Swing State Project

I put this in the comments of the open thread earlier today, but I’m confident in my numbers to make a proclamation.

As it stands right now, Kamala Harris is up by .2%, or 14,000 votes according to the CA SOS website, which was updated at 8 am this morning.

There are still around 900,000 ballots left uncounted.

Here are the top counties, their outstanding votes, and by how large a margin each county voted for a candidate.

Los Angeles: 208,513 (Harris +13.5%)

San Diego: 71,970 (Cooley +13.8%)

Orange: 54,316 (Cooley +29.2%)

San Joaquin: 39,715 (Cooley +7.6%)

Contra Costa: 38,413 (Harris +13.3%)

San Bernardino: 36,000 (Cooley +5%)

Sonoma: 35,500 (Harris +24.2%)

Riverside: 29,700 (Cooley +19%)

Monterey: 29,470 (Harris +15.2%)

Santa Cruz: 27,905 (Harris +34.1%!)

Marin: 27,050 (Harris +31.2%)

San Mateo: 26,812 (Harris +21.6%)

Alameda: 24,500 (Harris +40.7%!!)

Sacramento: 21,621 (Cooley +2.6%)

San Francisco: 21,376 (Harris +50.4%!!!!!!)

Using some mind numbing number crunching, I project that Kamala Harris takes it home with a net 64,584 from all of the above counties combined.

All of those counties account for around 694,000 of the 898,458 unprocessed votes, or 77% of the uncounted votes.

This means that for cooley to overtake that 64,584 deficit from the remaining uncounted counties, he would have to, on average, win them by around a 32% margin.

While not impossible, I find it highly unlikely for this to occur.  The biggest margin Cooley received from any county that I can see is from Kern, when he got a 36.5% margin.  He is going to have to do better than that with outstanding counties like santa Clara that went for Harris by 18.2%, and has 8,000 more outstanding ballots than Kern.

Unless the last of these ballots go overwhelmingly for Cooley, I think Cooley is a goner, and California will have its first Bi-Racial AG.

Congrats Kamala.  

This is my first shot at this, so be gentle 🙂

Meant to create:

1 Heath Shuler: 11

4 blue districts: 1, 4, 7, 12

8 red districts: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13

http://img413.imageshack.us/im…

NC-1 (dark blue): Butterfield (D)

Obama 59%.

Mostly the same as before. The way I drew it, its only plurality black, not majority black. It could probably be tinkered with easily to be majority black though.

NC-2 (bright green): Ellmers (R)

McCain 55%

Loses Raleign and Chatham county, and most of Cumberland county. Picks up some nice R areas elsewhere.

NC-3 (purple): Jones (R)

McCain 58%

Pretty ugly. This was the leftover territory district for me.

NC-4 (red): Price (D)

Obama 72%

Congrats David Price. Obama vote dump. Loses carefully chosen sections of Chatham, Durham, Orange,and holds all of Chapel Hill and Raleigh.

NC-5 (yellow): Foxx (R)

McCain 55%

Absorbs a piece of Guilford county and the Greensboro area. Probably weaker than before.

NC-6 (olive green): Coble? (R)

McCain 55%

Not sure where Coble lives:

Covers most of Davidson, Rowan, Cabarrus, a bit of the Charlotte suburbs, and another piece of Guilford county.

NC-7 (grey): McIntyre (D)

Obama 58%

Another Democratic voting dump. Retains a piece of New Hanover and keeps Fayetville. All these counties voted for Elaine Marshall over Burr for Senate this year.

With a bit of fancier line drawing this can probably hit 60% Obama easily.

NC-8 (purple): Coble (R)

McCain 55%

See 6.

Yields territory to the new 6th and grabs Chatham and a piece of Wake County. Less Repbulican than before. Either 6 or 8 gets a new Republican.

NC-9 (teal): Mynick (R)

McCain 55%

Mostly unchanged.

NC-10 (pink): McHenry (R)

McCain 58%

Absorbs half of Buncombe. Picks up some of the 5ths territory.

NC-11 (bright green): Shuler (D)

McCain 56%

Breaks Buncombe in 2. Grabs some territory from the 5th and 10th. Shuler can win this anyway, though. A future Democrat probably can’t.

NC-12 (pale blue): Watt (D)

Obama 68%

Mostly unchanged. Picks up some more Dem territory at both ends, but maintains the general 2 city and corridor structure. Almost certianly less than 50% white at this point.

A professional could probably hit 70% Obama with this, and shore up the new 6th.

NC-13 (tan): Miller (D)

McCain 55%

Loses most of Raleigh and Greensboro. Grabs all of Alamance county and some areas from the old 2nd.

Designed to knock off Brad Miller.

Daves Redistricting 2.0 is now ready.

There are many changes from 1.0. It uses a Bing map, so you can see roads and aerial view, and pan and zoom normally. You can load and save files normally, too. You can save a view directly to a JPEG. And there are more features to help do the job of assigning districts to CDs.

I am very excited to be releasing this. You are the first to know! I hope you like it.

Fire it up and check the “How To” for a brief idea of what’s different. And the help file explains it all. You can load 1.0 files, too.

Please let me know of any bugs. I’m sure there are some in there. I’ve only tested on Windows, so Mac users, please let me know if it’s ok on the Mac.

Update: Here’s some more info and explanation of the big changes:

1) The background is a bing map instead of a canvas. The advantages are you can see the roads and you get pan/zoom in a way you are use to (using the pan and zoom controls or the hold-mouse-and-drag that are common to bing and google maps). The disadvantages are that rendering is slower necessitating showing only a subset of the voting districts at a time, and that hold-mouse-and-drag no longer colors (because it pans) so you have to double-click to change the mode to coloring and back. I’ve tried to mitigate the performance disadvantage by giving you control over showing those districts (All, None, Auto with control over Auto). Another disadvantage is that the colors are paler in order to show the roads thru. I plan to give you a little more control over that.

2) File Save/Load is improved. I hope you all find this to be a big win. I always disliked the necessity of saving your work in the obfuscated files.

3) Area views. Saving the 1.0 area maps in some XML that required another tool was a real hack. And I had really broken the look of those, too, with all of the crossing lines. All of that is gone and now you can save directly to JPEG. The only issue is that Bing does not allow its road map or aerial map backgrounds to be saved — proprietary. (I’m prevented from rendering the background into the bitmap that is translated into the JPEG.)

4) Labels: This may be harder to notice, but all of the labels (CDs, Counties, etc.) can be moved and resized. Hover over them to get the tool tip. Hold mouse and drag to move; Hold mouse and hit ‘s’ to make it smaller or ‘l’ to make it larger. You can even delete some of the labels.

5) The Cur CD check box is new. It lets you focus on the currently selected new CD, hiding all the others. If you switch CDs when this is checked, it will pan and zoom to the newly selected CD.

5) Find CD Parts is a new feature that helps find little pieces of a CD that you may have left behind when changing CDs around. It uses only the bounding rectangle, so it won’t catch non-contiguous pieces that are really close to the main CD or in especially snake-like situations, but it can help. I may try to implement a real contiguity check someday, but that is much harder.

6) There still is Auto Assign according to Old CDs. I’ve also added Auto Assign by quadrants — something I came up with. It does not balance the CDs, but starts you out with rectangular districts that you can then modify to balance properly. I’ve made a map for Texas using this and it’s reasonably compact. In the future, I hope to add additional algorithms that others have developed or will develop.

7) I didn’t include city shapes this time, because the road map helps you see where the cities are. However, the road map doesn’t show the actual boundaries, which can of course, be useful. I will look into adding those back. But remember that adding more shapes slows down Bing’s rendering, so I need to think about how to limit the city shapes to the ones that are really useful.

And keep sending feedback. I will try to make improvements over the next couple of months and then work on all the new data when it comes out, so the app is ready for really helping you and others next year.

[Update 2]

From the feedback it seems you all are facing two major issues:

1) It’s too slow, even with the “only show some districts” mitigation. And that mitigation is a pain because you can’t see as much as you need.

2) The Bing pan control seems to go wild.

For (1) I am trying a change that looks promising and, I hope, will get the speed to be close to 1.0 speed. I thought about this all day (while doing other stuff), tried a couple of things. I need to work on it more and it will be at least a few days, possibly after T-day before I would have this ready. So stay tuned.

On (2), I was finally able to sort of duplicate the behavior. I can see that if I hold the mouse in the pan control and then quickly (really fast) move it out of the control, the map does speed away in that direction. My guess is that on the Mac at least, the pan control is not calibrated to the mouse as well and is too sensitive, so you all hardly have to move the mouse to get the map winging away. Since I don’t do anything for that control (the Bing object does) I don’t have a good solution, other than using the drag on the map method of panning.

Thanks!

The Census figures won’t be reported until December and not finalized until next spring, but the 2010 elections are now over and it seems redistricting is on everyone’s – and by everyone, I mean everyone in the rarefied world of political blogs and political science academia – minds. Republicans are crowing that their control of the redistricting trifectas in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin will bring them great gains and solidify their new House majority for years to come (funny, much the same was said in 2002, and House control has flipped twice since then, in dramatic numbers each time). So though it’s early, let’s look state-by-state at what is most likely to come of redistricting this decade.

I’m excluding some states – Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia – whose redistricting process will likely prove uninteresting this round.

Arizona

Who’s in control? Nonpartisan commission

How many seats? 9 (up from 8 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1 competitive seat

The Republicans have a 5-3 majority in Arizona’s delegation, but each party holds a couple generally competitive seats (the 1st and 5th for the Republicans, the 8th for the Democrats), and the commission needs not protect incumbents, so will probably seek to create as close to a tossup seat as possible in the fast-growing suburban areas of Maricopa County (Phoenix). As in 2002 when Rick Renzi’s win in the then-newly created 1st corresponded to slightly expanded Republican majorities nationwide, how the new Arizona seat goes may act as a bellwether of sorts.

California

Who’s in control? Nonpartisan commission

How many seats? 53

Likely shift? Totally up in the air

This state saw a genius Democratic gerrymander in 1982, a competitive court-drawn map in 1992, an incumbent protection gambit in 2002, and now nonpartisan redistricting has finally come to California. Republicans are convinced they can net a handful of seats out of a commission-drawn map, but remember we are talking about a presidential year in which Democratic turnout for Obama should be high and that some of the greatest beneficiaries of 2002’s map were suburban Republicans. Bottom line: no one knows what to expect.

Florida

Who’s in control? Republicans, within limits

How many seats? 27 (up from 25 in 2002)

Likely shift? We’ll see

A state constitutional amendment passed on November 2 that banned the legislature from drawing districts designed to favor or disfavor a given political party, so in essence the state is now subject to nonpartisan redistricting. However, the state government is still solidly in GOP control, so the legislature can easily pass a gerrymandered map and just wait for the Democrats to launch a time-consuming court challenge. Meanwhile, the amendment is itself being challenged in court right now by Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart, who claim that the new redistricting rules re: compactness jeopardize VRA-protected minority seats. If they win in court, the amendment is out and GOP gerrymandering is in. But should the legislature actually have to follow new rules, we could see quite a few Democratic pickups here, as the state is already ridiculously rigged in Republicans’ favor.

Georgia

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 14 (up from 13 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1-2 R

The only question is how aggressive Republicans want to be. If I were them, I’d craft a new GOP seat in Gwinnett County/eastern Atlanta and pack Sanford Bishop’s south Georgia seat with black population in Macon, then make John Barrow’s Augusta-to-Savannah marginal Dem district a bit more Republican. But if they overreach re: Barrow (or try to target Bishop instead) they could leave frosh GOPer Austin Scott underprotected.

Illinois

Who’s in control? Democrats

How many seats? 18 (down from 19 in 2002)

Likely shift? +2-3 D

The Democrats definitely plan to milk Illinois for all its worth, particularly given GOP gains this year that allow for some serious poaching and the lack of Democratic gerrymandering opportunities elsewhere. Expect a Republican – either Bobby Schilling downstate or Bob Dold/Joe Walsh in the Chicago area – to face elimination and another two (Randy Hultgren and Adam Kinzinger, e.g.) to see their districts cracked or reconfigured.

Indiana

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 9

Likely shift? +1 R

This is a simple enough task for the GOP: protect Larry Bucshon and Todd Young, defeat Joe Donnelly. For the latter purpose, moving Donnelly’s South Bend-area base into the already heavily Democratic 1st District would be all that is required.

Iowa

Who’s in control? Nonpartisan commission (with legislative approval)

How many seats? 4 (down from 5 in 2002)

Likely shift? Dem vs. GOP incumbent match

The nonpartisan commission likely won’t force two Democrats (Braley and Loebsack) or two Republicans (Latham and King) together, so the only plausible outcome, I think, is a match between Latham and Boswell in central Iowa around Des Moines and Ames. This will be a tossup district with maybe a slight edge given to Latham.

Louisiana

Who’s in control? Split (GOP Gov, Dem Legislature)

How many seats? 6 (down from 7 in 2002)

Likely shift? -1 R

The only Democratic seat left is Cedric Richmond’s VRA-protected 2nd District, which will likely regain lost population by adding a tentacle in Baton Rouge. A Republican – perhaps newcomer Jeff Landry – will have to be cut loose. If it’s Landry as some have suggested, he will be combined with Charles Boustany in a Cajun Country/Gulf-centered seat.

Massachusetts

Who’s in control? Democrats

How many seats? 9 (down from 10 in 2002)

Likely shift? -1 D

This cancels out Louisiana from a partisan standpoint. RealClearPolitics recently pointed out that the Western Mass 1st District, held by 70-something Rep. John Olver, seems a likely target for elimination but that liberals would much rather devise a way to get rid of Stephen Lynch in South Boston. And then, of course, there’s freshman Bill Keating. The decision may rest more on personality than on politics, given the lack of partisan intrigue innate to a bunch of veteran Democrats picking which veteran Democrat to force out of Congress.

Michigan

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 14 (down from 15 in 2002)

Likely shift? -1 D

Much speculation has centered on who the unlucky Democrat will be but I’m actually reasonably certain it will be two-termer Gary Peters in Oakland County. The Detroit area has lost population, but both VRA districts (Hansen Clarke’s 13th and John Conyers’ 14th) can and will be preserved, so the simplest solution is to combine Peters with longtimer Sander Levin in a heavily Democratic suburban seat. I doubt the Republicans will target Dingell or Kildee either, since that would spread GOP votes too thin in an already gerrymandered map.

Minnesota

Who’s in control? Split (Dem Gov, GOP Legislature) assuming Dayton wins the gov. race

How many seats? 7 (down from 8 in 2002)

Likely shift? Dem vs. GOP incumbent match

If Tom Emmer wins the gubernatorial recount, we are in for a whole new ballgame as Republicans finally combine Minneapolis and St. Paul into one district, but should Dayton prevail this may involve a competitive seat between Collin Peterson and Chip Cravaack up north or between Tim Walz and John Kline down south.

Missouri

Who’s in control? Split (Dem Gov, GOP Legislature)

How many seats? 8 (down from 9 in 2002)

Likely shift? Dem vs. GOP incumbent match

RealClearPolitics noted that the GOP’s legislative majorities are almost veto-proof and that, if black Democrats ally with Republicans, they could pass a GOP- and minority-friendly map over Gov. Nixon’s objections. But the most likely outcome here is a suburban St. Louis race between Todd Akin and Russ Carnahan that favors Akin (since Carnahan will need to cede some Democratic votes to Lacy Clay’s population-losing 1st District).

Nevada

Who’s in control? Split (GOP Gov, Dem Legislature)

How many seats? 4 (up from 3 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1 D

The legislature will probably pass a plan that protects newbie Republican Joe Heck but compensates with a new Dem-leaning seat in Reno or suburban Clark County.

New Jersey

Who’s in control? Bipartisan commission

How many seats? 12 (down from 13 in 2002)

Likely shift? Dem vs. GOP incumbent match

North Jersey’s population loss means Bill Pascrell could be combined with Rodney Frelinghuysen or Scott Garrett in a moderate suburban district. The commission is bipartisan, not nonpartisan, so swing votes can easily be swung and incumbent protection for the other 11 districts is almost assured.

New York

Who’s in control? Split (Dem Gov and House, GOP Senate)

How many seats? 27 (down from 29 in 2002)

Likely shift? 1 D and 1 R

I am assuming the Senate stays in Republican hands; this should involve the elimination of one upstate seat and one city-area seat. RCP predicts the unlucky upstater will be a Democrat and the unlucky downstater a Republican (Pete King or, if he wins, Randy Altschuler). But I always assumed it would be the opposite. In all predicted scenarios, incumbents of the same party will be combined with each  other. We shall see.

North Carolina

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 13

Likely shift? +2 R

Republicans will seek to aggressively undo the Democratic gerrymander of ’02 by dismantling Larry Kissell and either Heath Shuler or Mike McIntyre. They could conceivably target all three and spread Republican votes extremely thin. David Price, Brad Miller, Mel Watt, and G.K. Butterfield should be fine in any case.

Ohio

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 16 (down from 18 in 2002)

Likely shift? 1 D and 1 R

I am convinced the GOP will not seek to eliminate two Democrats. That would, quite simply, jeopardize their incredibly lopsided majority in the state delegation. I’ve long thought they’d combine Dennis Kucinich and Betty Sutton in a new Cleveland-to-Akron seat and two freshman Republicans elsewhere (best bet? Bill Johnson and Bob Gibbs in the rural east, or Gibbs and Jim Renacci from Canton). Meanwhile, they’ll shore up regained GOP seats in Cincinnati and Columbus.

Pennsylvania

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 18 (down from 19 in 2002)

Likely shift? -1 D and possibly +1 R

As in Michigan and Ohio, we are already working with a GOP-gerrymandered map in the aftermath of a GOP-friendly election so the Republicans can’t afford to target the remaining Dem incumbents much. The most they can do is eliminate Mark Critz and make Jason Altmire’s seat more Republican.

South Carolina

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 7 (up from 6 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1 R

John Spratt’s defeat makes this an easy call- pack the black population and Democrats in general into Jim Clyburn’s 6th to squeeze out one more Republican seat either up north or near Charleston.

Texas

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 36 (up from 32 in 2002)

Likely shift? +3 R and +1 D

This is a fascinating case. The Republicans have unlikely freshmen in Quico Canseco and Blake Farenthold; how to protect them without diluting the Hispanic populations in the 23rd and 27th and thereby violating the VRA? Meanwhile, RCP is convinced they can carve out four new GOP districts, but every way I’ve run the math the Democrats are due a new seat in Dallas-Fort Worth. The scenario I suggest may actually be the best possible outcome for the Republicans, since if they protect Canseco and Farenthold too much they may see their map tossed out in court. One more parting shot: pack every available Hispanic into the already heavily Latino 29th to see if they can finally knock Gene Green out in a Democratic primary.

Utah

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 4 (up from 3 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1 R

The big question is whether the legislature will try once again to ruin Democratic survivor Jim Matheson, whose district is already heavily rural and ridiculously conservative, or just give him a moderate Salt Lake City-based district to ensure the election of three Republicans? It seems to me they can’t make his seat much more Republican without making the new 4th District a comparably liberal SLC seat.

Virginia

Who’s in control? Split (GOP Gov and House, Dem Senate)

How many seats? 11

Likely shift? None

At the moment everyone presumes we will see an incumbent protection map, but consider the following scenario: Republicans stall on redistricting until after the 2011 elections, hoping to flip control of the Senate and thereby run the whole process. They then draw a map the following year that cracks Gerry Connolly’s base and allows for a 9-2 GOP majority. Of course, that assumes the wind is still at Republicans’ backs next November, and a year is indeed an eternity in politics.

Washington

Who’s in control? Nonpartisan commission

How many seats? 10 (up from 9 in 2002)

Likely shift? +1 competitive

The commission is not obliged to protect incumbents, so anything can happen with the existing delegation or with the new 10th District. Both suburban Seattle and the inland have grown, and the two regions’ politics stand in stark contrast, so…we shall see.

Wisconsin

Who’s in control? Republicans

How many seats? 8

Likely shift? None or +1 R

The most they could do at this point is crack Ron Kind’s district, but that would represent a huge risk since Sean Duffy and Reid Ribble are new in town. Duffy, particularly, would benefit from Kind getting a more Democratic seat in western Wisconsin.

Overview

Basically, this Illinois map is a Democratic Gerrymander designed to give the best shot at reasonably-drawn districts, drawn with a trifecta. I was quite creative, but out of 18 (IL loses a seat), only 2 are Safe Republicans (both Central+Southern Illinois). I seek to restore all of the districts we lost in 2010, gain Kirk’s, Roskam’s seat, make the Rockford seat vulnerable in an open-seat situation, snag Judy Biggert’s seat, and create a Champaign/IL-11 mid-state cities district, making for a possibility of 16-2 (at max), but more likely towards 14-4 or 13-5. All while retaining the general spirit of most of the current districts, almost all the districts, except for the general combination of IL-11 and IL-15, contain most of their current territory, though some like Jan Shakowsky and Lipinski are now taking in some suburban and exurban territory. Since there’s no partisan info in david’s redistricting Ap, All districts are either ‘safe’ or a rough approximation by me based on the current structures, plus or minus vote totals/percentages from counties, plus rural v. urban factors.

Oh, and I guess I’m not the only one who suddenly wanted to redistrict Illinois. I like mine better, though 😛

Downstate

IL-15 (R-John Shimkus)

Since the 19th is to be removed, the 19th becomes most of the 15th, except adding counties here and there especially into the present-day 15th, but it’s basically a solidly safe GOP district for Shimkus.

IL-18 (R-Aaron Schock)

He loses Peoria to Hare’s district, but gains a bunch of rural counties from Hare’s district and elsewhere. Safe Republican seat.

IL-12 (D-Jerry Costello)

Very similar to the present district, except with 2 counties worth 50k population that are heavily GOP are removed for the rest of Madison County, and some Macoupin and Calhoun counties, which should make this district ever so slightly more D.

IL-17 (D-Phil Hare?)

Removed the more GOP south and some of the stretcher salient counties (to Shock) for the rest of Whiteside County (solidly dem), a few swing counties, Peoria and some Suburbs in Tazewell County, and another sliver into a good chunk of Springfield. Should likely make the configuration even bluer, for a Phil Hare return, but it’s not impossible for the GOP incumbent to hold onto it in GOP wave elections, but is generally a Likely D (Schock could run here too!).

Central East

IL-11 (D- someone new, Debbie Halvorson? or R-Tim Johnson)

This district contains a bunch of cities scattered across the Eastern-Central part of Illinois, including the cities of Champaign, Danville in Vermillion County, Mattoon and Charleston in Coles County, core urban Dactuar in Macon County, Bloomington in McLean County, Pontiac in Livingston, and then a more IL-11 territory in La Salle, Bureau, Putnam, Northern Grundy and city of Kanzakee in Kanzakee Counties. Basically, it’s pretty amendable to a Democrat, and Tim Johnson will be running for only the most unfriendly places of his former district, probably only 40% of this current district, with highly amendable areas in the remaining 60%. Lean D in a neutral year, with Obama atop the ticket next year.

IL-13 (D- someone new? or R-Judy Biggert)

This district takes the remainders of Ford, Iroquos, Livingston, Kankakee and Grundy counties, which lean GOP, but a rather small portion of the district. It takes up the 70% Southern portion of Will County (a swing, 56% Obama district), and the South+Eastern portion of Kendall county, and part of some South Side Cook County. Overall, with the strongly D Cook County, the swingy nature of Will+Kendall counties, and only small population rural precincts, this should lean D in a neutral year. Judy Biggert could try for this, but she’d only be familiar with Most of Will and a bit of Cook County in her own district, so not very hopeful.

Northern

IL-14 (D- Foster? or R)

similar to the current 14th, takes in most of Ogle, Lee, southern 1/2 of DeKalb, 70% of Kane, and the Aurora-Naperville area of DuPage+Will Counties. Rural counties are meh, but the amount of suburban cities in it with Kane County/Aurora as its base should make this a toss-up, with Foster being favored.

IL-16 (R-Donald Manzullo, or toss-up open seat)

Similar to his current seat, but takes a bit out esp. McHenry and takes in some of DeKalb, Kane and a small bit of Cook counties. This would favor Manzullo quite a bit, but being a modestly Obama district (54% or so), this could be captured in an open-seat situation or wave.

Chicago

IL-01 (D-Bobby Rush)

A Black Majority district (about 52%) based in Southside Chicago, Safe D.

IL-02 (D-Jesse Jackson)

A Black Majority district (about 52%) Based in Southside Chicago, but now extending along the coast into Northern Chicago. Safe D

IL-03 (D-Dan Lipinski)

Now extending into the northern 3/5s of Kendall County, and a slice of Will County, and most of Lipinski’s working-class white sectitons of Cook County – should be more conservative, but since Lipinski is more conservative and it’s still solidly D (56% Kerry / 60% Obama), this remains a Safe D.

IL-04 (D-Luis Guitierrez)

Has a similar C-shaped district based in Cicero and hispanic-majority areas of Chicago, slightly less ugly now. Safe D

IL-05 (D-Mike Quigly)

Extends now into some of DuPage county, loses some of the top of his thin district, but remains similar with some ‘burbs. Safe D

IL-06 (D-Tammy Duckworth/Christine Cegalis? Peter Roskam?)

About 50% of DuPage county here, and then extending into former Schakowsky and Quigley areas, making this much bluer than before. A Democrat should win this, but it’s not impossible that Roskam can too, if he decides to run here.

IL-07 (D-Bobby Rush)

A Black-majority district with some of North Chicago, now safe D.

IL-08 (D-Melissa Bean?)

Similar to the setup now, except takes in slightly more of Lake, slightly less of McHenry, and slightly more of her Cook Suburbs, making this a lean/likely-Melissa Bean / toss-up otherwise.

IL-09 (D-Jan Schakowski)

She loses some of her Northern Cook base like Evanston to extend into the rest of McHenry and NW Cook/DuPage, making this slightly less Democratic in this very safe D seat.

IL-10 (D-Dan Seals? / R-Bob Dold!)

Loses a bit of Lake and extends into Evanston + environs, making this tilt even more D. Dan Seals is a 3-time loser, jeez!, but even he should be able to win it next time around (or how about someone new?!) against Bob Dold!

So, there it is. If this were the map in 2012 predict us picking up the IL-17, IL-08, IL-10 with a good shot at picking up IL-11, IL-13, IL-14, with IL-15 in an Obama+Open Seat scenario. Final prediction would be a 14-4 split, with 1-2 districts to grow in. What do you think?  

This is the last part of three posts analyzing the Democratic Party’s  struggles  during the 1920s, when it lost three consecutive presidential  elections  by landslide margins. This will focus upon the 1928  presidential election, when the  Democratic Party began to change into what it is today.

The 1928 Presidential Election

The 1928 presidential election marked the beginning of a great shift in American politics. It was when the Democratic Party started changing from a minority and fundamentally conservative organization into the party that would nominate Senator Barack Obama for president.

More below.

All this was quite far off in 1928, however. All Democrats knew was that they had just lost two landslide elections. In 1920 and 1924, the Democratic Party had won the votes of white Southerners – and nobody else. Their last candidate had won barely more than one-fourth of the vote.

In 1928 the Democratic Party tried a different strategy. It nominated Governor Al Smith of New York, the candidate of its white ethnic constituency. In the 1920 and 1924 these voters had sat out the first election, and then voted for a third-party candidate. Mr. Smith was a Tammany Hall-bred politician and a life-long New Yorker who identified as an Irish-American.

There was just one problem: Mr. Smith was not a Christian. Rather, he was a Roman Catholic who many feared would take orders from the Pope himself.

White ethnics had abandoned the Democratic Party in the two previous presidential elections. This time it was the turn of white Southerners, who voted Republican in unprecedented numbers:

White Southerners may have been willing to vote for a yellow dog for  president, but many drew the line at voting for a Catholic (especially  one who wanted to condemn the Klu Klux Klan and supported anti-lynching  legislation).

It was Republican candidate Herbert Hoover who benefited from this. Riding a strong economy and a wave of personal popularity, Mr. Hoover defeated Mr. Smith by 17.2% – a landslide on par with President Ronald Reagan’s pummeling of Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, or Mr. Hoover’s own defeat four years later.

The Transformation of the Democratic Party

The 1928 presidential election was the first time white Southerners had abandoned the Democratic Party since the Civil War, and it signaled the beginning of a sea change in American politics.

Amidst all the Republican celebration of a third massive Republican landslide, there was one disquieting sign: Democrats won more than 50% of the vote in Massachusetts, for the first time in history. Irish-American support also gained Mr. Smith more than 50% in Rhode Island (for the first time since 1852). In New York Democrats lost by less than three percent.

Thus, while white Southerners voted more Republican than ever before in the history of the Republican Party, white ethnics in the Northeast and Midwest supported their fellow Catholic in unprecedented numbers. In 1928, both Mississippi and Massachusetts voted Democratic, as the party lost by a landslide.

In the ensuing decades, the Democratic Party’s power base would shift in a slow but sure tide towards Massachusetts and away from Mississippi. 1928 was the first time Democrats relinquished much of the White Southerner vote, but it would not be the last. President Franklin D. Roosevelt stopped the trend for a generation, but after him it would resume. Democrats would become the party of Massachusetts, not the party of Mississippi.

This trend started in 1928. A comparison of the 1924 and 1928 presidential elections is revealing. In 1924, Democrats still held a lock on the South, while Republicans held a lock everywhere else:

In 1928 this began changing. Democratic strength began to move away from the South, and towards the Northeast and Midwest:

This change continues to this very day.

Conclusions

In 1928, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrats were consigned to permanent minority status. They had just lost three presidential landslide elections in a row. They had not controlled a House of Congress for more than a decade.

Indeed, aside from 1912 (when two Republicans split the vote), the Democratic Party had won exactly one presidential election since 1892. They had won more than 50% of the vote just one time since the Civil War; Republicans had done so nine times during the same period.

In 1928, the Democratic Party really did seem trapped as a regional-based party which had great trouble competing outside the South. Again and again, Democratic candidates were pummeled outside the former Confederacy. When they had attempted to reach out to white ethnics in 1928, White Southerners had refused to go along.

It was a terrible Catch-22, a problem Democrats had failed to surmount for almost two generations. In the end, it would take a Great Depression for them to do so.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/