Month: January 2011

I’ve just uploaded a new version and created a survey, which is now open.

What’s new in 2.0.4: a new way of coloring districts. I really like it and I hope you agree. The old way is still there, too, so you have a choice.

You can toggle between the old and new way to color from the File Menu. Also, if you let the “How To” banner appear on startup, you’ll get a dialog box to choose. More detail below the fold.

App Launch page

Survey Launch

The new coloring method is similar to the old, but makes 2 key changes, that I hope you agree are improvements:

(1) You can click the “Color Districts” button (labeled “Coloring Is Off” for the old way) to turn on coloring. (Double-click also still toggles Coloring Mode.)

(2) You have to hold down the mouse button as you sweep to color districts, so you can maneuver better in coloring mode.

Advantages:

(1) You don’t as often accidentally color districts you don’t want.

(2) You can move to the control panel and change CDs or opacity without leaving Coloring Mode.

(3) You can hover over a district and get its population data tooltip, so you can decide whether to color it or not.

And this allows for an additional feature that I’m very excited about: Draw a box and color everything inside it. When you hold down the Ctrl key and mouse button and move the mouse (called Ctrl-Drag) you draw a box on the map. When you release the mouse button all districts in the box are colored. I’ve been trying this out and it allows you to work much faster!

The survey is 22 questions, most short and easy. It’s open until January 17th. Please take it after you’ve tried the new coloring method. I really value your feedback.

Survey Launch

I’m in the midst of planning for this year. It’s not a done deal yet, but I’ve got some good leads on funding for the app and I plan to focus full time on it for most of this year. The survey will help me improve and enhance the app.

Thanks!

[Update] I bought a MacBook and started looking at the interaction with the app:

— Drawing a box to color indeed does not work, because the Ctrl key maps to a Right Mouse Button Click. I will be able to fix this by using a different key, but that will take a little time.

— For sweeping to color districts with the New Way, you can use the three-finger metaphor on the trackpad; it is the same as pushing down on the trackpad with 1 finger and sweeping with another. The three finger approach seems much easier to me.

— I am still not able to repro the cases where panning flies off the screen.

Thanks for all of your responses to the survey. It will be open for 1 more week!

• IN-Sen: Richard Lugar and local leaders in the tea party movement had a sitdown at an Indianapolis hotel last month. I’m not sure if it was actually intended by Lugar to try to deter a GOP primary challenge, but it seemed to have none of the desired effect if so; the net result seemed to have been cordial but with a sense of “game on,” with the main question left being who the challenger will be.

• WI-Sen: With this his first day out of the Senate, Russ Feingold will be, instead of heading for the K Street gravy train, taking a position at Marquette University’s law school. When asked about his 2012 plans in the event of a Herb Kohl retirement, Feingold simply said that he hopes Kohl runs again and would support him if so.

• IN-Gov: Democrat Jonathan Weinzapfel looks poised to become the first entrant in the Indiana gubernatorial race. He’s announced that he won’t seek another term as mayor of Evansville (which would require running for re-election this year), and says that he’ll take a “good, hard look at” the governor’s race and make a decision sooner rather than later.” Meanwhile, after the Beltway collectively decided yesterday that Mike Pence was going to run for Gov. on the GOP side, there’s yet more conflicting evidence today, as seen in his plans to appear with other GOP presidential hopefuls at a conference in Georgia, just across the border from pivotal South Carolina.

• MA-Gov: Deval Patrick is vowing today that he’ll serve out his full second term (something that a Massachusetts governor hasn’t done in decades, not since Mike Dukakis), but won’t seek a third term in 2014. That would seem to (at least for now) put the kibosh on any speculation that he might look to challenge Scott Brown in 2012.

• MN-06: The news that produced spit-takes all across America this morning: Michele Bachmann is floating her name for president in 2012. Obviously a failed vanity presidential bid is no deterrent to a return engagement in the House if you hit the ejector seat early enough (just ask still-Rep. Ron Paul), but this bit of laughable presidential weirdness could have some major downballot implications if it truly leads to an open seat (especially if Tarryl Clark is indeed looking to run again).

• WI-07: It looks like we might already have a serious contender in the on-deck circle in the 7th, which at D+3 is one of the bluest districts that the GOP picked up thanks to David Obey’s retirement. Former state Sen. Kevin Shibilski was one of the short-list of candidates to run in Obey’s stead (state Sen. Julie Lassa eventually became the consensus pick), and is now saying he’s seriously interested in a 2012 run. Shibilski owns two resorts and apparently has serious self-funding capacity. Shibilski still sounds a little wary, though, preferring to wait and see whether new Rep. Sean Duffy stays a boilerplate Republican or turns into the sort of moderate who’s been able, in the past, to hold down a rural Wisconsin seat (a la Steve Gunderson, or Mel Laird, if you want to go way back to Obey’s predecessor). (H/t alphaaqua.)

• IA-St. Sen.: The year’s barely started and the Dems have already lost their first special election! I don’t think anybody had particularly high hopes for last night’s fight, though: it was a GOP-leaning seat in Iowa’s rural southwestern corner, held to replace Kim Reynolds, who just became Iowa’s Lt. Governor. Montgomery County auditor Joni Ernst held the seat for the GOP, beating Dem nominee Ruth Smith, with 67% of the vote. The Dems still control the state Senate 26-23, with one more formerly-GOP-held special election pending.

• NV-St. Sen.: This is big news by Nevada standards: state Sen. Bill Raggio, the state GOP senate leader for decades but deposed recently from his perch in a tea party-ish palace coup (in the wake of his endorsement of Harry Reid), has announced that he’s resigning later this month rather than completing his term. This may have Sharron Angle’s antennae twitching, as you might remember she tried and failed to primary out Raggio in his Reno-area seat in 2008, and she might be interested in trying that again, adding the state Sen. to the list of her myriad other possibilities like another NV-Sen run or an NV-02 run if Dean Heller vacates (although it’s worth noting this won’t lead to a fast special election, as Nevada, like several other western states, fills legislative vacancies temporarily via appointment).

• NY-St. Sen.: This seems like strange posturing that will probably vaporize once the Democrats are back in the majority in the state Senate, but four of New York’s Senate Democrats just broke off from the Dem caucus and formed their own little club, the Independent Democrat Caucus (meaning the breakdown is either 32-30 or 32-26-4, depending on how you want to view it). Interestingly, it’s not the usual most-uncooperative Dems (Ruben Diaz, anyone?), but a clutch of reform-minded Dems (led by the barely-re-elected David Valesky, and also including the newly-elected David Carlucci) who apparently didn’t want to get boxed into voting for John Sampson as Dem leader.

• PA-St. Sen.: The special election to replace long-time Democratic state Sen. Michael O’Pake in the light-blue SD-11 has been set for March 15. As I’ve mentioned before, this could turn into an interesting bellwether on where Pennsylvania’s southeastern suburbs are headed.

• Votes: Today’s attention-getting vote was the number of defections against Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker vote: 19 Democrats voted for someone else (or present). Heath Shuler led the way with 11, while other votes included Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, and even neighbors Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa voting for each other.

• Redistricting: Two news stories concern the independent commissions that will be in charge of redistricting in two states gaining seats, Arizona and Washington. In Arizona, they’re already litigating the issue of who even gets on the commission in the first place; new state Sen. president and all-around jackass Russell Pearce is suing on the basis that three of the people nominated to serve are technically ineligible. (Interestingly, two of the three are Republicans, although maybe the problem is they weren’t hardliners enough for Pearce’s tastes.) Meanwhile, in Washington, Skeletor has re-emerged from a decade of suspended animation: evil genius and ex-Sen. Slade Gorton will be one of the two designated Republicans on the commission. Luckily, the lead Dem going up against Gorton will be Tim Ceis, the former Seattle deputy mayor who’s well-known for his own elbow-throwing abilities.

Finally, the Fix has its latest installment in its state-by-state redistricting look, and I agree with both their conclusions about Ohio: that, mostly because of geography, Betty Sutton is the likeliest Dem to get squeezed rather than Dennis Kucinich (since she faces pressure from other Dems from the north, west, and east), and that, because of depopulation in the state’s Appalachian southeast and the fact that they’re both obscure freshmen, Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson are the GOPers likeliest to get pitted against each other for the state’s other lost seat.

We’ve already had a lively discussion with regard to California redistricting in this diary below, but now that I have diary rights I want to finally post my own projected map of the new California districts. Needless to mention, redistricting California is a daunting task, particularly in light of the newly approved ‘nonpartisan’ commission. So, a few notes and caveats are in order.

1) My map is only as good as the data provided by Dave’s Redistricting App. Clearly then, to whatever extent that data is invalid, my output will be likewise.

2) In this installment I’ll mainly just outline the process that I followed in placing the districts. I might go over the political results or the VRA ramifications in a subsequent installment if there seems to be enough interest. In short, I welcome any feedback or criticism regarding my decisions. I want to be reasonably confident about the validity of my mapping scheme before I go into much detail about how it affects individual districts.

3) I did not take any account of the current districts when putting together my map. However, I went back and numbered them based on the closest current district merely so as to facilitate discussion. I have added the incumbent that holds that currently numbered district, though I generally have no idea whether they’d still live in said districts. Also, when I doublechecked this afternoon I realized that several of the LA County and OC County districts were not optimally labelled in the map I posted to the other thread. More on that when I get to it.

4) The purpose of this exercise is in part to counter the popular notion that we can’t project some reasonably accurate version of the new California district configuration. My basic premise is that: If the commission simply follows the rule of crossing county and city boundaries only when necessary, then in most cases it’s obvious which way to go, so long as you have a starting point.

5) None of my districts deviate by more than +/- 600 people. The majority deviate by less than +/- 200. Again, this is based on Dave’s app of course. And, speaking of Dave’s app: It’s glitchy at spots. I’ve edited these glitches out of the maps below.

So, without further ado, here we go:

To begin with, here’s my statewide map:

Now I chose San Francisco as a natural starting point. The simple reason for this being that it’s bounded on three sides by water boundaries. It’s also one of the state’s leading cities and a classic tenet of purely geographic districting is to minimize the subdivision of major population centers. Below is my final map of the Bay Area. This is the process by which I arrived at these boundaries:

1) I began with CA-08 in San Francisco County, then simply added voting blocks horizontally until I reach the correct population. Now, there’s been some discussion about the idea of instead dividing the county roughly in half and joining the northern district with Marin County across the Bay. For the record, I tried that just to see what happens. In short, all of these compact districts around the Bay are heavily Democratic districts, and taking CA-08 north into Marin simply rotates them clockwise, still leaving you with a set of heavily Democratic districts. The only meaningful difference is that population centers are harder to keep intact.

CA-08 (Pelosi – D): 85% Obama / 13% McCain

2) I started CA-12 with the remainder of San Francisco County and finished it with San Mateo County except for Redwood City.

CA-12 (Speier – D): 74% Obama / 24% McCain

3) I started CA-14 with Redwood City and added Santa Clara to complete the district. I then put San Jose in its own CA-15 district, and then started CA-16 with the rest of Santa Clara County.

CA-14 (Eshoo – D): 73% Obama / 25% McCain

CA-15 (Honda – D): 70% Obama / 28% McCain

4) I wasn’t sure which way to go with CA-16, so I switched gears to start CA-17 with Santa Cruz County. I then added Monterey County to CA-17. It then became clear enough that I should add San Benito County to CA-16, because if I added it to CA-17 it would not take up the whole county.

5) At this point it became clear enough that I should complete CA-16 with the eastern part of Alameda County.

CA-16 (Lofgren – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

6) All of central Alameda County can then become CA-13 (Fremont, Union City, Pleasonton, Hayword) and then Oakland can take up most of CA-09.

CA-13 (Stark – D): 72% Obama / 26% McCain

7) I then finished up CA-09 with the western tip of Contra Costa County, then added CA-10 to take up the central county through Concord and Danville.

CA-09 (Lee – D): 89% Obama / 9% McCain

CA-10 (Garamendi – D): 69% Obama / 30% McCain

8) I wasn’t sure where the rest of Contra Costa belonged, so I started CA-07 with Solano County. I wasn’t sure where to go for the rest of CA-07 so I switched to CA-06 in Marin County, then finished it up with most of Sonoma County.

CA-06 (Woolsey – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

OK, so now what? More after the map…

Below I have my maps of Northern California and the Sacramento area.

9) As I pondered CA-07, I realized that I could add all of Napa County and all of Yolo County except for West Sacramento. The alternatives would either create a weirdly shaped district or unnecessarily divide Sacramento.

CA-07 (Miller – D): 65% Obama / 33% McCain

10) I then started CA-01 with Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, and Lake counties. It also became clear that the rest of Sonoma belonged in CA-01. The CA-01 district still needed 365,000 people.

11) I went ahead and added CA-05 in West Sacramento (Yolo County) and Sacramento proper. Sacramento should clearly anchor 2 districts, so I placed CA-03 fully in the eastern part of the county.

CA-05 (Matsui – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-03 (Lungren – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

12) I still had 55,000 people left in the southwestern salient of Sacramento County. It now became clear enough that CA-11 should take those, the remaining half of Contra Costa County, and San Joaquin including half of Stockton.

CA-11 (McNerney – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

13) I now added Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties to CA-01. I still needed 23,000 more people. The most efficient way to finish up CA-01 was with Modoc County and part of Lassen County.

CA-01 (Thompson – D): 50% Obama / 47% McCain

14) I could now start CA-02 with the rest of Lassen. I then added Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, and Sutter. This left me needing 170,000 people. The obvious place to get them was Placer County except for the Rocklin/Roseville corner.

CA-02 (Herger – R): 47% Obama / 51% McCain

15) It now made sense to start CA-04 with this corner of Placer, and to add the sparsely populated eastern counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Mono, Tuolomne, and Mariposa. But, where to go now? More after the maps…

Below I’ve added my maps of the Central Valley and Southern California. The next set of decisions involving the Central Valley are the ones that I think are most debatable, as I’ve stated previously. In any case, here’s my reasoning

16) It made sense to start CA-18 with the rest of San Joaquin County and then finish it off in Stanislaus County, including the city of Modesto.

CA-18 (Cardoza – D): 54% Obama / 44% McCain

17) I then started CA-19 with the remainder of Stanislaus County and all of Merced County. At this point, the next population center was Fresno, but I had to decide what to do with Madera County that was in the way. I played with several alternatives and realized that my options were to either split Madera County or split the city of Fresno or end up with several weirdly shaped districts. I chose to split Madera County and then finish off CD-19 with western half of Fresno County.

CA-19 (Denham – R): 49% Obama / 49% McCain

18) It then made sense to give Fresno it’s own CA-21 district, and to place the sparsely populated eastern remainder of Madera & Fresno counties in CA-04.

CA-21 (Nunes – R): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

19) At this juncture, it seemed fairly obvious to start CA-20 with Kings and Tulare counties. Once I did that, it was obvious that CA-04 should finally be completed with Inyo and the sparsely populated east of San Bernardino County.

CA-04 (McClintock – R): 42% Obama / 56% McCain

20) I now decided it was time to switch back to the coast. It was clear that I should finish CA-17 with the Cambria corner of San Luis Obispo County. I could then start CA-23 with the rest of San Luis Obispo and add all of Santa Barbera County, which left me needing 67,000 people.

CA-17 (Farr – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

21) I then switched back to CA-20, finishing it in Kern County. Then I added CA-22 fully contained in Kern County, which left 12,000 people in one corner. I decided to add these to CA-04, swapping them out for 12,000 in San Bernardino (which didn’t change the partisan breakdown of CA-04).

CA-20 (Costa – D): 43% Obama / 56% McCain

CA-22 (McCarthy – R): 39% Obama / 59% McCain

22) I then added CA-41 in central San Bernardino County, finished CA-23 in northern Ventura County, and placed CA-24 in southern Ventura County. This left me with 34,000 people in Ventura County and I was ready to start on LA – after the maps!

CA-41 (Lewis – R): 44% Obama / 53% McCain

CA-23 (Capps – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

CA-24 (Gallegly – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

Below is my LA County map. Note that the district numbering has changed from the map that I posted in the other thread, because when I went back over it I realized that the current Dreier district (CA-26) had been dismantled and that the one which I had labeled as CA-26 should’ve been Chu’s CA-32, while the one that I originally labelled as CA-32 should’ve clearly been CA-39 (Linda Sanchez).

23) Anyhow, here is how I proceeded with LA County (with the above amendments):

CA-25: I started with northern LA County, and added the San Fernando Valley.

CA-30: I finished Ventura County, and added the Westside cities.

CA-27: I took the rest of San Fernando, Burbank, and Glendale.

CA-33: I started with Culver City, added Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills.

CA-28: Centered on Hollywood.

CA-29: Centered on Pasadena.

CA-32: I started in Glendora and took in the northern suburbs.

CA-35: Centered on Inglewood.

CA-36: Centered on Rancho Palos Verdes – with Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach.

CA-38: Centered on Pomona and Covina.

CA-31: Centered on downtown LA.

CA-34: Centered on Huntington Park.

CA-37: Centered on Compton.

CA-39: East LA, leaving the southeast waterfront corner of Los Angeles County.

CA-25 (McKeon – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-27 (Sherman – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

CA-28 (Berman – D): 80% Obama / 18% McCain

CA-29 (Schiff – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-30 (Waxman – D): 63% Obama / 35% McCain

CA-31 (Becerra – D): 80% Obama / 17% McCain

CA-32 (Chu – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain I think Dreier actually lives here.

CA-33 (Bass – D): 77% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-34 (Roybal-Allard – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-35 (Waters – D): 88% Obama / 11% McCain

CA-36 (Harman – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

CA-37 (Richardson – D): 84% Obama / 15% McCain

CA-38 (Napolitano – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

CA-39 (Linda Sanchez – D): 60% Obama / 38% McCain

With LA out of the way, it’s time to wrap up SoCal after the map.

Below I have added my final maps. The first covers Orange County & the Inland Empire; the second covers the San Diego area. Here is how I proceeded to map these districts.

24) I started with Orange County by taking the last bit of LA and joining it with Huntington Beach to make CA-46. I then put CA-47 in Fullerton, Anaheim, and Buena Park and Irvine/Newport Beach in CA-48.

CA-46 (Rohrabacher – R): 48% Obama / 50% McCain

CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez – D): 52% Obama / 46% McCain

CA-48 (Campbell – R): 55% Obama / 43% McCain

25) I then put the city of San Bernardino in CA-43, and finished off San Bernardino County with CA-42, which still needed about 90,000 people. However, I wasn’t sure whether these should come from Orange County or Riverside County.

CA-43 (Baca – D): Obama 61% / McCain 37%

26) I now switched to Riverside County by placing CA-45 in the eastern 2/3 anchored with  Palm Springs, and then centered CA-44 on the city of Riverside and Moreno Valley. I think CA-44 might actually be the vacant seat, so maybe I should’ve labeled it CA-26..

CA-45 (Bono Mack – R): 51% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-44 (Calvert – R, or maybe vacant): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

27) I then started CA-51 with Imperial County and added eastern San Diego County basically up to the coastal strip. That still left me needing 440,000 people, and neatest way to add them was to take the South Bay area (Chula Vista & Imperial Beach).

CA-51 (Filner – D): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

28) The city of San Diego can clearly anchor two compact districts, so I just split it down the middle with CA-52 and CA-53. I then added CA-50 along the coast, and started CA-49 in Oceanside.

CA-50 (Bilbray – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-52 (Hunter – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

CA-53 (Davis – D): 66% Obama / 32% McCain

29) At this point it’s clear that if CA-49 goes into Riverside County, either Riverside or Orange will be subdivided once more than necessary. So, I finish off Orange County with CA-49 and CA-40, leaving 15,000 people in the southeast corner.

CA-40 (Royce – R): 43% Obama / 55% McCain

CA-49 (Issa – R): 46% Obama / 52% McCain

30) This leaves only Riverside County, where I wrap up CA-42 with Norco, and create what is essentially a new Inland Empire seat from Temecula to Corona (along with those 15,000 people from the corner of O.C.) I’ve numbered it CA-26, but it doesn’t actually overlap Dreier’s current district, and I think Calvert lives here in Corona, which would make the CA-44 district the vacant one.

CA-42 (Miller – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-26 (Dreier – R; but actually either vacant or maybe Calvert – R): 44% Obama / 55% McCain

Whatever the case, I think that more than covers it! Please let me know what you think of my maps. Am I on track or way off base??

The GOP right now is in a very similar situation to the Dems after the 06/08 cycles. Having come off a very successful wave election where they picked up most of their potential targets, there simply aren’t as many Dem seats that the GOP can capture in 2012 as there were in 2010. Still, there’s actually a fairly decent list of seats that the GOP could target, not enough to give them gains like they had this year, but enough that they could pull off a 10-20 seat gain if 2012 turns out to be a good year for them. These are what I consider to be there best targets. I’m grouping these into three tiers. Tier 1 consists of seats that the GOP have a good chance of picking up. Tier 2 consists of seats that are probably uphill battles for the GOP, but certainly not out of their reach. Tier 3 consists of seats that are truly longshots, or are conditional on certain things happening that are far from certain right now.

Tier 1

*PA-04/12 (Critz/Altmire) Word is that these two will be packed into a seat together, and that seat will probably be pretty unfavorable to dems. If Critz and Altmire are forced to spend resources on a bloody primary battle that could hurt them in the general as well.

*KY-06 (Chandler) Anyone who wins by such a narrow margin as Chandler did is probably vulnerable in the next election.

*NY-23 (Owens) The margin between Owens and his GOP challenger was less than the vote won by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (Hoffman had dropped out but his name was still on the ballot). This seems to suggest that if the GOP could unite behind one good candidate here than they could win this district. Redistricting may determine how competitive this seat is, and that’s kind of a wild card right now.

*GA-12 (Barrow) Could be killed by GOP controlled redistricting.

*MI-09 (Peters) Peters won by a very narrow margin, and he will have to go into the next election with a GOP-drawn district.

*NC-08 (Kissell) The Gov has no say in redistricting under NC law, so this will be left up to the GOP legislature. It’s pretty easy to draw a terrible district for Kissell without really endangering anybody else.

*MO-03 (Carnahan) Pretty easy to see him losing in 2012. Whether or not he goes may depend on how much of STL is in the new district.

*CA-11/18/20 (McNerney/Cardoza/Costa) The CA redistricting commission is a wild card right now, but it seems likely to me that one of these guys will get a tough seat to run in. Some have speculated that McNerney’s seat will get axed to give a seat to the Inland Empire, and while it seems more likely to me that someone like Stark gets cut it’s still not impossible. Still, it seems like one of these seats will be competitive come 2012.

TOTAL: 9

That’s all the low-hanging fruit I can see right now for the GOP. Now on to the ones that will be a little harder for the GOP to pick up.

Tier 2

NC-07 (McIntyre) McIntyre is in a fairly similar situation to Kissell. If the NC GOP wants to be ambitious, they could try to take out both, which is certainly possible without fully going into dummymander territory. But it would be a little more ambitious. You could probably switch out NC-07 or NC-08 and it wouldn’t make much of a difference. They could kill either with redistricting, and possibly both.

IA-01/02/03 (Braley/Loebsack/Boswell)

During the last redistricting, the Democrats and the Republicans allowed for a split redistricting plan: Dems redraw the Assembly, the GOP drew the Senate, and they both drew the House map. Now, with split control again, I think it would be best to allow the Courts to draw the redistricting map, even if it means Dems lose about twenty Assembly seats–Dems already control about 70% of the vote share!

So, I tried to draw the map as if I were the courts. Sorry if my naming of colors throws you off.

My plan is a fair plan:

I make as many minority-majority seats as I think would be necessary;

No district is designed specifically for any current senator;

County splitting is avoided as much as possible;

Almost all towns are kept together: no joke, there is not a single town outside of Nassau and Suffolk that is split. In Suffolk, Islip is too big, so three precincts are moved to NY-02. In Nassau, some hamlets might be split, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t that many that are;

In the City, I tired to respect racial groups;

Upstate, I tried to keep regions together.

To that end, Democrats would surely take the State Senate under this map. I’ve classified everything from R+1 to D+3 as a swing district. If you give Republicans all swing districts, they’ll only muster 25 seats. Kudos to the 2000 GOP, they made one heckuva map. Can you imagine if Dems made a Senate map? They could easily make 45 seats, but that’s a different story.

Here’s my map:

NY-1 D+1 Blue

South Hampton, Part of Brookhaven

NY-2 R+0 Green

Part of Brookhaven, Three Precincts of Islip

NY-3 D+1 Purple

Rest of Islip

NY-4 R+4 Red

Huntington, Smithtown

NY-5 R+2 Yellow

Babylon, Part of Oyster Bay

NY-6 D+2 Teal

Part of Hempstead

NY-7 D+2 Gray

Part of Hempstead

NY-8 D+3 Bluish Purple

Part of Hempstead, Part of North Hempstead

NY-9 D+1 Turquoise

Part of North Hempstead, Part of Oyster Bay

NY-10 D+14 Pink

Queens

NY-11 D+18 Light Green

Queens

NY-12 D+27 Light Blue

Queens

NY-13 D+27 Beige

Queens

NY-14 D+10 Mustard Green

Queens

NY-15 D+40 Dark Blue

Queens

NY-16 D+27 Orange

Queen, Brooklyn

NY-17 D+44 Lighter Green

Brooklyn

NY-18 R+5 Yellow

Brooklyn

NY-19 D+44 Green

Brooklyn

NY-20 D+42 Light Pink

Brooklyn

NY-21 D+39 Velvet Red

Brooklyn

NY-22 D+28 Brown

Brooklyn

NY-23 R+4 Darker Turquoise

Brooklyn

NY-24 D+12 Dark Purple

Brooklyn, Staten Island

NY-25 R+15 Pinkish Red

Staten Island

NY-26 D+41 Dark Gray

The Bronx

NY-27 D+31 Green

Brooklyn, Manhattan

NY-28 D+31 Dark Pink

Manhattan

NY-29 D+33 Green Gray

Manhattan

NY-30 D+23 Orange Red

Manhattan

NY-31 D+43 Yellow

Manhattan

NY-32 D+39 Red

Manhattan

NY-33 D+43 Blue

The Bronx

NY-34 D+25 Green

The Bronx, Queens

NY-35 D+32 Purple

The Bronx

NY-36 D+37 Orange

The Bronx, Mount Vernon

NY-37 D+9 Blue

Yonkers, New Rochelle

NY-38 D+11 Turquoise

White Plains, Rye

NY-39 D+5 Yellow

Peekskill, Clarkstown

NY-40 R+3 Red

Ramapo, Orangetown

NY-41 EVEN Gray

Middletown, Newburgh

NY-42 R+2 Light Green

Poughkeepsie, Beacon

NY-43 D+6 Pink

Kingston, Hudson

NY-44 D+9 Reddish

Syracuse

NY-45 D+9 Blue

Ithaca, Auburn, Cortland

NY-46 R+6 Prange

Elmira

NY-47 R+6 Light Pink

Rome, Utica, Oneida

NY-48 R+6 Orange

Watertown, Oswego

NY-49 R+1 Red

Binghamton, Vestal, Oneonta

NY-50 R+6 Gray Blue

Gloversville, Amsterdam

NY-51 D+5 Brown

Schenectady, Troy

NY-52 D+8 Dark Green

Albany, Rensselaer

NY-53 D+5 Gray

Plattsburg, Potsdam, Ogdensburg

NY-54 R+2 Light Beige

Saratoga Springs, Glens Falls

NY-55 D+4 Dark Beige

Part of Rochester, Perinton, Geneva

NY-56 D+12 Blue

Rest of Rochester

NY-57 R+11 Green

Olean, Corning

NY-58 R+5 Purple

Jamestown, Dunkirk, Pomfret, Orchard Park

NY-59 D+15 Red

Part of Buffalo, Lackawanna

NY-60 D+8 Yellow

Part of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda

NY-61 R+5 Turquoise

Amherst, Lockport

NY-62 R+8 Gray

Greece

• CT-Sen: Joe Lieberman, in a recent interview, gave some more insight into how he might approach the various ways in which he might lose in 2012. He says he’s “leaning toward” running again, and it will likely be as an independent (although he’d need to create yet another ballot line for himself, having lost control of CfL), although he says some Senate colleagues have encouraged him to run as a Democrat.

• NE-Sen, NE-02: One of the items on the agenda for the legislative session this year in Nebraska (in its ostensibly-nonpartisan but practically-GOP-held unicameral body) is fixing a small hole that could theoretically wind up costing the GOP the presidency in a close election. Nebraska is one of only two states that allocates some electoral votes by congressional district, and Barack Obama took advantage of that to win 1 EV in Nebraska by narrowly winning NE-02. It’s worth noting that if this option is taken off the table before 2012, it makes it much less likely that the Obama campaign will put any money or manpower into the Omaha market, making Ben Nelson’s re-election hopes slimmer and also making it harder to take out Rep. Lee Terry, who was vulnerable in 2008. (That same link also mentions one potential other GOP Senate candidate, despite there already being a long list of possible challengers to Nelson: Mike Simmonds, whose main claim to fame seems to be owning 73 Burger King franchises.) Speaking of Nelson, he does have one new talking point that won’t help him much in the blogosphere but may help him get a little mileage in his red state confines: CQ’s new unity scores for last year are out, and Nelson was the least likely Senator to vote with his party, doing so only 46% of the time.

• NM-Sen: This seems a little unexpected: GOP ex-Rep. Heather Wilson, after taking the 2010 cycle off (when she, in retrospect, could have pretty easily gotten elected governor), may be interested in getting back into the political game in 2012, which would have to involve a seriously-uphill race against long-time Dem incumbent Jeff Bingaman for Senate. Of course, that presumes Bingaman runs again. His fundraising schedule suggests that he will run again, but maybe Wilson’s engaging in some early saber-rattling in the hopes of scaring the 68-year-old Bingaman into retirement, which would make her task easier.

• IN-Gov: Mike Pence seems to be making the sensible choice given the options of a longer-than-long-shot presidential bid and (with Becky Skillman out of the primary and Evan Bayh out of the general) what’s looking like a lightly-contested lay-up in the Indiana gubernatorial race. Insiders are looking at his newly planned schedule of events, with Lincoln Day Dinners scheduled all over Indiana, as an indication that he’s moving pretty firmly toward the gubernatorial race.

• FL-25: Usually Representatives wait until at least after they’ve gotten sworn in before getting involved in criminal investigations, but David Rivera is a real go-getter. In the wake of inquiries into Rivera’s support for a push to bring slot machines to Miami-Dade County, Rivera is now having to disclose $137K in never-before-mentioned loans from his mother’s marketing company (the same company under investigation for receiving payments from the Flagler Dog Track).

• IN-02: Jackie Walorski may be back in 2012 for another run against Rep. Joe Donnelly, saying another run is “possible.” Her main calculation seems to be what happens to the 2nd, which could be mutated into a much more Republican-friendly district if the state’s GOP legislature wanted to experiment with strange shapes.

• Mayors: Rahm Emanuel got one more seal of approval for his Chicago mayoral candidacy today: a state circuit court judge just ruled today that Emanuel meets residency requirements and his name can remain on the Feb. 22 ballot, upholding the decision by the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. It’s not a done deal though as an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court is imminent. Also, Salt Lake City is another one of the many cities holding mayoral elections this November; one-term incumbent Ralph Becker has announced he’s running for re-election, and, with a whopping 84% approval rating, it’s sounding like he won’t face more than a token challenge. The GOP may not even wind up running someone against him (Becker’s a Democrat, although it’s officially a nonpartisan post), and while there have been rumblings of a challenge to him from the left (with former SLC mayor Rocky Anderson a possibility), there doesn’t seem to be enough dissatisfaction with him to make that viable either.

• 2010 Leftovers: Two of the leaders of the Dems’ efforts in 2010 are in the news today, including outgoing DGA executive director Nathan Daschle, who let loose a curious tweet stating that “The purity test on display at yesterday’s RNC chair debate is one more reason why we need something other than 2 parties.” Now, given his previous aptitude at messing with Republicans’ heads via concern trolling, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s subtly encouraging some sort of full-on split between the sane Republican party and the crazy wing while the Dems remain intact, rather than him going all No Labels on us. Meanwhile, Jon Vogel, the former exec director of the DCCC, is moving to the private sector, launching a political media firm with fellow consultant Steve Murphy. (This seems like a good time to queue up the best line from Ghostbusters: “You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector! They expect results!”)

• Redistricting: Here’s an interesting interview with Democratic redistricting guru Matt Angle, who was Martin Frost’s right-hand man during the post-2000 round. Angle’s particular area of expertise is Texas, and he has some thoughts about what we can expect there. While he seems confident that at least two of the four new districts will be Hispanic-majority, he sounds a warning about last-remaining-Anglo Dem Lloyd Doggett, who may find himself drawn into either a Republican or VRA district (although it’s worth noting that already happened to Doggett once, as he briefly had a Hispanic-majority seat in the immediate pre-litigation aftermath of the DeLayMander).

• Twitter: We’re up to 3,981 followers on Twitter, but that’s not a nice, round number with a lot of zeroes in it that we can arbitrarily feel good about. Please help us reach 4,000!

Everyone says Georgia can’t eliminate John Barrow, but I don’t really see why not.  His district isn’t VRA Protected like Sanford Bishop, so far as I know. And anyways, 4 out of 14 VRA for Georgia is better than, say, 1 out of 7 in Alabama.  

Here’s my take:

Chatham Co. only gave Obama a margin of 15,000 votes, and if you add in the two suburban counties, it is only 50-50.  That plus all the GOP rural areas combine Barrow and Kingston into a Lean/Likely GOP district. (Light Blue) 60% White

from the 51% White Barrow’s current district is

Sanford Bishop (Green) gets a 46% White district, a slight improvement.  He adds Macon, making GA-8 completely safe for Austin Scott (periwinkle), who gets a 65% White district.  

The new 1st district (Dark Blue) is 66% White and fit for someone like St. Sen John Bulloch or St Sen Jeff Chapman, who ran for Governor in 2010.

The 4th, 5th, and 13th remain similar

Phil Gingrey’s district is eliminated, but since he is pushing 70, he’ll probably just retire.

Tom Price’s 6th (Teal) isn’t going blue anytime soon.  It could be a problem around 2020, though, but the new redistricting will be approaching by then.

Rob Woodall’s 7th (Gray) has to shed quite a bit of population, now being 63% White and nearly all in Gwinnett County.  This is the district I’d worry about most going Blue in the decade, particularly if the White percentage keeps dropping.  The 22% who are Hispanic or Asian is a wild card, as many don’t vote, at least not yet.

The New 11th (Green) is 60% White, with 10% the Hispanic/Asian wild cards.  Somehow, I can find no veteran State Senators from the district, so I’m not sure about the bench.  It’s mostly suburban Republicans, though.

Westmoreland’s purple 3rd is still safe for him, as are Graves’ 9th (Northwest) and Broun’s 10th (Northeast).  

On the east side, including Augusta, is the other open seat, the new 14th.

Now on to Washington, and their bipartisan incumbent protection map.

There it is.  

And the Seattle area is here:

In Eastern Washington, the two swing counties, Whitman and Spokane, are split up.  That’s the only big difference.  McMorris Rodgers (Yellow) and Hastings (Red) are safe.  Herrera Beutler (Purple) now has to extend a bit further East, as it loses Longview, Pacific Co., and Olympia, making it much safer for her, probably going from Toss-Up to Lean R.  

Dicks’ 6th (West), which needs to be made a bit safer for when he retires, as the Western lumber counties are trending a bit away from us, adds Pacific Co., Longview, and Olympia from the 3rd, loses some of S. Kitsap Co., as well as Central Tacoma, and remains a swingy Tilt D district.  

Reichert’s 8th (Purple) gets much bigger, losing the Microsoft Area to the new 10th (Pink) and taking up nearly all of the non-Coastal Northern Coast Counties from Larsen, making his Green 2nd a bit safer in the process (he nearly lost this year).  This means Larsen needs to take up more Suburbs, making Inslee (Blue) take a bit of Seattle, moving McDermott (Gray) into some low-income suburbs as well as Seattle, and making Adam Smith, the new Armed Services chair, in light blue, take in the AFB and Army Base, as well as all of Tacoma.

• AK-Sen: Last Friday, Joe Miller finally pulled the plug on continued legal challenges to Lisa Murkowski’s win in the 2010 election, despite earlier comments that standing down was not an option. (Apparently it actually was an option if no one could be found willing to foot the legal bill for a trip to the 9th Circuit.) So now the 2010 election really, truly is over. And in case Miller was going to get any bright ideas about what do to in 2012, Rep. Don Young (no stranger to primary challenges from the right, having barely survived a CfG-led purge in the 2008 primary) is already firing some shots over Miller’s bow with his rusty old harpoon gun.

• FL-Sen: Depending on who you listen to, George LeMiuex either is or isn’t about to launch a Senate bid. Roll Call’s Steve Peoples says no, pointing to not only LeMieux’s weak poll numbers and ambivalent-sounding statements but also his new cushy job as chair of the board of directors of one of the state’s largest law firms (a decidedly different role from being there just as a part-time rainmaker/show pony). Other observers have noticed he’s been sounding out potential consultants for a run, though, including GOP ad impresario Fred Davis, fresh off such smashing successes as Christine O’Donnell’s “I am not a witch” ad and the anti-Patty Murray tennis shoe ad. Meanwhile, Rep. Cornelius McGillicuddy IV (or Connie Mack, as he’d prefer you call him) is gearing up for a run, if a recent fundraising letter citing a run against Bill Nelson sent around by Mack (and Jeb Bush) ally Jorge Arrizurieta is any indication.

• ME-Sen: Affordable-housing developer Rosa Scarcelli got some good buzz during her run in the Democratic gubernatorial primary last year, and now she’s talking a bit about a Democratic run for the Senate in 2012. However, she seems to be reserving judgment, waiting to see whether the promised teabagging against Olympia Snowe ever happens, saying any decision would depend greatly on that.

• OH-Sen: In what’s certainly not a surprise, Mike DeWine (perhaps compelled to say something after faring pretty well in one of PPP’s recent let’s-test-everyone Senate polls) says he won’t consider running for his old Senate seat in 2012, having just successfully hit the ‘reset’ button his career with an election to the state AG slot. Newly-elected Lt. Governor Mary Taylor seems to be the top GOP option here, but for now she’s simply saying it’s too early, but isn’t ruling out the possibility (and also saying that no one from the national party has contacted her about it, which stretches the boundaries of credulity).

• PA-Sen: Remember back in the spring of 2010, when the DC press corps, for a couple slow news days there, actually willingly ran with the idea that the allegation that a political job offer was sorta-kinda relayed from the Obama administration to Joe Sestak was the Watergate-esque moment that was going to bring the entire Obama edifice down? Um, yeah… now that it’s not an electoral talking point and now that Darrell Issa’s is actually in charge of Oversight, he’s admitting that that isn’t a line of inquiry that he’s going to pursue, seeing as how, in his own words, Republicans “did the same thing.” (Sighing loudly and walking away shaking head.)

• RI-Sen: Keep an eye on outgoing Gov. Don Carcieri, who while not saying anything tangible about a Senate run, said a number of candidate-ish things in a recent interview, including “I’m not going away” and “I have views, national as well, so I intend to be visible.”

• UT-Sen: Here’s an interesting take on the redistricting issues surrounding Utah’s new fourth House seat: one possible outcome would be the Republicans packing all the state’s Dems into one seat in order to avoid weakening any of the other three. And while superficially that might seem to benefit Rep. Jim Matheson, that could actually hurt him by making the district too liberal for Matheson (one of the remaining high-profile Blue Dogs) to win a primary (the article cites former SLC mayor Rocky Anderson as a potential rival). The article also suggests that could instead push Matheson into a Senate run, especially if it’s against the more polarizing Jason Chaffetz instead of Orrin Hatch (although I’d think a gubernatorial run might be likelier, seeing as how that’s up in 2012 again and Utah is one of those red states that’s more forgiving of Dems at the state level than for federal office).

• IN-Gov: Rumors are bubbling up that Democratic Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel is making moves to be the first to declare his candidacy for the 2012 gubernatorial race, mindful of the advantages that accrue to early declarers.

• MS-Gov: Today Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant is finally making official his candidacy for the 2011 Mississippi gubernatorial election, an open seat as his boss hogg Haley Barbour is termed-out. While Bryant’s stiffest competition will probably occur in the GOP primary (where possible opponents include the delightfully-named SoS, Delbert Hosemann), businessman and Democratic candidate Bill Luckett also appears to be making it official today.

• WV-Gov: I’m wondering if maybe Shelly Moore Capito has let people know that she’s not running for Governor? It seems like the floodgates have suddenly opened for lesser GOPers to declare their interest in the race, starting with ex-SoS Betty Ireland last week, but now the state’s GOP party chair, Mike Stuart, is also publicly talking himself up for the role. Of course, no one has any idea yet whether that special election will happen in 2011 or 2012.

• AZ-08: Jesse Kelly, who narrowly lost to Gabrielle Giffords in November, is rumored to be moving toward a rematch. His odds would seem to be slimmer in a rematch, as Latinos and youth voters are likelier to show up in a presidential year, but he may figure he has an ace in the hole, in the form of the likely presence of a Kelly ally, Christopher Gleason, on Arizona’s ostensibly independent redistricting commission, who might be able to tinker with the boundaries in a more GOP-friendly direction.

• NV-04: Cue the hordes of screaming fans, weeping with joy and fainting from sheer ecstasy: Rory Reid, fresh off his domination in the Nevada gubernatorial race, is the subject of speculation that he might be bringing his own special brand of dynamism and excitement to the open House seat that will be created in the Las Vegas suburbs. (For his part, Reid won’t confirm or deny it yet.)

• Chicago mayor: It looks like the African-American community may actually be coalescing around a single non-Rahm candidate in the mayoral race, with the dropout of Rep. Danny Davis from the race. He (along with state Sen. James Meeks, who also dropped out several weeks ago) lent his support to ex-Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, the last one standing. (Note that this is the second time Davis has tried to run for municipal office and then done a U-turn back to his House seat in the last year.) Don’t start writing the saga of an Emanuel/Braun runoff just yet, though, as ex-schools chief Gerry Chico is a major wild card here, and now it looks like he has the money to back that up: he reports he raised $2.5 million for the race last quarter, a number that would be boffo even in many Senate races.

• History: The Univ. of Minnesota’s Smart Politics blog occasionally comes up with real historical gems like this one, using the possibility of a Russ Feingold run for Herb Kohl’s seat as a springboard for looking at Senators throughout history who’ve leapt from one state’s seat to the other. Only two current Senators (Kent Conrad and Frank Lautenberg) meet that criteria, although some other famous names have done so (including Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater). However, neither Conrad nor Lautenberg did so because of a loss (the most recent example of that would be Washington’s Slade Gorton, though UMN finds nine other historical examples).

• Photos: This is one of those precious photos that’s worth a thousand words, one that Eric Cantor probably already wishes he’d re-thought. (H/t to Brian Valco for this and several other of today’s links.)

Now that it’s 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in February or March and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and it’s time to look at California, Colorado, and Connecticut.

Previous diary on Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas

The rest below the fold…

California

Districts: 53

Who’s in charge? Nonpartisan commission

Is that important? Heck yes

Boy, is this the big kahuna. With California’s delegation comprising 12.2% of the entire House, and 17.6% of the whole Democratic caucus, the Golden State was already a dominant player in the nationwide redistricting wars, but with its recent switch from legislative control (which would have meant a Democratic gerrymander in 2011) to a nonpartisan commission, any semblance of certainty is out the window. The commission must preserve VRA-protected minority seats, of which there are at least 12 (Barbara Lee’s 9th, Jim Costa’s 20th, Xavier Becerra’s 31st, Judy Chu’s 32nd, Karen Bass’s 33rd, Lucille Roybal-Allard’s 34th, Maxine Waters’s 35th, Laura Richardson’s 37th, Grace Napolitano’s 38th, Linda Sanchez’s 39th, Joe Baca’s 43rd, and Loretta Sanchez’s 47th) and  several more if you interpret the law as protecting Latino-majority/plurality districts represented by non-Hispanic whites.

Republicans say the losers in California redistricting will be white Democrats representing less-than-completely-solid seats (such as Jerry McNerney and Dennis Cardoza), seats likely to be broken up and redistributed between other districts (such as Lois Capps), or seats likely to be turned into VRA-protected minority districts (such as one of the San Fernando Valley Dems: Berman, Sherman, or Schiff). Democrats say that the current map is not that gerrymandered in their favor, and is instead an incumbent protection gambit; they argue that nonpartisan redistricting will ruin as many GOP incumbents (Ken Calvert and Gary Miller, say) as Dem incumbents. In any case, few solid predictions can be made at this point, and I’d like very much to hear what those of you at SSP think will happen. If forced at gunpoint to predict something about the new map, I’d say a seat will be shifted from the Bay Area to the Inland Empire, and that Jerry McNerney is the likely “eliminee,” though it could also be a longtimer like George Miller or Pete Stark. Also, a competitive Central Coast district will be recreated à la the California 22nd in the 1990s, hurting the reelection prospects of both Lois Capps and Elton Gallegly. Demographics will also compel the commission to create a couple new Hispanic districts, at least one of which will be a reconfiguration of a seat now represented by a white L.A. Democrat.

The commission’s membership has been finalized and its work should be complete by sometime this autumn. I, for one, greatly look forward to the fireworks.

Colorado

Districts: 7

Who’s in charge? Split (Dem Governor and Senate, GOP House)

Is that important? Not really

The bare Republican majority in Colorado’s House should ensure a safer seat for Scott Tipton in the 3rd (represented by a Republican from 1992 to 2004 and a Democrat from 2004 to 2010), but otherwise won’t change the partisan dynamics much in Colorado. Overwhelming Democratic edges for Diana DeGette in Denver and Jared Polis in the Boulder area may be diluted a bit to create a rock-solid constituency for Ed Perlmutter, but that will be the only tangible benefit for Team Blue.

Connecticut

Districts: 5

Who’s in charge? Democrats

Is that important? No

An overwhelmingly Democratic legislature will draw districts for an already all-Democratic House delegation. Jim Himes and Chris Murphy should get slightly safer seats at the marginal expense of rock-solid incumbents John Larson and Rosa DeLauro, but that will be the extend of remapping drama in the Nutmeg State.

Later this week: Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii!

We need to gain 25 seats in order to retake the House of Representatives.  It should also be stated clearly that the best possible chance we will have to re-take a House majority is in 2012. Presidential Year demographics skew in our favor and Presidential percentage of the vote matches House percentage near perfectly.[Obviously if we lose the White House we didn’t retake Congress]

It is  true that our attention appears to be on what will happen in the next Congress but remember over the next two years there are only two realistic options, compromise or gridlock, It is easier to prefer grid lock, but however we got to this very unfortunate situation we have to focus on getting out. If you don’t like comprise, we can put Nancy Pelosi back in the Speaker’s office and she is an excellent check on compromise.

However to do this all of us have to attempt to be on the same page, and as importantly learn the rules that can aid us in this endeavor.  With that understanding I present the 25 rules to gain 25 Seats. First the list followed by the explanation.

1. All Republicans are every Republican.

2. Ignore incumbency.

3. Candidates matter less than you think.

4. How a member votes in Congress matters less than you think.

5. Run where the water is warm.

6. Fund all candidates in warm water.

7. Be wary of cold water.

8. Be wary of reruns.

9. Persuasion is overrated.

10. Start with the base and work out.

11. Remember who the base is.

12. Partisan performance is two numbers, Obama 08 high/Kerry 04 low

13. Don’t under challenge.

14. Look for ethical weaknesses but don’t over rely on them.

15. Remember and reinvent field.

16. Being a House Republican shouldn’t be fun.

17. Use new media to expand who can help your campaign.

18. Let candidates be themselves.

19. Run with the President where it is wise, be careful where it is not.

20.  If you can’t use any National Democrats, you probably can’t win.

21. Make sure to run with Local Candidates.

22. Peopleraise while you fundraise.

23. Know your vote Goal

24. The last votes are in ideas you haven’t thought of yet.

25. Start now

1. All Republicans are every Republican

  This is the most important rule of all.  The Republicans in general, but House Republicans in particular, say an incredible number of ridiculous, incendiary things. In fact since taking office if you are keeping track at home they have had at least one such event every week.  Whether it is through blogs, MSNBC, and definitely earned media  and possibly paid media,  these comments can not escape scrutiny.  House Republicans like  Jim Gerlach in PA 6 and Dave Reichert in WA 8 should be forced to defend the Bachmann’s and the  Barton’s on a constant basis. Since Republicans beat us over the head with  being “Pelosi “Democrats, they must become the Bachmann Republicans.

2. Ignore Incumbency.

       This is probably the most radical thing in this memo and yet it is absolutely essential for Democrats to gain and then hold a majority. We need to radically throw out the notion of incumbency being an important factor in making decision about where to defend and where to attack.  National issues have overwhelmed how hard a member of Congress may work , and how much his or her office does  in the district. Districts  now reach  over 700,000, the incumbent advantages is shrinking.  Now Incumbent re-election rates still continued to be very high but in many ways  these Incumbent re-election rates are in fact becoming partisan election rates.  Put another way, it is not surprising incumbent Democrats and Republicans win in districts which by their nature[Such as Performance in last three Presidential Elections] elected Democrats or Republicans, once you take those districts out, Re-election rates begin to drop dramatically. Even if the Incumbency factor matters, there simply won’t be enough seats available if we act like it does. We must ignore incumbency in order to win the seats we need.

3. Candidates Matter less than you think.

     This is another somewhat paradoxical statement that  happens to be true.  Those of us deeply immersed in politics have come to believe that recruiting good candidates is essential to the process and it is. But often times the expectations we have are too high and when they aren’t met there is unfortunate tendency to believe candidates who don’t meet up to our standards can’t win. This is true from both a DCCC and a blogosphere perspective.  The truth is that  mediocre candidates win and sometimes great candidates lose.  That was true in 2006 and it was true in 2010.  As importantly for setting our goal of retaking the house in 2012 there were many near misses across a number of races in both 06 and 10.  In many cases these near misses came about because there was either doubt or neglect shown our candidate or theirs. Without that doubt or neglect there would have been additional Democratic members of Congress. We can not allow doubt or neglected to cost even one seat in 2012.

4. How a member votes in Congress matters less than you think.

    The details of how a Member of Congress votes doesn’t matter much when compared to the bills that actually pass. This lesson was made abundantly clear in 2010, maybe a member here or there saved themselves with a no vote on Healthcare but in general what passes or doesn’t pass is what matters not how an individual votes. Votes are in the mood toward collective punishment and this is an important lesson because you can punish  any member for the consequences of house votes, and the consequences for voting with your party are mostly minimal since you will be blamed for what happens regardless.  This means in general the right thing to do for a member of congress is to worry far less about the political ramifications of  particular votes because bigger factors will triumph over them.

5.  Run where the water is warm.

        This violates a sacred 2006 Dean strategy but it is a necessity. It is of the utmost importance that we field strong Democratic house candidates in the districts that   President Obama won in 2008 which are now represented by Republicans the number will likely shake out to somewhere around 50 seats.  It is much more important to run candidates in these 40 seats then it is to run candidates in all 435 districts. It will also be true that running someone in a district in which, Obama got 48% is more important than running someone in a district in which he got 38%.

6.  Fund all candidates in warm water.

       In addition to getting candidates to run in district we can win. They have to be funded and by that it isn’t that these candidates have to go out and raise the money themselves with the hope that if they succeed, they will  then get help.   We can’t have a raise $500,000 and we will talk attitude, In fact the opposite  must be true While the standard shouldn’t be zero a base threshold of say $50,000 to  $ 100,000 to show the person is some degree of serious seems on mark. We should also think about being willing to substitute a cash amount for a number of in district donors. 1000 , $50 contributions should count equally to 50 $2400 contributions for gauging viability. When the base level support is reached, it is the job of everyone, net-roots, DCCC, DNC to make sure they are funded at the level required to reach name recognition saturation and to run an effective campaign.  Additionally Members of Congress should fund the candidates directly.

With slightly over 75% of Members of Congress participating each candidate could receive  $ 350,000 in direct member funding before leadership pacs or double dipping for primary and general are even considered.

7.  Be wary of cold water.

    By the same token it is important to very wary of cold water.  While there is no-line in the sand meaning that Obama lose does not mean Democrats shouldn’t challenge there.[All though we only hold 12 McCain Districts after the 2010 election] If the district dips below 45% for Obama that is a very dangerous  sign. If it dips below 40% the case to be made for the possible victory for a Democratic would need to be very strong indeed before resources should be allocated. Remember that even with a victory in such a case we are saddled with a member who is going to be very vulnerable and unfortunately in two recent cases [LA 4 and AL 5] members from such districts after very  hard fought battles switched parties merely so that they could survive[although one was subsequently tea-partied to death]  There are also sadder examples like Tonny Sowers in  MO 8 who raised a ton of money and did everything right and still couldn’t break the partisan model of  his district.

8. Be wary of reruns.

         Another of area of concern is when candidates who lose want to run again. This is no always a bad idea as can be seen by Paul Hodes  in 06 or Tim Walberg, Steve Chabot, Andy Harris,Charlie Bass in 2010. However in general these kind of challenges have less success than the district’s partisan make up might otherwise indicate. So while I can think of a view former members who should run again as well as a few candidates, the familiar or even the well-liked nature of these people should not blind us to the very real dangers of incorrect re-nominations.

9. Persuasion is overrated.

     This is another one of the semi-blasphemous things in this memo but when you look deeply at the numbers the ability of campaigns to persuade seems to be decreasing. A few campaigns are successfully able to break out of the partisan tide, but in general there are maybe 15% of voters would be likely to swing from voting for one parties candidate or another in a race in which name recognition saturation is met. No doubt this is the crucial and decisive factor in some races, but remember if 15% are up for grabs the likelihood is that they won’t break 100% one way or another in fact ranges between 60% to 40% or 55% to 45% are more common.  If the Electorate is 300,000  people, which is about average for a congressional race in a Presidential year , 15% is   45,000  and  a 60% win is  9,000  vote margin, and the difference between  losing swing voters 60 to 40 as opposed to  55 to 45 is only  4500 votes. Now this is not an insignificant number of votes. However it is also not automatically decisive that means while persuasion should be a tool in the arsenal, it shouldn’t be the arsenal.

10. Start with  the base and build out.

      This is a lesson which Republicans never and Democrats always forget. In the vast majority of election who votes is more important than how they vote because based on who votes how they are going to vote is somewhat of a forgone conclusion. Voters may not want to believe they can be that easily predicted but in the vast majority of cases they are.  This means that Democratic candidates do not spend  nearly the time require to reward the parties most loyal voters. This is a lesson from the 2008 election that is too often forgotten. Amongst those voters who voted in 2004 between John Kerry and George Bush, Obama only won  50% to 49%, or a of swing 2% to 3% total.  Meanwhile Obama won by nearly 7% because amongst the new electorate Obama won by a huge margin. Obama focused on getting these voters out but frankly his history making existence was incredibly power incentive in and of itself.  Without as much incentive, the effort needs to be doubled.  President Obama as a candidate always had this excitement factor but it was not clear that he would be able to expand the Iowa Caucus electorate since it had never been done on the Democratic side.  But because he did it, he won.  Finding ways to expand the electorate can be as important if not more important than successful persuasion.

11. Remember who the base is.

    Democrats sometimes have a hard time remembering who there base is. Looking to issue silo’s[like Pro-Choice, or Environmental  groups] to replace actual voters. So for those playing at home the Democratic base is made up of the following.

1. Racial Minorities.

In 2006  Non-Whites made up 23% of the Electorate  and gave Democrats 75% percent of the Vote, in 2008 they made up 27% of the Electorate and gave Democrats 81%  and  In 2010 they made up 23% Electorate and gave Democrats 75%.   If the point is not clear this the absolute bedrock of the Democratic Party without which we would cease to function. Democratic Candidates running for any office should begin their campaigns there. If your campaign can’t get the average turnout and the average percentage from this base is incredibly unlikely to win.

2. Religious minorities

White Religious Minorities[Including those who proclaim no religion or an other religion] make up the next  biggest portion of the Electorate preferring Democrats at roughly 14% of the Electorate each year and preferring Democrats  at roughly  a 2/1 cliff leaning slightly  more toward Democrats if you had to guess.

Summary :

That is the sum total of the Democratic base. Combined they range from 37% to 40% of the electorate depending on the year.  The goal for a Democratic candidate is to win those groups 3-1 and then minimize damage with the rest of the electorate. If you can hit 40% of the vote with the rest of the electorate you are likely to win.

12. Partisan performance is two numbers, Obama 08 high/ Kerry 04 low  

       When thinking of where to challenge and also the challenges which lie in front of  Democratic Challengers it is important to look at both numbers. While we obviously need to challenge in any district Obama won. We need to make triple certain that the Kerry district [180 districts now]  come in incredibly strong  something  like 175-5.  [as opposed to the current 167-13] Particularly of note for Progressive is that Kerry district are much more able to sustain

long term  progressive then is newly won territory.

13. Don’t under challenge.

            If the goal is to retake the House and  25 seats  netted is require for that, we need at fewest 50 but more realistically 60 strong challengers to House Republicans.  This includes playing in all Obama won district, and also will probably include some district we hope to turn toward Obama[ NE 2nd wasn’t an Obama district until it was and  also places where our house candidate can over perform the top of the ticket by just enough to win. 60 Challengers, all funded to at least a million dollars is what is going to take to re-take the House.

14. Look for ethical weaknesses but don’t over rely on them.

         One of the best ways to beat a member in territory you don’t really have the right to control is ethical weaknesses. One need only look at the brief but happy career of Joseph Gao to see that ethical weakness can under the right circumstances obliterate party considerations. However once the corrupt incumbent is gone, party seems to have an effect of reverting to form. Almost all of the Corruption Seats from 2006[ FL 16, TX 22, OH, 18, AZ 5  PA 10] have revert to their original party. The exceptions being NC 11 and depending on your definition CA 11. Still 7 of the Democrats 30 pickups were aided if not create by Republican Ethical problems.. But only 2 of those 7 are still in Democratic hands. The lesson, leverage corruption in race where it can help particularly in expanding the field but don’t make it overly important because the seats can  still be harder to win and much harder to hold.

15.  Remember and reinvent field.

         The ultimate goal for any campaign is to get votes, as many votes as possible. Some votes come easily [base Democrats who always vote], some votes come more difficulty[ persuasion and turnout targets] . Regardless campaigns need to constantly be asking themselves, how will this help me get votes.  This means ways to make the ubiquitous phone calls and door knocks which are a crucial part of field but also new and different ways to get to voters. The best way to get more votes is often found not in what would be described as traditional field tactics, but in the more difficult but potentially more rewarding means of getting true neighbor to neighbor, or peer to peer contact. If someone you know tells you about  anything even, a candidate that is better than if someone you don’t know tells you about it or them.  Congressional Candidates should keep this in mind when building field programs and getting votes. Motivating people to speak to their friends needs to be a part of the program.

16.   Being a House Republican shouldn’t be fun.

        This is a lesson that is well learned from the Tea-Party. The more noise you make, even it is nonsensical and irrational, the better. Additionally, House Democrats felt incredibly uncomfortable some of the time in response to Tea Party Activists. An entire house seat was likely lost because a Member of Congress responded improperly to an obnoxious Tea-Party Activist.  It is likely that struggle of it aided in creating at least two retirements which we lost.  Turn around must be fair play. The House Republicans will conspire to do many things that either are or can be spun to be horribly unpopular. They shouldn’t be able to operate in their districts or anywhere without being remind of these things.  It is a shame that our politics has degenerated and now values noise and fury, but silence now  means acquiescence. We need noise and fury and for the job of being a House Republican needs to be less than fun.

17. Use new media to expand who can help your campaign.

       It has it strengths and weakness but in general the more outlets in which your message is going out the better. Of particular import is using Democratic-Social Networking tools like DFA’s.  It is important to get blogosphere buy in. Republicans of late have been better at funding their candidates from a national perspective. Sharron Angle outraised Harry Reid. Christine O’Donnell raised 7.4 million which was far more than Chris Coons  . Scott Brown raised far more than Martha Coakley.  Also, challengers need far more national help because they have a harder time  winning local support, particularly financial . Campaigns need to focus on this money stream as well as the other potential skills that can be gained through the power of new media, you might be able to find a discount web designer, or speech writer, or field people. New Media gives you a chance to encourage more to support your campaign and that is important.

18. Let candidates be themselves.

          This goes against more conventional wisdom but seems important.  There is much drudgery involved in the process of running for Congress and a lot of it is unavoidable but the process of trying to remake people into sound bites can grate on them and unhappy candidates do less well. The benefit you may get from polish decreases the possibility for creative thinking. In the end it simply isn’t worth it. Letting a candidate feel like the campaign is theirs and allowing for new ideas will make everything work better.

19. Run with the President where it is wise, be careful where it is not.

           Democrats in the district that a Democrat has a chance to win really like the President. This means that for Democrats it is important to be seen as viewing the President favorably and that those who vote for The President should consider voting for our challenger as a means of aiding the President. However since most of these district are pretty evenly divided between People voting for the President and then those voting against, the wise course would be to stake out a few in district signature differences which while not actually being overly important to Democrats nor risk costing the President many votes can be enough to get the small percentage of crossover votes needed. One important note is that running with the President in a state he is going to win or is a true tossup it is more important to run with but even in close district in states he will lose the importance of distance matters greatly.  Regardless you have to walk the line well.

20.  If you can’t use any National Democrats, you probably can’t win.

       Some Democrats are more popular than the President in a number of district the most prominent of these being President Clinton. If the prospect of bringing President Clinton into your District to campaign for you seems like a poor choice the odds are good that the district is simply too Republican to sustain a reasonable Democratic Challenge.  You need to be able to use some National Democrats to show the Democratic base it matters.  Each state and district would have a different set of  Democrats to bring in, but if you are gun shy about them in total.  Think deeply about why, and how you can win.

21. Make sure to run with Local Candidates.

Challengers need every vote they can get and almost every campaign good, bad or indifferent succeeds in bring in some new voters to the process. Simply because of the personal friends everyone has. By supporting local candidates you can  gain access to these networks and by helping them you can reach into their bases. Maybe one candidate is a firefighter, the other is a teacher, the other is a member of an ethnic group that represent a small but important number of voters. Either way the work of these campaigns can bring in additional votes and the better they do and the more you can aid them the better chances they have of bringing in the extra votes you might not be able too.

22. Peopleraise while you fundraise.

    The Number of people invested in your campaign with a monetary contribution to your campaign is as important as the amount of money you are able to raise. Getting everyone who wants to help to give just a small amount is valuable.  That small token of money is in fact an investment in your campaign and once someone is invested in something the odds of them doing something else to help increases.   Getting the buy is valuable even the dollar amount doesn’t seem it.

23.  Know Your Vote Goal

     Vote goals are an under utilized tool on campaigns.  Generally they are hidden deep in the campaign and are seen as proprietary and what is worse is that they are woefully weak in terms of  detail. This should not be. Campaigns should know the numbers of votes they need to get in each precinct and be prepared to have a plan to get them, and buy your team into this concept of a specific number of votes and the need to obtain them.  When you set goals, it is easier to meet them.  The vote goal is the most important goal of all, and what you are working for. People care more about what they are doing when they know what the their goals are and the plan to obtain them.

24. The last votes are in ideas you haven’t thought of yet.

       In 2006, Joe Courtney won a House Seat by 83 Votes.  The organizers at the University of Connecticut decided at the last minute to pay for a limo to drive students to the polling place.  That decision made outside of the official campaign probably won that race. It was aided by the support from the Men’s Basketball coach and a visit by Ben Affleck.  The point is that there are extra votes in somewhat unlikely ideas.  Ideas that are unlikely can often well be needed.  This means you need to be thinking of extra ideas and no campaign can nor should yet have the exact solution because each race is different and every circumstances is different. One size does not fit all. The Limo with no previous engagement would have been useless.

25.  Start Now

       We don’t have time to wait, there is plenty to do and the longer candidates are in the race the more chances they have to raise money, build bodies, build name recognition and generally get to equal recognition with an incumbent and as importantly not let the incumbent enjoy uncontested news cycles. The broader goal requires nearly 60 such quality candidates so we can be sure of the seats we need and not be able to hold if we lose some of the 12 McCain won districts.  No time to waste.