Posted on 12/16/2006 9:28:43 AM PST by Alter Kaker
I don't understand your math. Maybe the Sweeny seat comes back, and maybe the Kelly seat, if the NYC burbs stop eroding which I doubt, but that is about it. Meanwhile the Walsh seat is at risk. The Boelhert seat is a toss up, on paper, but it won't dislodge the incumbent. It is hard to dislodge incumbents in upstate NY. NYC is awash with "liberal" wealth, and upstate is suffering from "conservative" poverty. NY is not a good place for the GOP, at all.
Northern New Mexico would elect Hugo Chavez if they could.
On the way into Tierra Amarilla there is a big billboard that says on one side: "Vivan los Zapatistas!" and on the other, there is a masked man with a pistol to the head of a blond woman with the title: "Tierra O Muerte!"
No kidding..... Those are the people who elect Hefe Beengamong and Beel Reesharsong every f'in election.
My gut instinct is that the growth figures for RI are off, but I could be wrong. I got the impression the state will drop below 1mil, not add. Of course, if MT got back its 2nd seat (and, of course, its sole At-Large member has the singular distinction of representing more people than any other Congressman, excluding PR's Resident Commissioner), it would be no gain for us, in all likelihood. The Plains Member would be a Republican, and the Western Mountain member would be a liberal Union Democrat (a la pre-'93, Ron Marlenee/Pat Williams).
I was in Tierra Amarilla last year (en route to the Cumbres & Toltec Railroad ride). What a sad and forlorn place it is. Like something removed from old Mexico.
I think it would be audacious if the 'Rats tried to draw us down to 2 seats out of 27 in NY. You'd think that would be some sort of violation of our voting rights...
...oh, wait, I forgot... Republicans, especially White ones, have none. One more step in how we're losing our country.
"Under the current map I would say an average outcome would be 10 GOP seats, 19 Democratic seats."
That was the figure I was thinking. It's absolutely remarkable that the GOP still manages to maintain a State Senate majority, especially with a larger-numbered body than the Congressional delegation !
Sounds like Heather has some work to do in the next two years to shore up her support.
NY-03 (52%), NY-13 (55%), NY-19 (54%), NY-20 (53%), NY-23 (51%), NY-24 (53%), NY-26 (55%), and NY-29 (56%).
Now, our beginning (and very safe) assumption is that New York will lose two seats in the 2010 apportionment. NY should actually be very close to losing three seats, and it's extremely unlikely to lose just one seat.
So, losing three seats, there are more than enough Dems in the NYC area to draw out King and Fossella. The Nadler district that borders NY-13 was a 72% Kerry district. Beyond that, NY-10 and NY-11 were 86% Kerry districts and NY-12 was 80% Kerry. Then over in central Long Island, there are more than enough Dems to spare, especially in the 86% Kerry NY-06 district, to dismantle the barely GOP NY-03 King district.
So, there go two Pubbies without breaking a sweat and we haven't even bothered with the fact that the whole NYC area is still trending leftward, so that there's likely even more leeway for the Dems than the '04 figures would suggest.
Now, moving on up the state, there are easily enough Dem precincts in NY-17 (67% Kerry) and NY-18 (58% Kerry) to shore up Hall in NY-19. Meanwhile, NY-20 and NY-24 trade precincts with McHugh's NY-23 to shore up Gillibrand and Arcuri. Finally, NY-26 and NY-29 get merged into one district with NY-27 and NY-28 picking up the slack. So, you end up with two heavily GOP seats, one in the Adirondacks and one between Buffalo and Rochester.
A slightly less ambitious map on the part of the Dems would give NY-25 a GOP lean in order to make NY-24 and/or NY-20 even more securely Dem. So, in that case, you have three GOP seats.
Re-districting is not a sure win,its what cost Gekas his seat here in central Pa.
So, losing two seats, there are more than enough Dems in the NYC area to draw out King and Fossella.
If New York loses three seats it just gets even uglier..
But, let's not forget this presumes that the Dems take the NY Senate, which is certainly no done deal!
They were annexed under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but they were never Mexican either. None of the families up there were ever Mexican and they are profoundly anti-immigration. It's kind of the last outpost of Spain in the US. They are Hispanic Hillbillies
I like it up there. I have friends up there and I hunt up there, but it's not the US. It's not Mexico either. It's kind of its own thing....
But if NY loses 2 seats, in order for the GOP to come out of NY worse than today, they have to have 4 seats or fewer. And I am saying, I think it is a smart bet that the GOP has 5 seats or more (out of 27) as opposed to 4 or less in the Congress that assembles in Jan. 2013. I could end up being wrong, but I believe more than 50 percent chance I am right.
I do believe 10 seats out of 29 is an average outcome for the GOP given the present map, and isolating the present map from all other considerations (who the incumbents are, etc.). Ok maybe 9 out of 29, but certainly no lower for what we would expect as average looking at just the map.
Average didn't end up happening.
What are you doing, with the marginal seats? Splitting the difference. The GOP has only about 3 relatively safe seats, as an initial matter, Fosella, Kuhl, and maybe Reynolds, and maybe the Sweeney seat.
Well, I wasn't really thinking in terms of forcing any of the current Dems to deal with Staten Island. Rather, I was thinking that NY-13 would need to push deeper into Brooklyn and so it would become more marginal.
I don't see how Sweeney's seat can be safe since he lost it. :)
Fossella can definitely be re-gerrymandered into a bad position, because all you need to do is take away some of his friendly precincts down in Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst and replace him with some of Nadler's CD. Or screw around with Staten Island.
King is a touch more difficult, because he's not surrounded by hugely Democratic areas (even though Nassau County is trending that way certainly), but it could probably be done with too much difficulty (not looking at the precincts directly)
I can't speak to your scenario, since you know NY's map better than I. But I can say your scenario depends on a lot of things to happen. It might even be that each one individually is likely to happen. But my argument, for now at least, is if you add up the probability of something happening, that is dependent on a lot of things that each individually are likely to happen but far from certain, you still have something that is unlikely to happen.
Sweeney's seat without incumbents in a neutral election cycle as an initial matter leans pretty distinctly GOP. That was the antiguv test I think.
This is a bit of a nightmare scenario, and fortunately, not very realistic. A little? Yes, more like than not. "A lot"? I doubt it. While it could happen in New Mexico, the Dems do not in fact have "the legislatures" in some of the states you mention. We still control the Senate in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the House in Wisconsin. Also, Minnesota has a Republican governor. IA and WA are fully Democrat-controlled, but those states redistrict by nonpartisan commission, and that's not necessarily an easy thing to change. It could be done in WV, MD, and, worst of all, in IL. But even there, it's never easy to redistrict in such a way as to satisfy the majority party's incumbents. Politicians don't like to give up safe turf.
Lots of things can tie up redistricting plans.
There is the possibility that Kirk will fall victim to demographic changes or redistricting. There would be more dignity in (possibly) losing a race for higher office than for reelection. Also, he has the fundraising ability to give Durbin a real challenge.
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.