Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cool Congressional Election Map
Ncec ^ | November, 2002 | Ncec

Posted on 11/28/2002 1:29:06 PM PST by Torie



TOPICS: Campaign News; U.S. Congress
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/28/2002 1:29:06 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Torie
1 Independent = Trotskyist
2 posted on 11/28/2002 2:32:01 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Torie did you see that for the first time since 1932 there are more Republican state legislators than there are Democratic State Legislators.

That is historic. Yes we fell from 29 governors to 26, but we picked up some state houses an we picked up elected state legislative office holders.

This is a long term good thing for two reasons. First it gives us a much bigger farm team. In a few years we will have a lot more prospects to pick from for federal house and senate offices. We will have more candidates for other state wide offices. And more importantly if we hold it until 2010 we can easily gerrymander more states.

Some of these new state legislators were elected in districts gerrymandered to favor Democrats. That has to cause a severe pain in their daschle .. big time.

3 posted on 11/28/2002 4:52:06 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Nice map, although I've always objected to the coloring of Red-Republican; Blue-Democrat. Whenever I have done maps or referred to the penultimate map book on Historical Congressional Districts, the colors are reversed. Red is so obviously a Dem color (Leftist) and Blue so obviously a GOP color ("Cool, calm, and rightist"). Any way you can tweak the map and fix it as such ?
4 posted on 11/28/2002 6:05:40 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Check out that GA monstrosity. It looks like a Rohrshach(sp) test.
5 posted on 11/28/2002 6:08:17 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Most of the pickups are due to gerrymandering (or un-gerrymandering as in Texas, and including that state senate seat you menioned down on the Ohio River; the Dem lost due to the way the lines were redrawn), but not all. For example, the GOP picked up two assembly and one senate seat in California that they should "not" have, since the plan was designed to eliminate all competitive seats in a horrible display of bipartisan convenience that was very poor public policy. In short, there was enough of a partisan zeyphur towards the GOP to pick off the weak animals from the Dem herd. What we have here, unlil the pace of events changes things, is that Bush has become the Blair across the pond (that is meant as a compliment to Bush since I am a huge admirer of Blair), and sucked the oxygen out of the opposition, because his policies are balanced enough to achieve a wide consensus of support. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the prose on this site, but it is what is happening in my opinion. For example, the GOP picked up two assembly and one senate seat in California that they should "not" have, since the plan was designed to eliminate all competitive seats in a horrible display of bipartisan convenience that was very poor public policy. In short, there was enough of a partisan zeyphur towards the GOP to pick off the weak animals from the Dem herd.

What we have here, until the pace of events changes things, is that Bush has become the Blair across the pond (that is meant as a compliment to Bush since I am a huge admirer of Blair), and sucked the oxygen out of the opposition, because his policies are balanced enough to achieve a wide consensus of support. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the prose on this site, but it is what is happening in my opinion.

6 posted on 11/28/2002 6:18:13 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Excuse the repetition in the prose. My computer is on the fritz as to the internet.
7 posted on 11/28/2002 6:30:51 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Is the CA Senate now 25-15 and House 48-32? Stateside has the senate still 26-14.
8 posted on 11/28/2002 8:46:43 PM PST by crasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: crasher
Yes, I believe you are correct. One House seat is still in contention, though, and things are getting mighty ugly over it... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/794234/posts
9 posted on 11/29/2002 6:02:44 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: crasher
No, the GOP held even in the state senate by holding the Montieth seat that was drawn to be more Dem. The registration was 50% Dem to 35% GOP.
10 posted on 11/29/2002 7:18:02 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Torie
What the hell is wrong with North Dakota?
11 posted on 11/29/2002 9:30:37 PM PST by libsrscum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Do you think Monteith will run for Congress in 2004 and do you think he could win then?
12 posted on 11/30/2002 9:20:28 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Torie
How long before we take out Oberstar and Peterson in MN-8 and MN-7? Isn't it just a matter of time?
13 posted on 11/30/2002 9:28:31 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Same question on WI-7 and WI-3. When will Dave Obey and Ron Kind be replaced?

Have you done an analysis on competitive districts for us to target in 2004? I think we should hit hard every seat that Bush came within 5 points of winning in 2000 and every seat he won regardless of the margin where a Democrat holds the seat in Congress.

That is one big regret of mine with Reagan. He didn't do much of anything to help elect a Republican House in 1984. Of course, we got creamed in 1982, but that Democrat class of '82 were freshmen running for re-election ripe for the picking in 1984 and we didn't come close to making up for the disaster in 1982. We were 21 seats deeper in debt in 1985 than in 1981. I think we should have been able to take out nearly every one of those freshmen and then pick up seats elsewhere.
14 posted on 11/30/2002 9:46:12 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
"Do you think Monteith will run for Congress in 2004 and do you think he could win then?"

Maybe and no.

15 posted on 11/30/2002 10:06:50 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Neither Obey or Kind will be defeated. The districts were narrowly carried by Gore, so the Dems have an edge in them. Bush's percentage was I think higher than the normal GOP percentage.

Other than the Lucas seat, which is target number one (and of course the Hall seat if he retires), the targets are the usual suspects: Matheson, Moore, Edwards, Stenholm, Larsen, Bishop (NY-1) and Pomeroy. All will be hard to beat. I don't think Holden in PA-17 is beatable. The Skelton seat will drop like ripe fruit when he retires. The GOP will have an edge in the Peterson seat when he retires, and in the Cramer seat in Alabama and Taylor in Mississippi, and maybe the Boucher seat if and when he retires. Skelton is the only guy who is getting up in years, other than Hall. In short, the GOP doesn't have much upside from here except through Dem retirements, and redistricting in Texas if it occurs. Davis of the NRCC was that good, and the redistricting that focused and gerrymandered.

16 posted on 11/30/2002 10:12:18 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
"How long before we take out Oberstar and Peterson in MN-8 and MN-7? Isn't it just a matter of time?"

MN-8 is a historically Dem district (though pro-life Dem), and hasn't elected a Republican (William Pittenger) since 1944. There have only been 2 Congressmen in that seat since Pittenger; Oberstar and John Blatnik (and now both have served 28 years each), and they stick with their old-timers. When Oberstar retires, we might have an even shot (though I'd still bet on the Dem), but he isn't going anywhere.

As for MN-7's Collin Peterson, he is well-regarded in his GOP-leaning seat, which he has held now for 12 years. Peterson has been courted to switch parties. I don't think we'll recapture it until he does so, or until he retires.

17 posted on 11/30/2002 10:14:59 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
I agree with the other poster's comment about Montieth. The Oberstar district was pro Gore by about 5%, and pro Mondale by 8%. It will lean to the Dems if the seat is open, and be difficult to win, and Oberstar doesn't show any sign of going anywhere. The Peterson seat leans GOP, but the 13.5% Bush Margin is misleading. The Coleman margin of 5% is more reflective of the actual partisan balance.
18 posted on 11/30/2002 10:15:27 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Oh, one other good GOP opportunity is the DeFazio seat in Oregon if he were to retire, and the Stupak seat in Michigan would be competitive if he retired. And then of course there is Hill in Indiana. He isn't going to be beaten though. That is another seat that the GOP won't have a chance to get its hands on until he goes elsewhere.
19 posted on 11/30/2002 10:20:07 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
"That is one big regret of mine with Reagan. He didn't do much of anything to help elect a Republican House in 1984. Of course, we got creamed in 1982, but that Democrat class of '82 were freshmen running for re-election ripe for the picking in 1984 and we didn't come close to making up for the disaster in 1982. We were 21 seats deeper in debt in 1985 than in 1981. I think we should have been able to take out nearly every one of those freshmen and then pick up seats elsewhere."

I'm not sure what more Reagan could've done. It's not as easy as that. Some of the reasons we lost seats in '82 were #1, the economy hadn't yet recovered, and #2, gerrymandering. We hardly had enough legislatures to protect and build on our gains won in 1980 (the latter would take years to accomplish). Not having that was a serious problem. Another was that the Dems had a far better class of candidates that held so very many GOP seats (almost like they bred them in a lab) along with a good supply from the grassroots. Many of the best and brightest we should've recruited didn't want to run (who wanted to serve in a perpetual minority ?). Being out of power so long, we literally forgot what it would take to keep and maintain control. The Dems had practiced it to a fine art. I might suggest reading Barone's Almanac of American Politics (1980s editions) to see what sort of a disadvantage we were at in those days. I think Reagan would've liked a GOP House to work with, but then had they been in place, he would've not had much to run against (it may have helped that he had the Dem party as foils). It's a bit more complicated than that, of course, but that's it in a nutshell.

20 posted on 11/30/2002 10:28:11 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I find it consistently amazing that the GOP does so poorly in Congressional seats in OR (all the while able to handle a tougher task of maintaining legislative control, though it's split in the Senate now). We hold that gigantic eastern (OR-2) seat (the most GOP in the state), but keep coming up short in the Portland suburb 1st (Wu), and South OR (5th) with Hooley (all 3 should be ours). DeFazio's staying power is amazing, and that seat should also be ours, but he wields his incumbency in a seat out of step with his views like an iron-fist (quite representative of what I mentioned in a previous post of our problem with winning seats in the '80s -- there were TONS of DeFazio types in the '70s and '80s. If we couldn't dislodge them then, we weren't ever going to win a majority).

As for Hill in IN, I think with the right candidate, he might be quite vulnerable (I don't believe he was even targeted this year, and apparently did worse than Julia Carson, who we did target at the end). If the seats in IN were drawn properly, the only seat the Dems should hold are IN-1 (Lake County; Gary), we should get all the rest.

Stupak's should be ours (though not overwhelmingly so), but was made more Dem this time, I believe.

21 posted on 11/30/2002 10:39:26 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I'm not sure what more Reagan could've done. It's not as easy as that. Some of the reasons we lost seats in '82 were #1, the economy hadn't yet recovered, and #2, gerrymandering. [I'm not blaming Reagan for the losses in 1982.] We hardly had enough legislatures to protect and build on our gains won in 1980 (the latter would take years to accomplish). Not having that was a serious problem. Another was that the Dems had a far better class of candidates that held so very many GOP seats (almost like they bred them in a lab) along with a good supply from the grassroots. Many of the best and brightest we should've recruited didn't want to run (who wanted to serve in a perpetual minority ?) [Did Reagan beg good candidates to run? Did Reagan try to get a good NRCC Chair in place?]. Being out of power so long, we literally forgot what it would take to keep and maintain control. The Dems had practiced it to a fine art. I might suggest reading Barone's Almanac of American Politics (1980s editions) to see what sort of a disadvantage we were at in those days. [I read a book in college about issues like poor candidate recruitment and fundraising in those cycles. I don't think the GOP capitalized on what advantages they had in 1984. I think Reagan was happy having blue dogs support his agenda and I don't think he ever made a priority of inspiring Republican candidates across the country to run and win. Reagan could have ended that culture of the minority. He could have had the GOP leadership into the Oval Office in 1983 and said "Let's really try to make some history in the congressional races in 1984. If I win big, we can have a very special night on Election Night." He could have found a Karl Rove/Tom Davis election mastermind and said "Make this happen. You have my full support."] I think Reagan would've liked a GOP House to work with, but then had they been in place, he would've not had much to run against (it may have helped that he had the Dem party as foils). It's a bit more complicated than that, of course, but that's it in a nutshell. [I don't recall Reagan really running against Congress in 1984. He ran on his record of Morning in America. That election was all about how proud Americans were to be Americans because of Reagan.]
22 posted on 11/30/2002 11:32:26 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The only one I can see taking Stupak's seat for the GOP is Scott Shakleton(A yooper).

It's still very democrat on the local level, and even more so now when Grand Traverse County was moved to another spot, and Alpena, part of Bay, Arenac, Iosco, and Alcona(I think) were added - all dem leaning areas or swing at best.

Alpena(57 - Granholm), Iron(54), Gogebic(58), Bay(53 for whole county, North part is in district), and Marquette(58) are the toughest spots, and there is no gimmee areas up there outside Otsego(59 Posthumus), Antrim(59) and Emmet(61) county(more money there). Cheboygan is usually good(56 this time). The rest are very ERRATIC and usually are within 3 pts either way.

23 posted on 11/30/2002 11:58:27 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Stupak's seat is more dem now. The best chance we had was in 2000. For some reason, they really like the guy up there.

If he retires or take a job, then it could be up for grabs, but the GOP candidate MUST be a YOOPER to have as shot. They vote for their own.

24 posted on 11/30/2002 12:01:53 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
What about our prospects in Washington state? We did very well there in 1994, but all but one of our seats seem to have been cleaned out.
25 posted on 11/30/2002 3:19:59 PM PST by nospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
[I'm not blaming Reagan for the losses in 1982.]

OK...

[Did Reagan beg good candidates to run? Did Reagan try to get a good NRCC Chair in place?].

I'm sure we got a fair number of candidates to run (I'd have to look at them race by race, though), the problem was that the odds were still stacked against us at that point.

[I read a book in college about issues like poor candidate recruitment and fundraising in those cycles. I don't think the GOP capitalized on what advantages they had in 1984. I think Reagan was happy having blue dogs support his agenda and I don't think he ever made a priority of inspiring Republican candidates across the country to run and win. Reagan could have ended that culture of the minority. He could have had the GOP leadership into the Oval Office in 1983 and said "Let's really try to make some history in the congressional races in 1984. If I win big, we can have a very special night on Election Night." He could have found a Karl Rove/Tom Davis election mastermind and said "Make this happen. You have my full support."]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I just don't believe that was in the cards at that time -- he DID inspire, but it took awhile for it to finally be realized. It took the "inspiration" of Goldwater to aid in ridding the domination of the Eastern Establishment liberals, but that took awhile. The leadership of the party in 1984 (my former Senator Howard Baker in the Senate, Bob Michel in the House) weren't the right people to be forcefully building up and aiming for a majority, or a long-lasting one in the case of Baker. For Reagan to have achieved that sort of victory that Bush achieved in the past election, you would've had to have seen a wholescale purge of leaders that would've done more damage than good. The fact that it only took 6 short years after Reagan left office is remarkable in itself. I would add, though, that I believe we were on course to a majority in the Nixon years, probably by 1976 or 1978, were it not for the Watergate disaster, which set the party back to little better than after the disastrous 1958 midterms (and all the gains made here in the South were utterly wiped out. Here in TN, the period from 1974-80 was practically a dark age for the GOP after all the smashing gains we made from 1962-72). It took 20 years to repair the damage that Watergate did, and that has to be added into the equation as well.

[I don't recall Reagan really running against Congress in 1984. He ran on his record of Morning in America. That election was all about how proud Americans were to be Americans because of Reagan.]

Hey, I was a "yoot" for Mondull in '84. Blame my liberal teachers for brainwashing me as to how eee-vil Ronnie was. Well, I was only 10. :-)

26 posted on 12/01/2002 11:51:58 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
I thought Stupak was vulnerable to Chuck Yob in '00, especially after he started to go soft on the 2nd Amendment. What saved his bacon was his son... when Bartholomew, Jr. "B.J." committed suicide after taking that anti-zit medication, Accutane, I knew Stupak wasn't going to be turned out, no way, no how. If his boy were still alive, Congressman Yob would've just won his 2nd term.

Did you know Stupak isn't technically a YOOPER ? He was born in Wisconsin, so that makes him a YOOPER poser or a Baja YOOPER (I think I just coined a new phrase !).
27 posted on 12/01/2002 12:01:53 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nospinzone
"What about our prospects in Washington state? We did very well there in 1994, but all but one of our seats seem to have been cleaned out."

Well, as you know, those seats were drawn after 1990 by a seeming non-partisan committee. It was a disaster for us in the '92 election, going from a 5-3 Dem to GOP ratio to a 8-1 ratio (holding only Rod Chandler's seat, the man who SHOULD'VE won the Senate seat instead of Patty Murray). The 2 other Republicans retired and we had only the lone freshman, Jennifer Dunn. It wasn't that the seats were drawn for the Dems, just that they won all of the close races. We, of course, seized 6 from them in '94 (knocking off Maria Cantwell (1st); Jolene Unsoeld (3rd); Jay Inslee (4th); Tom Foley (5th); Mike Kreidler (9th) and Al Swift's(2nd) open seat) by winning all of the close races (essentially every seat possible that we could win). Naturally, there was going to be a winnowing out of some of those. It started with Randy Tate in the 9th (who was probably too conservative for the seat) in '96; then the disaster of '98, losing Rick White's (1st) seat (ironically because he wasn't Conservative enough), Linda Smith's (3rd) open seat when she ran for the Senate, and then in 2000 losing the open seat of Jack Metcalf's 2nd. The current occupants of all 9 seats (with the exception, perhaps, of Inslee in the 1st and Larsen in the 2nd) have converted their seats into "solid" wins for their respective parties. Needless to say, though, the Dems are (at 6-3) overrepresentative of the state. If the state were to have 10 seats, it should probably be a 5-5 split. I don't frankly see us winning anything more than we have now until retirements occur (and that, probably only in the 1st and 2nd, less likely in the 4th and 9th, and we can forget about Norman Dicks' and Baghdad Jim McDermott's seats, Dicks's is solid liberal, and McDermott's as radical leftist as San Francisco's). Well, that's my take, I wish I had a more optimistic outlook for WA state.

28 posted on 12/01/2002 12:39:18 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Excellent map! Been looking for something like that. Thanks!
29 posted on 12/01/2002 5:05:56 PM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
kewl
30 posted on 12/05/2002 3:13:30 PM PST by CPT Clay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CPT Clay

i wonder howlong these stay active
and where does it say the year


31 posted on 05/21/2009 9:34:09 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

Holy necromancy, Batman!


32 posted on 05/21/2009 9:34:57 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender

some of yuze guys are schmarter than me and figuring out how this works. Rabid, how did you even know i posted dat one/?


33 posted on 05/21/2009 9:52:09 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

You were the only poster on the thread in the last 6 years. I like electoral maps, voting demographic graphics, and the such, but I knew it was old when I saw Torie’s name - doesn’t post so much anymore.

The website appears to be still good though - as far as Missouri goes.


34 posted on 05/21/2009 10:37:38 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender

i guess something alerted you to the fact that i posted there


35 posted on 05/21/2009 10:59:58 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings is the page I go to. I saw the topic “Cool Congressional Election Map” and clicked on it.


36 posted on 05/21/2009 11:06:35 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson