Posted on 01/08/2008 7:43:34 PM PST by LdSentinal
Elba's Jimmy Holley expected to announce decision Jan. 10
MONTGOMERY - A veteran Democratic senator will switch to the Republican Party, but his move won't affect the Democrats' stranglehold on the Alabama Senate.
Sen. Jimmy Holley of Elba is expected to announce his decision at a news conference in his hometown on Jan. 10.
Neither Holley nor Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, who is chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, would officially confirm Holley's switch Wednesday.
But Hubbard called it "the worst-kept secret in the state."
Holley, 63, who has served in the Alabama Legislature for 30 years, joined the GOP coalition in the Senate during the 2007 legislative session.
He voted with Republicans, which ground to a virtual standstill because of GOP dissatisfaction over rules imposed by the Democrats.
Contacted Wednesday about his plans, Holley said, "I'm not at the point of making an announcement." He added, however, he would be issuing a statement later about a Jan. 10 announcement.
While Holley's move across the aisle won't help Gov. Bob Riley's programs in the Senate, Hubbard said, "Psychologically, it's good for us."
The Jan. 29 special election in House District 12 to replace former Rep. Neal Morrison, D-Cullman, could also be a turning point for the Alabama Republican Party, said Hubbard.
A victory by GOP nominee Wayne Willingham over Democratic nominee James Fields "would be a milestone for us to reach," he said.
Hubbard said a win by Willingham would bring the GOP within nine votes of a majority in the 105-member House.
Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham did not immediately return a phone call.
Holley was among five Democrats who caucused with the Senate's 12 Republicans in 2007, but the Democrats have since strengthened their hold in the upper chamber.
Sen. Parker Griffith, D-Huntsville, said he was aware of Holley's decision and knew that he had "been unhappy with the Democratic caucus."
"He voted with the Republicans last session," he said. "My reaction is that he needs to be where he can be the most effective."
Sounds like it’s true principle when a man changes to the minority party!
War Eagle!
What you said BUMP!
Slowly eroding away the rodent deathgrip on the AL legislature since Reconstruction...
True. It’s too bad that the Alabama state legislature only holds elections in off years, not Presidential years.
Not unlike our home state of Tennessee.
Seriously though, is this like as if John Wilder stepped across the aisle or another case of Aging Increasingly Ineffective Politician Gasping For Relevance?
Better question: How do you keep up with, analyze and make judgments on nearly all levels of political activity, even knowing the scandals of all the ne’er do wells?
Just concerned “they” are going to come and get you one day.
I can understand that for the Senate, but 4-year terms for House members is a real pain. Same goes for LA & MS, all of whom have 4-year terms for both bodies. I guess the upside is that they’re not always in constant campaign mode. AL’s Senate has been especially difficult to make inroads into. We’ve largely been stuck with the same numbers there for a decade because of a geriatric group of rodents that won’t get out of the way (and at least one Judas weasel turncoat who switched from GOP to rodent). The one time we elected a GOP Lt Governor to preside over the body, the rodents stripped him of his power completely (that was where the poor man had to hold the rostrum and had to relieve himself in a bucket). We narrowly failed to get Luther Strange into the office in ‘06, so they still hold disproportionate sway there.
I think it’s a case of a man who has gotten quite fed up with the increasingly liberal and crooked rodents holding the body. He is, after all, taking a bigger risk going from the majority to minority party.
I’m a wee bit more familiar with AL since it is the first state in alphabetical order, so I probably went over it with a fine-toothed comb more times than any other state, politically-speaking. Even absent that, it has an interesting political history. Well, I should say most of our states do (except maybe for Vermont, which seems to be deadly dull, at least until recently and a handful of exceptions).
Yeah, they might come and get me one day when President O’bama forces us Conservatives to register with the government and wear crosses sewn to our clothes to distinguish us.
Guess it just goes to show ya that its never too late.What took ya so long?
You think gerrymandering is also a problem in AL? Or it’s pretty much incumbency? I’d like to get the Dems’ hands off the congressional redistricting, they nearly cost us AL-03 in 2002.
Most of the old Democrat politicians on the news shows answer that question with “You tend to keep dancing with the partner that brought you”.
Old age may bring wisdom but in many cases it’s just in time to make a person realize he’s spent his life being a fool.
Even with the Dems in charge, it’s going to be hard for them to shift the balance too much (especially so if Riley has a GOP successor in 2010, which is likely). As you pointed out, they tried with the 3rd, but couldn’t quite pull it off. Incumbency helps, too. Since the 1960s, only 3 House incumbents have ever been beaten, and they were all in the Birmingham-based 6th (the 1st one was RINO John Buchanan by Albert Smith in the 1980 GOP primary because he became too liberal and with the increasing Black presence in the days before the now-7th was created, Smith was beaten after a single term in 1982, and lastly that Dem, Ben Erdreich, was beaten in ‘92 solely because Black voters were sheared off for the 7th).
Ultimately the 5th will fall to us once Bud Cramer retires, so we should have a 6-1 delegation before long.
The Democrats could have picked up a seat easily had they decided to draw two black-majority CDs instead of one with a black majority and one that is like 35% black that they thought would elect a white Democrat (the incompetent Joe Turnham, the Democrat state chairman). They could have drawn a 55%-black district in B’ham and counties to its south, and then another 55%-black CD from Mobile to Montgomery and beyond-—white Republican areas in the current AL-01 and AL-02 could be combined to form a single hyper-Republican CD. The Democrats could have also shored up Cramer’s AL-05 a bit and drawn a new AL-03 in eastern AL that could elect a moderate-to-conservative Democrat; to do so, they would have to pack Republicans into a CD in the B’ham suburbs and GOP areas to the north and east and another CD in the Montgomery suburbs and GOP areas to its north. That would have resulted in 3 hyper-Republican CDs, 2 safe CDs for black Democrats, a CD that would be safe for Bud Cramer and in which the Democrats would have a good chance of holding, and a AL-03 that would lean GOP in federal races but would lean Democrat in state races and in which a conservative Democrat would probably be favored. I guess we each have to draw our own conclusions as to why Alabama Democrats were so opposed to drawing a second district for a black Democrat.
The Democrats could have picked up a seat easily had they decided to draw two black-majority CDs instead of one with a black majority and one that is like 35% black that they thought would elect a white Democrat (the incompetent Joe Turnham, the Democrat state chairman). They could have drawn a 55%-black district in B’ham and counties to its south, and then another 55%-black CD from Mobile to Montgomery and beyond-—white Republican areas in the current AL-01 and AL-02 could be combined to form a single hyper-Republican CD. The Democrats could have also shored up Cramer’s AL-05 a bit and drawn a new AL-03 in eastern AL that could elect a moderate-to-conservative Democrat; to do so, they would have to pack Republicans into a CD in the B’ham suburbs and GOP areas to the north and east and another CD in the Montgomery suburbs and GOP areas to its north. That would have resulted in 3 hyper-Republican CDs, 2 safe CDs for black Democrats, a CD that would be safe for Bud Cramer and in which the Democrats would have a good chance of holding, and a AL-03 that would lean GOP in federal races but would lean Democrat in state races and in which a conservative Democrat would probably be favored. I guess we each have to draw our own conclusions as to why Alabama Democrats were so opposed to drawing a second district for a black Democrat.
I remember you mentioning that, but I tend to dismiss that possibility out of hand. The old White rodent solons in the legislature aren’t going to draw 2 Black Dem districts for obvious reasons. I’d still think if they did that, there’d be little opportunity for them to take any of those other districts, they’d be depopulated of enough rodents to keep the other 5 safely in GOP hands. Hence, no White Dems will ever win a federal office in the forseeable future.
It won’t matter much, since the GOP will be in majority control of the legislature within a decade, and we’ll have that 6-1 majority for the federal offices by then as well (unless Cramer plans on sitting there until he drops dead, and eventually, he will become vulnerable as someone sitting in a GOP leaning seat voting for Pelosi for Speaker, which we ought to be nailing him on now).
You’re correct that, usually, the creation of black-majority CDs hurts the Democrats by making surrounding districts lily-white and thus Republican. But there is one exception: when white voters in the area are so heavily Republican that a Republican would win even in a 30%-black CD. Thus, the only way that the Democrats could win House seats in the Winston-Salem/Greensboro area or the Savannah/Augusta area is to create a black-plurality district there, and the only way that they can win in South Alabama is to create black-majority CDs (or at least 40%+ black CDs, where blacks are a comfortable majority of RAT primary voters). Given that there aren’t enough white Democrats left in South Alabama to elect a Democrat to Congress for a district that is less than 40% black, then creating one 65%-black CD and hoping to elect a white Democrat in a 35%-black CD is not a good strategy. And drawing two black-majority CDs in B’ham and South Alabama would not affect the election chances of white Democrats from North Alabama such as Bud Cramer, since blacks from that region would not be placed in one of the black-majority CDs; it would also be true, albeit to a lesser extent, in a district drawn for a conservative Democrat in eastern Alabama. Also, keep in mind that by drawing two black-majority CDs in Alabama the Democrats would make sure that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to draw 6 GOP districts (and only one RAT CD) when the party finally controls redistricting, since the Voting Rights Act would protect both black-majority (and thus safely Democrat) districts.
BTW, the same holds true for South Carolina. Had the RATs drawn two black-majority CDs in SC (and combined the GOP Charleston suburbs with the Hilton Head area for one hyper-Republican coastal district), it would guarantee two RAT seats in the state and would not foreclose the possibility of drawing a third competitive district for John Spratt (as it is, there is only one safe RAT CD in SC, Clyburn’s black-majority CD, and the CD that Spratt has to hustle to win is the only white CD where the RATs are even remotely competitive).
I would just be mighty surprised if they tried that. Given that there will likely be a GOP Governor to succeed Riley, they won’t sign off on that plan.
As for SC, since they’ll likely be regaining their 7th seat they lost in 1933, it will be interesting to see how they will draw the districts. The GOP legislature might very well have to draw a 2nd Black Dem district (make one centered on Columbia and the rural Black areas nearby towards the GA state line, and the other centered on Charleston and the coastal areas). Getting rid of Spratt should be a top priority. He’s far worse than Cramer in AL.
I think the GOP will probably have to draw a second black CD if SC gains a 7th seat (as it’s currently poised to do), since it would mean that 29% of the districts are black-majority, which is around the black percentage for the state. By doing so, the GOP could easily get rid of Spratt and thus gain a seat in the delegation. If, however, the RATs were to control SC redistricting (not bloody likely), they would be able to draw two black CDs and still draw a CD that protected Spratt, allowing them to pick up a seat; other than how they redraw Spratt’s CD, the main difference between the optimal GOP plan and the optimal RAT plan would be that the GOP plan would try to exclude white conservatives from the black-majority CDs while the RAT plan would try to exclude white liberals from the black-majority CDs. But I actually think it makes sense for both parties to draw a second black-majority CD in SC.
I think that getting rid of white Democrat congressmen should be the top priority for GOP redistricters in every Southern state (except for obvious cases where that’s too dangerous to try, such as in Florida’s Gold Coast or the DC suburbs of VA). I would like to see the day in which Wexler, Wasserman-Schultz, Price, Cooper and Moran are the only white Anglo Democrats in Congress representing Southern states.
Another white Dem that needs to go is Charlie Melancon down here in LA, and redistricting may just do that. Due to Katrina, we’re set to lose a seat, and Melancon’s CD includes a lot of the Gulf Coast. Since New Orleans will need to gain area, and I doubt they’ll put in any of the Northshore or more of Jefferson Parish to do it (too Republican), they may cut into the small parishes like St. James and St. John along the Mississippi River that have strong black populations. However, we really don’t have control of the legislature, aside from a GOP Speaker, so this is not assured. We could probably get it out of the House, but the Senate, if the Dems are inclined, could bottle it up. It may come down to a “compromise district” that both Boustany and Melancon could run in, and to the victor goes the spoils.
But if McCrery’s seat goes Dem, the Democrats may leverage that to protect Melancon and abolish either Boustany or Alexander’s seats, perhaps hoping to have their guy win and have us drop to a 3-3 split in the congressional delegation. (If they do it, they’ll probably throw Lake Charles and Alexandria into the CD-4 and put Lafyette and maybe even Bossier City into CD-5, but Bobby’s veto ought to stop that dead in its tracks.) Plus, under Foster in 2002 we did get a pretty good map, in that it protected Baker by taking out black precincts that nearly defeated him in 1998. We may be able to “persuade” some Democrats.
And oh yeah, perhaps we can make another try at ousting Chet Edwards in Texas as well. He’s also big on my list.
When LA loses a seat in 2010 (and it will), priority one for redistricters will be to draw a black-majority LA-02, which would be mandated by the Voting Rights Act. Given post-Katrina black flight from New Orleans, I think redistricters will have to connecting black parts of Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles Parishes with black parts of East Baton Rouge, St. John the Baptist, St. James, Assumption, Iberville, St. Landry, Point Coupee, West and East Feliciana and St. Helena parishes, using Lake Pont as a bridge. Once that is done, it would be very difficult for Democrats to draw winnable districts in the rest of the state. The LA-01 would be centered in St. Tammany and would likely include St. Bernard, Plaquemines, and white parts of St. Charles, Jefferson and Orleans parishes (it wouldn’t be able to cut through Lake Pont anymore, so the CD would need to include St. Bernard and Plaquemines, much to Melancon’s chagrin, in order to connect St. Tammany to Jeffeson and St. Charles). Baker’s CD would still have Livingston and white parts of Baton Rouge in it, and the fact that black parts of Baton Rouge and some heavily black parishes would be replaced with the Florida Parishes would make it pretty much unwinnable for the Democrats. There would likely be a 100% Cajun CD in Lafourche, Terrebonne, St, Mary, Iberia, Lafayette, Acadia and Vermillion parishes (plus parts of surrounding parishes), in which Melancon would run but would probably be trounced by Boustany. The Democrats’ best shot at drawing a district for a white Democrat would likely be in the Shreveport area, but I think that it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they can capture McCreery’s seat, which would be a sign that things are swinging back to the RATs in GOP-trending North LA).
BTW, I re-read Barone’s Almanac last night and realized that Clyburn’s SC-06 has actually lost population, so I have changed my mind, and believe that the GOP would be better off with a single black-majority CD; I think that the GOP could argue that it shouldn’t have to draw a second black-majority CD and would be able to place black voters from surrounding CDs (particularly Spratt’s SC-05) in the SC-06. The seventh CD can easily be created by combining Spartanburg and Union Counties from SC-04 with Cherokee, York, Chester and Fairfield Counties from SC-05 to create a district where a little more than half the voters come from Spratt’s CD but in which President Bush got over 62% in 2004 (he only got 57.4% in the current SC-05 in which Spratt is running for his life). The new SC-04 could combine Greenville with counties to its southeast and still be safely GOP. The SC-02 would lose its Columbia suburbs, which would be combined with the eastern parts of the SC-05 (except for black precincts going to the SC-06) to form a Republican CD in which neither Spratt nor any other Democrat could win. Due to the SC-02’s heavy growth this decade, I think that it could meet the popultation requirement merely by adding the rest of Aiken County, and it would still be safely Republican. The SC-03 would shed voters to the SC-04 and the SC-02, but its heavy growth would allow that.
Let me be the first Freeper (I think) to post a link to an article from my hometown newspaper.
I was wondering how the Justice Dept. may regard it. Because the Black population is roughly 30% of the population, that’s going to work out to roughly 2 of those 7 seats, so Justice may order a 2nd district created regardless (even with the pop decline in the 6th).
But anyway, you might submit your idea to the SC House Speaker in 2 or 3 years, he may be interested in your plan. ;-)
I got a question. Do you think if South Carolina and Alabama weren’t burdened to draw minority-influenced districts, that the Republicans could win every seat?
Yes, we probably could, but more than likely, it would increase our number of vulnerable seats from drawing them down from safe GOP to narrow GOP. Ironically, that could actually benefit White Democrats overall in a really bad year for us, since it would give them an opportunity to be competitive and potentially pick some up with larger percentages of Blacks spread out. If it hadn’t been for the Justice Dept. mandates that essentially began with the ‘92 redistrictings in the South, we might not have had such a rapid movement from near all-White Dem delegations to nearly all-White GOP with nearly all-Black Dem. White legislative Dems knew that, and it was why many were loathe to have to redraw the lines (while Republicans and Black Dems were ostensibly on the same side since both benefitted greatly).
To give you an example of the pre-1992 AL districts vs. post 1992:
1983-93:
1st District (Mobile based) 69% White, 30% Black (Republican incumbent, last contested election won 59-40% in 1988)
1993-2003
70% White, 29% Black (largely unchanged, save for a few counties placed into Black majority 7th, no incumbent change, won reelection, 60-37%)
1983-93:
2nd District (Montgomery based) 67% White, 32% Black (Republican incumbent, won by only 51-49% in 1990)
1993-2003:
75% White, 24% Black (parts of Black Montgomery placed into 7th, picked up White sections of neighboring 3rd, closely contested election for open seat, Republican Terry Everett won by 49-48%, under old lines would’ve lost to the Democrat)
1983-93:
3rd District (rural East AL, Anniston/Auburn) 71% White, 28% Black (White Dem incumbent, won 74-26%, GHW Bush carried it in ‘88, 60%-38%)
1993-2003:
73% White, 26% Black (exchanged some White areas in old 7th, shed some to the 2nd, and picked up another from the 4th, incumbent Dem reelected, 60-37%, GHW Bush carried it 47-41% in 1992) - Elected a Republican when it opened in 1996
1983-93:
4th District (rural North Central from MS-GA lines, Gadsden) 92% White, 7% Black (White Dem incumbent unopposed largely for several elections; GHW Bush won 57-42% in ‘88)
1993-2003:
No change in demographic, swapped a couple counties to adjacent districts, incumbent won 69%-29%, GHW Bush won bare plurality, 44%-43%) - Elected a Republican when it opened in 1996
1983-93:
5th District (Northern counties along TN border, Huntsville) 83% White, 15% Black (White Dem incumbent, won 67-33% in ‘90; GHW Bush won 59-40% in ‘88)
1993-2003:
No change in demographic, shed only modest areas to adjacent 4th, incumbent reelected 66-32%; GHW Bush won 44-41% in ‘92)
1983-93:
6th District (Urban Birmingham/part of Jefferson County) 62% White, 37% Black (White Dem incumbent, won 67-33% against GOP opposition in ‘88; GHW Bush won 57-43% in ‘88)
1993-2003:
Drastically excised of urban parts of Black Birmingham and suburb areas, which were placed into 7th, became 90% White, 9% Black, White Dem incumbent defeated by Spencer Bachus, 52-45%, GHW Bush increased showing as a result up to a smashing 64-26% win over Clinton in ‘92)
1983-93:
7th District (Rural Western AL; Tuscaloosa, Selma, Birmingham/South Jefferson County suburbs) 69% White, 30% Black (White Dem incumbent won 71%-29% against GOP in ‘88; GHW Bush carried district 59-41% in ‘88)
1993-2003:
Drastically reconfigured, White areas placed in adjacent districts, most notably heavy GOP Shelby County and most of non-Black parts of Tuscaloosa, keeping rural counties in the Black belt and picking up urban Montgomery. Became 67% Black, 32% White. White Dem incumbent retired, replaced by Black Dem, who won 70-17%. Clinton won 69%-26% over GHW Bush
If we were to revert them back to the ‘82-’92 lines without altering them, we’d almost immediately lose the Montgomery based 2nd in an open situation, which has trended enough towards the Dems, so that would have to be configured. We’d also have to rejigger the 7th back into the 6th and 4th, which would jeopardize the incumbent GOPer margins in those seats. If the 6th came open, it would be vulnerable again to a White Democrat.
So, again, it’s possible to make an all-GOP delegation, but not without risks. The question is whether is it worth trying to get an all-GOP delegation while putting at least 5 of the seats at risk (all but the 5th, once Cramer retires, since that would remain overwhelmingly White, and perhaps the 4th) or keeping it status quo and safely holding 6 and ceding the 7th ? Probably better to keep the 6-1 and not get too greedy. We had a similar problem with PA that blew up in our face in ‘06 when we lost our solid majority, but that was less racial a situation.
I see. It wouldn’t be worth the risk, but I was curious to find out. We probably could win all 4 of the Arkansas seats, if *cough cough* they had a competent GOP governor for 11 years...
Yeah, PA was a fiasco. I think the Republicans should have seen the inner-ring suburb problem that would bite us in 2006. I think they tried to keep enough Republican territory in PA-13 in the hopes they’d beat Hoeffel, which didn’t pan out, and I’m not sure we have a realistic chance there anymore. They should have packed those inner-ring suburbs into PA-13, which would have helped us in PA-6, PA-7, and PA-8, either with holding those seats or perhaps winning one back in the near future. Maybe they could have drawn the 17th better, but I think they were hoping to chase Holden out of office, and not expect him to fight on.
In any event, I think PA is also supposed to lose a seat (or two), and I’d be interested to see where the legislature docks them.
I was going to break down SC, but it was pretty much the same as AL. We actually (pre-'92 Justice Dept. mandate) have won 5 of the 6 seats in the state (with the exception of Spratt's seat) since the 1970s. The now-Black 6th was previously a coastal-based district (Myrtle Beach/Inland) which we won once in 1972, lost in '74, won again in '80 and lost to Robin Tallon in '82. Tallon was going to not let the reconfiguring get in his way, but opted not to and get branded a racist.
Looking at the pre-'92 lines, we might actually pull off winning all 6 with the Presidential performance in each fairly decent for the GOP, although, again, as with AL, the likelihood of White Dems being potentially competitive in the reconfigured 6th, 1st (Charleston-based) and the Columbia-based 2nd. Under those old lines, as long ago as 1980 we won 4 out of the 6 seats (only because of incumbents in the 3rd and 5th we couldn't win more). Aside from AL in the '64 election, SC in '80 was the 2nd time a Deep South state had a majority GOP delegation since after Jim Crow, and then not again there until 1994, which numbers we've maintained since.
"We probably could win all 4 of the Arkansas seats, if *cough cough* they had a competent GOP governor for 11 years..."
Stronger leadership by Huckster and help or intervention could've resulted in us getting at least 3 of the 4 (losing Jay Dickey's seat was inexcusable, but because the current occupant isn't a moonbat, he's nearly impossible to dislodge; Vic Snyder in L.R. IS a moonbat, and he should've been taken out after 2 terms tops. The hardest one to get rid of is Marion Berry, since he also is not a moonbat, but with heavier funding, we might've stopped his winning in the first place.
Ironically, had all those 1st, 2nd & 3rd seats come open in '94 rather than '96, we may very well have swept all of them. Only the 1st has remained Democrat since Reconstruction (ditto that with Spratt's seat in SC and Cramer's in AL). The last time we had an all-GOP House delegation from AR was the brief period between 1868-69. We came close again in 1873, but the 4th At-Large member ran as a Liberal Republican (a RINO even in those days, essentially a Democrat-supported puppet) and one of our regular Republicans weaseled out and ran in the next election as a Democrat. From 1874 until 1966 no Republican would ever again win a House seat there. As for the Senate seats... if Huckster wanted to prove his conversion on Conservatism is true, he ought to be running against Mark Pryor this year. Of course, the only downside to his winning, he'd still be running the state party he ran into the ground, and would probably keep any other Republicans from winning for however long he stayed in office.
As for PA, we blew it almost right out of the gate. One of the seats was meant to scare a Democrat (Tim Holden) out in a Conservative district, but he stayed put and knocked out our venerable George Gekas, who wasn't supposed to be remotely vulnerable. That needless loss would be a harbinger of the disaster of '06. The legislature was counting on a 13 GOP/6 Dem delegation, but it turned into a 12 GOP/7 Dem one in '02 and now is an embarrassing 11 Dem/8 GOP one (and very nearly ended up 12D/7R had Gerlach not pulled off a miracle).
I expect us to get back the Hart/Altmire and Sherwood/Carney seats, so we should get back a 11R/9D majority again. If we don't get a Republican Governor in office in 2010, and with a Dem or split legislature, they might draw us down. If they lose 1 or 2 seats, I'd expect Philly to take the hit (although technically both the 1st and 2nd districts are Justice Dept. mandated Black districts, the 1st still has yet to elect a Black Dem). It would be nice if we could stick Sestak (assuming we can't beat him) in with Brady in the 1st and Schwartz in the 13th with the newbie Patrick Murphy in the 8th (assuming, again, we don't beat him). Essentially shore up the Dem districts and make safe as many GOP districts as possible. Of course, it'd be really nice, if Murtha is still around, to screw him by shoving him in with Michael Doyle and chop up Pittsburgh (the only danger in doing that is putting Hart, if she recovers her seat, and Tim Murphy in the 18th at risk. I'd also like to see Holden and Kanjorski run out of their seats, too. No reason Holden's shouldn't revert to the GOP and we have Lou Barletta to get Kanjorski's (though personally, I'd prefer Barletta to run for Governor in 2010, that's far more important than Kanjorski's lone seat). With some really good lines, we might even get a 13 GOP-4 Dem delegation ! (With only Brady (beating Sestak), Fattah, Schwartz (beating Patrick Murphy) & Doyle (beating Murtha) surviving to January 2013).
I think that it would not be possible to split the black population in AL and SC so thin across all districts to elect an all-GOP congressional delegation in those states; remember, the black population in those states is concentrated in certain geographic areas, and if you tried not to draw a black-majority district you would still end up with a couple of 38%-black CDs in each state that would probably each elect a white Democrat.
In AR, I think it would be too risky to try to draw four GOP districts, since in a down year we could lose all four. While AR doesn’t have a large-enough black population to require a black-majority CD, and in fact it would be very, very difficult to draw such a CD (the district would have to look worse than the Marsupilami District drawn by GA Democrats in 2002 as the GA-13), I think one could draw a district with a 40%+ black pop (in which blacks would be a majority of Dem primary voters) that would leave three surrounding CDs that would be comfortably Republican (one in North AR, from Bentonville and Fayetteville to the Mississippi River, one from Fort Smith to Texarkana and some areas to the east, and one in the Little Rock suburbs and some other white areas around it).
The 2002 GOP redistricting plan for PA had good intentions, but was terribly flawed. First of all, legislative Republicans got greedy. They could have drawn 13 GOP districts,leaving only 6 CDs for Dems, but they decided to draw 3 Dem-leaning districts that *could* vote GOP if we got lucky (instead of just giving such districts to the RATs and saving GOP voters for the 13 GOP districts), and it left surrounding GOP districts vulnerable. The PA-11 (Kanjorski), PA-12 (Murtha) and PA-13 (Hoeffel/Schwartz) gave President Bush between 42%-44% in 2000, which is too Democrat to elect a Republican but which places too many GOP voters that could be better used elsewhere. Placing so many GOP voters in the Montco-NE Philly PA-13 (in which we came within a few percentage points of winning in 2002, but had we done so we would have coughed it back up in 2004 and if not certainly in 2006) was the reason why the PA-06 (Gerlach), PA-07 (Weldon), and PA-08 (Greenwood/Fitzpatrick) were not drawn to give President Bush over 50% of the vote in 2000; had Lower Merion been excluded from the PA-06, Lower Bucks been excluded from the PA-08 and some Dem areas been carved out of the PA-07, Gerlach would have won fairly comfortably in 2002, 2004 and 2006, Fitzpatrick would have been reelected in 2006 and Sestak may not have even challenged Weldon in 2006 (without which the scandals that cost Weldon his seat may not have mattered). Personally, I think that the GOP should have drawn two black-majority CDs (each 53%+ black) in Philly instead of a 55%-black CD for Fatah and a 45%-black CD for white Democrat Brady-—having to protect two black-majority CDs in Philly would have hurt Democrats in surrounding CDs in future redistrictings. Also, the Democrat Holden was given too marginal (and familiar) a district in which for him to run; RAT parts of Schuylkill County should have been placed in the heavily Democrat PA-11, and the city of Harrisburg (which has been heavily Democrat for a couple of decades now) should have been placed in the comfortably Republican PA-19. I would have also placed part of Allentown/Bethlehem in the PA-11, thus shoring up Toomey’s old CD (in which we’ve gotten lucky; President Bush has gotten below 50% there in both of his runs). Out west, they left way too many Dem areas in the PA-04 and (especially) PA-18 in an attempt to appease Murtha by not drawing him into a district with Mascara (which didn’t work anyhow); GOP parts of Çambria County should have been removed from the CD, since they only serve to help Murtha in the RAT primary.
If the GOP could draw the lines in every state, and was smart about it, the party would have a fairly safe veto-proof majority (i.e., 290 seats).
Good analysis there.
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.