Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
Leading Off:

Redistricting: Since the election, lots of Democrats have pointed to the discrepancy between the nationwide House popular vote (won by Dems) and the GOP's continued control of the House majority, to which the GOP response has been mostly "Hmmrmrmf ... hey, look over there!" But in the last few weeks, something seems to have changed: namely, Republicans now seem to be loudly embracing the fact that, yes, gerrymandering saved their majority in 2012—and they're proud of it. Part of this trend stems from a recent memo from the Republican State Leadership Committee (their counterpart to the DLCC) and its REDMAP program, emphasizing the role of their 2010 legislative victories in preserving their House majority in 2012.

And on Thursday, at the House GOP's annual retreat, NRCC chair Greg Walden adopted that same line, saying "Redistricting was a blessing for us." That's also reflected in a new NRCC memo that claims that the number of competitive seats is smaller under the new round of districting, and that there are now 190 "strong Republican seats." (There's no cited discussion what constitutes a "strong Republican seat," though my back-of-the-envelope math suggests it might be districts that are around 45 percent Obama or less.)

That NRCC memo is the same one that we briefly mentioned in the previous Digest, which listed what Republicans view as the seven most vulnerable Democrats, but it turns out it also they have a second tier of 38 additional Dem targets, which it's probably worth your while to glance at. The list is dominated by freshmen who won competitive races last year, though there are a few wishful-thinking picks thrown in there (Bill Keating? Peter DeFazio?). (Also, h/t to commenter KingTag, who points out a similar DCCC "staying on the offensive" list from early 2009, if you want to step in the wayback machine and see how that all panned out. Spoiler alert: Democrats defeated precisely one of those targets in 2010.) (David Jarman)


KY-Sen: Tea partiers upset with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are running out of options when it comes to finding a primary challenger. Paulist freshman Rep. Thomas Massie, who went so far as to vote against John Boehner as speaker and has been doing his best Justin Amash impersonation on the House floor, says he won't run against McConnell. In fact, he says he "absolutely, positively" will not. But Massie is only 42 and is troublemaker by nature, so I wouldn't be surprised if he has ambitions to muck things up somewhere down the line.

WV-Sen: Ralph Baxter, the head of national law firm Orrick, was listed as a possible Senate candidate earlier this week in a piece in the Charleston Gazette, and now he's confirming his interest. Baxter's family hails from West Virginia, and he set up a sort of legal back office for the firm in Wheeling a decade ago. Orrick, however, is based in San Francisco, where Baxter was born and currently lives, though he said he considers Wheeling his home and plans to move back there after he steps down from his current post at the end of the year. That's somewhat problematic, though: If he waits to run until 2014, he'd be giving GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito a huge head start. Baxter might be able to partly make up for it with some personal wealth, but he'd have a lot of work to do introducing himself to voters, so a year-long wait until he starts campaigning would be a major self-imposed setback.


FL-Gov: Hah, Rick Scott seriously thinks this is going to help his image? After signing into law a bill in 2011 that reduced the number of early voting days in Florida, Scott infamously disavowed the legislation earlier this week—and then on Thursday offered this amazing turnabout: "We need more early voting days, which should include an option of the Sunday before Election Day. And, we need more early voting locations." Well, awesome! It's the right thing, and it'll help us turn Scott out of office in 2014. Sometimes chutzpah cuts both ways.


IL-13: This story is from December but it's still relevant for horserace watchers. Illinois' 13th Congressional District was home to one of the tightest races in the country last year—just a thousand votes separated the winner from the loser—so it's no surprise that GOP freshman Rodney Davis is already at the top of Democratic target lists for 2014. However, Barack Obama saw his performance in the district drop considerably: It went from a seat he carried by 11 points over John McCain to one he narrowly lost to Mitt Romney. That might help explain why several Democrats have already said no to a race against Davis, including state Sen. Mike Frerichs, Champaign County State's Attorney Julia Rietz, Champaign City Council member Paul Faraci, and Normal Mayor Chris Koos.

But the cupboard's not entirely bare. Former Champaign County Board member Brendan McGinty isn't ruling out a run, nor is Champaign Mayor Don Gerard. McGinty sounds more interest (he called the idea "intriguing"), while Gerard seems more reluctant, saying that it's "never been my dream to be a congressman." Also a possibility is the man Davis beat, physician David Gill, who is still thinking about another run. However, it would be his fifth bid for Congress, and one local Dem official said he thinks Gill should "take some time and think it over," which is obviously not the most enthusiastic stance one might take.

TN-05: As a follow up to my piece on Rep. Jim Cooper's shameful vote against badly-needed federal disaster funds for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, my colleague Steve Singiser takes a look at the local political scene in Nashville to see if there's anyone who might step up to take on Cooper in the Democratic primary. Nashville's a pretty blue town, so there are in fact quite a few Dem elected officials, but finding someone willing to challenge Cooper won't be easy. Click through to see the list Steve worked up, and if you have any ideas of your own, please add them in comments!

Relatedly, I went on David Waldman's "Kagro in the Morning" show on Daily Kos Radio on Thursday to discuss Cooper's vote, his history of sticking a thumb in his party's eye, and the prospects of a primary. You can listen to the podcast here (my segment begins at the 1 hr 34 min mark).

Other Races:

Seattle Mayor: Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn was, to some extent, elected without a particular constituency in 2009, when the former director of the local Sierra Club won by being the least-bad option left after incumbent Greg Nickels' strange implosion in the primary. That lack of a natural base is coming back to hurt him as he runs for re-election in 2013, as a huge array of the city's heavy hitters are all pouring into the race, sensing easy pickings.

McGinn's basic constituency (if he has one) can be thought of as environmentalists/neighborhood activists + poorer non-white areas, but his environmental flank got demolished by the recent entry of former city councilor (and urban planning wonk) Peter Steinbrueck, and now last week's entry by city councilor Bruce Harrell probably wipes him out among people of color, too. (Harrell's name might be familiar because he briefly considered running last year from the left against Adam Smith in the redesigned WA-09; he's the lone non-white city councilor currently, and has strong roots in the city's diverse South End.)

Throw in state Sen. Ed Murray (who has the LGBT vote locked down) and city councilor Tim Burgess (who occupies the law-and-order turf), and I'd be surprised if McGinn even finishes third in the primary, let alone gets in the top-two and advances to November. (David Jarman)

Grab Bag:

Congress: BusinessWeek has an awesome color-coded graph of the composition of the 113th Congress (House and Senate combined), with a different color for each type of profession (45 lawyers, seven accountants, and so forth). There's also a little summary table at the bottom which brings some distressing news: The 'Stache Caucus in the House has shrunk by two members, down to just 23! However, the Senate 'Stachers doubled their ranks, all the way up to two members now. The infographic helpfully notes: "Does not count mustaches worn as part of a beard." Damn straight!

Florida: PPP's new batch of Florida miscellany mostly focuses on hypothetical 2016 presidential matchups (in both Dem and GOP primaries as well as the general election), but there are also some Senate approval numbers. Democrat Bill Nelson, fresh off re-election to a third term, is just above water at 43-40, while freshman Republican Marco Rubio is still the most popular statewide pol in Florida at 49-36. Obama's approvals stand at 50-48, very close to last November's election results in the state.

WATN?: Hahahah, of COURSE! Dennis Kucinich loved to troll the Democratic Party throughout his career, and now that he's out of Congress, he'll get paid to do so ... as an "analyst" on FOX News, naturally! I can't imagine a better fit. FOX and Special K: Truly, a match made in heaven.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This whole GOP Take-over is just (6+ / 0-)

    too much.

    First it was Democrats sitting out in 2010.  That hurt the country in ways.... well, we are seeing the results now.

    Next came the Gerrymandering from the 2010 Census.

    Then the Voter ID Laws.

    And let's NOT forget the Filibuster abuse.  Majority Rules?  Ha !!!  Seems the Minority is Ruling and hungrier than ever for power (for people who claim to hate Government, they sure do love it and all the perks it gives them).

    Is this legal and can it be shown in this horrible Supreme Court that this type of change does not Represent the People?

    Oh, but let's make sure you have all your gun rights first.... Those are by far more important than who Governs.... (NOT).

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:25:55 AM PST

  •  They're nuts if they think Lois Frankel will lose (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, JBraden, betelgeux

    She sits in a pretty blue district in South Florida and has a very good operation going. I know, she has reached out to my mom in South Florida. . . and to me in michigan

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:27:02 AM PST

  •  Gerrymandering is as bad as Citizens United (5+ / 0-)

    It's not just that the Republicans won a bunch of seats that that wouldn't have won if the districts had been divided fairly, it's far worse than that.

    Would there even be a Tea Party, if so many districts had been drawn around extreme conservative nut cases?  Would the country be able to move forward, if more moderate Republicans were in congress because there were far fewer districts able to elect the Tea Party Crazies?

    I've recently reconsidered Gerrymandering and realize it is a FAR FAR bigger problem than I originally thought.  It changes the very conversation the nation has about it's future.

    •  Wake up. They're never divided fairly. Ever. (0+ / 0-)
      [T]he Republicans won a bunch of seats that that wouldn't have won if the districts had been divided fairly...
      Neither party wants a state full of competitive districts, so get over it.  That's not going to change.  Ever.

      Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

      by SpamNunn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:43:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought I was the most cynical here! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mdmslle, betelgeux

        Yep, both parties do it, and it's terrible for the country.  Some states have independent panels that draw the districts.  Unfortunately, most of those are blue states who are unilaterally disarming.

        In a constitutional amendment, we can correct a bunch of election crap that desperately needs to be changed.  Gerrymandering is one of the big ones that needs changing.

        •  Hmmm, maybe there's something to that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If all the states that have independent redistricting commissions are now "blue" states, that kind of speaks for the idea, doesn't it?

        •  A constitutional ammendment is a great idea, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OGGoldy, LordMike, mdmslle

          But have you looked at the requirements for enacting one?

          2/3rds of both houses of congress, followed by majorities in the state legislatures of 38 states.

          It'd be hard enough getting Democrats to vote to weaken their own incumbent-protecting districts.  Persuading a third or more of Republicans to sign on is pretty much impossible.

          And if we had the votes for it in 38 states, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place...

          •  difficult yes, impossible no. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm aware of the requirements.

            Think of the political consequences of the Republicans voting against a constitutional amendment to reform an election process that the vast majority of Americans think is corrupt.  This can also be done in 2/3's of the state legislatures.

            In fact, the political pressure may be so great on the Republicans in congress, they may call the Democrats bluff, and figure it won't pass in the states.  This could be a political hammer so big, that eventually both parties would have to give in and accept it.

            •  Is there evidence (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              To suggest that the "vast majority of Americans" think it's corrupt? My guess would be that the majority, or at least a large minority, of Americans don't know what redistricting is.

              When it has been brought to a vote, the results haven't been overwhelming. Ohio had a ballot issue just last November that was soundly defeated by popular vote.

        •  In NJ, each party gets to either agree upon or (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mdmslle, slothlax

          propose a plan that gets submitted to a neutral chosen by both parties.  Like in a baseball salary arbitration, the neutral can only choose one of the proposals.  He can't tweak it.  He can only pick one.  You would think that would make the parties try to agree on one that was fair, wouldn't you?

          That's how the Democrats lost the House redistricting here in the Garden State.  

          Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

          by SpamNunn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:14:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I can see a bunch of incumbents holding the (0+ / 0-)

          vote for the necessary Constitutional Convention tomorrow.

          Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

          by SpamNunn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:15:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hah! Very old news to us in Texas. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, mdmslle

    Started with the 1990 census, and the subsequent re-re-re-re-districting since then (not counting all the court challenges and adjustments thereafter).  

    Remember Tom DeLay and Tom Craddick (TX House Speaker at the time).  And that's partly how we got Dub, and certainly, in the long food-chain that comprises statewide elected offices in Texas, it's also how we got Rick Perry, and incidentally (when the system didn't quite work the way the GOP powers intended), someone like Senator Ted "Crazy Troll" Cruz.

    The state Lege counts, in every state, and that's the long-term game the gOP has been playing and continues to play.  Ignore it at our collective peril.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:31:35 AM PST

  •  The nationwide popular vote is meaningless. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We have an electoral college and Congressional Districts are apportioned proportional to population as determined by the Census.   Red states made big gains in the last census.  Blue states lost seats.  

    It's not all about gerrymandering, either, although if that's your complaint, then we need to win more legislative races.  Here, in NJ, the last legislative apportionment favored the Democrats, big time.  We lost the Congressional apportionment, however, because the plan submitted by the Democrats was, to be blunt, less reasonable than that of the Republicans, and a neutral appointed by both parties had to pick one.  

    Either way, gerrymandering is the rule, rather than the exception, for both parties.   When the parties meet to redistrict, they create safe districts for the good old boys club and throw their least favorite members into "sudden death" races in a competitive district, designed to make the "last loser" race reasonably fair.  

    Enough with the "they only won because they cheated on gerrymandering" meme.   Win some legislative races if you want to be the party with the edge, and have more kids.    [end of rant]

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:38:40 AM PST

    •  Perhaps you didn't notice. (0+ / 0-)

      It is the Republicans saying that they won because of gerrymandering.

      When someone tells you they are lying, you should believe them.

      by shoeless on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:41:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Red states made gains (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Nir

      in population largely because of huge increases in non-white populations. The "neutral" in the NJ redistricting case was a former Republican AG. Oh, and just because we've long had an electoral college that determines our presidential races doesn't mean it's not an antiquated system and we have to stick with it.

      •  That's really bad, then, as those same population (0+ / 0-)

        gains voted in Republican congress people.  

        Mr. Farmer, Dean of Rutgers Law School, was a Christie Whitman appointment. Thus, many Republicans would contest that he was a Republican appointment He was a bi-partisan pick for the redistricting judge.  

        The Electoral College would need a Constitutional amendment to change it. Not happening.  

        Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

        by SpamNunn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those red states that gained population, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          mostly due to increasing minority populations, haven't yet changed enough to alter voting results. That will happen with time. And Republicans will try to use gerrymandering for as long as possible to mute and manage these changes. But at some point it will be a losing battle for them, and they'll just be mitigating damage.

          If you're interested, check out this census map from the NYT. It's jaw-dropping how much the minority numbers (especially Latino) are changing relative to whites. In some cases, it's almost exponential.

    •  How was the Dem redistricting plan in NJ (0+ / 0-)

      "less reasonable"? Dems threw Steve Rothman and Scott Garrett into a fair fight district; Republicans put them in an R-leaning district. An evenly split congressional delegation in a decidedly blue state doesn't strike me as that fair but whatever.

      Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans know that they will never again (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, askew, JBraden

    have a majority. But, they found that they can rule both chambers of Congress as a minority, with gerrymandering in the House, and filibustering in the Senate. They think it's funny that they can rule against the majority of Americans.

    Remember the slogan of the McCain campaign, 'Country First'?

    When someone tells you they are lying, you should believe them.

    by shoeless on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:38:49 AM PST

    •  Never? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Anonyman

      No, that isn't going to happen. There is no such thing as a "permanent majority". There was a time where Republicans were lucky to get 180 seats and were in the minority for 40 sraight years, and 58 of 62 years. Then lots of coalitions shifted, as they constantly do, and they have been in the majority for 14 of the last 18 years. Coalitions will continue to evolve as they have evolved for centuries. Republicans will not always be in the majority, and neither will Democrats.

  •  those "strong seats" are fringe drivers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, mdmslle

    because those seats and now only touchable by primarying .

    Which is how the batshit crazy Birchers get in, and then get elected. This in turn, turns everyone else, including sane Republicans away from the party.

    Which drives them further to the fringe and futher into a minority party.

    The only way to "fix" that then is to "fix" the electoral college delegate apportionment.  

    And then the full crazy fringe of the Republican party will be dictating to the majority of the US.  What do you think will happen then?

    I have wondered if we can pick maybe 10 to 20 house Republican districts in the country and encourage democrats from the now super strong democratic districts to move into those stretched Republican districts and change them

    Use what they did, against them.  They created the super strong Democratic districts - so we have movement possibilities ( that won't affect our districts) where they do not.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:05:04 AM PST

    •  Lots of 55% GOP districts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clytemnestra, slothlax, GayHillbilly

      The GOP in states like OH, MI, VA, WI and PA packed the Dems into such a tight area where they get 80% or more while the GOP spread their districts out pretty thinly.  You should check out MI for example or WI.  Even Paul Ryan was put in a district where if he were not an incumbent running for VP with tons of Koch money backing him up, he'd be hard pressed to win.  There are a ton of 55% GOP districts where all you need is a shift of 5%+1.  Those districts may come back to bit them in say 2016 after some shifts in population, the fact that it's a presidential election year and hopefully those states will have Dem govs and Dem legislatures who will reverse the Voter suppression tactics of prior years.  

      All total there were 30 or so races where Dems were tantalizingly close in 2012.  Dems only need 17.  It would be great if Dems got those in 2014 but I'm guessing 2016 will be the year much like 2006 was the year Dems overcame the redistricting of 2000.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:20:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are on the right track (0+ / 0-)

        I've been looking at those margins too and I'm pretty much of the same mind.  There are some good targets out there right now for 2014 and, depending on how the political landscape shapes up over the next year or so, a chance to take back the House.  But I think at the very least we will remain competitive in a lot of those GOP 55% districts in 2014, more or less break even, and bust out in 2016, particularly in MI OH NC VA WI PA and MN.

        But we have a lot of defense to play out west too, especially in AZ

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:54:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gerrymander also a problem for GOP (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, R30A, mdmslle, slothlax

    While the gerrymandering of certain districts has apparently allowed the GOP to retain seats and control of the HOR as well, the GOP is also becoming aware of the double-edge that is the gerrymander sword.

    Because some GOP reps from certain districts are only vulnerable to a challenge from the right, those reps are all going hard right to forstall such challenges.  In going hard right, those reps then become unresponsive and uncontrollable to GOP leadership (cf the large number of conservative reps who would not vote for Boehner's Plan B tax plan because the plan was not conservative enough).  

    The urspung of conservative thinking is that governemnt works best which governs the least.  So we have a core of conservatives now trying to outdo each other in doing as little governing as possible.  And it is literally impossible to run a country by not governing.  And the GOP leadership is now caught between the need to run the country and a large segment of its membership who are committed to doing nothing.

    The result is a fracturing of the GOP's unity, and productivity.  The House now behaves as if there are three different parties.

    Some in the GOP are becoming aware of the problem, but can do little more than urge their collegues to be less offensively conservative, and toe the party line.  But those conservatives in gerrymandered districts know that to keep their jobs as reps, they only need to be more conservative than the next guy, and can safely ignore the pleadings of their leadership.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:13:08 AM PST

    •  If we can nationalize that intransigence... (0+ / 0-)

      we can beat the moderate Republicans by tying them to the dysfunction of their uncompromising colleagues.  The key is to make voters overlook how much they like their individual congressperson (always the dilemma, "Congress sucks, but my gal is great!") and see that only one party is condoning the extremism that is making Congress dysfunctional.  That was how we made so many gains in 2006.  While my local Congressman had decades of tenure and boatloads of goodwill and popularity in the district, we effectively tied him to the wider Republican agenda and Bush.  He barely survived, but saw the writing on the wall and didn't run again in 2008.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:48:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IL-13? (0+ / 0-)

    Redistricting altered that map considerably from 2008 to 2010. Are you looking at Obama's numbers on a precinct level? In 2008, IL-13 was my suburban Chicago district. It's a largely rural district now.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:38:58 AM PST

  •  Slaughter and Israel as targets? Hahahaha! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think they just took any Democrat who got less than 60% of the vote and put them on that list

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:27:51 AM PST

  •  So few competitive seats (0+ / 0-)

    I just finished going through each of the 435 House districts and there are exactly 50 districts nationwide that have a PVI of 3 or less, 20 of them are held by Democrats and 30 by Republicans.  In addtion, only 6 seats with a PVI of R+4 or above are held by Democrats and 3 seats of PVI of D+4 or above are held by Republicans.  That's 59 total seats logically in play (barring wave elections), a whopping 13.5% of seats.  People can complain about "throwing them all out" of Congress, but that's 87% of the districts where the party in office now would continue to be that way.

    Yes, we did! AGAIN!!

    by minvis on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20:56 AM PST

  •  California got it right this time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No one on the left is paying enough attention to what happened in California this year. Thanks to a non-partisan citizen-based redistricting process, we have a 2/3 Democratic majority in the state legislature and can finally pass a budget, and our Congressional delegation is absent some long-time safe leaders on both the left and the right, including goodbye to Mary Bono Mack, David Drier, and Elton Gallegly, along with Howard Berman and Pete Stark. The good totally outweighed the bad/sad. We discovered that redistricting was always a deal-making process: you get these safe seats of we get those safe seats, and when it is done fairly and in public view, the result is much more favorable to Democrats.

    Howard Berman's brother Michael Berman has been the redistricting guru for as long as I can remember, and Howard's loss when thrown into the same district as Brad Sherman was a clear illustration of the consequences of democracy.

    You'd better believe that the Right is looking to have a similar impact in other states in 2020, and to reverse the  phenomenon in California next time around. Someone better start thinking about this!

    "When you give back all your ill-gotten gains, you're a reformed crook. When you keep most of the loot and only give back a small part of it, you're a philanthropist." - Alfred E. Newman

    by Abstract668 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:19:32 PM PST

    •  Heh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What happened in California this year? I can certainly tell you about what happened with redistricting last year, since I wrote about it a zillion times. But 2013 is yet young. :)

      Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

      by David Nir on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:50:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site