The new districts don’t have numbers yet, so I’m sure people will assign different ones than mine. I count 17 seats that are potentially competitive.
Potentially competitive Democratic seats (Likely Democratic)
CD-11 McNerney
CD-29 Open
CD-32 Chu
CD-36 Open
CD-37 Richardson
CD-38 Schiff
CD-53 Davis
Steve Cooley, the Republican AG candidate in 2010, won five of these districts. In the 6th, CD-53, Meg Whitman got 45% of the vote, as did 2010 Republican congressional candidates. Cooley was certainly a strong candidate, but he didn’t get 50% of the vote statewide. While his numbers are good, they certainly aren’t impossible. If Cooley can win a district in a year that Republicans didn’t do that well in California than it’s winnable.
Of course, some of these districts will have Democratic incumbents that will push their district from Likely Democratic to Safe Democratic. Just remember that when it comes to looking at the Republican seats.
David Dreier could run in the new Hispanic majority San Bernardino district that likely won’t have any other incumbent running. Rancho Cucamonga is in here and Dreier won that area 60%-40% in 2010. Gary Miller won Chino 60%-40%. So the district really isn’t as unfriendly as people are making it out to be.
Potentially competitive Republican seats (Likely Republican)
CD-2 Herger
CD-45 Bono Mack
Bill Lockyer was the only Democrat to win CD-45. No Democrat won CD-2 in 2010. Brown was competitive in both districts, although Bono Mack’s district is more Republican than it was in 2010 when she won it 55%-45%.
Competitive Republican seats (Lean Democratic)
CD-42 Open
This seat is centered on Riverside and has no incumbent. Whitman got 47% here and Republican congressmen got 48% in 2010. Neither side has a clear candidate, although the district is carved up from Gary Miller and Ken Calvert.
Competitive Republican seats (Lean Republican)
CD-19 Denham
CD-50 Bilbray
CD-19 is one of three Central Valley seats that look very competitive. This is the most Republican of them, so I put Denham here. Bilbray’s district consists of some of his current district, some of Duncan Hunter’s and some of Susan Davis.
Toss-up (Democratic)
CD-18 Cordoza
CD-20 Costa
CD-23 Capps
CD-47 Lo. Sanchez
By mixing in parts of Denham’s district with those of Cordoza and Costa these two become more competitive. Costa won on a recount in 2010. Capps’ district now has a lot of inland Republican areas like Paso Robles and Atascadero and she’ll be challenged by Abel Maldonado. Maldonado ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2010 and won this district. Sanchez’s current district is gerrymandered to give her only the few Democratic areas in Orange County. There are so few that almost any map would make this district a toss-up.
Toss-up (Republican)
CD-3 Lungren
CA-24 Gallegly
The map makers didn’t do either of these guys any favors. They took out heavily Republican suburbs in both these districts. Lungren’s district makes sense. The district now consists of only Sacramento County suburbs. Gallegly’s district makes less sense. They took out Simi Valley and Moorpark at the last minute and put in Malibu. This put in areas outside Ventura County in, while taking out part of the county and giving it to a district that is more than a mountain range away. Not only are the areas excluded Republican leaning areas, but they’re also where Gallegly’s base is.
Safe Democratic (Republican seats)
CD-26 Open
This Hispanic majority district sort of replaces David Dreier’s district, so I gave it that number. Democrats are lined up for this seat. That’s understandable. They’ll win it.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Redistricting Scorecard
There's been a lot of negativity for how the Republicans are doing so far in redistricting, with experts predicting 5 seat losses in both California and Illinois.
It could be that bad, but only if the roof falls in. You're talking about the Democrats upper limit here. They'd have to win every single competitive district in both states. The roof fell in with the 2006 election. And then we had an earthquake, fire, and flood in 2008. Yet these were two states that Democrats failed to get many of their targets.
I looked at the states that have either completed redistricting or almost have and calculated how each party will do. I calculated the odds for each district and assigned them a numerical value with 1 being safe, 0.8 likely, 0.6 lean, and 0.5 toss-up. One party could lose a bunch of seats that I predict as likely, but the odds are that they'll keep 4 out of 5. The numbers don't add up because some states, e.g. Illinois, are losing seats, while others, e.g. Texas, are gaining seats. Keep in mind this doesn't always reflect candidates, as some are unknown. That and election conditions can change this.
The numbers are relatively negligible right now. Even if you assume the worst for Republicans and add a few you'll get the Democrats gaining around 8 seats. That's tough but not a great dent into the Republican majority. It'd result in a 233-202 Republican advantage.
But there are still a bunch of states to go. Republicans control redistricting in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Utah, Georgia, and North Carolina. Democrats control redistricting in West Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The remaining states are small or have a split redistricting. Republicans do control redistricting in Florida but the Fair Districts law will limit their gerrymander. That said, they still will be able to skew the districts somewhat.
What's immediately noticeable is that while Republicans have few opportunities in states they control, they also can prevent losses. Republicans have 4 congressmen in the three states the Democrats control and it'll be difficult to gerrymander 3 of them out of office. Simply put, it's unlikely the Democrats will pick up more than a seat in a handful of states, while Republicans will pick up several and prevent losses. The Democratic opportunities have already been redistricted.
That means that Republicans should be able to sail to at least 233 seats. This could go lower if Obama wins big, but re-elections don't have long coattails and the 16 additional seats is likely too long. Of course Obama might squeak out a win or the Republican could win. Usually when a new President is elected his party gains seats. Thus, a Republican victory would push it the other way.
It could be that bad, but only if the roof falls in. You're talking about the Democrats upper limit here. They'd have to win every single competitive district in both states. The roof fell in with the 2006 election. And then we had an earthquake, fire, and flood in 2008. Yet these were two states that Democrats failed to get many of their targets.
I looked at the states that have either completed redistricting or almost have and calculated how each party will do. I calculated the odds for each district and assigned them a numerical value with 1 being safe, 0.8 likely, 0.6 lean, and 0.5 toss-up. One party could lose a bunch of seats that I predict as likely, but the odds are that they'll keep 4 out of 5. The numbers don't add up because some states, e.g. Illinois, are losing seats, while others, e.g. Texas, are gaining seats. Keep in mind this doesn't always reflect candidates, as some are unknown. That and election conditions can change this.
The numbers are relatively negligible right now. Even if you assume the worst for Republicans and add a few you'll get the Democrats gaining around 8 seats. That's tough but not a great dent into the Republican majority. It'd result in a 233-202 Republican advantage.
But there are still a bunch of states to go. Republicans control redistricting in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Utah, Georgia, and North Carolina. Democrats control redistricting in West Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The remaining states are small or have a split redistricting. Republicans do control redistricting in Florida but the Fair Districts law will limit their gerrymander. That said, they still will be able to skew the districts somewhat.
What's immediately noticeable is that while Republicans have few opportunities in states they control, they also can prevent losses. Republicans have 4 congressmen in the three states the Democrats control and it'll be difficult to gerrymander 3 of them out of office. Simply put, it's unlikely the Democrats will pick up more than a seat in a handful of states, while Republicans will pick up several and prevent losses. The Democratic opportunities have already been redistricted.
That means that Republicans should be able to sail to at least 233 seats. This could go lower if Obama wins big, but re-elections don't have long coattails and the 16 additional seats is likely too long. Of course Obama might squeak out a win or the Republican could win. Usually when a new President is elected his party gains seats. Thus, a Republican victory would push it the other way.
Friday, June 10, 2011
California Redistricting
The maps have passed the first round and will be open to public scrutiny. I'm sure you'll read how the Democrats are going to pick up 5 seats and it's a big win for them. It could be, but my preliminary analysis says that's unlikely.
I can't go precinct by precinct but I do see four districts flipping to the Democrats, a safe Democratic, a likely Democratic, and 2 lean Democratic. Using a formula of 1 seat for safe, 0.8 for likely, and 0.6 for lean that's only 3 seats. In addition, two Republican seats appear to be toss-ups and two are only lean Republican. So that'd put the pick-up for the Democrats at 4.8 Republican seats.
This is where all the Democrats will finish.
The problem is that the two Democratic held Central Valley seats look lean Republican, three other seats look like toss-ups, one seat is lean Democratic, and one likely Democratic. That'd be 3.3 seats for Republicans to pick-up.
We get a net 1.5 seats for the Democrats. I'll reserve my judgement for when I have more definitive numbers but the Democrats will only pick up 5 seats if the roof falls in and everything goes wrong for the GOP.
I can't go precinct by precinct but I do see four districts flipping to the Democrats, a safe Democratic, a likely Democratic, and 2 lean Democratic. Using a formula of 1 seat for safe, 0.8 for likely, and 0.6 for lean that's only 3 seats. In addition, two Republican seats appear to be toss-ups and two are only lean Republican. So that'd put the pick-up for the Democrats at 4.8 Republican seats.
This is where all the Democrats will finish.
The problem is that the two Democratic held Central Valley seats look lean Republican, three other seats look like toss-ups, one seat is lean Democratic, and one likely Democratic. That'd be 3.3 seats for Republicans to pick-up.
We get a net 1.5 seats for the Democrats. I'll reserve my judgement for when I have more definitive numbers but the Democrats will only pick up 5 seats if the roof falls in and everything goes wrong for the GOP.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Republicans in special elections
The Democratic upset in a recent special election in New York-26 has been explained as a push back against the Republican Medicare plan by the Democrats or the big spending of the tea party candidate by the Republicans.
I won't dismiss these as contributing factors, but they don't explain the larger issue of why Republicans lose special election after special election, even in Republican districts. One thing that stands out is that Republicans won two special elections that were actually held on the day of the 2010 congressional elections. Indiana-3 is very Republican, but New York-29 is a little less Republican than New York-26.
You look at the date and say, "well, of course they won that election. It was on the same day as a big Republican win." True. That's exactly why they haven't been able to win the other special elections. They weren't on days when there was a big Republican turn-out. Take a look at the three elections:
In both of the previous elections Republicans didn't need to do a lot to get people to go to the polls. Even though 2008 was a bad Republican year, they still had plenty of Republicans turning out in a Republican district. Since 2010 was a Republican year they did better.
The 2011 election had 44% of the 2010 election turn-out and 35% of the 2008 turn-out. Hochul didn't even get as many votes as the 2010 candidate got in a bad Democratic year. Yet, she won, mostly due to turn-out. Special elections only get the hardcore voters. The most important thing isn't candidate or advertising, but the party's GOTV-ground game. The Democrats only needed to turn out 44% of their 2008 voters to beat the Republican party's anemic 29%.
The Democrats have a good "ground game" and the Republicans have a terrible one. I don't know if it's national Democrats coming in from elsewhere or tremendously good local organizations, but the Democrats got people to the polls. On the other side, again and again the Republican party has been unable to get their voters interested in special elections.
Apparently this isn't something easy to fix. The Democrats' GOTV is just head and shoulders above the Republicans. As long as that's the case the GOP will keep losing special elections regardless of issues, third party candidates, or district PVIs.
I won't dismiss these as contributing factors, but they don't explain the larger issue of why Republicans lose special election after special election, even in Republican districts. One thing that stands out is that Republicans won two special elections that were actually held on the day of the 2010 congressional elections. Indiana-3 is very Republican, but New York-29 is a little less Republican than New York-26.
You look at the date and say, "well, of course they won that election. It was on the same day as a big Republican win." True. That's exactly why they haven't been able to win the other special elections. They weren't on days when there was a big Republican turn-out. Take a look at the three elections:
The 2011 election had 44% of the 2010 election turn-out and 35% of the 2008 turn-out. Hochul didn't even get as many votes as the 2010 candidate got in a bad Democratic year. Yet, she won, mostly due to turn-out. Special elections only get the hardcore voters. The most important thing isn't candidate or advertising, but the party's GOTV-ground game. The Democrats only needed to turn out 44% of their 2008 voters to beat the Republican party's anemic 29%.
The Democrats have a good "ground game" and the Republicans have a terrible one. I don't know if it's national Democrats coming in from elsewhere or tremendously good local organizations, but the Democrats got people to the polls. On the other side, again and again the Republican party has been unable to get their voters interested in special elections.
Apparently this isn't something easy to fix. The Democrats' GOTV is just head and shoulders above the Republicans. As long as that's the case the GOP will keep losing special elections regardless of issues, third party candidates, or district PVIs.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Florida is not a swing state
And it wasn't in 2008 either. A Presidential swing state is one that if it swings to either candidate then that candidate has a better chance of winning the Presidency. The state with the smallest margin of victory that would put the candidate over the top is the one that swung to him, giving him the Presidency.
Ohio would've put either candidate over the top. Hence the "O."
The states with the smallest margin of victory to get George W. Bush to 270 electoral votes were Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio. Bush also won New Mexico and Iowa but didn't need to win either to get to 270. Had John Kerry won Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio, the three states where he was closest, he would've won the Presidency.
All of the states above voted for Barack Obama. Barack Obama also won North Carolina, Florida, and Indiana. Had John McCain gotten enough votes to win those states he wouldn't have won. He would've also needed to win Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Iowa to capture the Presidency. If I'd told you McCain had scored enough votes to win Indiana you wouldn't have known whether he'd have won. If I told you he won Minnesota and Pennsylvania you would've known he would've won.
Here's 2010:
The Republicans won a majority of votes in all these states. Had they gotten the same votes in a Presidential election, they'd have won easily. We see some of the same names on here, notably, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If the Republican nominee doesn't get enough votes to win Florida, he's not going to win all the states where Republicans have done worse.
We know no one is going to advertise in Texas or California. Those are in the bag for each party. If either party lost these states, no matter how much they were outspent, they'd have lost in a landslide. So no one advertises there.
Thus, there's not a great reason for Republicans to advertise in Florida. If they (Republicans) don't do well enough in Florida, it's over. Thus, there's not a great reason for Republicans to advertise in Florida. If they do well enough nationally, the Republicans will win Florida. The Democrats also don't need to waste their resources on Florida. If they're able to take Florida, they'll have likely taken enough states on this list to put them over the top. They could win Florida. There's enough variance that states move up and down the list, but it's unlikely the Democrats won't have won enough states on this list to get to 270 if they win Florida. Since eeking out a victory isn't necessary, then why waste your resources?
Ohio would've put either candidate over the top. Hence the "O."
The states with the smallest margin of victory to get George W. Bush to 270 electoral votes were Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio. Bush also won New Mexico and Iowa but didn't need to win either to get to 270. Had John Kerry won Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio, the three states where he was closest, he would've won the Presidency.
All of the states above voted for Barack Obama. Barack Obama also won North Carolina, Florida, and Indiana. Had John McCain gotten enough votes to win those states he wouldn't have won. He would've also needed to win Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Iowa to capture the Presidency. If I'd told you McCain had scored enough votes to win Indiana you wouldn't have known whether he'd have won. If I told you he won Minnesota and Pennsylvania you would've known he would've won.
Here's 2010:
We know no one is going to advertise in Texas or California. Those are in the bag for each party. If either party lost these states, no matter how much they were outspent, they'd have lost in a landslide. So no one advertises there.
Thus, there's not a great reason for Republicans to advertise in Florida. If they (Republicans) don't do well enough in Florida, it's over. Thus, there's not a great reason for Republicans to advertise in Florida. If they do well enough nationally, the Republicans will win Florida. The Democrats also don't need to waste their resources on Florida. If they're able to take Florida, they'll have likely taken enough states on this list to put them over the top. They could win Florida. There's enough variance that states move up and down the list, but it's unlikely the Democrats won't have won enough states on this list to get to 270 if they win Florida. Since eeking out a victory isn't necessary, then why waste your resources?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Evils of the Cook PVI
In 1997, Charlie Cook came up with a method of analyzing congressional districts voting patterns that'd enable people to compare districts across the country, the Cook PVI. The people rejoiced. The number used only Presidential data, thus taking out local candidates who might have partisan followings that'd skew a district in a way that wouldn't continue after he or she left office.
This was a good way to compare congressional districts across the country. Like the RBI in baseball the PVI tells a part of the story but not always the best story. So when Republicans in Illinois win districts with Democratic PVIs but Republicans in Tennessee don't, people assume it's because Republican congressmen in Illinois overachieve.
The problem is that the PVI's perceived strength, not letting one local politician skew the number, is also a great weakness. Chances are that Republicans in Illinois aren't the outlier. It's Barack Obama and John McCain in Illinois. McCain underachieved what other Republican statewide candidates usually get. The Republicans in Illinois aren't overachieving at all. Obama-McCain numbers don't accurately reflect local voting patterns.
A better way to judge how a party will do statewide is to look at how candidates for statewide office do. A better way to judge how a party will do in a congressional district is to look at how the party performs in that congressional district. Sure, one good candidate or a bad one can skew the numbers but chances are that this candidate is the one running again next year. Barack Obama won't be running for a congressional seat any time soon. Yet people cling to his performance in a district as being indicative.
Cook PVI isn't a bad stat. A Democrat is more likely to win a D+6 seat than an R+5. When looking at a district or a state you need to look at how Obama and McCain did compared to statewide candidates and how the congressional candidates do. As noted below, every incumbent Republican beat Barack Obama by 9.6 points or more in 2008. They can't all be good candidates running against bad ones. Chances are the number you're comparing their performance to, Obama-McCain 2008, is inaccurate.
This was a good way to compare congressional districts across the country. Like the RBI in baseball the PVI tells a part of the story but not always the best story. So when Republicans in Illinois win districts with Democratic PVIs but Republicans in Tennessee don't, people assume it's because Republican congressmen in Illinois overachieve.
The problem is that the PVI's perceived strength, not letting one local politician skew the number, is also a great weakness. Chances are that Republicans in Illinois aren't the outlier. It's Barack Obama and John McCain in Illinois. McCain underachieved what other Republican statewide candidates usually get. The Republicans in Illinois aren't overachieving at all. Obama-McCain numbers don't accurately reflect local voting patterns.
A better way to judge how a party will do statewide is to look at how candidates for statewide office do. A better way to judge how a party will do in a congressional district is to look at how the party performs in that congressional district. Sure, one good candidate or a bad one can skew the numbers but chances are that this candidate is the one running again next year. Barack Obama won't be running for a congressional seat any time soon. Yet people cling to his performance in a district as being indicative.
Cook PVI isn't a bad stat. A Democrat is more likely to win a D+6 seat than an R+5. When looking at a district or a state you need to look at how Obama and McCain did compared to statewide candidates and how the congressional candidates do. As noted below, every incumbent Republican beat Barack Obama by 9.6 points or more in 2008. They can't all be good candidates running against bad ones. Chances are the number you're comparing their performance to, Obama-McCain 2008, is inaccurate.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Actual Illinois Map
Last Monday I talked about Illinois redistricting and sure enough a map has come out.
The media immediately jumped all over it. I've seen predictions on the web that this is a 12-6 Democratic map, possibly even 13-5.
So let's see how these changes would've impacted Republicans in 2008:
At first glance it doesn't look good. Four districts Republicans currently hold would flip over, although one that's expected to flip IL-10 would not.
The problem here is that Democrats won those four districts in 2008. So increasing Democrats in their district won't change things. We need to look at those five freshmen Republicans. How will they do in 2012? The first question is how much the 6 Republican congressmen who ran for re-election improved.
So 2010 was worth an average of 6.7%. Now 2012 is unlikely to be as tough as 2008, even in Illinois, so this is probably worst case scenario. Adjusting for the drop off and the change in their districts we end up with:
Argh! It is ugly. Maybe we should write off IL-8, 10, 11, and 17.
Not so fast. Let's go back up one chart. There was one dramatically larger improvement, Aaron Schock. Schock was the only one who was a new representative. Just like these five. This isn't unexpected. Intuitively we know that an incumbent does better than someone running for an open seat. But how much better?
Let's go back to 2002-2004. They had very similar national congressional results. Republicans got 52.4% of the vote in 2002 and 51.4% in 2004. The President was running for re-election in 2004, same as he is this year. I'm going to stick with races that were competitive in 2002, since the races we're looking at all were. I've excluded a few that had unusual circumstances (e.g. the candidate ran unopposed in 2004, Texas redistricting). Here's what we come up with:
Well, that's all over the board, isn't it? We do have 36% of the elections where the incumbent goes up by 9.0% or more, but also 3 elections where the incumbent went down. On average, however, incumbents went up 6.3%. So let's take this +6.3% and deduct the 5.7% decrease that the Republicans (without Schock) got.
That's certainly much more interesting, isn't it? Here, every race but one is competitive.
There are a lot of things we don't know about 2012. Will Obama once again win 63.8% of the vote in Illinois? If he does worse statewide, he'll likely do worse in each district, resulting in the district being more Republican. Will these freshmen all run in their current districts? Will they have quality challengers? Are they the incumbent who does a lot better in their second election or one that does worse?
There are a lot of factors that'll go into 2012 results. These districts might be the easy wins for Democrats people are predicting. That's just not set in stone. The Democrats will have to hit something that right now looks like it has a 50%-60% chance of happening all four times. That's statistically very difficult.
The media immediately jumped all over it. I've seen predictions on the web that this is a 12-6 Democratic map, possibly even 13-5.
So let's see how these changes would've impacted Republicans in 2008:
The problem here is that Democrats won those four districts in 2008. So increasing Democrats in their district won't change things. We need to look at those five freshmen Republicans. How will they do in 2012? The first question is how much the 6 Republican congressmen who ran for re-election improved.
So 2010 was worth an average of 6.7%. Now 2012 is unlikely to be as tough as 2008, even in Illinois, so this is probably worst case scenario. Adjusting for the drop off and the change in their districts we end up with:
Not so fast. Let's go back up one chart. There was one dramatically larger improvement, Aaron Schock. Schock was the only one who was a new representative. Just like these five. This isn't unexpected. Intuitively we know that an incumbent does better than someone running for an open seat. But how much better?
Let's go back to 2002-2004. They had very similar national congressional results. Republicans got 52.4% of the vote in 2002 and 51.4% in 2004. The President was running for re-election in 2004, same as he is this year. I'm going to stick with races that were competitive in 2002, since the races we're looking at all were. I've excluded a few that had unusual circumstances (e.g. the candidate ran unopposed in 2004, Texas redistricting). Here's what we come up with:
Well, that's all over the board, isn't it? We do have 36% of the elections where the incumbent goes up by 9.0% or more, but also 3 elections where the incumbent went down. On average, however, incumbents went up 6.3%. So let's take this +6.3% and deduct the 5.7% decrease that the Republicans (without Schock) got.
That's certainly much more interesting, isn't it? Here, every race but one is competitive.
There are a lot of things we don't know about 2012. Will Obama once again win 63.8% of the vote in Illinois? If he does worse statewide, he'll likely do worse in each district, resulting in the district being more Republican. Will these freshmen all run in their current districts? Will they have quality challengers? Are they the incumbent who does a lot better in their second election or one that does worse?
There are a lot of factors that'll go into 2012 results. These districts might be the easy wins for Democrats people are predicting. That's just not set in stone. The Democrats will have to hit something that right now looks like it has a 50%-60% chance of happening all four times. That's statistically very difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)