Without further ado, here’s what SSP Labs has to say on this most recent round of reapportionment, applying the Huntington-Hill method to the new Census data.
2010 Census and Reapportionment
Month: December 2010
Redistricting Wisconsin
With all the redistricting fun, I feel as if I should take a stab at my home state, Wisconsin. Unfortunately for Democrats, this past cycle was an absolute bloodbath. We lost basically everything that was competitive, with the exception of Ron Kind’s seat and some State Senate and Assembly seats, even the State Senate Majority leader and Speaker of the State Assembly were defeated. Thus this leaves Republicans with complete discretion with redistricting. While there is plenty to do with the state legislative seats (of which I also created a map of State Senate seats that can potentially lock Democrats out for years), there simply is not that much that can be done with congressional seats. While Republicans might take this year’s results as a sign that Wisconsin will have a permanent conservative majority, it is instructive to look at the 2008 map and see how it is basically the complete opposite. As a result, with the exception of the Milwaukee area, the Madison area, and a few other areas, most of the state is basically swing areas, as the 2008 and 2010 maps indicate.
Thus, the problem for the Wisconsin GOP is that Wisconsin will support at least 3 Democratic seats. Milwaukee and Madison are simply too large and too Democratic to get rid of Moore and Baldwin. Besides I cannot imagine a Republican wanting to take on inner-city Milwaukee or lefty Madison. As for Ron Kind, if he can stand a year like this, he has his seat for life. Additionally, Wisconsin is peculiar in that it has a number of rural Democratic voters in the West and Southwest parts of the state, so it would be difficult to get rid of a third Democratic seat.
With this in mind, I decided that the best and safest path would be not necessarily an incumbent protection map, but protecting Ryan and Duffy. With Ryan being Budget Chair in the House, I simply cannot see him wanted to change shift. He has no reason for running for Governor and for him to run for Senate would see him give up his seat for at best a 50/50 run and more importantly, give up his power in the House. He is probably more powerful in the House than in the Senate, so I think he would stay put. However, his district has become quite marginal, so much so even Obama won his district. Thus, I wanted to make him safer so that his district is more in line with his views. Additionally, I view Duffy as an asset to protect because he is young, telegenic, and could eventually be statewide material. Thus, I wanted to move his district a few more points Republican. This meant weakening Ribble, but I think he should still be fine in his district and I see protecting Duffy more important in the long run.
So here we go:
First District (Gray): This district becomes significantly more Republican with the subtraction of the city of Racine, which is heavily Democratic, and the addition heavily Republican Waukesha county. Even if Ryan were to retire, or venture a run for Senate or some White House gig, this would likely elect another Republican. However, given Ryan’s clout in the House, I really cannot see him wanting to give that up.
Second District (Blue) This does not change that much. Still based in heavily Democratic and fast growing Dane County. Baldwin or any Democrat would be favored to hold.
Third District (Yellow): If the GOP could not take out Ron Kind this year, they will never take him out. This still contains the lean Democratic rural parts of Wisconsin. However, to help out Duffy, I added the very Democratic northern counties and subtracted some Republican-trending Minneapolis exurbs, making this district a little more Democratic.
Fourth District (Green): This Milwaukee-based district expands to include Racine, in order to help out Ryan. This is actually a majority non-white district. With Milwaukee and Racine, this still remains the most Democratic and most partisan (PVI-wise) district in the state.
Fifth District (Red): While Sensenbrenner’s district is weakened to help Ryan is still is solidly Republican. This district does contain more of Milwaukee county, but that is more than overwhelmed by the heavily Republican and heavy turnout Washington and Ozaukee counties. While it is likely Jim will retire soon, this will return a Republican as the Democrats have basically no Bench in this area.
Sixth District (Indigo): As Petri is also liable to retire soon, this could become ripe for a pickup. However, the district remains a lean Republican district, so it would be an uphill climb for any Democrat.
Seventh District (Purple): As stated above, my other goal was to help out Duffy as I can see him becoming a potential statewide threat. The issue is that so much of this area is fundamentally swingy. However, with the subtraction of Wausau, Stevens Point, and the Lake Superior counties (although still keeping his home in Ashland), and the addition of some Twin Cities exurbs and traditional Republican NE Wisconsin territory, this shifts a few points Republican. This takes out a significant amount of the Democratic bench, so this should help out the freshman significantly.
Eight District (Teal): The downside of helping out Duffy is hurting another freshman Ribble. The territory swap is enough to perhaps swap the PVIs. Since this district contains so many Democratic cities (Appleton, Green Bay, Wausau, Stevens Point) this might become a marginally Democrat district. However, most of this district is traditionally Republican areas, so it is not as if Ribble is being let out in the cold.
So the conclusion of this is that the current 5-3 split in the delegation is likely to remain, with the Young Guns of the state seeing an improvement in their districts.
A Republican gerrymander of New York with only three congressional districts
For my first diary and first map, I seek to answer a question than I’m sure many of you have asked yourselves: if Republicans gained control over redistricting in New York, what would their Congressional map look like if the state lost 90% of its House seats?
This may seem fanciful, but there are a number of ways in which it might happen. New York’s population could stay static while the population of the country as a whole grew to 3 billion. New York’s population could uniformally plummet to around 2 million. The House of Representatives could be reduced to around a fifth of its present size, making New York one of only a dozen or so states with more than one House seat. The United States could join a worldwide legislature with single member constituencies around 6 million people in size. Or perhaps some combination of the above occurs. Assuming that none of any of this results in any changes to voting patterns in New York, here is my proposed map:
All districts have a population deviation no greater than 200.
District 1 – Gold
74% White, 6% Black, 7% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 2% other
52% Obama
Suburbs of NYC, plus the most Republican/relatively less Democratic parts of NYC itself.
District 2 – Navy
23% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian, 32% Hispanic, 4% Other
89% Obama
All of Manhattan, the vast majority of the Bronx, most of Brooklyn and Queens, part of (mostly heavily minority areas) Staten Island, Westchester County and Nassau County.
District 3 – Dark Red
87% White, 6% Black, 1% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 1% Other
54% Obama
Upstate New York, pretty simple – no real need for crazy gerrymanders.
Analysis
It is true that none of these districts voted for John McCain in 2008. However, there are two alleviating factors: (1) Obama’s high nationwide perfomance – the CPVIs of these districts are probably about D+1 and (2) the willingness of New Yorkers, especially Upstate, to vote for local Republicans.
Furthermore, while is it likely possible to draw a McCain-voting district, to do so would require some extremely elongated protrusions. It is probably not a worthwhile excercise in any case, since Republicans stand a good chance of winning both District 1 and 3 and strengthening one would simply weaken the other.
District 3 has a higher Obama vote than District 1 because a) the traditional Republican strength in New York and b) there are a number of McCain-voting groups in NYC (like Ultra-Orthodox Jews) that cannot be depended upon to vote for a Republican Congressional nominee. Neveretheless, if you think these factors are minor, it’s simple to adjust the boundaries between the two to equalise them.
Conclusion
As soon as Republicans are fortunate enough to find themselves in such a favourable position, they will be pleased to find how easy is it to pack one uber-Democratic district. This stands in sharp contrast to say, Massachusetts, in which Republicans will find it hard to draw themselves seats the next time they have a trifecta there.
I hope you enjoyed my diary. For my next diary, I plan to post a series of maps using the “California rule”, a whimsical twist on the “Wyoming rule” in which the standard Congressional district population is set equal to the size of the largest state.
Monday Open Thread
It’s time for a new one of these.
Texas GOP Gerrymander 2.0 25-11
This is my second attempt at a Texas GOP gerrymander. In a good year for the GOP, it will be 26-10, but in a neutral year I expect 25-11. All GOP seats are safe.
NOTE: There is a sliver going into Bryan to pick up Flores’ home.
VRA is complied–one new Hispanic seat in McAllen area and one new seat in Dallas area. Population are all at +/-500ish, but some are more (up to 2000) but I don’t have time to fix all of them…
The plan:
TX-1
Incumbent: Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler)
Obama: 30%
McCain: 69%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-2
Incumbent: Ted Poe (R-Humble)
Obama: 35%
McCain: 635
Old District (Obama-McCain):
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-3
Incumbent: Sam Johnson (R-Plano)
Counties: Collin
Cities of Note: Plano, Allen, Frisco, Wylie, McKinney
Obama: 38%
McCain: 61%
Old District (Obama-McCain):Projected: Safe Republican
The district is completely based in Collin County, which has grown tremendously. Johnson is safe and will be succeeded by a conservative Republican if he retires.
TX-4
Incumbent: Ralph Hall (R-Rockwell)
Obama: 31%
McCain: 68%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-5
Incumbent: Jeb Hensarling (R-Dallas)
Obama: 36%
McCain: 63%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-6
Incumbent: Joe Barton (R-Ennis)
Obama: 38%
McCain: 62%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-7
Incumbent: Jeb Hensarling (R-The Villages)
Obama: 42%
McCain: 57%
Projected: Safe Republican
NOTE: 59% White, 26% Hispanic
TX-8
Incumbent: Kevin Brady (R-The Woodlands)
Obama: 30%
McCain: 69%
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-9
Incumbent: Al Green (D-Houston)
Obama: 75%
McCain: 24%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
White: 18 Black: 36 Hispanic: 34 Asian: 12 Native American: 0 Other: 1
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-10
Incumbent: Michael McCaul (R-Austin)
Obama: 35%
McCain: 66%
Projected: Safe Republican
Seeing how Montgomery County has grown tremendously since 2000, I split it up into two districts to help McCaul. The district loses some precincts in Austin and Harris County. If I were a Republican (I’m not), I’d feel pretty good about McCaul until 2020.
TX-11
Incumbent: Mike Conaway (R-Midland)
Obama: 24
McCain: 75
Projection: Safe Republican
NOTE: 27% Hispanic
TX-12
Incumbent: Kay Granger (R-Fort Worth)
Obama: 37%
McCain: 62%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-13
Incumbent: Mac Thornberry (R-Clarendon)
Obama: 29%
McCain: 70%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-14
Incumbent: Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson)
Obama: 37%
McCain: 62%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-15
Incumbent: Ruben Hinjosa (D-Mercedes)
Obama: 48%
McCain: 51%
White: 30 Black: 2 Hispanic: 67 Asian: 1 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Lean Democratic
TX-16
Incumbent: Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso)
Obama: 65%
McCain: 34%
White: 18 Black: 3 Hispanic: 77 Asian: 2 Native American: 0 Other: 1
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-17
Incumbent: Bill Flores
Obama: 35%
McCain: 64%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
TX-18
Incumbent: Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Houston)
Obama: 84%
McCain: 16%
White: 17 Black: 49 Hispanic: 29 Asian: 5 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-19
Incumbent: Randy Neugebauer (R-Lubbock)
Obama: 25%
McCain: 74%
Projected: Safe Republican
NOTE: 29% Hispanic
TX-20
Incumbent: Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio)
Obama: 62%
McCain: 37%
White: 24 Black: 5 Hispanic: 68 Asian: 2 Native American: 0 Other: 1
Projected: Safe Democratic
The district gets more Hispanic and more Democratic. Gonzalez should be, and will be, fine.
TX-21
Incumbent: Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio)
Obama: 38%
McCain: 61%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-22
Incumbent: Pete Olson (R-Sugar Land)
Obama: 39%
McCain: 60%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-23
Incumbent: Quico Canseco (R-San Antonio)
Obama: 47%
McCain: 51%
White: 36 Black: 2 Hispanic: 60 Asian: 2 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Likely Republican
TX-24
Incumbent: Kenny Marchant (R-Coppell)
Obama: 39%
McCain: 60%
TX-25
Incumbent: Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin)
Obama: 72%
McCain: 26%
White: 49 Black: 11 Hispanic: 34 Asian: 5 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-26
Incumbent: Michael Burgess (R-Lewisville)
Obama: 39%
McCain: 61%
TX-27
Incumbent: Blake Farenthold (R-Corpus Christi)
Obama: 398%
McCain: 60%
Projected: Safe Republican
NOTE: 28% Hispanic
TX-28
Incumbents: Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo)
Obama: 61%
McCain: 38%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
White: 25 Black: 9 Hispanic: 63 Asian: 2 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-29
Incumbent: Gene Green (D-Houston)
Counties: Harris
Cities of Note: Houston
Obama: 63%
McCain: 36%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
White: 21 Black: 11 Hispanic: 66 Asian: 2 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic30
TX-30
Incumbent: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas)
Obama: 77
McCain: 23%
White: 30 Black: 43 Hispanic: 24 Asian: 3 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-31
Incumbent: John Carter (R-Round Rock)
Obama: 39%
McCain: 59%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-32
Incumbent: Pete Sessions (R-Dallas)
Obama: 42%
McCain: 56%
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-33
Incumbent: VACANT SEAT
Obama: 66%
McCain: 33%
White: 27 Black: 16 Hispanic: 52 Asian: 4 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-34
Incumbent: VACANT SEAT
Obama: 38%
McCain: 61%
Old District (Obama-McCain):
Projected: Safe Republican
TX-35
Incumbent: VACANT
Obama: 54%
McCain: 40%
White: 24 Black: 3 Hispanic: 72 Asian: 1 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
TX-36
Incumbent: VACANT
Obama: 57%
McCain: 42%
White: 21 Black: 2 Hispanic: 75 Asian: 1 Native American: 0 Other: 0
Projected: Safe Democratic
New York Incumbent Protection Gerrymander.
Played around with the redistricting app and tried my hand on the most probable scenario (even if my exact approach is improbable). New York loses two seats and the split legislature tosses one Republican and one Democrat to the curb while giving every remaining incumbent a partisan advantage.
The two casualties are Republican freshman Ann Marie Buerkle upstate and Carolyn McCarthy in Long Island.
The nice thing about New York being so Democratic is that it is easy to find someones hometown and make a Democratic district no matter where it was. The challenge was of course creating VRA districts and making sure districts upstate were pro-McCain.
I used old information from wikipedia, and new information from the app. Except upstate where there was no Obama/McCain information.
CD 1 – Old CD 1
Incumbent: Tim Bishop
Old Obama/McCain vote: 51-48
New Obama/McCain vote: 55-45
Old Demographics: 89.3% White, 4.3% Black, 2.4% Asian, 7.5% Hispanic.
New Demographics: 76% White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 13% Hispanic.
Comments: Territory is swapped between Bishop and Israel. This puts Bishop in better shape but creates ugliness as areas have to be swapped around to protect Israel.
CD 2 – Old CD 2
Incumbent: Steve Israel
Old Obama/McCain vote: 56-43
New Obama/McCain vote: 56-43
Old Demographics: 78.4% White, 10.4% Black, 3.0% Asian, 13.9% Hispanic
New Demographics: 73% White, 11% Black, 4% Asian, 10% Hispanic
Comments: Only real concern is Steve Israel’s home of Huntington is right on the line where Ackerman’s district is. The district sprawls to desperately take in Democratic votes with the sprawl of Ackerman’s district saving it from becoming Republican.
CD 3 – Old CD 3
Incumbent: Peter King
Old Obama/McCain vote: 47-52
New Obama/McCain vote: 47-52
Old Demographics: 94.2% White, 2.1% Black, 0.8% Asian, 2.3% Hispanic
New Demographics: 87% White, 2% Black, 3% Asian, 7% Hispanic
Comments: This district shows how difficult it is making a partisan district in Long Island. You have to cross a lot of Democrats to get to the Republicans. But that actually isn’t quite it. The real problem is population balancing. I could’ve taken in more Republican’s from Ackerman’s district but that makes it highly difficult to keep a black majority in Gregory Meeks district. But given McCain’s weakness in 2008 only having a 52% McCain vote actually keeps him pretty safe.
CD 4 – Old CD 5
Incumbent: Gary Ackerman
Old Obama/McCain vote: 63-36
New Obama/McCain vote: 57-43
Old Demographics: 55.7% White, 5.6% Black, 24.6% Asian, 23.5% Hispanic
New Demographics: 66% White, 12% Black, 8% Asian, 11% Hispanic
Comments: You probably think Ackerman represents Queens and you’d be correct. But he lives in Roslyn Long Island and that is useful for our purposes. This district sprawls to take away Republican votes from Israel, Democratic votes from King, and non-Black votes from Meeks. It’s ugly due to it being a “swiss knife” district that does everything.
CD 5 – Old CD 6
Incumbent: Gregory Meeks
Old Obama/McCain vote: 87-11
New Obama/McCain vote: 57-43
Old Demographics: 18.9% White, 53.9% Black, 9.0% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic
New Demographics: 15% White, 52% Black, 8% Asian, 17% Hispanic
Comments: With the growth of the Hispanic community getting a black majority district becomes tougher. Luckily this district still had a strong enough African-American segment to create one that was pretty compact.
CD 6 – Old CD 7
Incumbent: Joseph Crowley
Old Obama/McCain vote: 79-20
New Obama/McCain vote: 65-34
Old Demographics: 45.1% White, 18.7% Black, 12.9% Asian, 35.9% Hispanic,
New Demographics: 44% White, 6% Black, 25% Asian, 22% Hispanic
Comments: Crowley gets abused as the needs of others around him including the need to eat some of Ackerman’s Republicans and Nydia taking some of his hispanics. If the seat were to become vacant that 25% Asian number might become very relevant in a crowded primary.
CD 7 – Old CD 14
Incumbent: Carolyn Maloney
Old Obama/McCain vote: 78-21
New Obama/McCain vote: 79-20
Old Demographics: 73.1% White, 5.2% Black, 11.4% Asian, 14.0% Hispanic
New Demographics: 58% White, 8% Black, 9% Asian, 21% Hispanic
Comments: The victim of some choices I made. Such as (only slightly) expanding Nadler’s territory in Manhattan and giving Rangel the non-white north of her district. With Nadler limited by Nydia’s sprawling majority hispanic district and Crowley already having the area of Queens where he lives pressed there was no choice but to take in some of the Bronx. I’ll explain my reasoning on Rangel’s district when I get to it.
CD 8 – Old CD 12
Incumbent: Nydia Velázquez
Old Obama/McCain vote: 88-13
New Obama/McCain vote: 81-19
Old Demographics: 39.5% White, 10.9% Black, 16.0% Asian, 48.5% Hispanic
New Demographics: 21% White, 7% Black, 19% Asian, 50% Hispanic
Comments: This ugly district is amazingly enough similar to the current one. However I made sure it wasn’t split in two by Nadler (hence the moving of his portion of the district and his expansion in Manhattan). Took a lot of work and some ugly angles but I got the hispanic vote over 50.
CD 9 – Old CD 10
Incumbent: Ed Towns (retiring)
Old Obama/McCain vote: 91-9
New Obama/McCain vote: 83-16
Old Demographics: 21.0% White, 63.0% Black, 2.7% Asian, 17.2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 24% White, 42% Black, 6% Asian, 24% Hispanic
Comments: Making Nydia district contiguous hispanic majority while having two neighboring districts that needed a black majority put pressure on this district. Particularly since it put pressure on where other districts had to go. And given Ed Towns was retiring this district became the last district created essentially out of what was left. However it still has an overwelming black plurality and should still elect an African-American office holder. And thus hopefully meets the requirements of the VRA.
CD 10 – Old CD 11
Incumbent: Yvette Clarke
Old Obama/McCain vote: 91-9
New Obama/McCain vote: 93-7
Old Demographics: 24.9% White, 61.2% Black, 4.2% Asian, 12.1% Hispanic
New Demographics: 22% White, 55% Black, 5% Asian, 14% Hispanic
Comments: Still black majority and not all that different from before.
CD 11 – Old CD 9
Incumbent: Anthony Weiner
Old Obama/McCain vote: 55-44
New Obama/McCain vote: 60-40
Old Demographics: 71.0% White, 4.4% Black, 14.6% Asian, 13.6% Hispanic
New Demographics: 58% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 9% Hispanic
Comments: Weiner gets a safer more compact district on his home turf of southern Brooklyn.
CD 12 – Old CD 13
Incumbent: Michael Grimm
Old Obama/McCain vote: 48-52
New Obama/McCain vote: 45-54
Old Demographics: 76.8% White, 6.9% Black, 9.2% Asian, 11.0% Hispanic
New Demographics: 74% White, 6% Black, 7% Asian, 11% Hispanic
Comments: The Brooklyn rabbis went for Michael McMahon in large part because they like to back a winner. Now that Grimm is in the drivers seat they should have no problem supporting him. Even against a possible rematch with McMahon.
CD 13 – Old CD 8
Incumbent: Jerry Nadler
Old Obama/McCain vote: 74-26
New Obama/McCain vote: 85-14
Old Demographics: 74.6% White, 6.1% Black, 11.1% Asian, 11.7% Hispanic
New Demographics: 59% White, 6% Black, 15% Asian, 17% Hispanic
Comments: Nadler’s district shifts in three ways. First it takes the white gentrified southern sections of Rangels districts. Second it takes in a few more blocks shaving off a portion of Maloney’s Manhattan portion of her district. And last the district has a small compact portion across the Williamsburg Bridge that doesn’t do even weirder stuff in Nydia’s district.
CD 14 – Old CD 15
Incumbent: Charlie Rangel
Old Obama/McCain vote: 93-6
New Obama/McCain vote: 94-5
Old Demographics: 28.2% White, 34.6% Black, 2.9% Asian, 47.6% Hispanic,
New Demographics: 9% White, 34% Black, 2% Asian, 53% Hispanic
Comments: These changes accept two realities. First that there are sections Harlem that are now white and that you might as well lop off a minority district and give to a white liberal like Nadler. And that this district is now a Latino rather than an African-American one. The hispanic vote is augmented with Spanish Harlem as well as a larger swarth of the Bronx.
Hopefully it also encourages Rangel to finally do the right thing and call it a career.
CD 15 – Old CD 16
Incumbent: Jose Serrano
Old Obama/McCain vote: 95-5
New Obama/McCain vote: 93-7
Old Demographics: 20.4% White, 36.0% Black, 1.8% Asian, 62.8% Hispanic
New Demographics: 7 White, 28% Black, 3% Asian, 62.8% Hispanic 59
Comments: With Engel’s district moving south and Rangel’s moving east Serrano eats up some of Crowley’s Bronx.
CD 16 – Old CD 16
Incumbent: Eliot Engel
Old Obama/McCain vote: 72-28
New Obama/McCain vote: 79-21
Old Demographics: 48.9% White, 32.3% Black, 4.6% Asian, 20.4% Hispanic
New Demographics: 35% White, 33% Black, 4% Asian, 25% Hispanic
Comments: Last redistricting Engel was seen as a “victim” being stuck in a non-majority white district. It turned out he was not all that vulnerable. At only 35% white this could change. But no one group has a majority and that isn’t necessarily bad news for a long time incumbent.
Given Engel lives in the Bronx and that most of New York’s population loss is upstate it’s inevitable that he’ll continue to see more of Westchester taken out of his district.
CD 17 – Old CD 18
Incumbent: Nita Lowey
Old Obama/McCain vote: 62-38
New Obama/McCain vote: 62-37
Old Demographics: 67.1% White, 10.0% Black, 5.3% Asian, 16.2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 70% White, 10% Black, 6% Asian, 13% Hispanic
Comments: Nita Lowey’s (as well as Paul Tonko’s is to be pacman and eat up Republican votes. Creating McCain districts isn’t easy even upstate. Funny thing is that even though eastern upstate districts are ugly they aren’t all that much worse than the ugly job the legislature did 10 years ago.
CD 18 – Old CD 19
Incumbent: Nan Hayworth
Old Obama/McCain vote: 51-48
New Obama/McCain vote: 48-51
Old Demographics: 88.1% White, 5.4% Black, 2.2% Asian, 7.7% Hispanic
New Demographics: 84% White, 4% Black, 2% Asian, 8% Hispanic
Comments: As I had Nita grab portions of Hayworth’s district to grab Democratic votes along the Hudson you got a “corridor” along the east from Ann’s house to the Republican rural areas supporting her. But debatably not as ugly as the work I did supporting Chris Gibson.
CD 19 – Old CD 22
Incumbent: Maurice Hinchey
Old Obama/McCain vote: 59-39
New Obama/McCain vote: 59-39
Old Demographics: 80% White, 8% Black, 3% Asian, 8% Hispanic
New Demographics: 84% White, 6% Black, 3% Asian, 5% Hispanic
Comments: First the “old Obama/McCain” and “demographics” came from a second instance of Dave’s app since there were no Obama numbers on wikipedia.
Hinchey’s district stays similar losing a few Republican areas, taking in a few Democratic areas and perhaps taking in an area or two it shouldnt just to balance out it’s population.
CD 20 – Old CD 21
Incumbent: Paul Tonko
Old Obama/McCain vote: 58-40
New Obama/McCain vote: 60-38
Old Demographics: 86% White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 3% Hispanic
New Demographics: 83% White, 8% Black, 2% Asian, 4% Hispanic
Comments: Again old information is from app rather than wikipedia.
This used to be the one “nice” district upstate in terms of aesthetics. Not anymore as it sweeps north and south to help Gibson and Hayworth.
CD 21 – Old CD 20
Incumbent: Chris Gibson
Old Obama/McCain vote: 51-48
New Obama/McCain vote: 48-50
Old Demographics: 94% White, 2% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 93% White, 2% Black, 1% Asian, 3% Hispanic
Comments: Again all data is non-wiki. And again Chris Gibson gets his house and a bunch of rural Republican areas in his district very dirty.
CD 22 – Old CD 24
Incumbent: Richard Hanna
Old Obama/McCain vote: 50-48
New Obama/McCain vote: 48-50
Old Demographics: 93% White, 3% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 92% White, 3% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
Comments: Again no wiki upstate data. This was one of the ugliest districts which is now a lot more compact and nice. In part due to the good luck Hanna being in the eastern part of the district.
Hanna takes the Republican votes that Owens doesn’t want.
CD 23 – Old CD 23
Incumbent: Bill Owens / Ann Marie Buerkle
Old Obama/McCain vote: 52-47
New Obama/McCain vote: 59-39
Old Demographics: 94% White, 2% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 88% White, 6% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
Comments: Upstate, wikiless, etc.
What happens when you combine Syracuse and north country? Bad things if you’re Freshman Republican named Ann Marie Buerkle. Given her hometown is a Democratic stronghold it was just too tempting to draw her out. Plus if any Republican goes it is going to be a freshman.
CD 24 – Old CD 29
Incumbent: Tom Reed
Old Obama/McCain vote: 48-50
New Obama/McCain vote: 45-53
Old Demographics: 93% White, 3% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic
New Demographics: 84% White, 2% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
Comments: Upstate, wikiless.
Large rural district becomes more solidly Republican as Higgins lets go of more Republican areas.
CD 25 – Old CD 26
Incumbent: Chris Lee
Old Obama/McCain vote: 47-52
New Obama/McCain vote: 46-52
Old Demographics: 92% White, 3% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic
New Demographics: 94% White, 2% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic
Comments: wikiless.
As you can see the four western New York districts are now more ergonomic and compact as incumbent protection is less messy out there.
CD 26 – Old CD 28
Incumbent: Louise Slaughter
Old Obama/McCain vote: 68-30
New Obama/McCain vote: 58-40
Old Demographics: 63% White, 28% Black, 1% Asian, 5% Hispanic
New Demographics: 78% White, 13% Black, 2% Asian, 5% Hispanic
Comments: wikiless
The Lake Ontario dome is lost and the Fairport New York native gets a full Rochester based district. Giving all of Buffalo loses her some Democratic support but she’s still on very solid ground. And it helps along the process of cutting Ann Marie Buerkle out. And makes Higgins seat a little less swingy in case of vacancy.
CD 27 – Old CD 27
Incumbent: Brian Higgins
Old Obama/McCain vote: 54-44
New Obama/McCain vote: 58-40
Old Demographics: 89% White, 4% Black, 1% Asian, 5% Hispanic
New Demographics: 78% White, 13% Black, 2% Asian, 5% Hispanic
Comments: wikiless.
Higgins seat becomes a little more Democratic which can be useful given Republican gains in the area and the fact the seat was previously held by Republicans.
Finaly Thoughts:
This redistricting is of course unlikely for no other reason than it messes with the borders of districts too much. And new boundaries encourage challenges which no politician wants.
This redistricting was done with a “protect all incumbents” agenda. Which was rather ugly in the case of Nan Hayworth who I hope we don’t go out of our way to protect as I see that seat as winnable. Less optimistic about the rest of the upstate seats. In case you want to play with this redistricting attempt the drf file for Dave’s application.
Race and Modern-Day Political Advertising
By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/
In the world of campaign commercials, race seems to be invoked in an increasingly and worryingly explicit way.
Let’s take a look at some old commercials and compare them to contemporary ones.
Here, for instance, is the famous “Willie Horton” commercial, which doomed Governor Mike Dukakis’s campaign for president:
More below.
This commercial is often the first thing people think about when talking about “racist” political ads. The story goes that the “death penalty” constituted a code word for race-baiting, and that the use of Willie Horton – a black man – was intended to arouse racial fears of black violence.
Let’s compare this old ad with a more modern one.
Here is a 2010 ad on undocumented immigrants:
This ad was shown by Republican Senator David Vitter in his 2010 re-election campaign. Mr. Vitter won an easy re-election, campaigning in a conservative state (Louisiana) in a conservative year.
With Mr. Bush’s ad, one has to look pretty hard to see the supposed racism. Only two pictures of a black man are used, and each image is fairly race-neutral by itself.
Mr. Vitter’s ad, on the other hand, is much more explicit. The ad shows endless hordes of brown people breaking through fences, while an announcer spits out “illegals” like a curse word. It’s pretty clear that all the “illegals” are Latino, and that all the victims are white.
On the score of which ad is more racist, Mr. Vitter’s ad – the more modern one – wins hands down.
This is true for other ads as well. Here is an ad on welfare by President Richard Nixon:
Mr. Nixon was accused of running an undercover “racist” campaign, using code words like “welfare” and “law-and-order” to appeal to racial resentments.
Yet out of all four ads, this one is probably the least racist by far. One has to really stretch to “find” racism in this ad (e.g. the construction worker is in the inner-city, which is full of minorities, and so the ad could theoretically be pointing out that inner-city minorities will benefit from welfare).
Now compare this to another contemporary ad:
This ad was run by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln against her primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. Ms. Lincoln went on to barely win the primary, only to lose by a landslide in the general election.
Once again, the more modern ad is much more obvious than Mr. Nixon’s ad in the use of race. Indian foreigners speaking accented English thank Mr. Halter for outsourcing jobs, while “Indian” music plays and stereotypic images of India play in the background.
The political equivalent in 1972 would have been to show black people in the ghetto thanking Democrats for welfare in “ghetto” English.
In 1972 politicians did not dare do this. Yet in 2010 they are more than willing to show Indians and Latinos in quite racist ads.
All in all, Americans – or, more accurately, humans in general – like to think that things are always getting better. Technology is always improving, people are always living longer, and freedom and democracy are always on the rise.
This applies with race relations as well. The dominant narrative is that America’s treatment of its minorities is in a continuous progression upwards, from the low beginnings of slavery to the first black president and onwards. America’s minorities have never been treated as well as they are now, in this view.
Everything that is said above is mostly true – indeed the world is healthier, freer, and more technologically advanced than ever before. And America’s minorities do have more opportunities than ever before.
Nevertheless, in at least one aspect of race relations, America portrays minorities worse than it did two generations ago.
California: 53-0 with 59% Obama or more
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 districtsHispanic-White (minority-majority district with Hispanic as first group and White as second)
Old map: 2 districts
My map: 7 districtsHispanic-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 districtWhite-Asian (minority-majority district with White as first group and Asian as second)
Old map: 4 districts
My map: 3 districtsHispanic-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 districtsHispanic-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-majorityIn 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.
Holiday Whimsy: 8 Gerrymanders that won’t happen
I don’t see the point in trying to draw actual maps until we get the Census numbers next week (and when the precinct numbers are very different from projections, updated in Dave’s app), but that doesn’t stop me from drawing new districts. I’ve taken district counts I know won’t happen to draw districts that are hopefully different from the current ones in an interesting way.
The maps:
Indiana 7
Kentucky 8
Mississippi 3
Nebraska 4
Nevada 5
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 9 (two of these)
Indiana 7
In this map, we avoid putting any of Gary (CD1, blue, 72% white), South Bend (CD2, green), and Fort Wayne (CD3, purple, also picking up Muncie) in the same district, giving three relatively vertical districts. Considering how the population numbers didn’t really work for districts pairing these, I don’t see a Gary-South Bend district coming, especially as the Indiana GOP says they don’t want particularly ugly districts.
Marion County (CD4, red, 65% white) is just under the population for a CD, so it picks up a tiny bit of the northern suburbs. We then get districts for central Indiana (CD5, yellow, with West Lafayette, Anderson, and Indianapolis exurbs), southeast Indiana (CD6, teal), and southwest Indiana (CD7, gray, with Evansville, Terre Haute, and Louisville KY suburbs).
Kentucky 8
I’m not particularly familiar with the state, so this will be brief. We have 4 rural districts (blue, green, gray, and light purple) that are almost certainly safe R.
The teal district (Richmond, Elizabethtown) is probably also Republican. We then have a Cincinnati suburb district (purple), a Lexington to Louisville district (red), and a Louisville district (yellow, 69% white).
Mississippi 3
Pretty straightforward, the state would still have one VRA seat. CD1 [was 2] (blue, 56% black, 41% white) contains Jackson and the Mississippi River valley. CD2 [was 1] (green, 66% white, 30% black) contains northern Mississippi with Tupelo, Columbus, and Meridian; and CD3 [was 4] (70% white, 24% black) contains Hattiesburg and the gulf. This map might have been interesting before this year, as the 1 GOP congressman from MS was drawn out of a district.
Nebraska 4
Pretty straightforward, we still have basically concentric rings around Omaha. CD1 (blue, 72% white) shrinks to contain only part of Omaha, while CD2 contains the rest of the Omaha area and the city of Lincoln. CD3 contains the remaining part of the east out to Grand Island, and CD4 contains the rest.
Nevada 5
The largest visual change is that the Reno/Carson City area now has enough population for a district (CD5, yellow, 70% white) without rural Nevada, which is joined to the Las Vegas exurbs.
CD4 (red, 71% white) is almost certainly safe R. The other 3 seats were drawn mostly arbitrarily, we have CD1 (blue, 40% white, 40% hispanic), CD2 (green, 38% white, 38% hispanic, 15% black), and CD3 (purple, 66% white) picking up the Las Vegas area. Looking at those percentages, I’m surprised the VRA hasn’t come up more when discussing Nevada redistricting, I wouldn’t be shocked if the new seat is considered VRA (assuming Dave’s numbers are correct).
Oklahoma 7
Another state I’ve never been in and aren’t terribly familiar with. Despite the reasonably high non-white population, I don’t see any way to draw a VRA district here, especially as it would be a black-hispanic-native coalition district.
CD1 (blue, 74% white, 10% hispanic) and CD2 (green, 76% white, 10% native) are on the Texas border, and I assume would behave similarly to northern Texas seats. CD5 (yellow, 76% white, 11% native) is similarly on the Kansas border.
We have a compact CD3 (58% white, 17% black, 16% hispanic) in Oklahoma City, and a larger CD4 (78% white) surrounding it to the east.
CD6 (teal, 67% white, 12% black, 11% hispanic) contains most of the Tulsa area, and CD7 (gray, 70% white, 15% native) covers eastern Oklahoma. I assume CD7 would be the closest equivalent to Dan Boren’s district. Apart from that and CD3, I assume everything is safe R.
Oregon 9
A state so fun I did it twice. The first was relatively neutral, the second time turned into what I believe is a GOP gerrymander.
As much as a map can when adding 4 districts, this looks similar to the current map. We have a large eastern CD1 (blue), a coastal CD2 (green) containing medford, and a CD3 (purple) containing Bend and Eugene.
CD4 (red) contains Corvalis and what looks like semi-rural Western Oregon, CD5 (purple) is Salem based. CD6 (teal) is the northwest corner of the state, and reaches into the Portland suburbs.
I don’t think it really matters how the lines are drawn for CD7 through 9, all should be safe D.
The most obvious change is that Eastern Oregon. is split between two districts. CD2 (green) contains Medford and southeast Oregon, while CD3 (purple) contains Bend and northeast Oregon. We also gain a very coastal CD1 (blue).
Now this is a gerrymander. CD4 (red) contains the cities of Eugene, Corvalis, Albany, and Salem and very little else. CD5 (yellow) surrounds it and covers other rural areas.
As the northeast coast isn’t being drawn into Portland districts now, there are 4 districts entirely within this shot instead of just 3.