Swing State Project

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

In the world of campaign commercials, race seems to be invoked in an increasingly and worryingly explicit way.

Let’s take a look at some old commercials and compare them to contemporary ones.

Here, for instance, is the famous “Willie Horton” commercial, which doomed Governor Mike Dukakis’s campaign for president:

More below.

This commercial is often the first thing people think about when talking about “racist” political ads. The story goes that the “death penalty” constituted a code word for race-baiting, and that the use of Willie Horton – a black man – was intended to arouse racial fears of black violence.

Let’s compare this old ad with a more modern one.

Here is a 2010 ad on undocumented immigrants:

This ad was shown by Republican Senator David Vitter in his 2010 re-election campaign. Mr. Vitter won an easy re-election, campaigning in a conservative state (Louisiana) in a conservative year.

With Mr. Bush’s ad, one has to look pretty hard to see the supposed racism. Only two pictures of a black man are used, and each image is fairly race-neutral by itself.

Mr. Vitter’s ad, on the other hand, is much more explicit. The ad shows endless hordes of brown people breaking through fences, while an announcer spits out “illegals” like a curse word. It’s pretty clear that all the “illegals” are Latino, and that all the victims are white.

On the score of which ad is more racist, Mr. Vitter’s ad – the more modern one – wins hands down.

This is true for other ads as well. Here is an ad on welfare by President Richard Nixon:

Mr. Nixon was accused of running an undercover “racist” campaign, using code words like “welfare” and “law-and-order” to appeal to racial resentments.

Yet out of all four ads, this one is probably the least racist by far. One has to really stretch to “find” racism in this ad (e.g. the construction worker is in the inner-city, which is full of minorities, and so the ad could theoretically be pointing out that inner-city minorities will benefit from welfare).

Now compare this to another contemporary ad:

This ad was run by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln against her primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. Ms. Lincoln went on to barely win the primary, only to lose by a landslide in the general election.

Once again, the more modern ad is much more obvious than Mr. Nixon’s ad in the use of race. Indian foreigners speaking accented English thank Mr. Halter for outsourcing jobs, while “Indian” music plays and stereotypic images of India play in the background.

The political equivalent in 1972 would have been to show black people in the ghetto thanking Democrats for welfare in “ghetto” English.

In 1972 politicians did not dare do this. Yet in 2010 they are more than willing to show Indians and Latinos in quite racist ads.

All in all, Americans – or, more accurately, humans in general – like to think that things are always getting better. Technology is always improving, people are always living longer, and freedom and democracy are always on the rise.

This applies with race relations as well. The dominant narrative is that America’s treatment of its minorities is in a continuous progression upwards, from the low beginnings of slavery to the first black president and onwards. America’s minorities have never been treated as well as they are now, in this view.

Everything that is said above is mostly true – indeed the world is healthier, freer, and more technologically advanced than ever before. And America’s minorities do have more opportunities than ever before.

Nevertheless, in at least one aspect of race relations, America portrays minorities worse than it did two generations ago.

Well, here is my bid for find the limits of a Gerrymander redistricting of California. Really a lot of work for balance all the map. Only for read and paint all these precincts it is a lot of work, I can imagine the work of include all the the data and do these maps. And the work for update the maps after the census.

Like you will see in the forms of the districts, many of them with a lot of corners I force the big majority of the districts until the extreme, and other what seems better are too following the same extreme rules.

My goal doing this map is not do a nice map with nice districts, my goal here is find the limits respecting the rules for redistricting in the best way what I can do. I wish the people know and see the limits for have a good idea about the maps what we will see for California.

California has now 20 R+ districts and 19 republican incumbents. Here they are a lot of room for improve the numbers of the democratic delegation. I know not if the new commission will do something possitive for the democratic side.

All the new districts in this bid are over 59% Obama (at least D+6). I think they are enough hard for the republicans, few can survive, the map keep not their current basis.

In California is not a condition to live inside the district, but I try give to every democratic incumbent his district. For the incumbents what lives in small towns and cities I try to keep all inside his new district, and for the people what lives in the biggest cities I try to keep his home or his office inside every district. I hope do it enough well.

South California is a little less democratic than North California, but still I’m able for keep this D+6+ level for all the south. For North California I can up to 60% Obama as minimum despite to be a little more difficult find the geographic ways.

You can see the color and the data of every district in the image. The counter of the population leaves a remaining population what I see not where are, and the map have some little areas what get not colored. Nothing important for this way of use the application.

MINORITIES

HISPANIC

Hispanic majority (>50% hispanic)

Old map: 10 districts

My map: 10 districts

Hispanic-White (minority-majority district with Hispanic as first group and White as second)

Old map: 2 districts

My map: 7 districts

Hispanic-Black (minority-majority with Hispanic as first group and black as second)

Old map: 3 districts

My map: 1 district (the other 2 will be White-Black)

Hispanic-Asian (minority-majority with Hispanic as fist group and asian as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

ASIAN

Asian-Hispanic (minority-majority with Asian as fist group and Hispanic as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

White-Asian (minority-majority district with White as first group and Asian as second)

Old map: 4 districts

My map: 3 districts

Hispanic-Asian (minority-majority with hispanic as first group and asian as second)

Old map: –

My map: 1 district

BLACK

White-Black (minority-majority district with White as first group and Black as second)

Old map: 1 district

My map: 3 districts

Hispanic-Black (minority-majority with hispanic as first group and black as second)

Old map: 3 districts

My map: 1 district

As resume my map gives:

– 6 White majority districts

– 1 White-Asian minority-majority

+2 White-Black minority-majority

+5 Hispano-White minority-majority

– 2 Hispano-Black minority-majority

+1 Hispano-Asian minority-majority

+1 Asian-Hispano minority-majority

In this work the most difficult is to keep the level for the asian minority in North California and for the Black minority in South California. New hispanic districts appear without effort despite this map use not the data of the 2010 census.

I would need to see if the new census data make not possible the White-Black districts. If it is not possible, the map would change a little but the limit would be the same. If you take the right way more or less hispanic population in every district affect not to the limits.

MAPS

All the state

North California

South California

CA-01

Incumbent: M Thompson (D)

White majority district.

CA-02

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-03

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-04

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-05

Incumbent: D Matsui (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-06

Incumbent: L Woolsey (D) vs W Herger (R)

White majority district.

Not the best moment for her retirement since the point of this map.

CA-07

Incumbent: G Miller (D) vs D Lungren (R)

White majority district.

CA-08

Incumbent: N Pelosi (D)

White-Asian minority-majority district.

The safest district. Not casual.

CA-09

Incumbent: B Lee (D)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-10

Incumbent: J Garamendi (D) vs T McClintock (R)

White majority district.

CA-11

Incumbent: J McNerney (D)

White majority district.

CA-12

Incumbent: J Speier (D)

White-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-13

Incumbent: P Stark (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-14

Incumbent: A Eshoo (D)

White majority district.

CA-15

Incumbent: M Honda (D)

Hispanic-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-16

Incumbent: Z Lofgren (D) vs D Nunes (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-17

Incumbent: S Farr (D) vs E Gallegly (R)

White majority district.

CA-18

Incumbent: D Cardoza (D) vs J Denham (R)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-19

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-20

Incumbent: J Costa (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-21

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-22

Incumbent: –

White-Asian minority-majority district.

CA-23

Incumbent: L Capps (D)

White majority district.

CA-24

Incumbent: –

White majority district.

CA-25

Incumbent: H McKeon (R)

White majority district.

CA-26

Incumbent: D Dreier (R)

White majority district.

CA-27

Incumbent: B Sherman (D) vs K McCarthy (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-28

Incumbent: H Berman (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-29

Incumbent: A Schiff (D)

White majority district.

CA-30

Incumbent: H Waxman (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-31

Incumbent: X Becerra (D) vs K Calvert (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-32

Incumbent: J Chu (D) vs G Miller (R)

Asian-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-33

Incumbent: K Bass (D) vs J Campbell (R)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-34

Incumbent: L Roybal-Allard (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-35

Incumbent: M Waters (D)

Hispanic-Black minority-majority district.

CA-36

Incumbent: J Harman (D)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-37

Incumbent: L Richardson (D)

White-Black minority-majority district.

CA-38

Incumbent: G Napolitano (D) vs E Royce (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-39

Incumbent: Linda Sanchez (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-40

Incumbent: M Bono Mack (R)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-41

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-42

Incumbent: –

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-43

Incumbent: J Baca (D) vs J Lewis (R)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-44

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-45

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-46

Incumbent: –

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-47

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (D)

Hispanic majority district.

CA-48

Incumbent: D Rohrabacher (R) vs B Bilbray (R)

White majority district.

CA-49

Incumbent: D Issa (R)

White-Hispanic minority-majority district.

CA-50

Incumbent: –

Hispanic majority district.

CA-51

Incumbent: R Filner (D)

Hispanic-White minority-majority district.

CA-52

Incumbent: – (likely D Hunter (R))

White majority district.

CA-53

Incumbent: S Davis (D) vs D Hunter (R)

White majority district.

Just the remaining votes what leaves the counter and some need in the area of north San Diego county make I need to leave the CD-33, CD-35 and CD-37 with higher deviation than the other districts. Still is inside the limit what gives the law if I’m not wrong, and cause of this I make not more corrections. I would need to move a decent number of districts for down the deviation, but I would not have major trouble cause of this.

I don’t see the point in trying to draw actual maps until we get the Census numbers next week (and when the precinct numbers are very different from projections, updated in Dave’s app), but that doesn’t stop me from drawing new districts.  I’ve taken district counts I know won’t happen to draw districts that are hopefully different from the current ones in an interesting way.

The maps:

Indiana 7

Kentucky 8

Mississippi 3

Nebraska 4

Nevada 5

Oklahoma 7

Oregon 9 (two of these)

Indiana 7

In this map, we avoid putting any of Gary (CD1, blue, 72% white), South Bend (CD2, green), and Fort Wayne (CD3, purple, also picking up Muncie) in the same district, giving three relatively vertical districts.  Considering how the population numbers didn’t really work for districts pairing these, I don’t see a Gary-South Bend district coming, especially as the Indiana GOP says they don’t want particularly ugly districts.

Marion County (CD4, red, 65% white) is just under the population for a CD, so it picks up a tiny bit of the northern suburbs.  We then get districts for central Indiana (CD5, yellow, with West Lafayette, Anderson, and Indianapolis exurbs), southeast Indiana (CD6, teal), and southwest Indiana (CD7, gray, with Evansville, Terre Haute, and Louisville KY suburbs).

Kentucky 8

I’m not particularly familiar with the state, so this will be brief.  We have 4 rural districts (blue, green, gray, and light purple) that are almost certainly safe R.

The teal district (Richmond, Elizabethtown) is probably also Republican.  We then have a Cincinnati suburb district (purple), a Lexington to Louisville district (red), and a Louisville district (yellow, 69% white).

Mississippi 3

Pretty straightforward, the state would still have one VRA seat.  CD1 [was 2] (blue, 56% black, 41% white) contains Jackson and the Mississippi River valley.  CD2 [was 1] (green, 66% white, 30% black) contains northern Mississippi with Tupelo, Columbus, and Meridian; and CD3 [was 4] (70% white, 24% black) contains Hattiesburg and the gulf.  This map might have been interesting before this year, as the 1 GOP congressman from MS was drawn out of a district.

Nebraska 4

Pretty straightforward, we still have basically concentric rings around Omaha.  CD1 (blue, 72% white) shrinks to contain only part of Omaha, while CD2 contains the rest of the Omaha area and the city of Lincoln.  CD3 contains the remaining part of the east out to Grand Island, and CD4 contains the rest.

Nevada 5

The largest visual change is that the Reno/Carson City area now has enough population for a district (CD5, yellow, 70% white) without rural Nevada, which is joined to the Las Vegas exurbs.

CD4 (red, 71% white) is almost certainly safe R.  The other 3 seats were drawn mostly arbitrarily, we have CD1 (blue, 40% white, 40% hispanic), CD2 (green, 38% white, 38% hispanic, 15% black), and CD3 (purple, 66% white) picking up the Las Vegas area.  Looking at those percentages, I’m surprised the VRA hasn’t come up more when discussing Nevada redistricting, I wouldn’t be shocked if the new seat is considered VRA (assuming Dave’s numbers are correct).

Oklahoma 7

Another state I’ve never been in and aren’t terribly familiar with.  Despite the reasonably high non-white population, I don’t see any way to draw a VRA district here, especially as it would be a black-hispanic-native coalition district.

CD1 (blue, 74% white, 10% hispanic) and CD2 (green, 76% white, 10% native) are on the Texas border, and I assume would behave similarly to northern Texas seats.  CD5 (yellow, 76% white, 11% native) is similarly on the Kansas border.

We have a compact CD3 (58% white, 17% black, 16% hispanic) in Oklahoma City, and a larger CD4 (78% white) surrounding it to the east.

CD6 (teal, 67% white, 12% black, 11% hispanic) contains most of the Tulsa area, and CD7 (gray, 70% white, 15% native) covers eastern Oklahoma.  I assume CD7 would be the closest equivalent to Dan Boren’s district.  Apart from that and CD3, I assume everything is safe R.

Oregon 9

A state so fun I did it twice.  The first was relatively neutral, the second time turned into what I believe is a GOP gerrymander.

As much as a map can when adding 4 districts, this looks similar to the current map.  We have a large eastern CD1 (blue), a coastal CD2 (green) containing medford, and a CD3 (purple) containing Bend and Eugene.

CD4 (red) contains Corvalis and what looks like semi-rural Western Oregon, CD5 (purple) is Salem based.  CD6 (teal) is the northwest corner of the state, and reaches into the Portland suburbs.

I don’t think it really matters how the lines are drawn for CD7 through 9, all should be safe D.

The most obvious change is that Eastern Oregon. is split between two districts.  CD2 (green) contains Medford and southeast Oregon, while CD3 (purple) contains Bend and northeast Oregon.  We also gain a very coastal CD1 (blue).

Now this is a gerrymander.  CD4 (red) contains the cities of Eugene, Corvalis, Albany, and Salem and very little else.  CD5 (yellow) surrounds it and covers other rural areas.

As the northeast coast isn’t being drawn into Portland districts now, there are 4 districts entirely within this shot instead of just 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Compliance with the VRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without further adieu…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really should have broken this into two pieces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 51

JB Van Hollen (R): 38

Undecided: 11

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 48

Paul Ryan (R): 42

Undecided: 11

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 49

Tommy Thompson (R): 40

Undecided: 11

Russ Feingold (D): 52

JB Van Hollen (R): 41

Undecided: 7

Russ Feingold (D): 50

Paul Ryan (R): 43

Undecided: 7

Russ Feingold (D): 49

Tommy Thompson (R): 40

Undecided: 11

(MoE: ±3.7%)

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

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

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