Cool Congressional Election Map

Ncec ^ | November, 2002 | Ncec

[Paleo Conservative]

1 Independent = Trotskyist

[Common Tator]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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 ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Check out that GA monstrosity. It looks like a Rohrshach(sp) test.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

Excuse the repetition in the prose. My computer is on the fritz as to the internet.

[crasher]

Is the CA Senate now 25-15 and House 48-32? Stateside has the senate still 26-14.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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

[Torie]

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.

[libsrscum]

What the hell is wrong with North Dakota?

[GraniteStateConservative]

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

[GraniteStateConservative]

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

[GraniteStateConservative]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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

Maybe and no.

[Torie]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"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.