Swing State Project

After the revelations of the past few days, this news comes as no surprise, but it’s still welcome nonetheless:

By a vote of 6-5, the commission to redraw the state’s 40 state legislative districts has passed a new map drawn by Democrats.

Tiebreaker Alan Rosenthal sided with the Democrats after spending a month on the commission, and the last week holed up at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick.

“I wanted it to be a tough decision. It was. It took five hours of deliberations before I decided on the Democratic map,” said Rosenthal, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University.

Rosenthal said it was the “more conservative, less disruptive map”

“It is a map, I believe, that gives the minority party a chanee at winning control fot he Legislature, even in what is essentially a Democratic state,” he said. “I’ve tried to be diligent, I’ve tried to be honest, and I’ve tried to be fair in my participation.”

The map (click image for full size):

A PDF version of the map can be found here.

UPDATE: This site from the NJ Democratic Party has town & demographic breakdowns for the Dem map.

UPDATE 2: I’ve crunched the Obama/McCain percentages for each of these districts, based on the town breakdowns at the link above. Important note: The numbers for districts 28, 29, 31 & 33 are incomplete. Newark is split between the first two, and Jersey City is split between the second two, but we don’t know the exact splits. Also, two portions of district 9 and one portion of district 13 is described as “county subdivisions not defined” in the spreadsheet – not clear what that means. Full table is below the fold. I’m now convinced I made an error somewhere along the way and that these numbers are not accurate. I’m going to take the table down until I can figure out what happened.

(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)

Do you write about politics (or any other topics) at a blog of your own? Do you jabber about elections on Twitter? Take the chance to pimp either or both in this thread – let fellow Swing Staters know all about your other digital homes!

The Democrats begin this process with a clear disadvantage from previous redistricting. Following the Cook Partisan Voting Index there are:

194 D+ seats

9 EVEN seats

232 R+ seats

We can not forget it.

This diary seeks to give a preview about what the Republicans can do in the redistricting process and about the best ways for the Democrats in certain states (IL, MD, AR, WV, OR, CO, NY…) to have some success after the current redistricting process.

The diary is focused to see the most direct potential or likely effects of the redistricting process.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I’m not optimistic about this group of states because the Republicans never lose a chance for take advantage. The Republicans will have full control of the redistricting process in many states, and I will go state by state.

Utah

One new district for the Republicans.

UT-02 J Matheson (D) surely will run in a R+20+ the next time and without part of the current basis that send him to the house now.

Wyoming

No effect.

Oklahoma

OK-02 D Boren (D) surely will run in a R+20+ district. The same as J Matheson.

Alabama

No chance for B Bright to return.

Alaska

The Alaska Redistricting Board (Commission) is in Republican hands.

No changes.

Nebraska

NE-02 will be surely safer for the Republicans. There is no chance Obama wins again this electoral vote.

Kansas

KS-03 safer for the Republicans.

Louisiana

Thanks to some party switches, the Republicans have control of both state chambers and because of this they will have control of the redistricting process. But Louisiana will lose one seat and that cannot be LA-02 thanks to the Voting Rights Act. That means the Republicans will lose one district here.

No chance for C Melancon to return.

LA-03 seems the district that would disappear.

North Dakota

No effect.

Texas

Here I do not expect gains for the Democrats. As a maximum, one if we recover TX-23 and TX-27, but I think it is very difficult. If there are not a law requiring the creation of new VRA districts, the Republicans will create none. Finally, there are 36 districts for Texas, I would expect 7 D+, 3 R+low approximately and 26R+10 or higher, but things still can be worse. The three “swing” districts can likely be the successors of TX-28, TX-27 and TX-23. These would be again the districts to fight.

Four new districts for the Republicans.

TX-25 L Doggett (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district or against one of the neighboring democratic incumbents.

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) can likely run in a R+low district.

South Dakota

No effect.

Tennessee

No chance for L Davis to return.

TN-05 J Cooper (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district. The same as L Doggett.

South Carolina

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Spratt to return.

Georgia

If I’m not wrong the Republicans can decrease the percentage of African-Americans in GA-02 and GA-12 because there are districts with a white majority (over 50% white) and would have less VRA protection. That means these will be new R+ districts.

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Marshall to return.

GA-02 S Bishop (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

GA-12 J Barrow (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Indiana

If the Republicans wish they can draw all the districts with R+6 rating. If they keep one Democratic seat (likely IN-01), they can draw all the other districts with R+8 rating. If they keep two Democratic seats (likely IN-01 and IN-07), they can draw all the other districts with R+10 rating. Looking at the recent history of IN-08 and IN-09 districts, I think they will want the safest seats, so I think they will keep IN-01 and IN-07 as Democratic seats.

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) will need to run for a R+10+ district or will need to run a primary against P Visclosky.

North Carolina

The Republicans have full control of the redistricting process here. They will take advantage of this, but North Carolina is a swing state with a strong tradition of moderate to conservative Democrats. The most competitive district that the Republicans won in 2008 was R+11. First they need to protect NC-02. And later I think they will bid to make NC-08, NC-07 and NC-11 enough Republican to try to defeat the Democratic incumbents. It is more likely they will go after these seats because the Democrats here can be more dangerous for them for statewide races. NC-01, NC-12, NC-13 and NC-04 would keep D+ rating. NC-01 in the North East, NC-12 in Charlotte, NC-13 in Raleigh-Durham, and NC-04 in the area of Fayetteville toward Chapel Hil toward Greensboro. D Price may get out his NC-04.

NC-08 L Kissell (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-11 H Shuler (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Florida

The current redistricting of Florida is very pro-Republican and the new procedure for redistricting will not change it. All the current swing districts are in Republican hands and the legislature (Republican majority) will not approve a map that does not protect their incumbents in 2012. FL-22 surely will become a R+low district. Florida will have some R+low districts that the Democrats can fight for.

Two new R+ seats for the Republicans.

Ohio

Despite having full control of the redistricting process, including the trifecta and the commissions that draw the legislative maps, the Republicans do not have a chance of improving in Ohio. The Republicans have enough work to keep the incumbents, including their gains of 2010 (5 seats) and surely it will not be possible they win more. They will lose at least one district, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating, including OH-01, OH-12 and OH-15.

OH-13 B Sutton (D) surely will get out of the game.

One Republican seat will disappear too. Maybe OH-06.

New Hampshire

No changes.

Pennsylvania

The Republicans control the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission that draws the state legislative districts and the state legislature that draws the congressional map. But redistricting Pennsylvania is more difficult than Ohio for the Republicans. They have enough work protecting incumbents, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating. I expect 5 D+ safe districts (PA-01, PA-02, PA-13, PA-14 and PA-17). T Holden does not seem vulnerable and surely the Republicans will give to his district a D+ rating. PA-11, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 can be R+ low in 2012. And here there are two Democratic incumbents in R+ districts that can have trouble.

PA-12 M Critz (D) surely will be without his own district and surely will need to run against a Republican incumbent, but the district will likely have R+low rating.

PA-04 J Altmire (D) will likely run in a R+10+ district.

Wisconsin

After winning full control of the redistricting process, I think the Republicans will work to keep their incumbents in 2012. Surely WI-07 will be a R+low district. Because of it, all the Republican incumbents will be in swing districts. The recall can affect the process giving, some chance to the Democrats.

Michigan

Again the same. The Republicans have more than enough work keeping their incumbents, and surely MI-06 and MI-11 will end as R+low districts. Michigan must lose one district and will likely be MI-09.

MI-09 G Peeters (D) can likely get out the game. Surely G Peeters will need to run against other incumbent, maybe against S Levin (D).

RECOUNT

+22 new R+ districts

-18 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

+1 – +2 Utah (1 new and maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

=0 – +1 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

– 1 – – 1 Louisiana (1 seat less LA-03)

=0 – =0 North Dakota

+4 – +6 Texas * (4 new and maybe TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

=0 – +1 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

+1 – +1 South Carolina (1 new)

+1 – +3 Georgia (1 new and maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

=0 – +1 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

=0 – +3 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

+2 – +2 Florida * (2 new seats)

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-06)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

=0 – +1 Pennsylvania * (maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

=0 – =0 Michigan *

———–

+7 – +19 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Utah (maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

– 1 – =0 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

=0 – =0 Louisiana

=0 – =0 North Dakota

– 2 – =0 Texas * (maybe lose TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

– 1 – =0 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

=0 – =0 South Carolina

– 2 – =0 Georgia (maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

– 1 – =0 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

– 3 – =0 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

=0 – =0 Florida *

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-13)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

– 2 – – 1 Pennsylvania * (1 seat less PA-12 and maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

– 1 – – 1 Michigan * (1 seat less MI-09)

———–

– 15 – – 3 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

STATES WITH BIPARTISAN OR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS AND STATES WITH CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

COMMISSION

Idaho (R majority ID Supreme Court)

No effect. Maybe ID-01 be a little more Republican.

Montana (D majority MT Supreme Court)

No effect.

Arizona (R majority AZ Supreme Court)

Arizona will win one house seat that can go to the Republicans and in exchange the Democrats will seek to protect AZ-08 until they have a D+5+ district.

New district for the Republicans.

Iowa (R majority IA Supreme Court)

Iowa will lose one seat. Yesterday was published the first draft of the Commission for redistricting. I think the first map will be rejected. Two of the current incumbents must run at least in the same district. Likely one Democrat and one Republican but the rest would keep their own district. Surely the most likely option is L Boswell (D) and T Latham running in something like a merger of the current IA-03 and IA-04 that can be very close to EVEN rating. I would not accept anything worse. Surely a merger of the current IA-01 and IA-04 would be more favorable for the Democrats but the Republicans would reject this.

New Jersey (D majority NJ Supreme Court)

The commission in this state is keeping one of the most pro-Republican maps in all the bluest states. This year the prospect is favorable because the Democrats are a little favored in the control of the process for drawing new maps, but still the final map can keep pro-Republican details. The state will lose one US House seat and the first candidate can be NJ-03 if they are not open seats. It seems none of the Republican representatives would challenge R Menendez before losing his US House seat in the redistricting process. Later surely the damaged Republican will challenge him. I think NJ-02 can become also R+.

Maine (D majority ME Supreme Court)

Maybe ME-02 becomes a little safer.

Washington (D majority WA Supreme Court)

There will be a new district likely in the north of King County that can go Democratic, while WA-03 can be R+low district, but WA-08 would countinue as D+low. I hope WA-02 also becomes a little safer district, while other Democratic seats do not get weaker.

California (R majority CA Supreme Court)

I’m so skeptical about the result of the new system for redistricting California. I think we have lost an opportunity of drawing a good map having the trifecta (the governor and the majority in both state chambers). At least, CA-11 should become a D+ district, but the redistricting in California is the most unpredictable process (with Texas), and we can have surprises here.

New York (R majority NY Court of Appeals but D CJ)

The first goal for the Democrats must be up to D+5+ level NY-02, NY-27, NY-01 and NY-23. NY-25 surely will be the first district that gets out the game. The Democratic votes of Syracuse can help making safer the NY-23. Still I think the Democrats must find more here. I think the Democratic members of the legislature must want the Republicans to lose a second seat. I would select NY-13, but if there is some trouble about Staten Island, the next option would be NY-03. This still would leave 6 R+low swing districts in New York. This is little improvement. I think the little advantage of the Republicans in the state senate should not be enough to stop these improvements and maybe more.

Vermont (D majority VT Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

Hawaii (D majority HI Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

RECOUNT

– 2 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

+1 – +1 Arizona * (1 new seat)

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-04)

– 1 – – 1 New Jersey * (1 seat less)

=0 – =0 Maine

=0 – =0 Washington *

=0 – =0 California *

– 2 – – 2 New York * (2 seats less)

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———-

– 3 – – 2 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

=0 – =0 Arizona *

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-03)

=0 – =0 New Jersey *

=0 – =0 Maine

+1 – +1 Washington * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 California *

=0 – =0 New York *

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———–

=0 – +1 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, California, and New York in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

Some people think the “independent” commissions are the right procedure for redistricting, but the Republicans have an advantage here because these commissions keep some pro-Republican maps and contribute to the advantage that the Republicans have in other states where they work with full control.

In the R+ states working with commissions, the Democrats only have 2 Hispanic representatives in Hispanic majority districts, and 1 (G Giffords) in a R+ district. While, in the EVEN or D+ states working with commissions, the Republicans have 39 representatives.

CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

Kentucky (R majority KY Supreme Court)

No important changes. The Republicans will block every improvement for the Democratic representatives.

Mississippi (R majority MS Supreme Court)

No changes.

No chance for T Childers or G Taylor to return.

Missouri (D majority MO Supreme Court but R CJ)

Missouri will lose one seat and that will give trouble to both parties. There are very few options for keeping the current MO-01 as an African-American majority district, so little discussion about the borders of this distric. For the rest, I think the most likely scenario can be a merger of MO-03 (D+7 R Carnahan) and MO-02 (R+9 T Akin) in a district that surely can not be EVEN, but can be R+1 approximately. Another option would be a merger of MO-05 (D+10 E Cleaver) and MO-06 (R+7 S Graves), but I think the Democrats will dislike losing the balance between St Louis and Kansas City and the Republicans will dislike leaving some Democratic votes to MO-04, endangering a second seat, or giving to the new seat from the merger a D+ rate.

MO-02/03 R Carnahan (D) can need to run in a R+1 seat against T Akin (R) if the Republican does not run for senate.

Virginia (R majority VA Supreme Court)

The Democrats will seek to protect VA-11 and the Republicans some of their districts. Still this state will have some swing district with R+low rating.

Colorado (D majority CO Supreme Court)

Here the Republicans have a very weak majority in the state house (32D-33R) but the redistricting is made by a commission where the Democrats can have the control thanks to the three members appointed by the governor, who has veto power. At a minimum I think the Democrats can be successful with a 3D-3R-1S map that gives EVEN or little better rating to the current CO-03. Nothing to lose here.

Nevada (D majority NV Supreme Court)

Nevada will have a new district. Surely NV-03 will be a R+low district while the new district will be a D+low.

Minnesota (R majority MN Supreme Court)

I think the Republicans can find MN-03 and MN-08 become R+ while the Democrats can find MN-01 and MN-07 become D+.

New Mexico (D majority NM Supreme Court)

Here I do not expect big changes. I think the Democrats can have some advantage making NM-02 a little less Republican.

Oregon (D majority OR Supreme Court)

I think the Democrats can be able to make safer OR-04 and OR-05. I would like to see a 5-0 map here and I think it would be possible. Despite the tie in the state house, the Republicans have a very weak prospect because if the state legislature fails drawing the maps, the Secretary of State (Democrat) would draw the maps of the state house and the state senate seats.

Connecticut (R majority CT Supreme Court)

The current map only needs a little mix of the current CT-05 and CT-01. A bipartisan commission will draw the paps that need the approval of 2/3 of both chambers. The Republicans are now just over 1/3 in both chambers.

RECOUNT

=0 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

– 1 – =0 Colorado * (maybe lose CO-03)

=0 – =0 Nevada *

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———-

– 2 – =0 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

=0 – +1 Colorado * (maybe win CO-03)

+1 – +1 Nevada * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———–

=0 – +2 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota and New Mexico in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. Again, the effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

This would be the recount until now:

+20 new R+ house seats

– 18 new D+ or EVEN house seats

(+2,+17) range for Republican gains *

(- 15,=0) range for Democratic gains *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in many states (emphasized with *). But the large majority of these districts would be R+low districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

NH-01, NH-02, WA-08 and CO-03 are the only Republican districts in all these 43 states that surely would be EVEN or D+ after the redistricting process. The Republicans have a low chance of making or keeping these districts as R+, so these districts should be obvious targets for the Democrats in 2012 from now on.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

From this group of states must come the improvements that balance the gains of the Republicans. I think the Democrats must find here the necessary gains to balance the Republican gains in other states. And just I will find it for this group (less to preview or predict and more to propose where is possible).

Arkansas

The Democrats have the control of the Board of Apportionment (Commission) that draws the state legislature districts and also control the state legislature that draws the congressional districts. The best way to keep the Democratic congressional delegation from Arkansas in the long-term would be to have a black district protected by the Voting Rights Act. Surely this is the last chance to make a black district in Arkansas protected by the VRA. If the Democrats from this state do not do this, the Republicans will have a 0D 4R map the first chance they have. It is possible to create a district with more African-American population than white, but for me the goal would be a D+ (D+5?) district that keeps the white population under 50%, to draw a R+5 district district for M Ross (including parts of Washington County, and to leave two R+20+ for the Republicans, approximately.

West Virginia

I think the Democrats will want to protect N Rahall (WV-03) and endanger WV-01. My goal would be both districts become R+5-. If it is necessary breaking the county borders.

Delaware

No effect.

Illinois

Illinois will lose a house seat too. The Democrats from Illinois surely can put every Republican incumbent running in a D+5+ district for 2012. I hope they do it. It is necessary. The redistricting in Illinois is key in this cycle for the Democratic Party for balancing the Republican gains in other states.

IL-06 seems the most likely district to disappear.

Maryland

I think the Democrats from Maryland will make MD-01 and MD-06 D+5+ districts, winning two seats for the Democratic side. The Democrats of the rest of the country need it to balance the Republican gains in other states.

Rhode Island

No effect.

Massachusetts

MA-10 W Keating (D) This state will lose one district after the redistricting process. I think we will not have open seats for 2012 here, and because of this MA-10 would be the most likely seat to disappear.

RECOUNT

– 3 to – 11 new R+ districts

+1 to +9 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

– 1 – =0 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

– 11 – – 1 Illinois

– 2 – =0 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

=0 – =0 Massachusetts

———-

– 15 – – 1 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – +1 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

=0 – +1 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

=0 – +10 Illinois

=0 – +2 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

– 1 – – 1 Massachusetts

———–

– 1 – +13 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in 2012. They are not in this group of states.

This would be the total recount without including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+17 new R+ house seats

– 17 new D+ or EVEN house seats

183 D+ seats

3 EVEN seats (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

249 R+ seats

(- 3,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+3) range for Democratic gains *

This would be the total recount including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+9 new R+ house seats

– 9 new D+ or EVEN house seats

191 D+ seats

3 EVEN seat (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

241 R+ seats

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains *

* = This does not include many swing districts in Republican hands in many states (emphasized with *). But except NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01, all the other seats would be R+(low) districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

California and Texas are the most difficult states to predict and can give the biggest surprises. California can give likely some good surprise, but Texas can give a likely worse result.

Gerrymandering Illinois can be the alone way to keep the current number of D+ seats in the US House and to balance the likely Republican gains that the redistricting process in other states will give to them.

——————————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————————-

RESUME

1 THE NEW DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTS TO DISAPPEAR

Republican safe gains = 10

UT-04 (new)

TX-33 (new)

TX-34 (new)

TX-35 (new)

TX-36 (new)

SC-07 (new)

GA-14 (new)

AZ-09 (new)

FL-26 (new)

FL-27 (new)

Democratic safe gains = 2

NV-04 (new)

WA-10 (new)

Republican safe losses that can not be Democratic gains = 6

LA-03 (disappear)

OH-06 (disappear)

IL-06 (disappear)

NJ-03 (disappear)

NY-25 (disappear)

NY-13 (disappear)

Democratic safe losses that can not be Republican gains = 4

OH-13 B Sutton (D) (disappear)

PA-12 M Critz (D) (disappear)

MI-09 G Peeters (D) (disappear)

MA-10 W Keating (D) (disappear)

In the middle = 2

MO-02/03

IA-03/04

From this group the Republicans will gain 2 to 4 seats (only 2 if L Boswell and R Carnahan can keep the districts).

2 THE DISTRICTS STRONGLY AFFECTED BY THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

Democratic seats that can be Republican gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 12

TX-25 L Doggett (D) as R+10+

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) as R+10+

GA-02 S Bishop (D) as R+10+

TN-05 J Cooper (D) as R+10+

NC-08 L Kissell (D) as R+10+

UT-02 J Matheson (D) as R+20+

GA-12 J Barrow (D) as R+10+

PA-04 J Altmire (D) as R+10+

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) as R+10+

NC-11 H Shuler (D) as R+10+

OK-02 D Boren (D) as R+20+

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) as R+low

Republican seats that can be Democratic gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 15

MD-01 as D+5+

IL-08 as D+5+

MD-06 as D+5+

IL-14 as D+5+

CO-03 as EVEN

WV-01 as R+5-

AR-02 as D+5+

IL-17 as D+5+

IL-10 as D+6+

IL-11 as D+5+

IL-15 as D+5+

IL-19 as D+5+

IL-13 as D+5+

IL-16 as D+5+

IL-18 as D+5+

The order goes from the most vulnerable to the less vulnerable to the change for every party.

After the two groups the range for both parties (if Illinois is gerrymandered) would be:

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains

3 THE REST

Other Democratic endangered seats = 0

Only KY-06, WV-03 and AR-04 would have R+ rating.

Other Republican endangered seats = ?

Only NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01 would have D+ or EVEN rating.

A good number of swing R+low districts.

If the Democrats work well in group 2, other possible gains would help to reduce the Republican majority in the US House. If the Democrats do not work enough in group 2, some possible gains would help to balance the Republican advantage after the redistricting but not to gain new seats. It is very important to do a good work in the redistricting process.

It seemed way too easy to make 2 VAP (Voting Age Population) black districts in Louisiana. I feel like even if there wasn’t 3 VAP districts, there could easily be two with another heavily leaning Dem district, making the new delegation a 3-3 split with LA losing one seat this year.

As I gerrymandered through New Orleans, Baton Rouge and LaFayette, I realized I didn’t even have to really go to Shreveport to Monroe for 2 districts, and it seemed there were quite a few black precincts left so I decided to try to make 3 VAP districts. It took a lot of maneuvering and one area of water contiguity over the lake, but I did it! It’s the most horrible map, though, and would never obviously be drawn.

My other goals were to not use touch-point contiguity, which I did not, and also not use water contiguity, which I failed to do, but oh well.

All racial numbers are VAP, if it was simply out of all population, the black percentage numbers are a few points higher in all districts. Also, the biggest deviation from target population is the blue district, which has 5,691 more than the target.

Enjoy!

LA-01: The Green district here is the first VAP black district. It is centered on New Orleans, of course, and carefully zigzags around to avoid highly white voting districts and also to pick up extra black precincts outside of New Orleans. I have a feeling this district would have been much easier to create 7 years ago.

38.8% White, 50.1% Black, 6.5% Hispanic, 2.8% Asian

LA-02: The Blue district is where I used water contiguity. It takes in very, very white areas in Eastern Louisiana outside of Baton Rouge, and every white area imaginable inside New Orleans. Look at the big map I first posted for larger look of where the arms extend outside of the city.

79.0% White, 10.0% Black, 7.9% Hispanic, 2.3% Asian

LA-03: The purple district is the second VAP district, and this one is nasty. This district takes in virtually every black precinct imaginable without breaking contiguity, taking in parts of LaFayette, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, New Iberia and Opelousas. I avoided every area I could that was extremely white (I would take places that were, say, 65% or 70% instead of 80% or 90%. This makes a HUGE difference.)

44.4% White, 50.1% Black, 2.8% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian

LA-04: The red district takes up everything in Southern Louisiana that isn’t black along the coast, and also LaFayette white areas. It also reaches some into Eastern Louisiana, but most of the district is along the coastal parishes. This is the whitest district.

81.9% White, 9.3% Black, 3.4% Hispanic, 1.4$ Asian

LA-05: The yellow district is almost as white as LA-04. It takes in everything that is white in Western and Central Louisiana. It was really annoying to make this contiguous with the last district, but I finally managed to do it without making the final VAP district go under 50.1%.

81.0% White, 12.8% Black, 3.0% Hispanic, 1.0% Asian

LA-06: Dark Green district. This was soooo hard to make VAP for awhile. I kept swapping territory to shed whiter areas to even just a few percentage points lower white areas, and also swapped territory with the purple district and I finally got it. It takes in black areas of Shreveport and Monroe, and also black areas further south in and around Alexandria in the central part of the state. This may be the ugliest district, along with LA-05.

45.7% White, 50.2% Black, 2.0% Hispanic, 0.7% Asian

Cross posted on my blog http://frogandturtle.blogspot…. which you should visit for more redistricting maps and election analysis.

Some states such as California have districts that almost never switch parties. In 2006-2010 though, Arizona’s House seats kept switching parties with 6 party switches throughout those years. Before 2006, Arizona had a 6-2 Republican map and after the 2008 elections, it was 5-3 Democratic. After 2010 though, the Republican tide hit here and the delegation shifted to 5-3 Republican. Arizona’s 7th and 8th Congressional District in 2010 also were close to switching parties although Raul Griljava (D) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) held their respective seats. Why was Arizona filled with competitive districts? They had an independent commission that drew the maps. Although Republicans hold the trifecta by holding the State Legislature and the Governorship, they have no power over redistricting because the commission draws the lines. I drew this map predicting what the commission will draw. Although a few of the districts such as the 5th and the 1st are competitive, I assume that this map will be a 5-4 Republican map. This is fair for Arizona because 5-4 Republican is similar to the partisan makeup of Arizona which leans Republican in most elections. I also strengthened many of the incumbents in this map such as Raul Griljava (D) and Gabrielle Giffords (D). My map has 1 Safe Democratic, 2 Likely Democratic, 1 Lean Democratic, 2 Lean Republican, and 3 Safe Republican seats. Anyway, here are the maps:

Here is a link to Arizona’s current map: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/p…

Also, click the maps if you want the full image

North Arizona

South Arizona

Arizona’s 1st Congressional District Paul Gosar (R) Blue

Partisan Data: McCain (estimated) 55%

Demographics: 19.2% Native American, 17.1% Hispanic, 59.5% White

Demographics 18+: 16.7% Native American, 14.6% Hispanic, 64.7% White

Old Demographics: 22.4% Native American, 16.4% Hispanic, 58.4% White

Communities: Flagstaff, Prescott, Sierra Vista

Status: Lean Republican

The 1st district does not undergo major changes as it loses Florence and Coolridge in Pinal County. The 1st district picks up all of Cochise County from the 8th district. Cochise County voted 59% for McCain and has large numbers of military members. It also helps make the district more Republican. The 1st district also loses part of Republican Gila County.  Although these changes probably make Gosar’s district a point more Republican, he can still face a tough race. Ann Kirkpatrick (D), the former representative of the 1st district may run. She was one of the few Democrats in a district McCain won to vote against both the Stupak Amendment and the Affordable Care Act. She lost by 6 points which is not a nail biter but narrower than expected. A possibility though is that a Native American candidate may challenge her in the primary.  A possible candidate is openly gay Navajo State Senator Jack Jackson (D) who almost ran for the 1st congressional district in 2006. On the other hand, Kirkpatrick has support with the Navajo Community because she received endorsements in 2010 from many Navajo leaders including Dr. Peterson Zeh, the Navajo Nation President in 2010. This may encourage Navajos, the largest Native American tribe in the 1st district to support Kirkpatrick instead of supporting a Navajo politician for the seat.

Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District Trent Franks (R) Green

Partisan Data: McCain (estimated) 62%

Demographics: 17.6% Hispanic, 72.6% White

Demographics 18+: 14.1% Hispanic, 77.3% White

Old Demographics: 14.2% Hispanic, 78.4% White

Communities: Lake Havasu City, Surprise, Peoria

Status: Safe Republican

The 2nd district undergoes a few changes. It gains conservative La Paz County from the 7th district and keeps the string to the Hopi Reservation intact. The lines there may look convoluted but the Hopi do not want to be represented in the same district as the Navajo so the 2nd district represents them. The 2nd district also retains western Maricopa County which is one of the fastest growing areas in the state. Surprise had 39,000 people in 2000 but has 117,000 today. Most of these newcomers are Republicans and the 2nd becomes more Republican as it loses some Hispanic precincts in Glendale. Franks should have no problems winning reelection in this conservative district.

Phoenix Area

Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District Ben Quayle (R) Purple

Partisan Data: McCain (estimated) 55%

Demographics: 19.2% Hispanic, 70.4% White

Demographics 18+: 15.8% Hispanic, 74.6% White

Old Demographics: 14.1% Hispanic, 78.5% White

Communities: Phoenix, Glendale, Paradise

Status: Lean Republican

The 3rd district becomes a point more Democratic as it loses Republican areas in northern Maricopa County such as Cave Creek and Carefree. The 3rd district gains a few Hispanic precincts in Glendale but retains its center in northern Phoenix. Although Quayle won by 11 points in 2010, it was a Republican year and his district is growing more Democratic. Also, Quayle is very conservative and ran an ad saying “Obama was the worst president ever” so his far right views could hurt him against a moderate Democrat in a Democratic year. Jon Hulburd (D) who challenged Quayle last year could run again in 2012 when Obama will probably contest Arizona.

Arizona’s 4th Congressional District Ed Pastor (D) Red

Partisan Data: Obama (estimated) 65%

Demographics: 8.1% African American, 59.8% Hispanic, 26.0% White

Demographics 18+: 8.3% African American, 53.2% Hispanic, 32.2% White

Old Demographics: 7.5% African American, 58.0% Hispanic, 29.3% White

Communities: Phoenix

Status: Safe Democratic

The 4th district’s lines stay extremely similar to the current ones but there are a couple of changes. The 4th district picks up a few Hispanic precincts from the 3rd district near the intersection of Northern Ave. and Route 17. The 4th also gives a few heavily Hispanic precincts on the eastern Phoenix border to the 5th district in order to make the 5th district more winnable for a Democrat. Besides these minor changes, the 4th district’s lines stay extremely similar to their current form. The district remains heavily Hispanic and Democratic.

Arizona’s 5th Congressional District Dave Schweikert (R) Yellow

Partisan Data: Obama (estimated) 52%

Demographics: 5.1% African American, 4.5% Asian, 30.2% Hispanic, 55.2% White

Demographics 18+: 4.9% African American, 4.7% Asian, 25.2% Hispanic, 61.2% White

Old Demographics: 2.7% African American, 3.3% Asian, 13.3% Hispanic, 76.8% White

Communities : Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa

Status: Lean Democratic

This district undergoes major changes and becomes more Democratic as it loses conservative northern Scottsdale. To compensate for losing northern Scottsdale, the 5th district gains Hispanic neighborhoods in Mesa, Chandler and Phoenix. The less Hispanic parts of Mesa and Chandler are in the conservative 6th district. These changes bring the district’s Hispanic population up to 29% and the 18+ population to 24%. With the addition of the Hispanic areas, the district becomes more Democratic so Democrats have a stronger shot at winning here. Harry Mitchell (D), the district’s representative in 2010 will be 72 at the time of the 2012 election but he may run. If he does not, possible candidates include his son Mark Mitchell (D), the Vice Mayor of Tempe. Arizona Senate Minority Leader Dave Schapira (D) also from Tempe could run here too.

Arizona’s 6th Congressional District Jeff Flake (R) Teal

Partisan Data: McCain (estimated) 64%

Demographics: 14.7% Hispanic, 75.1% White

Demographics 18+: 12.1% Hispanic, 78.8% White

Old Demographics: 17.2% Hispanic, 76.6% White

Communities: Apache Junction, Gilbert, Mesa

Status: Safe Republican

The area around Mesa and Apache Junction is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation so the 6th district had to shed population. It grew more Republican as well because it lost western Chandler and western Mesa, both swing areas with a growing Hispanic population. The 6th district also gained the Gila River Indian Reservation which is Democratic but should not alter the political leanings of the 6th district much. Although this district is too conservative to elect a Democrat, the Republicans could face a bruising primary if Jeff Flake (R) retires to run for Senate. The Republican bench is large here and potential candidates include State Senator Thayer Veschoor (R), State Senator Chuck Grey (R), Mesa Mayor Scott Smith (R) or Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R). If Huppenthal ran, he would probably win the primary due to his power as the former Senate Majority Leader but he may want to remain the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Anyway, unless a powerful candidate such as Huppenthal ran who can clear the field, the 6th district will face a large primary.

Tucson Area

Arizona’s 7th Congressional District Raul Griljava (D) Gray

Obama (estimated) 59%

Demographics: 58.0% Hispanic, 4.0% African American, 31.7% White

Demographics 18+: 52.6% Hispanic, 4.0% African American, 37.5% White

Old Demographics: 2.8% African American, 50.6% Hispanic, 38.6% White

Communities: Phoenix, Yuma, Tucson

Status: Likely Democratic

Griljava won by 6 points in a closer than expected race against teabagger Ruth McClung (R) despite his district’s high Hispanic population. I made some changes to his district in order to strengthen him. Also, his district’s current Hispanic 18+ population is below 50% so making Griljava’s district more Hispanic helps boost the Hispanic 18+ population above 50%. It is important to keep the Hispanic 18+ population above 50% because the VRA requires that some districts be not only minority majority but have an 18+ population above 50% too.

Arizona’s 8th Congressional District Gabrielle Giffords (D) slate blue

Partisan Data: Obama (estimated) 50%

Demographics: 29.2% Hispanic, 60.8% White

Demographics 18+: 24.7% Hispanic, 65.9% White

Old Demographics: 18.2% Hispanic, 73.9% White

Communities: Tucson, Oro Valley, Catalina

Status: Likely Democratic if Giffords runs, lean Democratic if not

First, I wish Giffords a full recovery from the Tucson shooting last January. If she recovers fully but decides not to return to politics, it is possible her husband Mark Kelly (D), one of the astronauts on the Endeavor will run in her place. Spouses of representatives often replace the representative when the representative is unable to run. Lois Capps (D) in Santa Barbara, Ca replaced Walter Capps (D), Mary Bono (R) replaced Sonny Bono (R) in Riverside County, Ca. Spouses are not always successful though as Stephanie Moore (D) learned when she unsuccessfully ran for her husband’s seat in Kansas. Anyway, if Giffords wants to return to politics, she can run for her House seat or Jon Kyls’ (R) open U.S Senate seat. Even if she does not run for the 8th district, the Democrat here will have a more favorable district. Giffords won last year by 4,000 votes and I removed all of Cochise County which she lost by 4,000 votes. I also removed all her district’s territory in Pinal County which she lost by 1,200 votes. If the election were held under her district’s current lines excluding Cochise and Pinal Counties, Giffords would win by 9,200 votes. Her district becomes even safer and more Tucson centered as it gains part of heavily Hispanic South Tucson from the 7th district and loses conservative areas near Picture Rocks. Although this is not a safely Democratic district, Tucson’s increased clout here will make it easier for Giffords or her replacement to win.

Arizona’s 9th Congressional District Vacant Cyan

Partisan Data: McCain (estimated) 58%

Demographics: 21.0% Hispanic, 69.1% White

Demographics 18+: 17.9% Hispanic, 72.9% White

Old Demographics: N/A

Communities: Scottsdale, Casa Grande, Marana

Status: Safe Republican

The lines on this map remove Republican areas from the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th district and I combined those areas in the new 9th district. Those areas include northern Scottsdale in Maricopa County, all of Pinal County except for the Gila River reservation and Apache Junction, part of Gila County and Marana in Pima County. This district is too conservative for a Democrat to win but there could be a competitive Republican primary. Possible candidates could be State Senator Steve Smith (R) from Pinal County or State Senator Michelle Reagan (R) from Scottsdale.  

The partisan data is still not in the Application.  Nevertheless, I wanted to post this DRAFT map now that the Census numbers are out.

I feel that my first attempt 15-3 map was perhaps too ambitious, but I feel confident that 14-4 is VERY doable in Illinois — ofcourse, the lines will have to be ugly like this “Texas-style” map.

I had several goals:

1.) Keep all 3 black seats intact; not easy considering hundreds of thousands of blacks have left Chicago over the last decade.

2.) Create two Hispanic seats — ones that would be guaranteed to elect Hispanic representatives.

3.) Keep all currently Democratic-held seats at very high Democratic levels (this includes the minority-majority seats, ofcourse, as well as IL-3, IL-5, IL-9, and IL-12).

4.) Create seats where the incumbent Democrat would keep as much of his or her current constituents as possible.

5.) Create a map whereby there are only 4 Republican seats, the newly created Democratic seats must be at relatively high Democratic levels – ideally around 65% Obama or higher in the Chicago area and around 60% Obama or higher in downstate and/or 5 points more Democratic than the existing seat.

6.) As a finishing touch, create a map whereby Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger will basically not have a seat to run in.

Here’s the map:

Goal 1:  Preserving African-American seats – under this map, virtually all black-majority precincts in the Chicago area become parts of the 3 black-majority districts.  The reason the black percentage goes down in all 3 seats is because hundreds of thousands of blacks have left the area over the last decade.

New IL-1 is 51.3 black, 38.7 white (18+ pop. is 51.5 black, 40.1 white) – Rush gets to keep 53% of his current constituents, including 75% of his current black constituents.

New IL-2 is 51.8 black, 37.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 40.5 white) – Jackson gets to keep 80% of his current constituents, including 83% of his current black constituents.

New IL-7 is 51.8 black, 34.8 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 37.5 white) – Davis gets to keep 59% of his current constituents, including 90% of his current black constituents.

Goal 2:  Two Effective Hispanic seats

New IL-4 is 56.0 hispanic, 33.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.4 hispanic, 38.9 white) – these percentages are enough to elect a Hispanic Representative as IL-4 encompasses the mostly Puerto Rican-descent areas on the north side of Chicago where the Hispanics are all citizens.  It makes sense to me that Gutierrez would run here.

New IL-6 is 64.1 hispanic, 25.1 white (18+ pop. is 58.5 hispanic, 30.1 white) – this area encompasses the mostly Mexican-descent areas on the south side of Chicago where there’s a higher proportion of non-citizens, so I made the Hispanic percentage here noticeably higher in order to make sure that a Hispanic Representative is elected.

Goal 3:  Make sure all currently Democratic-held seats are safely Democratic.

My estimate is that the 3 new black-majority seats and the 2 new hispanic seats above are all in the 75-79 Obama range (ofcourse, there’s currently only one hispanic seat but I’m classifying IL-4 and IL-6 as “Dem-held” as Gutierrez currently represents roughly half of each district) …

For the other currently Democratic-held seats the partisan numbers (ESTIMATED Obama as a percentage of the 2-party vote) are as follows:

New IL-3 is 62.3 Obama (current district is 64.4 Obama)

New IL-5 is 68.3 Obama (current district is 73.9 Obama)

New IL-9 is 70.2 Obama (current district is 73.2 Obama)

New IL-12 is 60.9 Obama (current district is 56.4 Obama)

Goal 4:  Incumbent-protection

I already discussed above what percentage of their constituents the Democrats in the minority-majority seats would keep.  For the other Democratic incumbents the numbers are as follows:

New IL-3: Lipinski gets to keep 33% of his current constituents (that’s the lowest percentage of all incumbent Democrats but a good chunk of the new Hispanic-majority IL-6 comes out of territory that’s currently a part of IL-3).

New IL-5: Quigley gets to keep 70% of his current constituents

New IL-9: Schakowsky gets to keep 75% of her current constituents

New IL-12: Costello gets to keep 63% of his current constituents

Goal 5:  Get rid of 7 of the current 11 GOP members through re-drawing of lines.

– As already mentioned, IL-6 goes from a suburban GOP district to a Hispanic-majority Democratic district based in Chicago (ofcourse, Roskam can run in the new IL-16 which becomes sort of a Chicago-area GOP vote sink).

– New IL-8 is 65.1 Obama (current district is 56.5 Obama), so Walsh is history (or he can run in the new IL-16).  The new IL-8 should be friendly to Bean if she wants to make a comeback.

– New IL-10 is 65.3 Obama (current district is 61.5 Obama), plus the district has a lot of new territory, including the entire Lake Michigan shoreline — so Dold is history.

– New IL-11 is 59.2 Obama (current district is 54.2 Obama).  Only 19% of Kinzinger’s current constituents remain in IL-11 under the new lines, so his base basically disappears with this map.  Also, the new IL-11 includes 3 major university towns.  It’s likely that this district would flip back to the Democratic side in 2012.

– New IL-14 is 62.4 Obama (current district is 55.6 Obama).  Hultgren won here over Foster by 51-45 (with the Green candidate at 4%) in a major GOP year, so the 7-point Democratic increase should more than do the job.  (Hultgren can run in the new IL-16 ofcourse.)

– New IL-17 is 60.8 Obama (current district is 57.2 Obama).  The lines are scrambled here considerably (less than half of the population of the new IL-17 comes out of Schilling’s current constituency) and most of Rockford is now included.  I really believe that almost any Democrat other than Hare would have no trouble here in 2012.

– IL-19 no longer exists, so that’s also one less Republican (although Shimkus may want to run in the new IL-18 — see below).

By my estimate, John Kerry would have won all of the 14 Democratic seats created by this map.

The four GOP seats that remain:

– IL-13: now transferred to the southern reaches of the state but without an incumbent.  Although Republican, less so than the other 3 GOP seats, so perhaps a possibility that a moderate to conservative Democrat could win here.

– IL-15: Johnson gets to keep 67% of his current constituents under the new lines.

– IL-16: The most likely Republicans to run here include Manzullo, Walsh, Hultgren, Roskam and Biggert (not necessarily in that order) — yes, the map packs these 5 into one district, with a few Dold precincts also included !

– IL-18: designed more for Shimkus than for Schock — 29% of the new district’s population comes out of Shimkus’ current district, while only 20% comes out of Schock’s … which brings me to the last goal …

Goal 6:  Make it hard for Kinzinger and Schock

I already discussed Kinzinger a bit above.  Basically, the current IL-11 gets split as follows: 19% of Kinzinger’s constituents remain in IL-11; 30% go into the new IL-2; 22% into IL-1; 18% into IL-3; 6% into IL-15; and 5% into IL-18.

As far as Schock, his current district is likewise torn apart; the highest proportion of his current constituents (30%) goes to IL-15; the rest is divided among IL-11 (27%); IL-18 (20%); IL-13 (15%); IL-12 (7%); with a sliver going to IL-17.

To briefly sum up my map:

1.) Democratic; black-majority; Rush

2.) Democratic; black-majority; Jackson

3.) Democratic; 62.3 Obama; Lipinski

4.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; Gutierrez

5.) Democratic; 68.3 Obama; Quigley

6.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; new Hispanic representative (?)

7.) Democratic; black-majority; Davis

8.) Democratic; 65.1 Obama; Bean (?)

9.) Democratic; 70.2 Obama; Schakowsky

10.) Democratic; 65.3 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

11.) Democratic; 59.2 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

12.) Democratic; 60.9 Obama; Costello

14.) Democratic; 62.4 Obama; Foster (?)

17.) Democratic; 60.8 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

13.) Republican; new GOP Rep. (?)

15.) Republican; Johnson

16.) Republican; Manzullo, Hultgren or Walsh most likely to win here

18.) Republican; Shimkus

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

The time has come for many in the Republican Party to begin seriously considering the 2012 presidential election. By this time last year, President Barack Obama had just announced his candidacy. Soon the shadow campaign will begin in earnest, and then the real campaign several months after that, just before the Iowa primary.

Here are three of the strongest Republicans who could challenge Mr. Obama:

More below.

1) Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts

Mr. Brown may be the single most politically skilled individual in the entire Republican Party. He pulled a shocking upset over Democrat Martha Coakley, continues to retain extremely strong favorables, and looks likely to run a very competitive Senate race in 2012. All this while being many times more conservative than the average person in one of America’s most liberal states.

That takes skill.

Indeed, if this Republican ran for president, he’d probably have a decent chance of winning Massachusetts. Mr. Brown is a hero to Tea Partiers; at the same time there has been nothing so far that cuts against him negatively. And, in an era where looking good matters more than ever, Mr. Brown – as his Cosmopolitan photo shoot implies – certainly has the looks nailed down (he’s certainly going to need them, going against a man who can do this).

2) Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey

Mr. Christie is the popular governor of New Jersey, applauded by many Republicans for cutting spending and taking the fight full-hilt to the teacher’s unions. Media coverage of his agenda has been extremely positive so far, and his aggressive, blunt answers at town halls have draw much support on Youtube.

Compared to individuals such as Mr. Romney or Ms. Palin (or Mr. Brown, for that matter), the governor’s established record is far superior.

Mr. Christie’s weakness might lie in the realm of political skills. He was expected to win beat Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial race by double-digits; in the end Mr. Corzine made it quite close. While popular in New Jersey, the governor is hated by liberals and Democrats. And he doesn’t look presidential – or, to put it less nicely, he’s too fat.

3) Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Mr. Rubio made an explosive rise in 2010. Starting out as a literal nobody, he succeeded in forcing out heavy favorite Charlie Crist in the Republican primary – and then winning a three-person senatorial race with ease.

The senator’s Hispanic origins help in the diversity realm, and he tells a great story about his immigrant parents. Moreover, Mr. Rubio has the rare ability to make people on opposite sides of an issue believe that he is with them and against the other side. He would be a formidable candidate.

__________________

There is one similarity between each of these candidates: they bear a strong resemblance to Mr. Obama, whatever their political differences.

Many in the Republican Party look at their current field  and do not see much. Each candidate – Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike  Huckabee, Haley Barbour – has serious weaknesses. None excites as Mr.  Obama does.

But these Republicans are thinking too narrowly. The  Republican Party has plenty of young, attractive, and politically savvy  politicians. It’s just that most pundits haven’t imagined them running  for president.

Perhaps Republicans ought to do a non-conservative thing: start looking outside the box.

That’s the story according to a couple of dudes that the Associated Press spoke to, at least:

U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich plans to run for the Senate seat being vacated by longtime Sen. Jeff Bingaman, two New Mexico Democrats close to the congressman and familiar with his political plans said Friday.

The two state Democrats, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging Heinrich’s formal announcement, told The Associated Press that Heinrich will announce his candidacy for U.S. Senate on Saturday. Heinrich, 39, is the first prominent Democrat to jump into the race as his party seeks to hold onto the seat that has been held by Bingaman since 1982.

Heinrich spokeswoman Whitney Potter declined to comment Friday on the congressman’s political plans.

When he announces, Heinrich will be the first New Mexico Democrat of any stature to formally launch a campaign for retiring Dem Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s seat. (State Auditor Hector Balderas is expected to run, but he hasn’t yet made his plans public.) It would appear that Heinrich, in his second term in the House after a stint serving as an Albuquerque city councilman, would have the jump on his would-be Democratic primary opponents — at least according to a recent but meagrely-sampled poll by Tulchin Research for the Defenders of Wildlife. Heinrich led the field with 32%, followed by ex-Lt. Gov. Diane Denish at 25%, 3rd CD Rep. Ben Ray Luján at 15%, Balderas at 5% and 24% undecided.

Heinrich will leave behind an extremely swingy open seat in the House, but if a solid replacement candidate can be found, the Obama turnout machine should be a formidable advantage for Team Blue here.

(Hat-tip: MinnesotaMike)

UPDATE: Here’s one potential replacement for Heinrich in the House — state Sen. Eric Griego, who wasted no time in setting up an exploratory committee:

“I am seriously considering entering the Congressional race, but need to discuss my final decision with my family, my employer, and of course my supporters,” Griego said in a statement sent to the media. “This is an important decision not just for me and my family, but for our whole community and it warrants serious soul searching and a sober review of what kind of Democrat we want fighting for us in Washington.”

In addition to his position in the Senate, Griego currently is the Executive Director of the non-profit New Mexico Voices for Children.

“It is a very critical time for our state and our country,” Senator Griego said. “We need a Democratic Congressional candidate who will unapologetically stand up for working families and take on those who would put large corporate interests ahead of our children, our environment and our local businesses.”

UPDATE 2 (David): Heinrich makes it official, with a video (and transcript) on his website: