Month: January 2011

SurveyUSA for Axiom Strategies (1/21-24, registered voters, no trendlines):

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 48

Sam Graves (R): 44

Other/undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4%)

I think this is the first SurveyUSA poll of the 2012 cycle, and it seems consistent with the few other polls we’ve seen so far in the Show Me State: Claire McCaskill is below 50% in the danger zone but with a small lead against a non-Jim Talent candidate. In this case, it’s Sam Graves, the MO-06 Rep. and potential Senate candidate who has suddenly started to throw his weight around in this race with the Jim Talent decision not to seek a rematch. They find McCaskill with a 48/45 approval (no comparable numbers for Graves).

Worth noting: this poll wasn’t commissioned by a media outlet, but by the Republican consulting firm Axiom Strategies. From Tricia Miller’s description, it sounds like they polled other general election matchups and the GOP primary as well, but only released the Graves numbers, saying that Graves tested the best against McCaskill. (The Roll Call article also gets fellow Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Leutkemeyer on the record as saying they won’t run, so now all the non-frosh GOP Reps. in the state are accounted for.)

As far as how we know that Jim Talent isn’t going to run, well, we have word from the horse’s mouth. Talent, in fact, publicly leaked it himself today (which means it really isn’t that much of a leak, doesn’t it?), telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that tomorrow he would make an official announcement that he wouldn’t run. As expected, Talent confirmed that he’s going to be focusing on Mitt Romney’s campaign instead.

That was a quick about-face, putting a stop to a crazy half-week: the Illinois Supreme Court just reversed the intermediate appellate court decision that had removed Rahm Emanuel from the Chicago mayoral ballot. All seven of the seven justices agreed (including Anne Burke, the wife of Alderman and Rahm archrival Edward Burke, who had refused to recuse herself from the case… although she participated in a separate concurrence).

“This is a situation in which, not only did the candidate testify that his intent was not to abandon his Chicago residence, his acts fully support and confirm that intent.”

I won’t bore you with further long excerpts from the opinion, but the majority basically smacks the lower court down pretty hard over their contorted reasoning to reach the result they did. With that, we’re pretty much back where we were on Monday morning: with Emanuel substantially in the lead in terms of polling and money, with the election just weeks away.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (1/14-16, Texas Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

David Dewhurst (R): 23

Ron Paul (R): 21

Greg Abbott (R): 14

Joe Barton (R): 7

Elizabeth Ames Jones (R): 6

Ted Cruz (R): 3

Tom Leppert (R): 3

Michael Williams (R): 3

Roger Williams (R): 1

Other/undecided: 19

(MoE: ±4.9%)

With Kay Bailey Hutchison heading off to a farm upstate, PPP does another one of their genre-busting “let’s throw everyone into the pigpen and see who’s Head Hog” primary polls, a format I admit I’m growing to appreciate. In these early surveys, it’s always the guys with the most name rec who lead the way, so it’s no surprise to see Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst slopping it up at the head of the trough, though 39% of GOP voters still don’t know him. Ron Paul is next in line; PPP didn’t test his favorables, but we can guess they must higher than your average congressman’s – like, say, Smokey Joe Barton, dwelling in the single digits. State AG Greg Abbott occupies the “roast beef” slot, to round out the top tier.

Who are the other piglets? You’ve got Elizabeth Ames Jones, one of three members of the Texas Railroad Commission, all of whom are elected statewide. (Despite the name, the commission doesn’t supervise railroads, but rather the all-important oil-and-gas industry.) Teabagger fave Michael Williams is also on the RRC, and Ted Cruz is the former state Solicitor General, now making rain in private practice despite his tender age. Rounding out the list are Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and former TX Sec. of State Roger Williams. Whew!

Interestingly, most of these potential candidates are already in the race or taking serious steps it. Cruz just made it official, and Jones, the only woman in the mix, did the same a few days later. Bush père-endorsed Roger Williams is already in the race. Michael Williams recently announced he plans to step down from the railroad commission, so that probably means only one thing. (In fact, he’ll supposedly announce today.) Leppert’s sending similar signals: a couple of weeks ago he said that he wouldn’t seek re-election as mayor.

Abbott’s still in “rumored” territory, and Barton’s saying he’s unlikely to run if the mega-wealthy Dewhurst gets in, which most folks seem to expect. A lot of people also seem to think that Dewhurst, thanks to his profile and money, will have magical field-clearing powers, but at least one columnist isn’t so sure. Since Dewhurst very firmly has “establishment” branded on his hide, it’s not hard to imagine a teabagger-fueled toppling. Just think about how Rick Perry positioned himself against KBH last year.

An additional name not on PPP’s list is Rep. Michael McCaul, who said he’s not ruling out a run. McCaul probably needs a redistricting bailout if he’s to survive into the next decade, and it would make the lives of Republican state legislators easier if they didn’t have to worry about him seeking re-election, but a senatorial run hardly seems like a better bet.

One guy who doesn’t seem likely to run is His Paulness. Ron initially said to Politico that he was “flattered” by his showing in this poll, and then told The Hill that the prospect of running for senate had “certainly crossed my mind.” But a day later, he was already telling the National Journal that “I don’t think it’s a real possibility.” Apparently, says the NJ, Paul is “waiting to see whether the strength of the nation’s currency improves before deciding whether to run.” It’s not clear to me which direction the dollar heads will make him more likely to get in, but as Crisitunity says: “Seeing as how we’re unlikely to return to the gold standard any time soon, draw your own conclusions.”

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (1/14-16, Texas voters, no trendlines):

Chet Edwards (D): 31

David Dewhurst (R): 50

Undecided: 19

Chet Edwards (D): 31

Elizabeth Ames Jones (R): 44

Undecided: 25

Chet Edwards (D): 30

Tom Leppert (R): 46

Undecided: 24

Chet Edwards (D): 31

Michael Williams (R): 42

Undecided: 27

John Sharp (D): 31

David Dewhurst (R): 49

Undecided: 19

John Sharp (D): 30

Elizabeth Ames Jones (R): 44

Undecided: 26

John Sharp (D): 30

Tom Leppert (R): 42

Undecided: 28

John Sharp (D): 30

Michael Williams (R): 42

Undecided: 28

Julian Castro (D): 25

David Dewhurst (R): 53

Undecided: 23

Julian Castro (D): 27

Elizabeth Ames Jones (R): 48

Undecided: 25

Julian Castro (D): 25

Tom Leppert (R): 48

Undecided: 27

Julian Castro (D): 26

Michael Williams (R): 45

Undecided: 29

(MoE: ±3.3%)

Doesn’t look good out there. Ex-Rep. Chet Edwards, former state Comptroller John Sharp, and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro can’t get higher than 31% against any Republican in the field.

Asians are one of the most ignored constituencies in American politics. When most politicians think about the Asian vote, they don’t.

Yet the Asian-American population is increasing, both in absolute terms and relative ones. By 2050, the Census estimates that Asians will compose 7.8% of the American population. Although their voting rates will still fall far short of this, the population is becoming more influential. Predicting their future voting path therefore has some utility.

In previous posts, this blogger has argued that the Latino vote will likely trend Republican, as Latinos follow the path of previous immigrants and become more assimilated.

Will the same happen for Asian-Americans?

More below.

Probably not:

As the graph above shows, the Asian vote has steadily moved Democratic, in quite a significant manner. In 1992 Republican President George H.W. Bush won 55% of the Asian vote while losing the popular vote. 12 years later, his son won only 41% of Asians, despite winning the popular vote.

The trend also does not look bright for the Republican Party. Asian-Americans who have been born in the United States are, if anything, more Democratic than those who immigrated into the country (to be fair, the latter group dominates the Asian population and will continue to do so unless immigration is drastically curtailed).

Take, for instance, the Vietnamese-American population – strong supporters of the Republican Party. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, after conducting an extensive exit poll of Asians (perhaps the only detailed exit poll of the group in the country), found that:

Vietnamese American voters gave McCain the strongest support of all Asian ethnic groups at 67%. However, further analysis of Vietnamese American voters revealed 69% of those born in the U.S. and 60% of those 18-29 years old voted for Obama. Among Vietnamese American respondents, 15% were born in the U.S. and 25% were between the ages of 18 and 29.

The analysis goes on to conclude that:

AALDEF’s exit poll data shows that younger, U.S.-born, more recently naturalized, and English proficient Asian American citizens voted for Barack Obama for President by wide margins. Older, foreign-born citizens with limited English proficiency and who had been naturalized more than ten years ago voted in greater proportions for McCain.

There are several explanations for why this is happening. One quite plausible argument is that immigration has shifted the Asian-American population from Orange County anti-communists to Silicon Valley liberals.

Another revealing insight can be gained by comparing Asians to another very Democratic group: Jews. In many ways the two have a startling amount in common. Both groups are highly educated; both are primarily located in urban metropolitan areas; both have achieved substantial success in American society; and both have encountered quite similar types of discrimination. Even the stereotypes are similar.

Given these similarities, it is very conceivable that Asians could end up voting like Jews – one of the most liberal-minded groups in the nation.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

• MO-Sen: Most likely you already saw this story yesterday, but the big story in the Missouri Senate race is that Politico’s Dave Catanese seems to be the recipient of various leaks that ex-Sen. Jim Talent will announce soon that he isn’t going to run for Senate. We won’t start jumping up and down and honking our clown horn until we actually hear it from Talent, but this isn’t a surprise, based on previous rumors out of the Show Me State and Talent’s seeming decision to focus on hitching his wagon to Mitt Romney’s star instead. Without a dominant establishment candidate in the field, it looks like even more GOPers are starting to sniff out the race: MO-08 Rep. Jo Ann Emerson is now on the record as at least “considering” a run. Emerson, who’s had some mavericky moments in the House, would easily be the most moderate GOPer in the field if she ran (and may see a path there, with multiple tea partiers seeming poised to cannibalize each others’ votes). Emerson’s potential departure would create an open seat in the currently R+15 8th, an area that actually went for Bill Clinton but has fallen off the cliff for Dems in recent years, most recently with the fizzle of the touted Tommy Sowers campaign last year.

• NJ-Sen: PPP, while “cleaning out their fridge” as they said, found some week-old GOP Senate primary numbers from their New Jersey sample. They find state Sen. and 2006 candidate Tom Kean Jr. in good shape, with support from both moderates (which is probably what he would qualify as) and conservatives; he leads Lou Dobbs 42-30 with Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno at 7, “someone else” at 6, and 15 undecided.

• KY-Gov: Filing day came and went without any last-minute shenanigans in Kentucky. Steve Beshear will get a totally free ride in the Democratic primary (looks like that primary from the scrap metal dealer didn’t materialize), and will face one of three GOP opponents: state Senate president David Williams, teabagging businessman Phil Moffett, or Jefferson Co. Clerk Bobbie Holsclaw. The general election field in the AG race is already set; Jack Conway and Todd P’Pool didn’t draw any primary challengers. The most activity seems to be in the Ag Commissioner race (vacated by Richie Farmer, who’s running for Lt. Gov.), with 5 Dems and 2 GOPers running.

• MN-08: This probably isn’t a surprise, but after his upset loss last year, 76-year-old Jim Oberstar has decided to opt for retirement rather than a rerun against new Rep. Chip Cravaack. Two other high-profile Dems, Duluth mayor Don Ness and state Sen. Tony Lourey have also recently said no. Two DFLers who are considering the race, though, are Duluth-based state Sen. Roger Reinert and Daniel Fanning, Al Franken’s deputy state director.

• Omaha mayor: Omaha mayor Jim Suttle narrowly survived a recall attempt in last night’s special election. He won 51-49. Suttle vows to do a better job of communicating with voters in the election’s wake, although it remains an open question whether he runs again in 2013.

• Redistricting: Here’s a new wrinkle in the fight over the Fair Districts initiatives in Florida: Rick Scott seems to be stalling implementation of the new standards (which would limit the state legislature’s ability to gerrymander districts). The state “quietly withdrew” its request that the federal DOJ approve implementation of the initiatives, which jeopardizes whether they’ll be in place in time for the actual business of redistricting. Florida, as a one-time part of the Deep South, is one of those states that requires DOJ preclearance for changes to its electoral regime under the Voting Rights Act.

Politico also has an interesting article today about the Congressional Black Caucus and redistricting, which will reshape many of their districts, seeing as how some of their members’ districts have had the biggest population losses of any districts in the nation (OH-11, MI-13, MI-14, and MO-01 in particular). These districts seem like they can absorb some suburban votes without losing their lopsided Dem advantages, but they’re probably more worried about members getting pitted against each other (as might happen with the two Detroit districts) or against another Dem (possible for Marcia Fudge and Lacy Clay). Other lingering questions are whether Sanford Bishop’s GA-02 (the only CBC-held district that’s legitimately swingy) gets shored up or made worse, and whether South Carolina can be compelled to eke out a second VRA seat.

• Turnout models: I rarely get the chance to say this, but if you look at only one scatterplot today, it should be this one. It’s a remarkably-clear slope showing how predictable presidential approval is across demographic groups, and more evidence that the swing in the 2010 election was uniform across groups in response to macro factors (i.e. the stupid economy) rather than a failure of microtargeting. And here are some further thoughts on the matter from Larry Sabato’s new book, pointing out the really steep dropoffs in 2010 turnout for the groups I tend to label the “casual voters” (reliably Dem lower-information voters, mostly young and/or people of color, who turn out for presidential races but not the less compelling stuff in between), and how the 2010 model isn’t anything like what the 2012 model will resemble.

Public Policy Polling (1/20-23, West Virginia voters, no trendlines):

Joe Manchin (D-inc): 50

Shelley Moore Capito (R): 41

Undecided: 10

Joe Manchin (D-inc): 57

David McKinley (R): 28

Undecided: 14

Joe Manchin (D-inc): 60

John Raese (R): 31

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±2.9%)

I think, if you were to try and set up West Virginians’ feelings about their politicians as a mathematical equation, it would look something like this: Joe Manchin > Shelley Moore Capito > (very large gap) > various other Dems > various other Republicans. This can be seen in PPP’s sample this week, which starts with their look at the 2012 Senate race, with Manchin beating all Republican opponents and having made the jump to federal office with sky-high approvals down somewhat but mostly intact, at 52/32 (with much of the drop in approvals coming from liberals, believe it or not). Capito is in similar very-positive terrain at 54/30, but nevertheless loses to Manchin, probably because of the disparity in Dem vs. GOP registrations in West Virginia and that there’s little Dem defection from Manchin.

Public Policy Polling (1/20-23, West Virginia voters, no trendlines):

Earl Ray Tomblin (D): 40

Shelley Moore Capito (R): 48

Undecided: 12

Earl Ray Tomblin (D): 54

Clark Barnes (R): 22

Undecided: 24

Earl Ray Tomblin (D): 49

Betty Ireland (R): 32

Undecided: 19

Earl Ray Tomblin (D): 53

Mike Stuart (R): 20

Undecided: 28

John Perdue (D): 33

Shelley Moore Capito (R): 52

Undecided: 15

John Perdue (D): 41

Clark Barnes (R): 23

Undecided: 36

John Perdue (D): 37

Betty Ireland (R): 37

Undecided: 26

John Perdue (D): 41

Mike Stuart (R): 21

Undecided: 38

Natalie Tennant (D): 37

Shelley Moore Capito (R): 49

Undecided: 13

Natalie Tennant (D): 49

Clark Barnes (R): 23

Undecided: 28

Natalie Tennant (D): 43

Betty Ireland (R): 32

Undecided: 26

Natalie Tennant (D): 48

Mike Stuart (R): 22

Undecided: 31

Rick Thompson (D): 29

Shelley Moore Capito (R): 54

Undecided: 18

Rick Thompson (D): 34

Clark Barnes (R): 24

Undecided: 43

Rick Thompson (D): 31

Betty Ireland (R): 37

Undecided: 32

Rick Thompson (D): 33

Mike Stuart (R): 22

Undecided: 45

(MoE: ±2.9%)

If you have the stamina to wade through all 16 of these gubernatorial permutations, you can see a definite pattern: Dems win big, unless the GOP gets Shelley Moore Capito into the race, in which case she’s favored (or unless Rick Thompson wins the nomination, as he manages to lose to Betty Ireland). The question PPP asks specifically says “If the candidates for governor this year were…” so, however, keep in mind that Capito has basically declined to run in the special election. Nevertheless, she hasn’t ruled out a run in 2012, so assuming these numbers stay valid for another year, there’s a distinct possibility that whichever Dem wins the special election in 2011 could have a very short tenure if Capito does decide to run in 2012. In fact, if Earl Ray Tomblin doesn’t win the Dem primary, we could have two one-year gubernatorial terms in a row. Tomblin starts in a good place, though, with 42/20 approvals; Betty Ireland seems to fare the best of the “other” GOPers, with 33/19 faves.

If you’re wondering, here’s who all these various people are:

Earl Ray Tomblin: Democratic state Senate president and acting Governor until the October 2011 special election

John Perdue: Democratic state Treasurer

Natalie Tennant: Democratic Secretary of State

Rick Thompson: Democratic state House speaker

Shelley Moore Capito: Republican Rep. from WV-02

Clark Barnes: Republican state Senator

Betty Ireland: Republican ex-SoS

Mike Stuart: Republican state party chair

1. IL-10 – Bob Dold – Dems should be able to beat Dold without changing district much.

2. NY-25 – Ann Marie Buerkle – How did Maffei lose this to an anti-abortion activist?

3. NH-02 – Charlie Bass – Would love to see Kuster run again.

4. NV-03 – Joe Heck – Harry Reid GOTV nearly carried Titus to victory.

5. MN-08 – Chip Cravaack – Dems should be able to beat this guy in historically Dem district.  

6. WA-08 – Dave Reichert – DelBene re-run would be fine with me.

7. IL-08 – Joe Walsh – Bean re-run would be OK.  Walsh a very poor candidate.

8. NJ-03 – John Runyan – Dems should find a candidate from outside Camden machine.

9. TX-27 – Blake Farenthold – Anybody but Ortiz.

10. PA-11 – Lou Barletta – Anybody but Kanjorski.

11. NC-02 – Renee Ellmers – Anybody but Etheridge.

12. WI-07 – Sean Duffy

13. PA-08 – Mike Fitzpatrick

14. WA-03 – Jaime Herrera

15. IL-17 – Bobby Schilling

16. OH-01 – Steve Chabot

17. FL-22 – Allen West

18. PA-07 – Pat Meehan

19. MI-07 – Tim Walberg

20. IL-14 – Randy Hultgren

21. NY-24 – Richard Hanna

22. OH-06 – Bill Johnson

23. PA-06 – Jim Gerlach

24. NY-19 – Nan Hayworth

25. NY-13 – Mike Grimm

26. WI-08 – Reid Ribble

27. TX-23 – Quico Canseco

28. PA-15 – Charlie Dent

29. OH-15 – Steve Stivers

30. NH-01 – Frank Guinta

31. NY-20 – Chris Gibson

32. CO-03 – Scott Tipton

33. VA-05 – Rob Hurt

34. OH-12 – Pat Tiberi

35. CA-45 – Mary Bono-Mack

36. IL-11 – Adam Kinzinger

37. MI-01 – Dan Benishek

38. AZ-05 – David Schweikert

39. PA-03 – Mike Kelly

40. CA-03 – Dan Lungren

41. MI-11 – Thad McCotter

42. FL-25 – David Rivera

43. FL-12 – Dennis Ross

44. OH-16 – Jim Renacci

45. MN-03 – Erik Paulsen

46. FL-08 – Dan Webster

47. IL-06 – Peter Roskam

48. AZ-01 – Paul Gosar

49. VA-02 – Scott Rigell

50. NJ-07 – Leonard Lance

This is my first diary post using Dave’s App, so any suggestions are welcome 🙂

I tried to create a slight Democratic Gerrymander of Florida. I didn’t follow VRA very much, so I will be working to make a VRA map with 2 AA majority districts and 3 hispanic majority districts. I don’t believe the DOJ will require a 3rd in North Florida (Corrine Browns awful district.)

But being able to basically ignore the VRA in Florida opens amazing opportunities, especially in South FL. And luckily, some of the districts around the Tampa Bay area and a few others may end up being the actual districts with the new Fair Districts initiative being passed.

So, here are my maps:

Panhandle:

CD1 in Blue: It’s pretty hard to do anything here unless you want to send an arm from CD2 to to suck up Pensacola voters, but that would just look to crazy. This district is Safe Republican for the next decade at least.

76% White, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD2 in Green: This district is based in Tallahassee, and differs from the current district because it extends further north and east (Repubs drew an arm from Andrew Crenshaws district on the GA border over into CD2 to suck up Blue Dog voters and take out Allen Boyds home town in Monticello)

Here, I put a lot of traditionally Dem voting areas (Wakulla and Jefferson counties) along with very Democratic Leon county. This district is probably around even PVI, and I can easily see a Dem winning this (probably a moderate).

68% White, 24% Black, 4% Hispanic

Rating: Tossup

North Central FL and Jacksonville:

CD3 in Purple: This is a Gainesville based district. I toyed with trying to tie this to Tallahassee or Jacksonville, but decided to just give this district traditionally Democratic Madison county in the northwest part of the district, heavily Dem Alachua county and high AA parts of Ocala in the southern part of the district, and also extends over to Palatka in the east down through hispanic De Leon Springs. It has enough of an AA population along with the University of Florida to make it a competitive district. I am fairly unsure of what Obama % this district would be, but I think another fairly moderate Dem could easily hold this district barring another 2010.

70% White, 19% Black, 7% Hispanic

Rating: Tossup

CD4 in Red: This district sucks up heavily Republican suburbs of Jacksonville including all of Nassau county. It stretches further south to suck up rural white populations away from the east coast.

82% White, 8% Black, 5% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD5 in Yellow: I decided to let Jacksonville have it’s own district, but at the same time keep it competitive for Dems. It’s only 55% white, but the Jacksonville area is very racially divided. However, with some liberal whites, a high AA populations, and some hispanics, this district will also probably be very competitive. It all depends on AA turnout in the city.

55% White, 34% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian

Rating: In Presidential years – Lean D In off years- Tossup

CD6 in Blue-Green: This district was designed to be as Dem as possible on the east coast. It takes in fairly wealthy beach towns, and heavily AA areas like Titusville and Holly Hill. It extends over towards Orlando to pick up heavily minority Sanford.

74% White, 12% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D

CD7 in Grey: I love this district. It covers heavily rural and Republican areas all through the big bend and central part of the state.

83% White, 7% Black, 8% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

I’ll come back to CD 8 after the Tampa area.

Behold, Tampa!:

CD9 in Cyan: This is a solely Tampa based district and is plurality-white. It doesn’t include all of the New Tampa area (which is technically part of the city.) It stretches down a bit to take in Gibsonton and  Riverview, and east to take in the diverse Brandon area and heavily AA Progress Village and Clair Mel City.

49% White, 21% Black, 25% Hispanic

Rating: Safe D

CD10 in Magenta? / Pink: A Tampa suburb district. This takes in Republican leaning areas in Pasco, down through heavily R Sun City, absorbing the rest of the R leaning Tampa suburbs.

72% White, 7% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Likely R

CD11 in Pale Green: St. Petersburg district. If you look closely at the current district map, the actual city of St. Pete is gerrymandered out of this district, and linked to downtown Tampa and Bradenton to the south by water (awful.) So adding downtown St. Pete makes this district much more Dem friendly, considering it is already a Tossup. Once Bill Young retires, this would easily go D.

76% White, 12% Black, 7% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D after Young retires.

CD12 in Light-Bluish: Coastal Pasco and Hernando and Northern Pinellas. This district takes in Greek populations north of Clearwater, and suburban R leaning Pasco and Hernando. Bilirakis would probably run here and win, with his family name. As for the long term, this district may slowly trend D as its population explodes and suburbs continue to become slightly more D friendly.

Rating: Likely R, possibly Lean R by the end of the decade.

Now for the Orlando Area:

CD8 in Light Blue: This district is majority-minority when adding all minority groups. It includes the western half of Orlando, and heavily hispanic areas to the south and west of downtown Orlando. The Dem primary here would be interesting.

47% White, 25% Black, 20% Hispanic, 5% Asian

Rating: Safe to Likely D

CD14 in Ugly Brown/Green: I’m really unsure of the Obama % here. There is a decent minority vote here, along with the eastern half of downtown Orlando. I know this area is quickly growing, and becoming more D as the Puerto Rican population skyrockets. This district also slides east to pickup the space center and Merritt Island.

70% White, 7% Black, 17% Hispanic

Rating: Unsure… could be between Lean R and Lean D.

CD15 in Orange: One of my more gerrymandered districts that I am proud of. It is barely majority white. This takes in south Orlando, Kissimmee, St. Cloud, along with downtown Winter Haven and Lakeland. It could be tweaked maybe to make it majority-minority.

50% White, 12% Black, 33% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

SW Florida and South Central FL:

CD 13 in Tan: I apologize for the colors here. This districts includes all of Brandenton, Sarasota, Venice, Punta Gorda, and Port Charlotte. Bye-bye, Vern Buchanan. He might run in CD10 or CD16 instead.

81% White, 7% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

CD16 in Bright Green: Republican vote sink extraordinaire. Probably my favorite R vote sink in FL. This district sucks in all of the R heavy and R leaning areas from Hillsborough County all the way down through the spine of central FL, ending at Lake Okeechobee.

73% White, 9% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD17 in Purple: Another fun east coast district, including Melbourne all the way down to Fort Pierce. Not too sure about this district either… I know the coastal areas are fairly swingy, but I assume Obama carried them narrowly, but lost the inland parts I put in CD16.

74% White, 12% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D to Tossup

CD18 in Pale Yellow: This district takes some very low population inland Everglades areas, and eat up part of the East coast and we approach the Miami area. I believe a lot of the white population here is wealthy, and also I think we are starting to get into some Jewish population areas. If anyone wants to help fill me in on the type of white population that lives here that would be awesome!

63% White, 17% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D to Tossup?

CD19 in Lime Greenish: This district includes Palm Beach. It has a decent AA and hispanic population (that I don’t think is too Cuban heavy yet.) We’re also getting into the more Jewish populated areas.

61% White, 14% Black, 22% Hispanic

Rating: Likely to Lean D

CD20 in Pale Pink: Fort Myers and Cape Coral. These heavily populated areas are Lean D, considering they are a huge hot-spot for retirees. This district is probably R leaning, but I may be wrong and it could elect the right D.

77% White, 6% Black, 14% Hispanic

Rating: Lean R

South Florida!:

CD21 in Brown: How do you make Rs in Florida pissed? Make them have a nasty primary between old white people in Naples and Cubans near Miami. Should be an R district, until the Cuban populations shift to Dems (hopefully soon)

48% White, 14% Black, 35% Hispanic

Rating: Likely R for now.

CD26 in a Greyish color below the Lime green district: Boca!

I apologize again for the picture here. This district should be heavily Jewish with a 12% AA population. I don’t think this district will leave the D column.

69% White, 12% Black, 15% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

CD27 in Aquamarine:  Ft. Lauderdale. This district was my leftovers kind of. It’s extremely diverse, but with over 30% AA and most of the white population being Jewish, it seems like it should be a Dem district.

42% White, 34% Black, 19% Hispanic

Rating: Safe to Likely D

Miami Area:

CD22 in White: Hollywood. A barely white majority district, diluting some of the Cuban power in the area. With the Jewish population and % AA population combined, it should be Lean D.

50% White, 8% Black, 36% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D

CD24 in Purple: North Miami. This is the only AA majority district I have here, so the VRA would be sad.

14% White, 52% Black, 30% Hispanic

Rating: Safe D

A closer look at the South Miami Area:

CD23 in Teal-ish color: Miami Cuban areas. Can’t get much more Cuban than this district.

9% White, 6% Black, 83% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R for one of the Diaz-Balarts or Ms. Ileana.

CD25 in Light Pink: Hialeah. This sucks in Hialeah and makes a C shape to suck in more Cuban populations to the south.

14% White, 5% Black, 79% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

The Dems came extremely close to controlling the redistricting trifecta in CO, losing the state house of reps by a single seat. If the Dems had won that house seat last year, or if they could somehow convince one of the Republicans in the house to switch parties or support a Democratic redistricting plan, here is one way the Democrats could draw a reasonably compact 5-2 map of Colorado.

Denver Area:

The two districts that are the most changed under this map are the 3rd and the 4th. The new 3rd is a C-shaped district that includes the Hispanic areas in the Southern part of the state, the liberal rocky mtn ski towns, and some swingy areas in Jefferson county. Despite the fact that the Jeff Co areas are swing regions, this district is safely Democratic as those areas only make up about one third of the district’s population. A GOP candidate could get up to 60% of the vote in the Jeff Co part of this district and still lose overall due to the heavy Democratic lean of the other areas. The one problem with this district is that rep Ed Perlmutter actually lives here. This shouldn’t be a problem in terms of losing to a Republican (he’s more vulnerable in his old district than here), but he may not want to represent a district composed of so much new territory.

The new 4th is composed of Greeley, Fort Collins-Loveland, and some mainly Hispanic areas in Weld and Adams counties. Between the white liberals in Greeley and Fort Collins and the Hispanics in Adams Co, it should be all but safe democratic. I could see this district maybe going red in a midterm year with low Hispanic turnout, but even that would probably be a stretch, and getting less likely with every passing year as this area trends more and more democratic. Still this is probably the least Democratic of the 5 D districts on this map, which is a testament to how Democratic this map is more than anything else.

The 2nd district around Boulder is almost unchanged. The 1st has shed some areas in Denver Co to the 7th and gained some suburban areas around Littleton in order to shore up the 7th. The  1st is now less Democratic but still enough for Diana DeGette to be completely safe. The 7th has lost a lot of territory in Adams and Jefferson counties, but it has gained some African-American and mixed African-American and Hispanic areas in Denver along with some areas in Weld and Morgan counties. At 59% White it is the most minority-heavy of all these districts, and should be much safer for Democrats now. Lastly, the 5th and 6th serve as GOP vote dumps in Colorado Springs and the outer areas of the state, respectively.

UPDATE

There was some discussion in the comments of the potential effects of the VRA on Colorado. It is actually possible to draw a compact plurality-hispanic district in Denver and Adams Co. My initial guess was that this would wind up hurting Democrats significantly. This turned out to be partially true, but much less than I originally thought. The basic methodology of the map remains the same; Draw a C-shaped district combining the Denver suburbs, the Hispanic areas in South CO, and the liberal ski towns, and attach Fort Collins and Greeley to something other than ruralconservativeland. It turns out looking like this:



Denver Area:



Under this map, the 1st district is 43% W, 8 %B, 44% H. It is possible to make it as much as 39-ish percent white if you want to, but once it crosses the 50% non-white line there is no legal obligation to make it more non-white so I decided to leave it 43% white in order to make the surrounding districts safer. One big change under this map is that the 4th is now drawn down to Boulder instead of Adams Co. This saves the Democrats the trouble of having to find someone to run in what was under the first map their weakest district. The other change is that the 2nd district is now mainly a Jefferson Co based district, with a bit of Arapahoe Co and the SW tip of Denver Co thrown in. This is probably the worst thing for the Democrats on this map, as I suspect the PVI of this district is something like D+2 or 3, making it only a slightly D-leaning seat. It also has no incumbent, as rep Perlmutter’s home is still in the 3rd. This area is trending Democratic very quickly, though, so if the Dems have to draw a VRA seat then I wouldn’t totally freak out about this one. The 7th, having lost a lot of nonwhite territory to the 1st, now has taken on the majority-white sections of Denver. I don’t know where Rep Diana DeGette lives in Denver, however I would guess she probably lives in one of the mainly white areas, so she probably runs in the 7th under this map, opening up the new 1st for a Hispanic representative. The 7th, like the 4th, has probably moved towards the Democrats under this map. The 3rd, OTOH, has moved to the GOP here, as it has taken on the rural areas previously in the 2nd, a tiny part of Douglas Co, and Crowley and Otero counties in the south which are GOP leaning but have significant Hispanic minorities. Overall, this new 3rd is probably Likely D at worst. So the net shift to the GOP from creating a new Hispanic-plurality district is at most one district. The biggest loser under this new VRA scenario seems to be compactness and community-of-interest contiguity (I particularly don’t like the idea of splitting Denver Co between multiple districts), not necessarily the Democratic Party.