Month: December 2010

• AZ-Sen: There have been vague rumblings that maybe Jon Kyl, the GOP’s 68-year-old #2 in the Senate, may not be running for another term… but that seems to be coming into sharper relief all of a sudden. Kyl has refused to publicly discuss his plans, the GOP’s state chair is saying Kyl is not likely to run again, and people are starting to notice that he’s sitting on only $620K CoH and hasn’t engaged in any fundraising yet. (Although it’s likely, once he decides, that he could quickly do whatever fundraising was needed to win.)

• CT-Sen: Ex-Rep. Rob Simmons sounds torn about another Senate run in 2012, and refuses to rule it out. However, he sounds unenthused, not so much because of his odds in the general as the likelihood of butting heads with the NRSC in the primary, whom he thinks has a fixation on Linda McMahon and her self-funding ability. Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Murphy is busy framing his “no” vote on the tax compromise in populist terms, clearly trying to set up some contrasts with Joe Lieberman.

• NE-Sen: I’d thought AG Jon Bruning was supposed to be some sort of killer-app for the local GOP to go against Ben Nelson, but you wouldn’t know it by the way they’ve kept casting about for more talent. Local insiders are still publicly airing their wish list, adding a couple more prominent names to it: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and state Auditor Mike Foley. One lower-tier option is also floating her own name: state Sen. Deb Fischer, who represents that big empty north-central part of the state and says she’ll decide on a run once the legislative session is over.

• OR-Sen: Best wishes for a quick recovery to Ron Wyden, who will be undergoing surgery on Monday for prostate cancer. While it sounds like he’ll be back on his feet soon, he’ll be unable to vote for anything next week, which could complicate the final rush to wrap up stuff in the lame duck.

• TN-Sen: Bob Corker occasionally gets mentioned, at least in the rightosphere, as the possible recipient of a tea party primary challenge in 2012. The Hill finds that this may be fizzling on the launching pad, for the very simple reason that no one seems to be stepping forward to consider the race.

• WI-Sen: PPP is out with its poll of the 2012 GOP Senate primary, with another one of those let’s-test-everyone-and-their-dog fields, but unlike some of the other states they’ve looked at in the last few weeks, a U.S. Rep. wins, rather than a statewide figure. Paul Ryan (who probably gets enough Fox News attention to trump the disadvantage of representing only 1/8th of the state) is far in the lead at 52. Ex-Gov. Tommy Thompson (who if he didn’t run this year surely isn’t going to in 2012) is at 14, ex-Rep. Mark Green is at 9, AG JB Van Hollen and new Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch are at 6, new Rep. Sean Duffy is at 5, and already-forgotten 2010 contender Dave Westlake is at 1.

• IN-Gov, IN-09: Baron Hill says he most likely isn’t going to be running for anything in 2012, not Governor, and not his old seat in the 9th, saying he’s looking into private sector jobs for now, though also leaving the gubernatorial door “slightly open.” Interestingly, he seemed more enthused about a run for Governor in 2016 (which may be a tougher road to hoe, if there’s an entrenched GOP incumbent then instead of an open seat like 2012), although he also commented that “I don’t know if I’ll be alive in 2016.”

• MO-Gov: In case there was any doubt, Democratic incumbent Jay Nixon confirmed that he’ll run for re-election as Governor in 2012. Nixon also said that he’s raised $1 million for that race just since November; he’ll need it.

• WV-Gov: For what it’s worth, two of the state’s largest unions would like to see an expedited special election to replace Joe Manchin. Democratic House Speaker (and likely gubernatorial candidate) Rick Thompson agrees with them, saying there’s a constitutional conflict of interest in acting Gov./Senate president Earl Ray Tomblin’s dual position. In what may not be a surprise, Tomblin disagrees, saying that the law is clear that the special will be held in 2012.

• CA-06: Rep. Lynn Woolsey is seeming like she may be one of the first retirements of the cycle, if the flurry of activity among lower-level Marin County politicos jockeying for position is any indication. The 73-year-old is publicly weighing retirement, and state Assemblyman Jared Huffman has already formed an exploratory committee to run in her stead. State Sen. Noreen Evans, Sonoma Co. Commissioner Shirlee Zane, and Petaluma mayor Pam Torliatt are also listed as possible replacements.

• FL-25: It certainly didn’t take newly-elected Rep. David Rivera to get in legal trouble, and it’s something completely new, instead of anything having to do with that whole let’s-run-that-truck-off-the-road incident. He’s under investigation for an alleged $500,000 in secret payments from a greyhound track that he helped out to a marketing firm that’s “run” by his septuagenarian mother.

• ID-01: Don’t count on a rematch from Walt Minnick (or a run for higher office in Idaho, either): he says he’s done with elective politics. An oft-overlooked fact about Minnick: he’s a little older than your average freshman, at 68. He wasn’t going to be in the seat for much longer or look to move up anyway.

• NY-14: Remember Reshma Saujani, after losing the Dem primary in the 14th, said “I’m definitely running again” and “There’s no way I’m going to be ones of those folks who runs, loses, and you never see them again.” Well, fast forward a few months, and now she’s definitely not running again, although she may be looking toward a run for something in 2013 at the municipal level.

• DCCC: The DCCC held its first real strategy session of the cycle yesterday, and the list of top-tier targets that emerged is pretty predictable (Dan Lungren, Charlie Bass, Charlie Dent, Bob Dold!) except for one: Leonard Lance, who’s proved pretty durable so far. They may be counting on Lance’s NJ-07, which occupies roughly the middle of the state, to get tossed into the blender in the redistricting process.

• Votes: Here’s the vote tally from yesterday’s vote in the House on the tax compromise. It was a very unusual breakdown, with Dems breaking 139 yes/112 no and the GOP breaking 138 yes/36 no, with the “no”s coming generally from each party’s hard-liners, in a manner vaguely reminiscent of how the TARP vote broke down. (Also, some defeated or retiring Blue Dogs still voted “no,” like Allen Boyd, Gene Taylor, and Earl Pomeroy… while Dennis Kucinich was a “yes.”)

• History: Here’s an interesting story about the end of a little-known but important era in North Dakota politics: the effective end of the Non-Partisan League, a vaguely-socialist/populist farmers’ party that cross-endorsed Democrats for many decades, and had an outsized influence on the state (as seen in their state-owned bank and similar enterprises). With Byron Dorgan retired, most NPL stalwarts dead or aging, and agribusiness having replaced the family farm, it looks like the end of the NPL’s line.

• Redistricting: Dave Wasserman is out with a preview of next week’s reapportionment, and he’s rightly treating it like the NCAA playoffs draw, in that there a bunch of states on the bubble of getting or losing seats. Here’s how that plays out:

Georgia, Nevada, and Utah are all but certain to gain an additional seat in the House, while Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are all but certain to lose a seat and Ohio is all but certain to lose two seats…. the ten states in contention for the “last five” seats in the House (in order of likelihood to make the cut) are South Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Washington, Texas, New York, California, Arizona, North Carolina, and Illinois.

He’s also been tinkering around with Dave’s Redistricting App, and has some maps that you’ll want to check out. Maybe most interestingly, there’s a solution to the IL-17 problem that actually makes it more Democratic while letting Aaron Schock and Bobby Schilling get much better acquainted with each other (the Fix also takes a look at Illinois today, coming up with similar ideas). Also worth a look: a good 10-district Washington map that gives Dave Reichert a heaping helping of eastern Washington.

• Site news: Due to holiday travel, other time commitments, and hopefully what will be a very slow news week, the Daily Digest will be on hiatus all next week. Don’t worry, though: I’ll make sure to be around on the 21st for the Census reapportionment data release (hell, maybe I’ll even liveblog the news conference), and if there’s any important breaking news, someone will get it up on the front page. In the meantime, happy holidays from the whole SSP team!

Redistricting Texas was a bit of a chore.  To do this with an eye to how the GOP legislature might do so requires balancing a number of considerations.  These are at loggerheads with each other to some degree:

(1) A desire to protect new GOP incumbents Farenthold and Canseco;

(2) A desire to shore up increasingly vulnerable GOP incumbents in TX-10, TX-24 and TX-32

(3) Compliance with the VRA.

First, a primer on the VRA.  It does not require that a state with a 38 percent population have 38 percent of its districts be Hispanic opportunity districts.  It doesn’t necessarily require any.

Instead, it requires only that distinct populations be given a reasonably compact district if it is possible to draw one.  This is a problem in Texas, where the Hispanic population is fairly subsumed within the anglo and African American populations.  West Texas has a fairly large Hispanic vote, but it is impossible to create anything approaching a minority majority district there — in fact, almost all of these districts have at least a 15% Hispanic population, but they can’t be used to draw a compact district. In the 2006 Texas redistricting litigation, the district court found that Texas could support only 6 Hispanic opportunity districts (although I counted 7).  I don’t think it has increased all that much recently.

There’s a second complication in Texas, which is that there’s a difference between the population and the voting population.  Both undocumented and documented workers count for census purposes, even though neither can vote.  In Texas this creates a substantial discrepancy between the numbers shown by census voting-age population (VAP), and the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).  Throw in lower turnout among hispanics in general, and it gets very difficult to draw VRA districts.

The basic theory behind the map, therefore, is as follows.  Keep all the present Hispanic opportunity districts as close to the current lines as possible.  Anything that’s around 60 percent Hispanic should be an Hispanic opportunity district (the district Court in 2006 seemed to accept that TX-25 would be an Hispanic opportunity district with 55% Hispanic population; it was struck down because it was not sufficiently compact to count as a VRA district).  If you can keep the white vote below 30% or so, that can change, although an African American population that starts to approach the Hispanic population can overwhelm it in a Dem primary.

I created something looking like an Hispanic opportunity district in the DFW area.  To illustrate just how difficult this is, you’ll note that this and the 30th are now awfully close to electing an Anglo Democrat, and these lines are pretty convoluted.  It may well be that the VRA doesn’t require any additional minority-majority districts in Texas, although drawing close to one in DFW is a good idea for shoring up GOP incumbents.

A few other notes.  I didn’t know exactly where Blake Farenthold lived, so I drew his new district to where Farenthold Consulting was located.  The baconmander of Dallas county is avoidable with precise locations for the incumbents; because I didn’t want to draw two Congressmen together, I kept the Dallas portions of their old districts more-or-less intact.

The centerpiece of the map is the 8-way split of Austin.  I don’t know where Lloyd Doggett lives and I don’t think it matters; he runs in a 58 percent McCain district no matter what.

I have to say, given what I did, I was pleasantly surprised that the districts look as regular as they do.  It might actually look better than the current map . . .

Without further adieu…

(1, Gohmert) 31% Obama/68% McCain, 70W/17B/11H (old 31O/69M, 68W/18B/13H) — Gohmert’s district goes further South now, but retains the Tyler base.  Without the Dallas Baconmander, it could be made more compact.

(2, Poe) 40Obama/60McCain, 61W/13B/22H (old 40O/60M, 57/21/18) — This district grew 14 percent and has to shrink — it is now contained almost entirely within Harris County.  A leg goes down to Galveston and Texas City to take Democratic votes from the 14th to offset the votes that district gains in Austin (cue ominous foreshadowing music).

(3, Johnson) 40Obama/59McCain, 65W/11B/16H (old 42O/57M, 56/10/21) — This baconmander would be avoidable if I knew where Johnson resided (even better if he retired . . .).  For now, it takes in its old portion of Dallas, and then extends out to rural North Texas.  It is made slighly more Republican.

(4, Hall) 30O/70M, 75W/16B/7H (old 30/69, 75/10/11) — Because of the situation with the Third district, this has to be pretty grotesque.  This one is also much easier if Hall retires, or with his precise location (as that would allow using some of Rockwall to shore up the third without putting it out in N Texas, which in turn would allow the 4th to keep its old shape.

(5, Hensarling) 39O/61M, 69W/13B/14H (old 36/63, 65/13/19) — Hensarling’s district doesn’t change all that much, though due to population growth it loses some heavily Republican rural portions.  Still, he should have a nice home for the rest of the decade.

(6, Barton) 37O/63M, 68W/12B/15H (old 40O/60M, 58/15/21) — Normally I wouldn’t have shored up a district, but Barton is a bit, um, controversial, so I thought he would want to know that his district would be safe through 2020.

(7, Culberson) 40O/59M, 62W/6B/24H (old 41O/58M, 59/8/23) — This district retains much of its old territory.  I made it a touch more Republican.  I figured if Culberson got 56% of the vote while being outspent 2-1 in 2008, he was going to be pretty safe.  My first time through I had this at 61 percent, but then my computer crashed before I wrote it up.  So this could be improved.

(8, Brady) 31O/68M, 74W/6B/14H (old 26O/72M, 77/9/12) — This district is now entirely within Harris and Montgomery Counties, which should make Brady happy.  It’s a bit more Democratic, but I don’t think he’ll notice.

(9, Green) 74O/26M, 19W/34B/34H (old 77/23, 14/36/40) — Al Green’s district expands to pick up some more African American voters, and sheds some white voters to the 7th.  Not much change here.

(10, McCaul) 40O/59M, 62W/12B/21H (old 44/55, 59/10/25) — McCaul is one who could use some help — although in a terrible Republican year he beat back a stiff challenge handily.  His district gets some more Houston suburban lovin’, which ratchets it up a few notches.

(11, Conaway) 41O/59M, 64W/6B/26H (old 77M/24O, 61/4/33) — This district retains its Midland base, but picks up a chunk of Austin to become quite a bit more Dem.  Still — and this is important to remember for the rest of the map — 59%McCain is still roughly R+13, which should be enough to win throughout the decade.

(12, Granger) 35O/64M, 79W/4B/11H (old 36/63, 63/6/27) — Not a lot of changes here; drops some of its minority population to create the new 33rd.

(13, Thornberry) 23O/76M, 69W/6B/23H (old 23/76, 70/6/21).  Not much you can do here — the district is Amarillo, and there isn’t another Democratic hub within 500 miles of the place.  Note, however, that the district is a quarter Hispanic.  This is what I’m talking about re the problems of creating Hispanic majority districts here.  

(14, Paul) 41O/58M, 57W/8B/32H (old 33O/66M, 59/9/27) Paul gets a chunk of Austin as well.  It is a more Democratic district, but he should still be able to win pretty handily.

(15, Hinojosa) 66O/33M, 13W/0B/85H (old 60/40, 17/2/80) — This district has grown a lot, and so it shed some of the anglo counties to the north.  Hinojosa actually had a bit of a close call in ’10, but that won’t happen again in this district.

(16, Reyes) 68O/31M, 15W/3B/81H (old 66O/33M, 14/3/81) — No big changes here.

(17, Flores) 35O/64M, 67W/15B/15H (old 32O, 67M, 69/10/18) — This district is a bit more Democratic, but its a ton of new territory, which should prevent a Chet Edwards comeback.

(18, Jackson Lee) 83O/16M, 19W/51B/26H, (old, 77O/22M, 16/38/42) — The original Texas minority-majority district, it sees its African American percentage increased substantially, as it shed white voters to the 7th and Hispanics to the 29th.

(19, Gonzales) 66O/33M, 22W/9B/66H (old 63/36, 21/6/70) — I switched the 19th and 20th, because I’m colorblind and was having troubles with the 19th and 23rd.  This gives up some population to the 28th, which allowed me to do an ugly gerrymander that shored up the 21st to compensate for getting parts of Austin.

(20, Neugebauer) 27O/72M, 67W/6B/24H (old 27O, 72M, 61/5/32) — Again, not much you can do with these voters.  In theory you could put this one into Travis County as well, but that would be greedy.  Also, note the 32 percent Hispanic population.

I really should have broken this into two pieces.

(21, Smith) 40O/58M, 70W/3B/23H (old district 40O/59M, 63W/7B/26H) — Smith never had any troubles in his old district, so the addition of the Austin territory shouldn’t hurt him.  It’s not downtown Austin, so we’re not talking heavily Dem stuff.

(22, Olson) 41O/58M, 60W/9B/22H (old district 41O/58M, 51W/13B/24H) — this gets some of Austin as well.  But unless Olson gets himself indicted for money laundering and the GOP runs a write-in candidate with a hyphenated last name, he should be ok.

(23, Canseco) 47O/52M, 36W/2B/60H (old district 51O/48M, 29W/3B/66H) — I think this is testing the outer limits of what you can do and still comply with the VRA here.  It should still be considered an Hispanic opportunity district though, although one that leans more to the right.  In a bad GOP year, it will probably elect a Democrat.

(24, Marchant) 38O/61M, 68W/6B/18H (old district 44/55, 53/12/25) — Marchant is another big winner from the creation of the 33rd.  A substantial increase in Republican performance here.

(25, Ducky) 43O/56M, 61W/5B/31H (old district 59O/39M, 51W/9B/37H) — A small sliver into Corpus connects Farenthold to what is essentially a new South-Central Texas district.  I would have liked to have gotten the GOP percentage up a few more notches, since he is so weak, but it just isn’t feasible.  This doesn’t go much into downtown, so I don’t think I picked up Dogget’s residence.

(26, Burgess) 37O/62M, 77W/6B/11H (old district 41O/58M, 62/13/19) — Burgess is another Dallas winner.  his district has seen massive growth, so this is quite a bit more compact.  He loses quite a bit of minority population to the 33rd.

(27, open) 53O/46M, 27W/2B/69H (old district 53O/46M, 25W/2B/71H) — Since the old district elected a very weak Republican once, I figured that I should keep it more-or-less intact if possible, on the off chance that it might do so again.  The only real change is that a few rural precincts are added, and three Corpus precincts are put into the 25th.

(28, Cuellar) 70O/30M, 11W/3B/85H (old district 56O/44M, 19W/1B/79H) — This district gets a bigger chunk of Hispanic voters in San Antonio who are apparently MUCH more reliable Democratic votes than those on the border.  Cuellar may actually not be able to survive here.

(29, Green) 63O/36M, 20W/10B/67H (old district 62O/38M, 16/10/72) — This remains an Hispanic opportunity district, which would probably still elect an Anglo Democrat.  Again, this illustrates just how tough it is to really create a Hispanic opportunity district here.

(30, Johnson) 79O/21M, 26W/44B/27H (old district 82/18, 17/39/41) — This district has to become quite a bit whiter in order to help make the 33rd.  Still, Johnson should win the primary and the general.

(31, Carter) 40O/58M, 71W/7B/18H (old district 41/57, 63/12/19) — Carter gets a little boost in Republican performance, but he was never really in any jeopardy in the first place.

(32, Sessions) 40O/59M, 69W/6B/19H (old district 46/53, 44/8/42) — After a relatively close shave against a weak opponent in 2008, Sessions gets a big boost from creating the 33rd.  It is a bit ugly; in reality if I knew where Johnson and Hall lived, I’d probably push it more into the 3rd, push the 3rd more into the 4th, and have the 4th get a lot of this northern Collin County territory.  But I might inadvertantly put those guys in the same district, so you get what you get.

(33, new) 71O/29M, 25W/21B/50H Minority-majority district.  Its ugly, and it still might elect a white Democrat.  But its the best you can do and even if the GOP doesn’t HAVE to draw it, it will probably still try to do so to shore up the other Reps.

(34, new) 39O/60M, 67W/11B/18H

(35, new) 35O/63M, 78W/5B/11H

(36,new) 37O/62M, 66W/17B/13H

• CA-Sen: Despite getting only a small vote share in the GOP Senate primary this year (as conservatives decided to go with the slightly-more-electable Carly Fiorina), Chuck DeVore is talking Senate again, for 2012, when Dianne Feinstein will presumably run for re-election. Or is he? All he’s saying is that he’s likely to run in 2012, but hasn’t decided what office. Senate is the only thing that’s available, though, which makes his statement seem kind of strange (unless he’s talking about trying to rejoin the state Assembly). If Barbara Boxer could still win by 10 points in a terrible year, the more-popular Feinstein in a presidential year is an even more daunting target, meaning that DeVore may be the only prominent GOPer crazy enough to take on the task.

• MA-Sen: Nobody really has any idea whether or not Vicki Kennedy plans to run for Senate — she’d probably have a massive field-clearing effect in the Dem primary if she did — but Joan Vennochi is seeing some signs of the groundwork for a run, looking at Kennedy’s stepped-up routine of public appearances around the state.

• OH-Sen: Rep. Jim Jordan had probably been the GOPer most associated with a potential run against Sherrod Brown this cycle, but now he’s publicly saying that he’s “leaning heavily against” the run. He has a plum job coming up as head of the right-wing caucus (the Republican Study Committee), which is often a leadership springboard, and given his ultra-safe district, that may be a more appealing track than rolling the dice on a Senate run. Auditor and soon-to-be Lt. Governor Mary Taylor (who you may recall got a few weeks of Senate speculation in 2009 when conservatives were casting about for someone more charismatic and less wonky than Rob Portman) may be next in line.

PPP is out with its primary numbers for the GOP side, too, and they find that Jordan was actually in first place among those few people who actually know him. It’s one of those everybody-but-the-kitchen-sink fields where the guy with the name rec winds up winning out: Incoming AG and ex-Sen. Mike DeWine (who’s quite unlikely to run, given his new job) leads at 27, with ex-SoS Ken Blackwell at 17, new SoS Jon Husted at 11, Jordan at 10, Taylor at 7, Rep. Steve LaTourette at 6, new Treasurer Josh Mandel at 5, and state Sen. Kevin Coughlin at 2.

• PA-Sen: Quinnipiac’s new poll of the Pennsylvania Senate turned out to not be that revealing, seeing as how they only testing Bob Casey Jr. against Generic R. (Although they can be forgiven, given the paucity of GOP candidates willing to reveal themselves yet.) At any rate, Casey is in good shape, although the percentage of people with no opinion seems strangely high, maybe reflective of his low-key nature. He beats Generic R 43-35, and has an approval of 39/29 (55/16 among Dems, 28/42 among GOPers, and 36/30 among indies).

• House: Politico has another list of possible rematches among the ranks of defeated Dems. Some of these you’re probably already familiar with (Frank Kratovil, Glenn Nye, Phil Hare, and Alan Mollohan(?!?)), but other names now weighing another bid include Dina Titus, Steve Driehaus, Carol Shea-Porter, and Bobby Bright. Mark Schauer says he’s waiting to see what the GOP-held Michigan legislature does to his district, and Ron Klein is waiting to see how his district responds to Allen West.

• NY-St. Sen.: Craig Johnson lost his case concerning the result in SD-7 (in which the balance of the state Senate hangs) at the Appellate Division level, who found there wasn’t a basis for a full hand recount. Johnson is still planning to appeal to the Court of Appeals. (In New York, for some screwed-up reason, the Supreme Court is the court of general jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court. Also, hamburgers eat people.)

• Switchers: Courtesy of the Fix’s Aaron Blake, here’s a list from GOPAC of all the state legislators who’ve switched parties in the last month, if you’re having trouble keeping track. There’s a list of 20, although almost all come from three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana). Also an interesting note: we’ve actually found someone who just switched from the GOP to the Democrats, although you have to go even further into the weeds: Luzerne County (in Pennsylvania) Commissioner Steve Urban. Before you get too excited, though, the move seems to be mostly driven out of personal pique stemming from Urban’s recent loss in a state Senate race.

• California: It looks like California’s switch to a Washington-style “top two” primary is a done deal. It survived a court challenge, with the state Supreme Court refusing to block a challenge to two of its provisions. (One of the provisions is one way in which it’ll differ from Washington: in California, party affiliation can be listed only if one belongs to a party that’s officially recognized by the state, while in Washington, you can list yourself as belonging to whatever crazy made-up party you want.)

• CfG: The Club for Growth is issuing one of its litmus test warnings, saying that primaries will result for GOPers who defy its will… and it’s over one of the less controversial things on the current docket: the omnibus spending bill (which contains… gasp!… earmarks.)

• Votes: The House, as you’re probably well aware, easily passed repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell yesterday (although its Senate future is hazy; ask again later). The 15 Dem “no” votes are mostly Blue Dogs in socially conservative districts (with nine of them not coming back, either via loss or retirement), with one key exception: Artur Davis, still seeming completely intent on maxing out on his frequent douchebag miles before leaving. The 15 GOP “yes” votes are more interesting, a mix of departing moderates (Castle, Djou, Cao, Ehlers), remaining moderates in well-educated (and presumably low homophobia) districts (Biggert, Reichert, Dent, Platts), GOPers with substantially gay constituencies (Bono Mack, Ros-Lehtinen, Diaz-Balart… and we can double-count Cao), die-hard libertarians (Paul, Flake, Campbell), and in his own category, David Dreier.

• WATN?: Dede Scozzafava, perhaps as a reward for, in her own round-about way, giving us the gift of Bill Owens in NY-23, is in talks to get a job in the incoming Cuomo administration. The exact position hasn’t been defined, but will be something about “streamlining” government.

• Demographics: Here’s an interesting piece in the Democratic Strategist that does some demographic slice-and-dice of the House seats where Dems lost. Some of it isn’t a surprise (losses occurred where race and education overlap, as the white working class particularly turned right), but it adds an important variable to the mix that nobody else seems to have noticed: manufacturing. There’s a definite correlation between losses and how reliant the district is on a manufacturing economy.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (12/10-12, Wisconsin voters, no trendlines):

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 51

JB Van Hollen (R): 38

Undecided: 11

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 48

Paul Ryan (R): 42

Undecided: 11

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 49

Tommy Thompson (R): 40

Undecided: 11

Russ Feingold (D): 52

JB Van Hollen (R): 41

Undecided: 7

Russ Feingold (D): 50

Paul Ryan (R): 43

Undecided: 7

Russ Feingold (D): 49

Tommy Thompson (R): 40

Undecided: 11

(MoE: ±3.7%)

Oh, the difference a likely voter screen makes. PPP tests the Wisconsin Senate race, and finds Herb Kohl leading three of the more prominent Wisconsin GOPers: Attorney General JB Van Hollen, 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan, and former Governor and HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson by anywhere from 6 to 13 points. Kohl is reasonably well liked (though not nearly at Klobuchar-esque levels) at 50/43.

Of course, Kohl is not the youngest guy around, and should he retire and Russ Feingold be interested in staging a comeback, Feingold would be in rather good shape, leading the three GOP contenders from 7 to 11 points. Interestingly, Feingold’s favorables, at 50/43, are actually better than Ron Johnson’s, who is barely above water at 42/39. Oh, the difference a likely voter screen makes.

This poll gives us some reason to be optimistic, but let’s not forget that a year out from November 2010 – before Ron Johnson was on anyone’s radar – Feingold was leading Thompson by 9 and in commanding position against all others. One hopes 2012 will be different!

Well, seeing as how I just finished a short research paper on Minnesota congressional districts for one of my classes, I thought it would be a good idea to give the diary thing a try before I get too busy with finals. This is the first in a series of Minnesota maps, some possible and others, unfortunately not. The first map is below:

My goal with this map was to predict the outcome of the redistricting process given the current situation – Republican legislature and Democratic governor. I assumed that Minnesota will keep its eigth seat becasue new estimates suggest that will happen and Minnesota had a very high census response rate. I may have been too optimistic by drawing Craavack out of the 8th (God I hope that happens) but if that were to happen to anyone, it would be him since he has the least seniority and influence. Close ups of the districts are below. In some of the close ups, green represents new additions to the district and purple/pink represents areas that were lost.

First District – Blue – Walz (DFL)

Likely DFL

The 1st remains largely unchanged, picking up Sibley county (53-30 Emmer, 58-39 McCain) and small pieces of Le Sueur, McLeod, Goodhue for population balance. This new district voted 40-46-13 Dayton/Emmer/Horner but reelected Tim Walz. Obama would likely have one this district in 2008 as well since very little has changed.

Second District – Green – Kline (R)

Safe R

Not much happens to Rep. Kline’s southern suburbs district either. It pulls out of Washington and Carver counties to make way for the urban districts to expand. It takes West St. Paul back from the fourth to preserve county lines and gives up a few precints on the southern edge for population balance. Emmer won this district 38-49-19 as well as McCain. The new Chariman of the Education and Labor Committee won’t have a problem holding this.

Third District – Purple – Paulsen (R)

Likely R

Hennepin County has lost some population and so Paulsen’s district has to expand outward. It picks of Carver County and a small part of Anoka County that used to be in the fifth district. This district currently has a PVI of D+0 but the expansion into Carver County (57-42 McCain, 28-58-13 Emmer) it becomes more Republican. This may be winnable for a moderate Democrat in a good year but otherwise, Paulsen should be safe.

Fourth District – Red – McCullom (DFL)

Safe DFL

This district gives its part of Dakota County back to the second district and picks up the southern half of Washington County. I wanted to add all of Washington so that Bachmann’s home would be here but that isn’t realistic to expect the Republican legislature to agree to that. It may happen if the courts draw the lines and only pay attention to population but that is unlikely. This district is currently D+13. It may have dropped slightly in this map with the addition of part of Washington County but not significantly.

Fifth District (College) – Yellow – Ellison (DFL)

Safe DFL

There isn’t much to see here. The fifth district gives up the little piece of Anoka County (Fridley and Columbia Heigths) and picks up a slightly bigger piece (population wise atleast) in the southwest inner suburbs (Edina). This district is currently D+23 and probably would stay that way.

Sixth District – Teal – Bachmann (R)

Likely R with Bachmann, Safe R with anyone else

Bachmann’s district undergoes the biggest changes. The sixth district trades Sherburne and part of Stearns (St. Cloud, home of Tarryl Clark)for Isanti and Chisago (Chip Cravaack’s home). It also picks up Meeker County and small parts of Anoka, Washington, and McLeod while giving up part of Washington to McCullom. With the loss of St. Cloud and the addition of Meeker, this district becomes more Republican. Since Bachmann is so crazy, this may be likely R with a great DFL candidate and a good year. This would definitely be safe with any other Republican. Cravaack also lives in this district but would Bachmann would easily defeat him at the district convention or primary.

Seventh District – Grey – Peterson (DFL)

Safe DFL with Peterson, Lean R when open

This district is mostly the same with just few changes in central Minnesota. It picks up the rest of Beltrami as well as all of Hubbard, Cass, and Wadena from the eigth district. It loses Meeker, Sibley, and part of McLeod to balance out the population. This mostly rural district voted for McCain 47-50 and likely voted for Emmer over Dayton. This is Safe DFL with Peterson running but would probably be lean R at best when he decides to retire.

Eigth District (Home) – Slate Blue – Cravaack (R)

Lean DFL

A few weeks before the election, I confidently declared that Jim Oberstar would not lose. Unfortunately, I was wrong but now Rep.-elect Chip Cravaack is high on the target list for 2012. His new district trades Chisago and Isanti for part of Stearns (St. Cloud) and Sherburne. Cravaack no longer lives in this district but could easily move 20 miles up I-35 if he wanted to. Drawing Cravaack may not be possible with the Republican legislature but, since he has no seniority and very little influence, pretty much everyone has little incentive to listen to him. With Cravaack as the incumbent, this district is Lean DFL and woud be Likely DFL if the incumbency effect was not in place.

Overall, this map produces a 5DFL-3R split that would hold up in all but the worst years (like 2010). Once Peterson retires, it would become 4DFL-4R unless the DFL could find a moderate/populist to run.

Any suggestions and comments are welcome. this is my first complete map and diary so any insight would be greatly appreciated especially since I’m young don’t know a lot about the history of politics in Minnesota and how that might affect the results using this map or any historic district boundaries. Any information on that would be helpful too. Thanks!

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (12/10-12, Ohio voters, no trendlines):

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 43

Mike DeWine (R): 43

Undecided: 14

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 43

Jon Husted (R): 38

Undecided: 18

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 43

Jim Jordan (R): 35

Undecided: 22

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 40

Mary Taylor (R): 38

Undecided: 22

(MoE: ±4.3%)

Says Tom Jensen:

Ohio voters are pretty evenly divided on whether Brown’s done a good job in office so far – 40% approve of his performance while 37% disapprove. Democrats overwhelmingly like him, by a 66/9 spread. Republicans for the most part dislike him with only 16% approving to 62% who disapprove. The biggest problem for Brown though is independents – with them only 28% approve to 48% disapproving. To put those numbers into some perspective Ted Strickland, who was just defeated for reelection, is at a 38/42 spread with independents.

This race is likely to be priority #1 for progressives this cycle – and it won’t be an easy one.

California constitutes one of the most diverse states in the United States. Here is how the Census estimates its population composition:

California’s   Ethnic Composition
Asian	12.7%
Black	6.6%
Hispanic	37.0%
Mixed	2.6%
Native   American	1.2%
Pacific   Islander	0.4%
White	41.7%

(Note that the numbers do not add up to 100, due to the way the Census tracks ethnicity.)

The people who actually vote in California, however, do not reflect this composition.

More below.

California’s electorate in the 2008 presidential election is quite different from its actual ethnic composition:

2008   Electorate: Exit Polls
Asian	6%
Black	10%
Hispanic	18%
Other	3%
White	63%

These numbers were taken from exit polls – and one should be warned that exit polls are very, very inaccurate. The numbers above should not be taken for the truth, but rather as a rough approximation of it.

Nevertheless, one can take something out of the exit polls: blacks and whites punched far above their demographic weight, while Asians and Hispanics punched far below theirs. This pattern isn’t so much a racial one as much as an immigrant versus non-immigrant one.

Since blacks and whites are mainly non-immigrant communities, they vote more often than immigrant communities. Blacks and whites thus are overrepresented in the electorate. There was little racial divide between black and white turn-out, which is quite remarkable, given the lower socioeconomic status of blacks. All in all the percentage of California’s 2008 electorate was about 50% more black and white than California’s overall population.

Hispanics are the ones hurt most by this. The difference between the Hispanic portion of the electorate and the Hispanic portion of the overall population is quite striking: the electorate is just half as Hispanic as the population. Most of this is attributable to the legal status of many Hispanic immigrants, the relative youth of the Hispanic population, the lower socioeconomic status of Hispanics, and the immigrant-heavy nature Hispanic community (this is different from the first factor in that immigrants are inherently less likely to vote even if they are citizens).

It is not Hispanics, however, who are least likely to vote: it is Asians. There are several similarities and differences between the two groups. Unlike Hispanics, the Asian population is not skewed downwards, and Asians generally have a high socioeconomic status. On the other hand, Asians are much more of an immigrant community than Hispanics: a remarkable four out of five adult Asians in California constituted immigrants, according to a 2002 study. Only 59% of adult Asians were citizens (who can vote), according to the study.

The low voting rates of Hispanics and Asians naturally reduce their political power. Hispanics, at around one-fifth of the California electorate, are influential – but imagine how much more influential the Hispanic vote would be if they voted their numbers. As for Asians, their low turn-out makes their community almost a non-factor in California politics.

This will probably change, of course. A century ago one could have written the exact same words about another immigrant-heavy group that did not vote: Irish-Americans.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

• MO-Sen: Ed Martin, who lost narrowly in MO-03, has kept spamming me (and presumably everybody else who writes about politics) with press releases vaguely hinting at voter fraud. It’s seeming like maybe there’s something more there to it than just garden-variety sore-loserism; there’s growing buzz that he’s trying to stay top-of-mind for a possible run for the GOP Senate nomination. Now, you might be saying, that’s a whole lot of hubris for a guy who couldn’t even win a House seat to go up against Sarah Steelman and possibly Jim Talent, but Martin might be able to grab the tea party mantle considering that the local ‘baggers are quite adamant that they aren’t as enamored with her as the national-level ones are. Martin is apparently also considering another run for the House; part of his decision will be what happens with redistricting, as MO-03 may be on the chopping block, between St. Louis-area depopulation and Republican legislative control.

• MT-Sen: Trying to decipher Rep. Denny Rehberg’s intentions, about a possible run against freshman Dem Jon Tester? David Catanese is actually picking through his Christmas card to read the tea leaves. Rehberg tells his supporters (and extended family members) that he’s “not taking anything off the table” in terms of his next step, which is interesting, as it may mean he’s thinking about the open seat gubernatorial race too.

• NE-Sen: Now here’s a blast from the past: ex-Gov. Kay Orr is so old-school that she was actually defeated for Governor by Ben Nelson, way back in 1990. Despite 20 years out of the political scene, her name is being floated as a possibility for the GOP Senate primary for the right to take on Nelson in 2012. Orr herself says she’s undecided, but sounds leaning against it. The Fix also seems to think that state Treasurer (and another long-ago loser to Nelson, although at least this time in a Senate race) Don Stenberg is likely to run, which would force a primary against AG Jon Bruning.

• PA-Sen: There are two different overviews of the Pennsylvania situation today; one is from Alex Roarty at National Journal (and unfortunately is behind a paywall, so I’ll give you the gist). The one new name that surfaces in it is GOP Rep. Tim Murphy (from PA-18 in the Pittsburgh-suburbs); while he isn’t pushing forward on it, he’s shown more behind-the-scenes interest in it than Charlie Dent or Jim Gerlach, both of whom have gotten more touting but seem content with their cushy new committee posts. He also mentions that state Sen. Kim Ward is now leaning against, and confirms that ex-Gov. Mark Schweiker is at the top of the GOP’s wish list but probably a pipe dream. A Philadelphia Magazine article tries to handicap the GOP field, with absolutely nobody on the first tier, Gerlach alone on the second tier, and state Sen. Jake Corman (and Ward) comprising the third tier.

• VA-Sen: Newsmax has an interview with new right-wing hero Ken Cuccinelli, who despite his new HCR-related celebrity is taking the opportunity to make clear that he isn’t running for Senate in 2012 (which would remove George Allen’s main impediment for the GOP nomination). He wouldn’t rule out running for Governor in 2013, though. (I wouldn’t link to Newsmax if you paid me to, so you’ll have to take my word for it.)

• IN-Gov: Rep. Joe Donnelly is another option for Dems for Indiana Governor, although a run by Donnelly would require him giving up his seat. What if the GOP decides to get really aggressive in gerrymandering and build a nightmare seat for him (for instance, creating a dumbbell-shaped district linking Gary and his town of South Bend, forcing him to run against Lake County-based Pete Visclosky or else to move to a mostly rural red district)? South Bend’s Dem party chair is now saying that Donnelly would look at a statewide race in the event that the House map is too unfavorable.

• FL-22: I think I’m going to greatly enjoy Allen West’s two years in the House, if only because he has the skill of digging his own hole deeper every time he opens his mouth. Fresh off the outrageous suggestion that the government should “censor” mainstream media outlets that publish information obtained via WikiLeaks (and apparently having had someone explain First Amendment jurisprudence carefully to him), now he’s claiming that he was misinterpreted, and that he actually said “censure” instead.

• IL-17: Now here’s a fool’s errand: declaring your intention to run for a district that’s about to vaporize. Soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Phil Hare has already expressed his interest in a rematch with Bobby Schilling, but he may have some company. Both former Rock Island mayor Mark Schweibert and state Rep. Mike Boland said they’re interested in running in the Dem primary, too. (Hare, former aide to Lane Evans, was picked over Schweibert by local party heads to be the 2006 nominee after Evans dropped out of the race post-primary.) The 17th seems like the likeliest district on the Illinois chopping block, though, seeing as how most of the state’s population loss has been Downstate and there’s not much point for the Dem-held legislature to preserve a Democratic vote sink if it’s not even going to elect a Democrat.

• KS-??: Despite his various Sherman-esque statements when he first announced he wouldn’t run for a full term as Governor, outgoing Dem Gov. Mark Parkinson is saying in an exit interview that he won’t rule out running for something in the future. (In the meantime, he’s heading to DC to rule the nursing home trade association.) It’s unclear what he’d run for, though… KS-03 is certainly a possibility, as it’s the most Dem-friendly part of the state and Parkinson is an Olathe resident.

• NY-10: This may be taking tea leaf reading a step too far here, but the subtext to Ed Towns’ surprising decision not to seek the ranking member position on the Oversight committee (and back Carolyn Maloney for it) may be that he’s about to wind down his entirely unremarkable decades-long House tenure. Towns will be 78 in 2012.

• KY-AG: It looks like Jack Conway is getting some GOP opposition after all, although not from as serious a threat as outgoing SoS Trey Grayson. Todd P’Pool, the state attorney for planet Vulcan Hopkins County (population 46K) has announced that he will challenge Conway in a battle to the death for the right to mate with T’Pring the 2011 election. Cue the epic fight music!

• OR-St. Sen.: Who woulda thunk that the Oregon state Senate would be one of the last question marks to get resolved this year? The GOP-funded recount in SD-3, where Dem Alan Bates narrowly won, and the retaliatory Dem-funded recount in the race where Martha Schrader narrowly lost (she had been appointed to fill the seat vacated by her husband, now-Rep. Kurt Schrader), are over, with the numbers barely budging at all. The Dems retain a 16-14 majority.

• TX-St. House: Two more party switchers to report, this time in the Texas state House, where Dems had actually entertained the notion of flipping the body a while ago and instead are now facing the wrong end of a supermajority. Aaron Pena and Allan Ritter have both announced that they’re joining the GOP, despite their blue districts (in fact, Pena’s Hidalgo County district went over 70% for Obama), apparently for the same rationale that the Georgia party-switchers are giving: deep in the minority, it’s the only way for them to have any effectiveness in the capitol.

• Mayors: There’s a new Chicago mayoral poll out, where again the main question seems to be whether Rahm Emanuel can win outright without a runoff. That’s not looking likely, given the crowded field, although he still has a substantial lead in the new Tribune/WGN poll, at 32%. Gery Chico and Danny Davis are at 9, James Meeks is at 7, Carol Mosely Braun is at 6, Miguel del Valle is at 3, and Roland Burris is at 2, leaving 30 undecided. Emanuel leads among both blacks (with 19%) and Hispanics (27%).

One other mayoral race (or “situation,” really) that’s heating up is in San Francisco, where there’s a regularly scheduled 2011 election but also a looming vacancy with Gavin Newsom about to become Lt. Governor. The Board of Supervisors will have to choose an interim mayor to serve out those 11 months, and they’ll have to choose between one of their own who may be considering a November run, or an elder-statesman placekeeper. However, the Board is split any number of ways, and if there’s nobody who gets 6 of its 11 votes, the Board’s President, David Chiu, becomes acting mayor. The only person who seems in position to pick up at least six votes would be state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano.

• Census: All manner of data analysis is pouring forth, in the wake of yesterday’s massive data dump of the Census Bureau’s five-year ACS estimates (which is where you’re going to find a lot of the information that used to be on the “long form”). Perhaps most amazingly of all is a new mapping tool from the New York Times, which lets you zoom in or out from the state level to the block level anywhere in the country to look at race and foreign-born status. (Set aside a few hours to explore this one.) Also worth reading are new articles on changes in racial segregation (in major decline in certain metro areas, especially Atlanta and Miami, which can have major VRA implications in terms of it being harder to cobble together districts that have a majority of any particular group) and in rural populations (declining rapidly, as you might imagine).

Heeding some of the comments I received on yesterday’s map (thank you by the way!), I drew a slightly more VRA-observant, slightly more cautious, but still robust Democratic gerrymander of Illinois.  This map assumes that the DOJ is going to insist on 60%+ for Chicago’s already-protected VRA Latino district and therefore only drew a second one that is 52% Hispanic for Lipinski.  Probably by the end of this decade it will become enough Hispanic to elect a Hispanic congressman.  I was convinced in the commentary that my 56% Latino district of yesterday’s map is of questionable legality.

I also drew each of the 3 VRA Black districts 53% Black.  Why 53% you might ask?  That is how much each of the districts contain now when you add in additional population to account for relative population loss.  That is the maximum you can realistically place in a VRA protected Black district from Chicago after 2010, assuming that the census estimates are accurate.  We’ll know for sure in a few months.  I was under the impression that the courts have started interpreting the VRA to require 50%+1 when possible of the population but perhaps it’s a bit more in areas where it is feasible to create such districts?

The other two highlighted changes from yesterday is that I firmed up the 14th and made it an almost certain Democratic pickup like the district I designed for Debbie Halvorson.  I do not agree with the comment made by a person or two that my finger down the lake for the 10th isn’t robust enough.  I double checked the numbers today: it is nearly 150,000 new residents of precincts that on average gave 85-90% of their votes to Obama and probably 80-85% to Kerry four years earlier. This more than makes up for the loss of Waukegan.  Waukegan in turn helps Melissa Bean in her rematch with Joe Walsh.  I respectfully disagree with the comment suggesting it did not help elect a Democrat congressman finally to the 10th, although not three-time loser Dan Seals (please!).  Whether we want to quibble over whether I should label it safe Democratic or probably Democratic, Dolt is a one-term wonder.

The second significant change is that I created a second Republican vote sink in northern Illinois and placed Biggert, Roskam, and Hultgren in the same seat that swoops from the more Republican areas of DuPage out a narrow tendril to further exurbia.  Should be fun watching that primary.

I then grouped Manzullo and Schiller together in a district that favors Manzullo.  The third pair-up includes Schock vs. Kinzinger out of personal spite.  One of these glamour boys has got to go!  And it will be 2014 until they can think on taking on Dick Durbin or Governor Quinn; good luck again either!

Chicagoland:

District 1 (dark blue): Rush-D 53%B, 39%W.  Stays in Cook County now but takes very white areas away from Lipinski so the district can comply with the VRA.

District 2 (dark green): Jackson Jr.-D 53%B, 39%W.  Gives up a bit of Hispanic and racially mixed south Chicago and suburbs to Halvorson in exchange for a bit of lean-Republican suburbia formerly in Biggert’s district.  Still Jackson will have no worries here and it may introduce him to some new voters he’ll need if he ever wants to follow through on his statewide aspirations.

District 3 (purple): Lipinski-D 51% Hispanic, 41% White

Probably white-majority electorate but as the children become voters, this district will eventually probably elect a second Hispanic congressman.  I expect a lot of hollering about this district and possibly some lawsuits, but the comments on yesterday’s map convinced me of its dubious legality regarding these two seats.  Besides, I offer you two options here.

District 4 (red): Gutierrez-D 63% Hispanic, 26% White, 5% Black.  It’s certainly possible to cram more Hispanics in here but I think it will no longer be legal to do this.  The VRA – as has been pointed out – is not designed to ensure the election of a member of the ethnic group but rather to give that ethnic or racial group the maximum opportunity of electing candidates of their choice.  Again, I’ve shown yesterday that it is feasible to create two districts that, on paper, are majority Hispanic – the question is whether the DOJ and/or the courts will require it be done.  We’ll find out next year.

Also I see no reason to draw the earmuffs except to preserve a Republican gerrymander, which is why they were drawn in the first place after 1990.  By reconnecting the two parts of the seat a bit differently, you can have Davis go out into DuPage County and free up enough non-Black areas of Chicago currently in his district to vote in the 10th.

District 7 (grey) Davis-D 53%B, 33%W, 8%H

Almost goes up to Roskam’s doorstep.  Helps out the gerrymander perhaps the most as it probably ensures the election of a new Democratic congressman from the 10th and, indirectly, helps out Melissa Bean in her comeback bid as it free up enough territory that the 10th doesn’t need Waukegan.

District 5 (yellow) Quigley-D 70%W, 16%H, 4%B

In the absence of partisan numbers, I’ll guestimate based on the racial numbers and from eye-balling this that I’ve left enough of Quigley’s Chicago base to not cause him much worries.  The areas of northern DuPage County were 50-50 in Kerry-Bush and are probably slightly Dem-leaning by now.  Elk Grove also I believe is slightly Dem-leaning by now.

District 9 (light blue) Schakowsky-D 63%W, 14%H, 13%A, 8%B

Again, I believe the addition of Wheeling Twp with Mt. Pleasant is probably not endangering Schakowsky terribly, especially when I left intact her Jewish and liberal Chicago and northern suburban base.

District 10 (pink-red) Dolt-R but probably I’m guessing Hamos-D 74%W, 11%H, 9%A, 5%B

A competent suburban Democrat can win this district.  As pointed out in the comments to my other map, the thin narrow tendril down to Navy Pier is deceiving; it is packed with high-rises which vote ~85% Democratic.  I tried not to rob too much of them from Schakowsky.  Probably turns an already D+6 district (the most frigging Democratic PVI seat at the moment represented by a Republican in Congress!) probably into a district that voted for Obama in the mid 60s% and for Kerry around 60%.  Although actual numbers here will rest my case.

District 8 (purple) Bean-D vs. Walsh-R 64%W, 20%H, 9%A, 6%B

Tilts toward Bean now with the addition of Waukegan and a few Hispanic precincts in northern DuPage.  Adds the Republican part of Palatine back into the district, though.  And Bean lives in frigging Barrington.  At least the district contains no more of McHenry, though.  Without McHenry in the district in 2010, Bean would have won re-election.  I think the fact that Walsh is a wack-job, Obama is at the top of the ballot, and this is a better district for Bean will all result in this district flipping in 2012.

District 11 (indigo) VACANT designed for Halvorson-D 60%W, 20%H, 15%B

Kinzinger drawn into the 18th to duke it out with Aaron Schock, modeled after Halvorson’s old state senate seat which straddled the Will-southern Cook County area if I recall.  Modeled after the district of the 1990s actually but a bit more Democratic now than then so Halvorson should like this district quite nicely.

Northern Illinois more generally

District 6 (teal) Hulgren-R vs. Roskam-R vs. Biggert-R 80%W, 8%H, 7%A, 4%B

I bet you Biggert retires and Roskam and Hulgren try to out tea party the other.  Might leave an opening for a Melissa Bean kind of Democrat as this district – although drawn to be a Republican vote sink – still probably narrowly voted for Obama in 2008.  So it isn’t super-Republican.  Should be fun to watch.

District 14 (brown-green) VACANT but designed for a Foster comeback 61%W, 26%H, 9%B, 3%A

More firmly Democratic than yesterday’s version.  What a big difference adding Aurora makes.  In case you are wondering what the deal is about the tiny dip into DuPage is – two reasons.  First of all partisan redistricting tends to be a bit petty – for example the tiny finger going into Montgomery County, PA to come near Hoeffel’s house – I think I might have come very close to drawing Hultgren into here.  But more the point, it grabs a few carefully chosen Hispanic precincts.

District 16 (green) Manzullo-R vs. Schilling-R

Swoops around the 14th and takes all the rural Republican areas of northern Illinois out of that district and the 17th to the south.

District 17 (dark purple) VACANT possibly the Democratic Moline-based State Representative that was mentioned in the comments?

Very little different from yesterday’s version.

District 18 (yellow) Kinzinger-R vs. Schock-R

Who can out-glamour and out tea party the other?  Realistically if you are a cynical political operator out of Springfield (and who isn’t in this state of consummate political machine politicians – and I thought New York State was bad!), you will get rid of the one of the two greatest long-term threats to Dick Durbin in 2014 by pairing them together.  Either one of them would make formidable candidates in a toxic midterm in the 6th year of Obama’s possible two-term presidency.  Not that I think Durbin’s in any danger or doesn’t know how to get his hands dirty and win an election.  Just thinking about the long-term view.

Anyway, this is a rural heartland GOP vote sink now missing its juicy Democratic cities.

Downstate

District 15 (orange) Johnson-R but maybe not for long

Very similar to how I drew the seat yesterday.  I’d like to see Kerry numbers on this one, but I think the cities probably outvoted the Republican rural areas connecting them.  And even if not, it is better to try to capture one seat rather than than divide these cities into two districts and continue electing two Republican congressmen.

District 12 (medium blue) Costello-D

Very similar to yesterday’s version except I thought that Edwardsville, with its students, might be added to add a few more Democrats to the seat, and subtracted much of racist Union County.  The reason you need a tiny tendril down to Cairo is that the very tip of the state is about 30-35% black and reliably Democratic.  I live in this district, in uber-liberal Carbondale, where I teach in the history department at SIU.  Costello is so frigging safe that I figured he did not need my vote this year and voted Green to protest against his antics on the health care reform law earlier this year when he was one of the Stupak gang threatening to withhold votes needed to pass it.

District 13 (pink-red) Shimkus-R

As I said before, it pains me that I have to draw a vote-sink for Shimkus but there it is.  A devious possible alteration would be to throw Shimkus into the southern-central Illinois cities seat and draw more moderate Johnson into the vote-sink.  I guess it doesn’t really matter.