recent poll showed her with a lead of 17 points in the primary. Another recent poll showed her lead by 10 points drop to 4. She has not even faced Reid’s 25 million dollars in a state where 1 million is enough to run a credible campaign. This race should turn around faster as soon as every voter knows about Lowden’s chicken comment and anything else Reid can find. Lowden benefits however from the fact that Clark County will not see a high African American turnout or Hispanic turnout (which definitely will change if the immigration bill gets the Hispanic community active.)

A bit about Reid’s past elections: in 2004, he won 61%-35% against Richard Ziser, a real estate investor from Las Vegas. Reid even won the majority of voters outside of Clark County (Las Vegas.) Being a Mormon may have helped in rural areas but now that the rural areas are prime teabagger territory, Reid may face very large Republicans margins there. In 1998, it was not as easy. John Ensign (R), the now disgraced Republican Junior Senator of Nevada ran against Harry Reid. Ensign lost by only 100 votes while losing Clark County by nine but barely winning Washoe County (Reno).

About the baselines: the baselines show the candidates’ percentages for each county if the race were a tie. I found them by adding percentages from Reid’s 2004 Senatorial election and the 2008 presidential election by county. Then I divided the result by two, giving me the baselines. I am sorry that the baselines are not in a straight line. After some links, you will see them.

Link for 2004 Senatorial election: http://www.uselectionatlas.org…

Link for 2008 Presidential election: http://www.uselectionatlas.org…

County Name Reid Republican Other

Carson City  45% 54% 1%

Churchill   29% 70% 1%

Clark   54% 45% 1%

Douglas  35% 64% 1%

Elko   27% 72% 1%

Esmerelda 23% 76% 1%

Eureka 21% 78% 1%

Humboldt 34% 65% 1%

Lander 29% 70% 1%

Lincoln 24% 75% 1%

Lyon 35% 64% 1%

Mineral 52% 47% 1%

Nye 41% 58% 1%

Pershing 37% 62% 1%

Storey 42% 57% 1%

Washoe 49% 50% 1%

White Pine 38% 61% 1%

For those of us who like visual aides like myself, here is a map:

Dark Red: Republican 70%+

Red: Republican 60%-69%

Light Red: Republican 50%-59%

Light Blue: Reid 50%-54%

The baselines do not show too many surprises for me. It shows Reid winning Clark County in the high single digits which he needs to do to win. Also, the only other county he wins is Mineral County which McCain won by six points in 2008. Reid also loses Washoe County by one point which makes sense because Washoe County recently votes in line with the candidates’ statewide percentages. A difference with the baselines is that I expect Reid to win Washoe County by a few hundred votes if the race ties because Washoe County is trending Democratic quickly.

Just in case you were wondering, I will do Florida’s Gubernatorial race next. Do you have any suggestions for statewide races after that?

The GOP endorsing convention seemed to wrap things up pretty quickly: state Rep. Tom Emmer will be their gubernatorial nominee.

To chants of “Marty! Marty!”, Rep. Marty Seifert bows out of the Republican gubernatorial race, and endorsed Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, for the party’s gubernatorial endorsement.

“Put your Emmer stickers on!” Seifert told the roaring crowd.

After Emmer had gotten to 56% on the second ballot (60% was needed to endorse), apparently that was enough for Seifert to pull the plug, in the face of Emmer’s last-minute momentum. Emmer, considerably more conservative than the moderate Republicans who are usually the only type who can win statewide, can expect a tough go of it in the general — especially if Independence Party candidate Tom Horner soaks up a big share of moderate votes. (Seifert would have faced the same problem, but Emmer, who just got a Sarah Palin endorsement, seems especially out-of-whack with his state’s preferences.)