Tag: 2012

This time, we’ve got an internet application to play with.

The task of dividing Missouri into 8 districts with the population estimates is still a nightmare.

When it comes down to it, the best possible deal for an 8 district map is a 4/4 delegation split. Best possible, without a gerrymander. Currently the delegation is 5 Republicans/4 Democrats.

With all the momentum of under two hours of work, here’s an attempt to split the state into 8 districts with a 4/4 split.

First, the STL districts.

The 1st district (Blue): 738926 people, 45% white, 49% African-American

The 2nd district (Green): 738908 people

The 1st district walks a balance between helping the 2nd, and also keeping the legislators in that area happy enough to actually approve such a map. The 1st moves west into Maryland Heights and south in the city of St. Louis. Ideally, the district would still go 2 to 1 for Democrats, at the very least. A drop from 3 to 1, but still a good solid district. Here’s a before/after of the lines. Most of the tracts moving from the 1st to 2nd were coincidences from the tractpoking that was done to form the district.

The 2nd district includes the homes of Todd Akin and Russ Carnahan. The district also includes a chunk of Akin’s STL county district (except for Chesterfield). As well, a part of Jefferson County, and Russ’ South County district are in the district unsplit. Ideally the district would be 50/50.

As for the third district (pop. 738910)

Officially, this district is open. It combines Boone County, one of the emerging Democratic votegetting counties, with the rapidly blueing St. Charles county. Along with the I70 corridor and some other counties in the area.

Cole County is split with Jeff City in the 3rd and the rest of the county in the new 4th district. Franklin County’s split puts the northern part of the county in the 3rd and the southern in the 8th.

As for the 4th district.. it’s a sign of the ridiculous nature of the 4th that you can’t fit it into an image on the minimum zoom.

Yes, really. The realities of the corridor district kind of makes this district ridiculous. As well, Sam Graves and Blaine Luetkemeyer both live in this district. The population in the new 4th is 738858. The only split in it not already covered is two tracts in Camden County near Osage Beach (which are in the 9th district, instead of the 4th). Unfortunately for candidates, this district is huge, covers multiple TV markets. As well, we can only break it down by region. Buchanan and Platte should be Dem friendly, the Northwest Corner is more Republican, North Central Missouri is a fusion of co-ops and Republican voting, the Northeast corner of Missouri could be a good Dem area. The Northeast part of the district between Kirksville and Moberly could also produce a good showing for Dems. But a lot of this depends on who the candidates are, and if they’re great at exhaustive campaigning. 44 counties in one Congressional district might be a record for this state.

The 5th district (pop. 739048) is slightly more compact.

The temptation to put some of the Republican parts of Jackson County somewhere else is still there. But when the county is 60/40 blue, then it’s not a huge pain to have to put up with parts of EJC, or with Cass County. Cass County kind of got cut up in the quest to get within 100 of the ideal district population.

As for the 6th district (pop. 738852), it’ll be more competitive when it’s opened up by retirement. But it’s a challenge.

The district obviously adds Clay County. It loses a sliver of Jackson County, along with Webster County and parts of Cass County. The district also gains ground in Polk, Camden and Phelps Counties. Ideally, the combination of traditionally Democratic areas in West Central Missouri and Clay County could outmuscle the traditionally Republican lean of the rest of the district.

My apologies to Phelps Countians for the splitting of their county.

The 4th and 6th could switch numbers on this map so that Ike Skelton is the incumbent in the 4th, Sam Graves is the incumbent in the 6th, and they won’t have to order cards with new district numbers on them.

As for the 7th (pop. 738989).. it is what you think it is

It picks up the rest of Taney County, Webster County, a tract in Wright county, and Ozark County. It loses part of Polk County. It’s still very Republican.

How about the 8th district (pop. 739114)?

The eighth loses it’s portion of Taney County, loses part of Phelps and Wright counties, loses Ozark County. It picks up Southern Franklin and Southern Jefferson Counties, along with Crawford and Ste. Genevieve counties. As to how the 8th splits when a non-Emerson is on the ballot, i’m not particularly sure. But when the two biggest counties in the 8th are strong Republican (Cape and Butler), then that’s a lot of votes to start with.

When it comes to redistricting, barring a great compromise, the map will be drawn or approved by a panel of Federal Judges. But the Republican plan will be closer to 6/2 if they act as how they usually act. They’ll keep the 4th as is and wait. They’ll put Southern Clay County in the 5th. They’ll stack Democrats in the 1st. Russ Carnahan’s house will end up in a Republican 2nd or the 8th.

Basically.. redistricting will be very unpleasant this year unless something unexpected occurs.

But until we get the real numbers, we’re left to mess with an online application in an attempt to see how many counties can fit into one Congressional district. When the real numbers come out, then the computers hidden in the basement of the Capital will be put to work with all the electoral and socioeconomic stats to form the ‘perfect map’

Which will then be exposed within several cycles.

But it’s raining in the KC area. So why not have a diversion for a bit?

Happened across this while skimming Blue Indiana.  Apparently, the Sheriff of Lake County, Roy Dominguez, announced when addressing a gathering of law school students his hopes to run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.

http://www.blueindiana.net/dia…

I’ll be the first to say I know absolutely nothing about Indiana, the distant gubernatorial race, or Dominguez.  I take that back…I know I’d like to see Evan Bayh swallowed and then spit out by an anaconda…but that’s all!  This guy may turn out to be a gadfly or for all I know he could turn out to be an underdog we can root for, I don’t know.

What I do know is that the guy seems interesting:

http://www.lakecountysheriff.c…

He also didn’t fall flat on his face with his choice of venue.  He apparently tied the announcement in very nicely with the speech topic of overcoming racism and prejudice and following your dreams, so it sounds like the guy can weave a narrative and impress people:

http://www.post-trib.com/news/…

Also of interest, there’s polling out on the favorability ratings of Bayh and Lugar as well as Obama:

http://www.blueindiana.net/dia…

I’m surprised Obama has such high favorables to be honest, and if he can keep them at that level in 2012 then maybe there’s a chance we can drag some Dems into the governorship and Lugar’s seat if he retires.  It may be a little too early to think about this, but it’s out there so we might as well do so.  Personally, I’m hoping to hear from someone who can provide more information on this than me.

The purpose of this diary is to demonstrate that it is quite possible to redistrict Maryland in a manner in which 8 Democrats can be elected to Congress from the state.

The following map provides a visual re. how this may be accomplished following the 2010 Census:

General Observations:

1.) I tried to make the new map reflective of 2010 population estimates, as different parts of the state have experienced varying population growth levels.  For example, the population of Baltimore City is expected to decline slightly between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, while some outer exurban areas of Baltimore and Washington are expected to show increases of 20% or more.

2.) I tried to make the map less gerrymandered than the current one, and believe that I was successful at the task.  While still creative, the district boundaries are arguably more uniform and the districts more compact than before.  Additionally, the new map keeps intact much of the territory of the current 7 Democratic representatives, while still creating a new 8th Democratic seat.  I decided to keep the district boundaries exactly as they currently are in Baltimore City — in that way it will be much harder to challenge those lines (which are quite gerrymandered) in Court as the new district boundaries in Baltimore would do nothing more than preserve the status quo.

3.) Due to the VRA, the state has to preserve 2 African-American majority districts.  The new map does accomplish this task.  Both District 4 and District 7 are about 51% African-American, using projected 2010 population estimates.  The hitch here is that I use the Census definition of “African-American or in combination with other race(s)” while the standard to use may need to be “African-American alone” under which only about 49% of the population of each district would be black.  Nevertheless, as I’m using only projected population figures, it’s something that can be adjusted once the official 2010 numbers come out — think of the map here as sort of a blueprint of what can be done.  Both districts are ensured to elect an African-American Democrat, as 70% or more of the Democratic primary vote in each district is expected to be comprised of African-Americans.

4.)  I tried to preserve the Democratic nature of all the current Democratic-held districts.  As you can see from the map, and accompanying tables, in Districts 2, 3 and 5, the Democratic percentage — as measured by the share Obama received last year — remains basically the same (it should be noted that the numbers I use here don’t include an adjustment for absentees which would change them slightly).  In District 8, the Democratic percentage declines a bit more — approximately 3% — but still stays at about 70% Obama, which will keep the 8th in Democratic hands.  In Districts 4 and 7, the Democratic percentage drops significantly — from 85% to 73% in MD-4, and from 79% to 66% in MD-7, but the districts are still very Democratic (even John Kerry received close to 60% of the vote in 2004 under District 7’s new lines).  McCain would have won the new District 1 narrowly; however, the Democratic percentage surges from 40% Obama to 47% Obama.  If Kratovil can survive the 2010 election, this map will solidify him in 2012.  District 6 experiences the biggest changes.  The Democratic percentage goes from an anemic 40% to a robust 58.4% (basically equaling Districts 2 and 3).

Discussion of Individual Districts:

District 1:

This district continues to encompass the entire Eastern Shore.  The Republican Harford and Baltimore County portions of the district also remain.  The Anne Arundel Co. portion is taken out and substituted by hyper-Democratic territory currently in the 2nd (Randallstown) and 7th (Lochearn).  The new 1st is arguably less gerrymandered than the old one.  There is no more connection of parts of the district over the Bay Bridge, and the district encompasses one less county than before.

District 2:

The district continues to be anchored by Baltimore County — the boundaries change very slightly in that county.  The Harford County and Baltimore City boundaries don’t change at all.  The Anne Arundel Co. part remains similar to the current, though is less gerrymandered.  To substitute for the loss of the Randallstown area, the Laurel area is added instead.

District 3:

Like MD-2, the new 3rd remains quite similar to the current district.  The Baltimore City, Towson, Parkville Pikesville, Owings Mills, Reisterstown, and Arbutus areas remain intact, as well as the current Howard Co. portion of the district.  The remainder of Howard is added (whereby the whole county is now in MD-3).  The Mt. Airy area of Carroll and Frederick Counties is added as well as Catonsville in Baltimore Co. (Catonsville was in the district prior to 1992), while the highly gerrymandered Anne Arundel areas are taken out.

District 4:

The new 4th continues to encompass large portions of 2 counties.  Most of inner Prince George’s County continues to anchor the district.  However, Montgomery is detached and substituted by Anne Arundel — in fact, the most Republican parts of Anne Arundel.  The Democratic percentage thereby goes down a lot, but still stays at 72.5% Obama.

District 5:

Very little changes here.  Continues to encompass the 3 Southern Maryland counties, south Anne Arundel and outer Prince George’s.  The Annapolis area and parts of Upper Marlboro are substituted for Laurel and adjoining parts of northern PG.

District 6:

Continues to wholly encompass the 3 Western Maryland counties, as well as a good part of Frederick Co.  The hyper-Republican Carroll Co. and areas east are detached, while the district is extended further into Montgomery and PG — including some of the most Democratic parts of suburban DC, ie. Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Mt. Rainier, Cheverly and Landover.  The new district is not any less compact than before, and it now includes only all or part of 6 counties, instead of the current 7 counties.

District 7:

This district “looks” a bit different from the current one; however, population-wise, much of the district remains the same.  The entire Baltimore City portion of the district remains wholly intact, as well as the Woodlawn area of Baltimore County.  The suburban/exurban areas in Howard Co. are detached and substituted by even more exurban (and even more Republican) areas in Carroll, northern Baltimore Co. and northern Harford as well as the blue-leaning area encompassing the City of Frederick (all taken out of the current 6th District).

District 8:

Remains very similar to the current one.  Democratic areas, including Takoma Park, parts of Silver Spring and the PG portion of the district are taken out, while relatively more republican areas in northern Montgomery are attached.  The new 8th remains entirely within Montgomery County.

So that’s my map in a nutshell; I welcome comments and discussion.

I know redistricting diaries are a dime a dozen these days, but I’m going to do one that has never been done before: Michigan (assuming full Democratic control of the process).  Nathaniel90 already drew a split control compromise map found here: http://www.swingstateproject.c…  

Michigan will be losing a seat in 2012, going from 15 to 14.  I think the chances of full Democratic control is about 50-50 or maybe slightly better.  It looks like we have a very good shot at taking back control of the State Senate, while the Governors race is still pretty much up in the air, with presumptive nominee John Cherry lagging in the most recent poll.  But this far out, no one can predict this one yet.

By this map Democrats would presumably hold a 9-5 advantage in Representation.  They currently hold a 8-7 Advantage.  In 2002, when Republicans drew the map, they (Rs) held a 9-6 advantage.  My map protects freshmen Gary Peters and Mark Schauer, while throwing Dave Camp and Mike Rogers into a district together.  It also draws a much more Democratic district for Thaddeus McCotter (or his Democratic successor), presumably eliminating him if he isn’t already gone by 2012.

My map was drawn on microsoft paint, and some of the more detailed borders aren’t exact.  Also my computer has some kind of problem with pixelation or something, so it may appear a little blurry.  Without further ado, here’s my map with district profiles down below the flip.  

District 1– (Bart Stupak D) mostly the same but expands to include Kalkaska, Roscommon, and the rest of Bay County.  Overall becomes slightly more Democratic.

District 2– (TBD[successor of Pete Hoekstra]R) gives up Allegan County in the south, as well as Eastern portions of Ottawa County and the North-West corner of Kent County that was formerly in the district.  Gains Leelanau, Grand Traverse, Missaukee, and Osceola Counties.  This district becomes a bit more Democratic (mostly because it loses strongly conservative parts of Ottawa and Kent Counties) and Barack Obama would have carried this district narrowly, but it should still favor Republicans in the future.

District 3– (Vern Ehlers R) Drops Barry and Ionia County in exchange for some very Conservative areas of Kent and Ottawa Counties.  Becomes more Republican.

District 4– (Dave Camp R + Mike Rogers R) I decided that I would throw these two together because I did not want to eliminate Thad McCotter in case he is defeated by a Democrat in 2010. I put Livingston County (Rogers base and home) in with most of the current 4th District. Dave Camp should be the favorite considering it includes his base of Midland as well as most of his old turf, but I wouldn’t count Mike Rogers out.  The inclusion of Livingston County makes this district more Republican.  Barack Obama would have lost here.

5th District– (Dale Kildee D)  Looks like a combination of James Barcia’s old District and Dale Kildee’s current district.  It drops all of the territory it held in Bay County but gains the more Republican thumb counties of Huron and Sanilac.  However, with Flint as the base of this district and Genesee County making up more than half of the population, this District stays Democratic.

6th District– (Fred Upton R) This is the most gerrymandered district in the state, and yet it only splits one County!  This district looks quite a bit different from it’s current shape  It’s base of Kalamazoo is taken out to make Mark Schauer safer.  In exchange it gets all of Allegan, Barry, and Branch counties and about half of Eaton County.  The loss of Kalamazoo makes this district a lot more Republican, although Barack Obama may have won here, depending on exactly what parts of Eaton County are included.

7th District–  (Mark Schauer D) I think that I succeeded in making Mark Schauer safe from any Republican challenge, but I fear that I may have set him up for a primary challenge from a Lansing area Democrat, as Lansing becomes the new base of this district.  The only part of the old 7th district that I left was Calhoun County (Battle Creek) which is Schauer’s home.  I put in all of Ingham and Kalamazoo Counties and about half of Eaton.  Barack Obama won every county in this district and probably came close to 60% here.

8th District– (Gary Peters D)  It is hard to tell on my map, but according to my plan for the 8th district, Gary Peters would get Madison Heights and Southfield, both extremely Democratic cities (Barack Obama got 88% in Southfield), while dropping the strongly Republican cities of Rochester, Rochester Hills, and Berkley.  The addition of Southfield probably brings Barack Obama to around 60% here.

9th District– (Candice Miller R)  Instead of a “Thumb” district, this district becomes a “Detroit suburbs and exurbs district.” It loses Sterling Heights and Utica in Macomb County, and Huron and Sanilac Counties in “The Thumb,” While picking up some seriously Republican turf in Oakland County, including the suburb Novi that is currently in Thad McCotters 11th District.  It still includes the Republican leaning Exurb St. Clair and Lapeer Counties.

10th District– (Thad McCotter R [Should favor Democrat])  Includes all of Thad McCotter’s current portion of Wayne County, plus the cities of Inkster, Romulus, and part of Dearborn Heights.  The current part of Wayne County in the 11th gave Obama 57%.  That probably bumps up to just under 60% Obama.  Also includes Monroe County, which Obama won 51-47.

11th District– (Sander Levin D)  Changes very little, except that it swaps out Southfield for the rest of Sterling Heights.  Becomes a bit less Democratic, but still favors Levin or his successor.

12th District– (Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick D)  One of two VRA protected districts in Michigan.  Population loss will force this district to expand, but it still stays within Wayne County and is majority Black.

13th District–  (John Conyers D)  The other VRA district expands into Dearborn but stays heavily Black and heavily Democratic. (Note that John Dingell’s home is in this new district, but I expect that he’ll have retired by 2012 and if frankly, if Debbie Dingell is holding his seat by then, I really don’t care if she gets stuck in Conyer’s district)

14th District– (John Dingell D)  This district moves out of Wayne County and now takes in all of Washtenaw County as well as Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties.  It is now completely based in Ann Arbor and should elect a liberal, Ann Arbor Democrat.  Barack Obama won three out of the four Counties in this new district.

Questions? Comments? Errors to point out?  Leave ’em in the comments.  

The Republican Party leadership seems determined to squeeze Bunning into retirement and are adopting a new strategy in pursuit of their goal by starving him of campign donations and assistance.  As noted in the Politico story:

That means little fundraising help from top Republicans in Washington, little to no engagement with the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a cold shoulder from Kentucky political strategists.

[skip]

Behind the scenes, Republicans in Washington and Kentucky are beginning to shut out Bunning, with no plans to give him the usual access to an extensive network of personnel, e-mail lists and contact information to reach out to potential supporters in his state.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

The initial effort to persuade Bunning to retire failed miserably for Republicans.  Bunning even went so as to threaten to resign, allowing the Democratic governor to select a successor, and also threatened to sue the NRSC if they supported a challenger.  Needless to say, these actions did not endear Bunning to the Republican leadership, but they do seem to have succeeded in getting them to at least be more subtle in their efforts.

The article really shows how desparate McConnell and Cornyn are to force Bunning out.  Obviously, these guys interact with him every day.  So, the fact that they are so desparate to rid themselves of him suggests that Bunning is even more likely to implode while campaigning than even we might have believed.  If the GOP leadership is this desparate to get rid of Bunning, then we really need him to be the Republican nominee.  Besides donating to Bunning within the next few months, is there anything we can do to show Senator Bunning our “support”?

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

I’m putting this post in the diaries because it’s about presidential elections rather than the downballot. Just trying to keep it real! But this is an issue I was curious about so I thought I’d share my findings.

John McCain pieced together just 173 electoral votes this year. That’s the 8th-worst showing by a Republican since 1916. Interestingly, all seven weaker GOP showings came at the hands of just three men: FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton. To win in 2012, the GOP needs to get to 270, of course, so they’ve got to scrape together another 97 EVs. How likely is this?

(Sidebar: Why 1916? In 1912, the electoral college expanded to 531 votes, which is close enough to today’s 538 to make pure EV comparisons meaningful. In 1908, there were just 483 EVs. Also around and shortly after 1916, you had the realignment of the two major parties, the extension of the franchise to women, and the direct election of senators. In short, it’s a decent benchmark for the “modern” political era. Also, the election of 1912 was a serious oddball, with the GOP coming in third.)

The GOP has posted EV gains in excess of 97 six times since 1916:

The next-best showing was a net of 90 EVs in 1948. Most of these big gains took place at moments of serious change.

1920: Harding’s “return to normalcy.” Had 3,000 votes in California gone the other way in 1916, Woodrow Wilson would have lost to Charles Hughes. A war-weary public and a damaging recession let Harding run against the unpopular Wilson (much like Obama “ran against Bush”) and rack up the biggest popular-vote margin since 1820.

1952: Twenty years of Dem control of the White House ended. The incumbent president, Truman, was unpopular due to a seemingly intractable war in Korea and chose not to seek re-election as a result. The GOP candidate was the venerated Allied commander in WWII, Gen. Eisenhower.

1968: Another incumbent Dem mired in an even less popular war in Asia (LBJ) decided against running for another term. A badly fractured Democratic Party put forth a wounded, underfunded candidate (Humphrey) against the conniving Nixon, who knew how to exploit the fears and resentments brewing during a time of social upheaval. And hard not to improve on Goldwater’s performance.

1972: A continuation of 1968 in many ways – the Democrats even more badly fractured, their candidate woefully unready and unappealing to many. Nixon, evil though he was, deserved credit for appearing on this list twice.

1980: Stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a Democratic president swept narrowly into office in the wake of Watergate (Carter) versus Nixon’s heir. Carter’s outsider status, a virtue on the campaign trail, also turned into a major liability once in DC, as few people owed him anything.

2000: The outlier on this list. Pundits and Ralph Nader succeeded in turning this into the “Seinfeld election” (ie, the “election about nothing”). Gore struggled to cast himself as the natural inheritor and steward of the Clinton legacy and Rove (again abetted by the media) cast Gore as a serial liar. Without those unearned Florida electoral votes, the gain would have only been 87 EVs – not enough for this list.

Now, the 97-plus Democratic gains:

These elections are a bit more of a mix between the epochal and the prosaic. Also, in the prior elections, Dems took 111 or fewer EVs five times – that only happened once for the GOP.

1932: The Great Depression. ‘Nuff said.

1960: Perhaps the trickiest race on this list. At the very least, Adlai Stevenson’s abysmal 1956 haul meant the odds favored a better performance by Kennedy.

1964: A wildly conservative, non-mainstream Republican candidate versus a pre-backlash LBJ, running in the wake of JFK’s assassination. Despite the size of the victory, this election famously did not offer the Dems lasting gains but actually presaged a long period of decline.

1976: Watergate, the accidental presidency of Gerry Ford, and McGovern’s unthinkably pitiful showing gave Carter lots of room for improvement.

1988: How sad is it that Michael Dukakis is on this list? It’s only possible because Walter Mondale was ten times sadder. Dukakis is the only person on both lists to post a big gain but still lose – a classic dead-cat bounce.

1992: A bit tough to classify. Dukakis not only did poorly in 1988, he underperformed expectations badly. The dark recession of 1990-91 played a major role here, though.

2008: The most unpopular president in US history and the second-worst financial crisis in US history, not to mention an unpopular war and an alienating conservative GOP ticket.

So a few pretty clear trends emerge. Most of these elections took place during or in the wake of unpopular wars or economic downturns, or both: 1920, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008. Two back-to-back races saw a political collapse on the part of each party: 1972, for complex reasons, and 1976, for much simpler ones.

Some just involved improvements over craptacular prior performances, like 1960 or 1988 (but also including 1932, 1968 & 1976). One time, 1964, saw one party put forth a completely unacceptable candidate, at least for that particular moment in time. And as for the election of 2000… well, as Al Gore himself would say, sometimes, there’s that little-known third category.

As impressive as Nixon’s consecutive gains were, in a way, George W. Bush’s surge from Bob Dole’s sucky performance might be the most remarkable of all. After eight years of peace and prosperity, he had to invent an amazing mythology in order to give voters a reason to change horses. It didn’t really work, of course – Gore still won more votes. But thanks to an assist from the Supreme Court, he pulled it off.

Anyhow, drilling down to the 2012 election, I don’t think this past history offers the GOP a whole lot of hope. The war in Iraq darn well better be over by then, and we probably won’t engage in another large-scale conflict. The Dems aren’t about to implode or nominate someone unelectable. And McCain’s haul wasn’t so awful, ala McGovern or Mondale, that you simply have to expect a bounce.

They already tried the 2000/2004 smear strategy this year, and that failed. I think it’ll be a lot harder to try that on an incumbent. So that leaves the possibility of a major economic downturn. It’s sadly possible that we won’t be out of this mess in three years, but that seems hard to imagine. What I think is more likely (but hopefully not very likely) is that we recover and then relapse (think 1938).

The pure odds would seem to favor McCain – after all, 97-plus gains have happened 13 times in just 24 elections. But the background facts are very unfavorable, and that’s without even looking at demographic nitty-gritty of the blue states which might be winnable in 2012 for Republicans. That can wait for another day, though.

I've mentioned this before, but we have a good opportunity to create a filibuster-proof majority by the end of the 2010 senate elections. In order to take advantage of this we need to look at making sure that we exploit every last possibly competitive seat this cycle and the next one.

 

 First of all, this is my estimation of what the competitiveness of the 2010 senate cycle is going to look like:

(Held by Democrats)

(Likely competitive)

 

• Salazaar (Colorado)

(Unlikely competitive [barring retirement or strong challenger])

 

• Lincoln (Arkansas)
• Boxer (California)
• Inouye (Hawaii)

(Held by Republicans)

 

(Likely competitive)

 

• Bunning (Kentucky)
• Specter (Pennsylvania)
• Burr (North Carolina)/
• McCain (Arizona)

 (Unlikely competitive [barring retirement or strong challenger])

 

• Coburn (Oklahoma)
• Bond (Missouri)
• Voinovich (Ohio)
• Kansas open seat (Brownback)
• DeMint (South Carolina)

 

Now, this is a preliminary look at the 2010 map, and I'm certain there is going to be some disagreement as to the specifics, but 2010 is probably going be another year with a field that the Democrats can take advantage of (since the Republicans have already take most of the southern seats up in 2004, they have no real pool for picking up seats in 2010). Assuming we can win 5 seats in 2008, we'd have to pick up at least 4 more in 2010 in order to get that filibuster-proof majority we want (let''s face it, even in the best-case scenario, we're not getting a filibuster-proof majority in 2008).

That's the good news, the bad news is in 2012, where the map is stacked very heavily against us. There are going to be 24 Democrats up for re-election in 2012 compared to only 9 Republicans (ok, fine 22 Democrats 2 independents, one of which could conceivably turn in that time period). Here's the estimation for 2012:

 

(Held by Democrats)

 

(Likely competitive)

 

• Tester (Montana)
• McCaskill (Missouri)
• Webb (Virginia)
• Byrd (West Virginia) *assumes retirement*

(Unlikely competitive [barring retirement or strong challenger])

 

• Casey (Pennsylvania)
• Brown (Ohio)
• Klobuchar (Minnesota)
• Akaka (Hawaii)
• Cardin (Maryland)
• Kennedy (Massachusetts) *assumes retirement*
• Bingaman (New Mexico)

(Held by Republicans)

(Likely competitive)

 

• N/A (subject to change due to open seats)

(Unlikely competitive [barring retirement or strong challenger])

 

• Corker (Tennessee)
• Kyl (Arizona)

This is the consequences of winning this many seats in a year that, quite frankly, by the numbers should have favored Republicans in the Senate. 2012 will be a miserable year for us in the Senate, there is no way around that fact, but if we take appropriate measures now, we can have build a large enough buffer that we can not only retain the senate, but we can keep a working majority of at least 55 seats after the Senate elections.

National and local bloggers as well as a local political scientist, who is, in fact, a Republican operative, have already discussed the ineluctable loss of a US Congressional seat in Louisiana, and they have noted how the GOP is ready to pounce on a state Democratic Party made vulnerable by a national and political disaster.  While I will not express my disgust with the Republicans’ vacuous cynicism and the egregious opportunism of some members of the Louisiana GOP, I will focus on one remedy to this increasingly dire situation: the 2007 elections for every seat in the Louisiana Legislature.

The Louisiana House of Representatives is comprised of 105 seats.  The Democrats presently enjoy a strong majority of 60 seats in the House, while the Republicans and an Independent occupy 41 seats and one seat respectively.  3 seats are currently vacant.  This majority, however, is threatened by many factors, one of which are the term limits that have recently been imposed on all Louisiana legislators: 30 Democrats and 16 Republicans must abandon their seats in 2007.  Compounding the dilemma Louisiana Democrats will face when trying to retain all these open seats is the organization the Republican Party has already consolidated in preparation for the 2007 elections.  Republicans are “on the march in Louisiana,” crows John Maginnis, another Republican operative who poses as an objective news analyst and as a disinterested political commentator for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and other Louisiana newspapers.  While his confidence is somewhat founded, it is also premature, especially as the field for the 2007 legislative races has not yet assumed a discernable shape. 

But Maginnis and the people for whom he serves as a paid pamphleteer do have reason to be optimistic.  For out of the 60 Louisiana Democrats presently in the House, only 30 are eligible for reelection.  And even worse, four of the thirty Democratic incumbents will most probably have to stave off spirited Republican challenges for thier seats in 2007. 

Complicating this already grim predicament are the 30 open seats Democrats must try to retain, 16 of which could very well fall to the Republicans if they are not amply defended.  While two of the sixteen Republican open seats can be claimed by strong Democratic challengers, Republicans can win the House if they wage a coordinated campaign across the state.  Indeed, Democrats are only guaranteed 40 seats in the 2007 election, 13 short of the 53 needed to claim the majority of their chamber.  And even if they win all three of the vacant seats up for election on 24 FEB 2007, they will still be 10 seats short after the November 2007 runoffs.  If Louisiana Democrats and the online activists who should help them do not plan for the imminent Republican onslaught as John Maginnis describes it in advance, their ability to redraw the lines of US House seats to the advantage of Democratic incumbents after the 2010 census will be compromised.

Seats located in parishes that have voted for Democrats running for federal office statewide in 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004 with incumbents unencumbered by term limits who have received little to no opposition in the last two election cycles are seats I consider guaranteed for the Democratic Party.  I also consider seats where Republicans have not competed in open seat primaries safe for the Democrats.  The maps located on this webpage will help you determine the exact location of these districts.  Seat numbers are printed in the order of Democratic strength, the weakest of which is typed last.

SAFE INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE

61 – Michael L. Jackson (D), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 1999

101 – Cedric L. Richmond (D), Orleans Parish, elected 1999

102 – Jeffrey “Jeff” J. Arnold (D), Orleans, elected 2002

63 – Avon R. Honey (D), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2002

100 – Austin J. Badon, Jr. (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

97 – Jean-Paul L. Morrell (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2006

87 – Terrell L. Harris (D), Jefferson Parish, elected 2005

18 – Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr. (D), Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge and West Feliciana Parishes, elected 1999

21 – John F. “Andy” Anders (D), Concordia, East Carroll, Madison and Tensas Parishes, elected 2006

51 – Carla Blanchard Dartez (D), Assumption, St. Mary and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 1999

53 – Damon J. Baldone (D), Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 2001

75 – Harold L. Ritchie (D), St. Tammany and Washington Parishes, elected 2003

10 – Jean M. Doerge (D), Webster Parish, elected 1998

60 – Karen Gaudet St. Germain (D), Ascension, Assumption, Iberville and West Baton Rouge Parishes, elected 2003

99 – Charmaine L. Marchand (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

96 – Juan A. LaFonta (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2005

91 – Jalila Jefferson-Bullock (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

29 – Regina Ashford Barrow (D), East Baton Rouge and West Baton Rouge Parishes, elected 2005

93 – Karen R. Carter (D), Orleans Parish, elected 1999

13 – James R. “Jim” Fannin (D), Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita and Winn Parishes, elected 2003

11 – Richard “Rick” Gallot, Jr. (D), Bienville, Lincoln and Claiborne Parishes, elected 2000

23 – T. Taylor Townsend (D), Natchitoches and Winn Parishes, elected 1999

38 – Kenneth Eric LaFleur (D), Evangeline and St. Landry Parishes, elected 1999

2 – Roy A. Burrell (D), Bossier and Caddo Parishes, elected 2003

28 – Monica H. Walker (D), Avoyelles Parish, elected 2003

56 – Gary L. Smith, Jr. (D), St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes, elected 1999

26 seats

4 Democratic and 9 Republican incumbents presently occupy seats representing competitive districts.  These incumbents have received strong competition from an opposing party in an open primary, or they were forced to engage in very competitive runoffs against a member of the opposing party during the last two election cycles.  Some Republican incumbents, especially Nita Hutter and Ernest Wooton, are considered vulnerable as a result of demographic shifts in their districts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  Because Democrats may lose many of their open seats, it is to their advantage to wage vigorous challenges against Republicans who hold competitive seats in 2007, especially those Republicans who represent parishes with Democratic leanings.  Seat numbers are presented in order of Democratic strength, the weakest seat for Democrats typed last.  The lone Independent seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives is a competitive seat vulnerable to a Republican takeover.  Unfortunately, we did not run a candidate in the open primary for this seat during the 2004 special election.

COMPETITIVE INCUMBENT SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

98 – Cheryl Artise Gray (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

27 – Rick L. Farrar (D), Rapides Parish, elected 1991 and 1999

22 – Billy R. Chandler (D), Grant, LaSalle, Rapides and Winn Parishes, elected 2006

41 – Mickey James Guillory (D), Acadia, Evangeline and St. Landry Parishes, elected 2003

105 – Ernest D. Wooton (R), Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Charles Parishes, elected 1999, switched from D to R in 2006

54 – Loulan J. Pitre, Jr. (R), Jefferson and Lafourche Parishes, elected 1999

104 – Nita Hutter (R),  St. Bernard Parish, elected 2000

62 – Thomas H. “Tom” McVea (R), East Baton Rouge, Tangipahoa, West Feliciana, East Feliciana, Livingston and St. Helena Parishes, elected 2000

35 – Brett Frank Geymann (R), Calcasieu and Beauregard Parishes, elected 2003

88 – M. J. “Mert” Smiley, Jr. (R), Ascension and Livingston Parishes, elected 2003

71 – Dale M. Erdey (R), Livingston Parish, elected 1999

59 – Eddie J. Lambert (R), Ascension Parish, elected 2003

52 – Gordon E. Dove, Sr. (R), Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 2003

31 – Donald “Mark” Don Trahan (R), Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes, elected 2003

45 – Joel C. Robideaux (I), Lafayette Parish, elected 2004

15 seats

15 incumbent Republicans who are unencumbered with lerm limits are considered safe in 2007, but every single one of these seats must be challenged.  The most Republican district is typed last. 

SAFE INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

16 – Kay Kellogg Katz (R), Ouachita Parish, elected 1999

43 – Ernest J. Alexander (R), Lafayette Parish, elected 1999

12 – Hollis Dawns (R), Lincoln and Union Parishes, elected 2003

36 – E. “Chuck” Kleckley (R), Calcasieu Parish, elected 2005

66 – Hunter V. Greene (R), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2005

69 – Gary J. Beard (R), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2001

81 – John LaBruzzo (R), Jefferson Parish, elected 2003

6 – Mike Powell (R), Bossier and Caddo Parishes, elected 2003

64 – Mack A. “Bodi” White, Jr. (R), East Baton Rouge and Livingston Parishes, elected 2003

89 – Timothy G. “Tim” Burns (R), St. Tammany Parish, elected 2003

86 – Jim Tucker (R), Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, elected 2001

8 – Jane H. Smith (R), Bossier Parish, elected 1999

76 – A. G. Crowe (R), St. Tammany Parish, elected 1999

74 – Michael G. Strain (R), St. Tammany Parish, Tangipahoa and Washington Parishes, elected 1999

5 – Wayne Wadell (R), Caddo Parrish, elected 1997

15 seats

30 Democrats and 16 Republicans must retire in 2008, leaving 46 open seats behind them.  14 seats are safe for Democrats, while 12 are safe for Republicans.  Of the 20 open seats I consider competitive, 16 are presently held by Democrats.  The weakest of these safe Democratic seats is typed last.

SAFE DEMOCRATIC OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

95(Heaton, D) – Orleans Parish

26(Curtis, D) – Rapides Parish

44(Pierre, D) – Lafayette Parish

17(Hunter, D) – Ouachita Parish

57(Faucheux, D) – St. James and St. John the Baptist Parishes

46(Durand, D) – St. Martin Parish

47(Frith, D) – Cameron and Vermilion Parishes

55(Triche, D) – Lafourche Parish

34(Guillory, D) – Calcasieu Parish

67(Dorsey, D) – East Baton Rouge Parish

39(Baudoin, D) – Lafayette, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes

20(Kenney, D) – Caldwell, Catahoula, Franklin and Tensas Parishes

3(Baylor, D) – Caddo Parish

58(Quezaire, D) – Ascension, Assumption, Iberville, St. James and St. John Parishes

14 seats

Louisiana Democrats have the tall order of defending 16 of the following 20 competitive open seats.  One Republican seat, however, can be won by a Democrat.  Emile “Peppi” Bruneau, an Orleans Parish Republican who fashions himself as a “fiscal conversative,” has occupied the 94th seat since 1974.  According to Louisiana Republican insiders, Bruneau may retire within the next month, opening the seat for a special election to be held on 31 March, the day of the election for New Orleans’s municipal judges.  Although Bruneau will endeavor to hand this seat to his son with lobbyist money from Baton Rouge, New Orleans Democrats can derail this effort and win this seat, especially as Republican voters from Lakeview have yet to return and rebuild.  Shelley Stephenson Midura, whose City Council district is similar in shape to that of Bruneau’s House district, won her seat as a Democrat during the New Orleans municipal elections last year.  If Orleans Parish Democrats can find a Democrat from Lakeview to run an aggressive grassroots campaign similar to that of Midura, we can win this seat and add to our majority.  Does former New Orleans mayoral candidate Virginia Boulet want a Louisiana House seat?  The least likely seat to be one by a Democrat is typed last.

COMPETITIVE OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

83(Alario, D) – Jefferson Parish

84(Damico, D) – Jefferson Parish

94(Bruneau, R) – Orleans Parish (may retire in time for 31March election)

19(Thompson, D) – East Carroll, Madison, Morehouse, Ouachita, Richland and West Carroll Parishes

72(Carter, D) – East Feliciana, Tangipahoa, West Feliciana and St. Helena Parishes

103(Odinet, D) – Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes

42(Pinac, D) – Acadia and Lafayette Parishes

32(Hill, D) – Allen, Beauregard and Vernon Parishes

24(Salter, D) – DeSoto, Red River, Sabine and Vernon Parishes

70(Crane, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

14(McDonald, D) – East Caroll, Morehouse, Ouachita, West Carroll

49(Hebert, D) – Iberia and Vermilion Parishes

25(DeWitt, D) – Rapides and Vernon Parishes

50(Smith, D) – Iberia, St. Martin and St. Mary Parishes

65(Kennard, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

92(Ansardi, D) – Jefferson Parish

48(Romero, D) – Iberia Parish

7(Bruce, D) – Caddo and DeSoto Parishes

30(Smith, D) – Beauregard and Vernon Parishes

73(Powell, R) – Tangipahoa Parish

20 seats

All of the following safe Republican open seats must be challenged.  The weakest Democratic opportunity is typed last.

SAFE REPUBLICAN OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

15(Walsworth, R) – Ouachita Parish

68(Daniel, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

33(Johns, R) – Beauregard and Calcasieu Parishes

82(Scalise, R) – Jefferson and Orleans Parishes

37(Moorish, R) – Calcasieu and Jefferson Davis Parishes

85(Toomy,R) – Jefferson Parish

79(Martiny, R) – Jefferson Parish

9(Montgomery, R) – Bossier Parish

80(Lancaster, R) – Jefferson Parish

78(Bowler, R) – Jefferson Parish

90(Schneider, R) – St. Tammany Parish

77(Winston, R) – St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes

20 seats

Open primaries will be held for the three vacant House seats on 24 February 2007.  2 of these vacant seats are safe Democratic seats, while one of them is a competitive seat.  Here is how the ballot for these seats will appear:

State Representative, 1st Representative District
0 of 31 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% Michael Page Boyter, R –
0  0% Richard “Richie” Hollier, D –
0  0% Ruth W. Johnston, D –
0  0% “Jim” Morris, R –
0  0% Marc Weddleton, R –

State Representative, 4th Representative District
0 of 26 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% Larry Ferdinand, D –
0  0% Reginald Johnson, D –
0  0% Calvin “Ben” Lester, Jr., D –
0  0% Patrick C. Williams, D –

State Representative, 40th Representative District
0 of 43 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% “Jim” Darby, D –
0  0% “Chris” Declouette, D –
0  0% Elbert Lee Guillory, D –
0  0% “Bradford” Jackson, N –
0  0% Roderick “Rod” James, D –
0  0% Ledricka Johnson, D –

The 40th district seat, located in Opelousas, St. Landry Parish, is the safest Democratic seat with an election on 24 Feb, even if there is a candidate not affiliated with the Democratic Party on the ballot.  The 4th district seat in Shreveport is guaranteed for the Democrats, as only Democrats are on the open primary ballot.  But the 1st district ballot is somewhat worrisome.  Previously held by a Democrat, Rep. Hoppy Hopkins, who recently died of cancer, this is a competitive seat for Republicans: notice how they have three Republicans on the ballot.  Thankfully, we have only two Democrats on the ballot, giving us a chance to at least have one Democrat make the runoff, as Republicans will split their vote between three candidates.  Ruth Johnston, former restaurant owner and populist Justice of the Peace from Oil City, Louisiana (population 1,188), is the strongest Democratic candidate, although she does not have a website.  The other Democratic candidate, Richie Hollier, also lacks a website, and I hope Louisiana Democrats will begin to create campaign websites in the future, for some Republicans, especially those who fashion themselves as so many mindless clones of a David Vitter or a Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, already have. 

Beating Caddo Parish Commissioner Jim Morris in the first distrcit race on 27 FEB will be difficult, even if “Psycho Santa” is tarring the Republican brand with his eccentric marijuana rights platform .  Given the shape of this first district race, I hope you understand why I am so worried about 2007:  Republicans are fielding their best candidates for competitive seats, and Louisiana Democrats believe they can retain their fragile majorities without advanced infrastructure or Internet outreach.  This must change immeidately, and I plan on contacting Chris Whittington at the Louisiana Democratic Party office in Baton Rouge about this problem. 

Although I plan to contact local officials, I also plan to write the DLCC.  We can retain our majority in the Louisiana House of Representatives, but it will take some money, some time and some effort at recruitment.  It will have its dividends, however, as we will control redistrcting in 2010 after setting an overly confident Louisiana GOP to rout.  What better way to prepare Louisiana to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate than to humiliate their state GOP party organization in a year when they expect to sweep legislative and executive offices throughout the state?

Expect a diary on LA-HD104 once Emile “Peppi” Bruneau’s retirement is confirmed.  This is a race Democrats can and must win before the October 2007 showdown.  And because the netroots was already involved in New Orleans politics with Karen Carter’s bid to oust Bill Jefferson, I imagine a residual infrastructure still exists in order to support this important effort.