Skip to comments.On the Bubble: 10 States Await Tuesday Census Verdict on Congressional Gains, Losses (Predictions?)
Posted on 12/17/2010 3:15:41 PM PST by randita
On the Bubble: 10 States Await Tuesday Census Verdict on Congressional Gains, Losses
The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman looks at what it might mean for House members and their constituents.
By David Wasserman
Friday, December 17, 2010 | 2:23 p.m.
On Tuesday, U.S. Census Bureau officials will unveil numbers that will determine which states gain House seats and which states lose them in the once-a-decade reapportionment of congressional districts--and in the process launch a high-stakes political round of musical chairs. For the next year, powerful members of Congress will be nervously consulting computerized maps and wooing their political juniors in state legislatures in hopes of guaranteeing that their districts are not drawn out from under them.
The census verdict could alter a number of congressional careers--and not just those of newly elected (and therefore vulnerable) freshmen such as Republicans Ann Marie Buerkle, Richard Hanna, and Tom Reed of New York. It will also affect lawmakers with well-known names: GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota could find her constituency substantially changed; the district represented by veteran lawmaker James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democratic leader, conceivably could be split to create two majority-black constituencies.
Among the states, many of the winners and losers are already known based on preliminary census figures. An estimated 12 House seats are expected to move among 18 states. Those certain to be shorted a seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Sure bets to gain congressional clout: Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
But a number of states are "on the bubble." Some are awaiting the census numbers to find out whether they'll gain a congressional seat, as North Carolina hopes to do, or lose a seat, as Illinois fears it will. Others, such as Florida, New York, and Texas, are looking to learn if their gains or losses will be greater than one.
With the advent of DIY redistricting and the help of freeware provided by Dave Bradlee, a West Coast-based software engineer and political junkie, it's possible to map out what some of the numbers might mean and how they might alter the face of Congress for the next decade.
I say TX gains two and PA loses two.
I predict two of the TX seats will be drawn to favor the GOP and two will probably be in metro areas (esp. Houston) and will probably favor the Dems.
PA will probably lose PA-12 (Critz) - if we're lucky. Don't know about the other PA one.
Care to make any predictions?
I predict TX +6 seats. 1 RG Valley, 1 Austin/SA metro, 2 each Houston metro and DFW metro.
I predict the lying rat bastards in DC will “fudge” the numbers for a rat advantage...Did you really expect an honest count?...red
We’re going to lose at least one in Michigan. Fortunately we took the gold in the election.
I have a non-specific prediction: The results of the census will be GOOD for people like us, (and by people like us, I’m referring, of course, to conservatives.)
I forget who said it, but it rains true: If you’re only going to win one election every ten years, win one when the census is being done. We did.
Governors, start your gerrymandering!
Legislatively? couldn't tell you.
But I will predict a raft of rapturous articles celebrating the continued erosion of the european-american majority.
Its become a ten year tradition.
(Captain Obvious alert)
Yep, of course they lie, they are Commies. All Commies lie.
Of course they will fudge the numbers to their advantage, as far as they can.
If PA loses two, I predict it will be PA-12 and PA-13.
New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Illiois, and Florida lose. RAT-infested states all.
Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina gain.
TX gains 4.
Utah gains one, and yes, it will be GOP.
Barney Frank has made some noise about this being his last term, MA4 could end up being reabsorbed back into the districts it was gerrymandered out of.
Agree that TX gains 4. If not we need to demand a re-census.
If (when) New Jersey loses a seat it will be 7th CD Leonard Lance (RINO) first elected in 2009.
Not much of a loss IMHO.
The other option is 111th Congressional District: NJ04
Representative: Christopher H. Smith (R), but in doing so one of the neighboring (D) Districts would move from a solid (D) back to a swing district.
Addition by subtraction is Massachusetts losing one.
Clyburn and most of the black caucus members should be safe—the districts will be drawn to maximize their chances of keeping their seats.
Missouri is slated to lose one district. Lacy Clay will most likely keep his seat, but with a Republican legislature, Democrat Russ Carnahan may be redistricted out of his seat.
Gainers: TX +3, FL +2, UT +1, NV +1, GA +1 and AZ +1
Losers: NY -2, OH -2, PA -1, MI -1, IL -1, LA -1, IA -1
Good. Pennsylvania needs to lose a Congressman or two. We have far too many with too much time on their hands creating bad laws. Might actually mean that the ones who are left will actually have to do some real work for a change.
It would be amazing if California were to lose a seat.
Fantastic! Long overdue payback to a district that sent Murtha to Congress for 18 terms even after his involvement in the Ab Scam scandal.
They surely would lose several seats, but the Americans that are moving out of California are being replaced by the rats who have run across the border and dropped their litters.
It is truly a reconquista and we aren’t doing anything about it. Yet.
Bump what you said. The US Census Bureau is at least as corrupt as Congress.
“Clyburn and most of the black caucus members should be safethe districts will be drawn to maximize their chances of keeping their seats.”
So in GOP strongholds like SC, the majority will not be used to eliminate sure “minority” districts, lest they be criticized for racism?
Majority/minority districts are the creation of SCOTUS. As such, they will be inviolate and the racist Clyburn completely safe.
Sometimes that actually works to the benefit of the Republicans--a black Democrat gets a super-safe seat which is almost impossible for him to lose, and the surrounding districts become easier for Republican candidates to win. The white Democratic candidates are the ones who lose out. Of course in most cases that's no loss to the nation. It does have the effect of guaranteeing that most black Congressmen will pursue policies narrowly geared to the perceived interests of African Americans, and generally act and orate in such a way as not to be viable candidates for statewide offices.
Think of majority-minority districts this way: gather all the Blacks (certain 'rat votes) into a concentrated district, let them enjoy their 85% wins and the resulting corruption, while the rest of the state has a shot at increased republican representation.
It is a backfire from the days when blacks stupidly demanded their "fair share" of representatives. The legislatures said "OK, we'll give you this district and that district over there forever. Enjoy." Meanwhile Whites were able to wield the decisionmaking power in even more districts, suitably gerrymandered, with Blacks concentrated in congressional "ghettoes."
Washington(AP) Today’s announcement of the latest Census figures even stunned the politicians in Washington. It had long been thought that New York, and California would lose seats for the first time in 50 years. After the Census Bureau released the numbers, it appears the states of New York, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New Hampshire will each pick up 20 seats, completely removing all representation from the western Pennsylvania border to the eastern border of Nevada.
President Obama thanked all the hard workers, and his supporters in the Census Bureau, and that, despite objections from the 30 states no longer represented, there would be no recount.
“Think of majority-minority districts this way: gather all the Blacks (certain ‘rat votes) into a concentrated district, let them enjoy their 85% wins and the resulting corruption, while the rest of the state has a shot at increased republican representation.
It is a backfire from the days when blacks stupidly demanded their “fair share” of representatives. The legislatures said “OK, we’ll give you this district and that district over there forever. Enjoy.” Meanwhile Whites were able to wield the decisionmaking power in even more districts, suitably gerrymandered, with Blacks concentrated in congressional “ghettoes.” “
Thanks. Never gave it all that much thought, until this thread.
Here in California, blacks are less percent of the total, than for the nation overall.
OTOH we have more hispanics and asians, felt by many to be more capable of and/or inclined to individual thought, and less prone to clinging to their crime-ridden neighborhoods.
Hence I watch the battle one district away, between Loretta Sanchez and Van Tran for a House seat. There are no black districts in Orange, San Diego, Ventura or San Luis Obispo counties.
Calif. versus USA demographics
You are right. But this will allow the SC Legislature to make Clyburn's 6th district more compact when then create a new 7th. If the 6th district line moves about 1/2 mile south I will be in 5th district which is about to be represented by Mick Mulvaney who just unseated John Spratt.
If the GOP controlled SC Legislature is in a humorous mood they might make sure that the 6th district no longer includes Clyburn's house. We'll get a Dem but it may not be him. Maybe Alvin Greene will run for Congress.
I’ve never thought setting up “black districts” was that great an idea from the perspective of the average black. The only one advantaged is the office holder as the district becomes uncompetitive and irrelevant. It’s just chalked up as a ‘safe’ Dem seat, and a safe Dem vote in the House. No need or ability to push for anything.
The writer is lazy. Before the November election, there was talk of Michele Bachmann’s congressional district being eliminated if Minnesota lost a seat in the US Congress. However, since Nov. 2nd, the Minnesota house and Senate is under the control of the GOP!!! Hooray. So, Mr. Wassermann ought to do his research before he implicates himself as a plagiarist - regurgitating last summer’s news.
It’s just as possible, but not probable, that Keith Ellison may find his district redrawn (now, that would be a blast).
My predictions are:
Lose 2: NY, OH
Lose 1: LA, IA, NJ, IL, MA, MI, MN, MO
Gain 3: TX
Gain 2: FL, AZ
Gain 1: GA, SC, NV, UT, WA
SC Republicans could place Clyburn’s home in whatever district they wish, and if there’s one black-majority CD (and there must be at least one), tha’t’s where Clyburn will run (and win). Representatives do not have to reside in the district they represent, merely in the state they represent (see Article I, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution).
The interesting question will be, assuming that SC gains a seat (which I think it will), will SC Republicans draw a single black-majority district and keep the SC-01, SC-02 and SC-05 as potentially competitive, or will it draw two black-majority districts (taking blacks from the SW part of Wilson’s SC-02, additional blacks from Charleston and blacks from Mulvaney’s SC-05) and make the other 5 CDs absolutely safe for Republicans? Remember, Henry Brown nearly lost the SC-01 in 2008 partly due to high black turnout, Wilson’s SC-02 is like 30% black and was uncomfortably close in 2008, and the SC-05 is over 30% black and was held by the Democrats for over a century until Mulvaney won. Districts are drawn for an entire decade, so saying that “the SC-01 is safe for Tim Scott” or “Joe Wilson won’t lose next time” is not good enough.
So Oregon and Montana are gonna miss out on gaining 1?
Even if the DOJ would allow the elimination of the Southern Black districts it’s not in our interest to do so. Spreading out the Black vote would endanger current GOP seats. Better to pack them in tight than try to sweep the state. We win, White Democrats lose.
OR is a possibility, but MT has no chance unless its 2009-2010 pop growth rate was exponentially higher than its annualized rate from 2000-2009.