On one level, things should get back to normal in Indiana in 2012; that is, their red state status should come shining through. Unlike its industrial Rust Belt neighbors- Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan- Indiana showed a 5.6% increase in population over the decade- not enough to gain a seat, but neither do they lose a seat in the House. It needs to be mentioned that unlike its neighbors, for the bulk of that decade, Indiana was governed by Republicans. While Democrats in those states often cite “the failed policies of the Bush years” as reasons for their demise, the fact is that their demise was beginning even before Bush took office. Indiana is the exception. And the main reason is that under Republican leadership, they improved and then kept their fiscal house in order.

Governor Mitch Daniels is term-limited. Thus, this will be an open race. When Evan Bayh decided to retire from the Senate in 2010, there was speculation that he would run for Governor in 2012. However, those plans went by the wayside when he announced he would not run. That left the Democrats somewhat flat footed and in search of a candidate. One name circulated was Brad Ellsworth who ran for Senate in 2010 and lost to Dan Coats. However, it makes little sense for him to jump back into the political arena against a strong GOP nominee in a statewide race when he lost to a somewhat weaker GOP candidate in 2010. Democrats believe the 45 year old mayor of Evansville, Jonathan Weinzapfel, is the answer, but he has not entered the race. Then Hammmond mayor Thomas McDermott was touted. To date, the only viable candidate to declare their candidacy is former speaker of the Ohio house, John Gregg- basically an Ohio Democratic B-list candidate.

Conversely, it became increasingly obvious when Mike Pence began shedding leadership roles in the GOP in the House that he would make a run for Governor and he did not disappoint. This is his race to lose and there are no indications that will happen.

In 2008, Indiana barely broke for Obama and he won their 11 electoral votes. That will not happen in 2012.

Unlike Bayh, incumbent Republican Senator Dick Lugar will seek another term in the Senate. Perhaps more than any other time in his electoral history, Lugar will face a double challenge to retain his seat. First, the perception of Lugar has taken some serious shots on these pages and other conservative websites. Some special interests have portrayed him as being in bed with Obama. The only area where they “were in bed” was on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation. I did have a problem with Lugar’s support of the new START treaty and believed consideration could have waited until the new Congress was sworn in. The bigger point, however, is that this idea that a candidate or incumbent needs to pass every item on some checklist or conservative litmus test lest they be targeted, or labeled a RINO, is ridiculous. It is comments and perceptions like that which cost the GOP probable Senate seats in Delaware and Colorado in 2010. Some of the arguments then are the same today: better a true conservative than a RINO. Really? Michael Bennett, an Obama lackey, is better? Really? Chris Coons, who traces his political guidance back to Marxism, is better?

Obviously, there is some dissension in Republican ranks in Indiana over Lugar. Some of his attempts at “bipartisanship” are viewed as “capitulation.” Second, the main attack on Lugar is that he is not conservative enough. A review of his comments, ratings, endorsements and votes from various sources reveals high marks from conservative groups and low marks from liberal groups. Third, if Lugar goes down to defeat, there is no guarantee the Republican alternative would win now or retain their seat in the future. From how I see it, Lugar is the known commodity that could be dealt with and no closet liberal as some have portrayed him. The alternative, at this point, is nothing but words.

Lugar thought he caught a break when car dealer Bob Thomas entered the primary race. His presence would have split the anti-Lugar vote and made his job easier. However, Thomas backed out, much to the delight of Lugar’s main GOP detractor, Robert Mourdock. However, Thomas was mostly critical of Mourdock when he stated: “Why elect someone to higher office when he is not doing a very good job in the one he’s got now?”

The so-called Romney effect is also to be considered. Obviously, Romney is not exactly the top choice of the Tea Party or conservative activists in the Republican Party. Should he basically wrap up the nomination by the time Indiana’s May primary rolls around, it will lead to low primary voter turnout leaving Lugar’s fate at the hands of the more involved and activist elements in Indiana. Some polls put Mourdock in a statistical dead heat with Lugar at this time among likely primary voters. As the theory goes, if Romney wraps up the nomination by May, Tea Party voters in Indiana will take out their displeasure on the next best thing- Lugar- while more moderate Republicans will just sit out the primary. In this way, the Democrats hope a weaker opponent will advance.

The next logical question is if Lugar loses the primary, is Mourdock strong enough to win the general election? Mourdock has received considerable conservative endorsements. Even our own Erick Erickson of Redstate,com has weighed in saying that Lugar’s time has passed and that Mourdock is the man to replace him given his “track record.” A search over the past several days has failed to find that “track record.” I do have his WORDS, but words do not a track record make. As far as his political track record, I know that he twice lost congressional bids in the 8th District in 1990 and 1992 by 10 and 8 points respectively. He did win an election to the Vandenberg County Commission and then state treasurer in 2006 and reelected to that post in 2010. In 2010, he won with over 1 million votes and 60% of the vote. Do those numbers from 2010 constitute a “track record?”

A look at his campaign website is complete with all the right conservative statements and policy positions that, quite frankly, have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever becoming law. I often rant about the fairy tale utopian world of liberals as not living in reality. But, there are fairy tale utopian conservative worlds also. Does anyone really believe HUD, and the Departments of Energy, Education and Commerce will be eliminated, as Mourdock proposes? On that site, he portrays Lugar as being in bed with Obama. Now that Obama has proposed the elimination of the Commerce Department, is Mourdock now “in bed” also with Obama? Regarding a balanced budget amendment, this is another conservative pipe dream that will solve nothing. There are 49 states with some kind of requirement for a balanced budget, yet there are 44 states with budget deficits, so how would an amendment solve the problem? The fact is that state budgets are “balanced” through accounting gimmicks that makes anything done at Enron look like small potatoes and the same would happen at the federal level.

His website criticizes Lugar for failing to support $1.006 billion in spending or program cuts. Admittedly, every little bit counts, but dedicating a whole page to a dollar amount that addresses a miniscule percentage of the total problem is too much grasping at straws. He attacks Lugar for voting for Obama’s auto bail out, but the vote he cites is actually a cloture vote that also included the AMT. As for Lugar’s support of TARP, that was a Bush program that was later subverted by Obama. Yes, Lugar was one of 33 Republicans to vote for TARP. Had he voted “NO,” he would have been in the same company as such conservative luminaries as Debbie Stabenow, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders (sarasm intended). He also asserts that Lugar at one time supported the individual mandate in health care reform in the context of Hillarycare. However, using the very article Mourdock cites as proof, he fails to mention that Lugar supported the notion that all Americans should have health insurance, but that mandating it would create costly burdens and regulations on people and businesses. Regardless, it was the same view staked out by people like Bob Dole, Charles Grassley, Trent Lott and Jesse Helms at the time. Actually, that same article is, ironically, an article in favor of Lugar from the Courier Press. Once again, I fail to see the Mourdock “track record.”

I do see a track record as treasurer of the State of Indiana. Originally elected in 2006, he won reelection in 2010. During his tenure, I venture most of his accomplishments and “track record” is attributable less to Robert Mourdock than to Mitch Daniels. As many newspapers reported, during an unrelated audit tracking a $25,000 check, the state “found” $300 million in corporate tax receipts collected since 2007 that had not been transferred to the general fund. Mourdock elected in 2006. Over $300 million in corporate business tax receipts not transferred to the treasury starting in 2007. Mourdock reelected in 2010. That $300 million discovered in 2011. Perhaps, if Mourdock was doing his elected job, the $300 million would have been discovered earlier. That is the only “track record” I could find on him.

I did not set out to make this entry anti-Mourdock or pro-Lugar. That is for the voters of Indiana to decide and that decision should be supported and respected. But here is the problem as I see it. There are two types of conservatives- the ideologue and the pragmatic. Either can win with an “R” after their name in states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, or even Texas. But, Indiana is not one of those states; they are more pragmatic with pragmatic conservatism running in their Hoosier blood. As Exhibit A, I offer the pragmatism of Mitch Daniels and his reforms. As Exhibit B, I offer Democratic ex-Senator Evan Bayh, a more centrist Democrat, who would have crushed Dan Coats in 2010 had he run. As Exhibit C, I offer their close vote for Obama in 2008- a willingness, if you will, to give the other side a chance. True, Obama blew it when his big government brand of liberalism came shining through. The GOAL is to take control of the Senate in 2013 and the voters of Indiana need to keep that in mind. The Democrats are going to run a rather conservative (for a Democrat) candidate for Senate in 2012. Why put control of the Senate at unnecessary risk when the prize is within sight?

Next: Indiana, part 2

Michigan started their redistricting process with two goals in mind: shore up Thad McCotter’s district and deal with the population losses in the metropolitan Detroit area. As Michigan’s overall population decreased 0.6% over the last decade, the Wayne County population, which includes Detroit, decreased 11.7%. Since Michigan will lose a seat in the House, this area seems ripe for congressional changes.

Like any other state, population shifts within a state show the general sorting of people with similar political outlooks. For example, Wayne County which saw a population decrease of 11.7% gave Obama over 74% of the vote in 2008. Conversely, Ottawa County voted for McCain at a 61% clip and saw a population increase of 10.7%. That is not to claim that every Democratic area saw decreases or every Republican area showed increases. However, this general trend is apparent in many states and may illustrative of many urban conservative/moderate people moving into more conservative or moderate areas of the state, if not out of the state altogether.

In 2008, Michigan gave Obama 57% of the vote along with their 17 electoral votes. Only three congressional districts- the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th- voted for McCain. Yet, nine of their current 15 representatives are Republican. Three things favor Obama winning Michigan again in 2012. First, his approval ratings in the state are consistently above the national average, hovering at or above the 50% mark. That translates into votes. Second, the auto industry still dominates Michigan and he is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the savior of the auto industry in that state. Third, one would expect the union ground game to go all out for Obama, much like they were mobilized to help Harry Reid in Nevada in 2010. Still, the Romney name resonates in this state. It would be tough for Obama to replicate his 2008 results. However, a 53% of the vote figure is realistic and enough to take their 16 electoral votes.

Then there is the Senate race where incumbent Democrat Debbie Stabenow seeks a third term. In 2000, she eked out a victory over incumbent Spencer Abraham and in 2006 won reelection with over 56% of the vote. In 2006, she had two things in her favor that she cannot count on in 2012. First, she had the political wind at her back as Republicans were being voted out of office over George W. Bush’s increasing unpopularity. Second, she faced a weak candidate who was more local in nature. As many have pointed out since, Stabenow should heed the lesson of Russ Feingold who, at this stage of the campaign against a relative unknown, was viewed as invincible in Wisconsin. Yet, the impossible happened. In fact, the voting records and political positions of Feingold and Stabenow are eerily alike. And, I suggest, Michigan is a little more conservative than Wisconsin on a whole. While Stabenow certainly leads in the money game having accumulated a $7 million war chest, Republicans still feel she has vulnerabilities, namely her liberalism that may just go against the grain of mainstream Michigan.

Unlike 2006, the Republicans have a known commodity in former representative Pete Hoekstra. Because he ran for the Republican nomination for Governor in 2010 and lost to eventual winner Rick Snyder, his name is recognizable statewide. In fact, the biggest knock on him right now is that he may not be conservative enough. At this point, we can start a chorus of “Here We Go Again.” Hasn’t the GOP learned its lesson from 2010 from places like Alaska, Delaware and Colorado, as I am sure we will these same arguments in Indiana and Maine this year? The fact is that Hoekstra hails from the most conservative district in Michigan and has the votes, positions and endorsements to back up his conservative credentials. If we hold the man to some failure of someone’s definition of a conservative litmus test, then we run the risk of possibly losing a Senate seat certainly within our grasp. Most importantly, some early polls show Hoekstra even, if not ahead of Stabenow.

Unlike her, he will face a primary challenge from Clark Durant who runs private and charter schools in Detroit and surrounding areas. He may very well be a great man with great eeducational reform ideas, but perhaps he should make his first attempt at elective office not a statewide position like US Senator.

To underscore the urgency of the race, Hoekstra has received the endorsements of Rick Snyder and Michelle Bachmann with whom he served in the House. Recently, Michigan Tea Party groups, not exactly known for their top-down organization, decided to coalesce around Hoekstra as the best bet to unseat Stabenow who they view as an “Obama yes person.” They rightfully view her as the bigger threat than the allegedly less-than-perfectly-conservative Pete Hoekstra.

I am not 100% confident to call this race either way other than to say that should Stabenow prevail, it will be by the skin of her teeth. Already, this is shaping up as a high profile and expensive Senate race that will feature the usual cast of Michigan characters, namely organized labor.

The state loses a House seat in 2013. Although the approved congressional map faces a court challenge from cry baby Democrats in the Detroit area, it should survive. That being said, freshman GOP Dan Benishek was made a little safer in the 1st District and should face a rematch against 2010 challenger Gary McDowell. This race bears watching. Bill Huzienga looks like a safe Republican retention in the 2nd, although he may face a primary challenge. Another freshman Republican, Justin Amash in the 3rd, should win his effort. Former representative Mark Schauer was drawn into this district, but he has declined a run at the seat. Instead, another 2010 rematch should occur here as Pat Miles is considering another run.

Also, David Lee Cammp is safe in the 4th. Democrat Dale Kildee is retiring from the 5th District after serving in Congress since 1977. His nephew, Dan Kildee, the former treasurer of Genessee County, is the only declared Democrat, although the primary field may grow in the coming months. Jim Slezak, a former state representative, will most likely oppose Kildee, although 2010 aspirant John Kupiec is considering a run for the GOP.

Fred Upton in the 6th will likely win his reelection bid against probably John Waltz. Waltz movved north apparently after losing the congressional race in Kentucky’s 4th District in 2010, thus making Waltz a loser in two states in two years time. Although the newly drawn 7th District favors GOP incumbent Tim Walberg, this race bears very close watching especially if a viable Democrat enters the race. The 8th District will likely see yet another rematch of 2010 candidates when Republican incumbent Mike Rogers will face Lance Enderle for the Democrats with Rogers winning again.

In redistricting, Democrats Sander Levin and Gary Peters were drawn into the same district, as expected. In what would have been a bruising primary, Peters instead decided to run in the newly drawn 14th district. Since Republican state representative Marty Knollenberg was considering a run against Peters and his home was drawn out of the district, that will not happen now. Instead, it looks like Dan Volaric, who lost in 2010 to Levin, will lose again to Levin in 2012. Republican Candice Miller is safe in the 10th District. In fact, some polls showed she would be very competitive against Stabenow if she aspired to the Senate. McCottter was deemed the most vulnerable Republican in Michigan, although redistricting helped him out a little, although he is not out of the woods yet. The aforementioned Knollenberg would have been a perfect fit for this district, but he stated he would not challenge an incumbent in a primary, thus only enhancing his star power in the Michigan GOP. McCotter will likely face Syed Taj for the Democrats in November.

District 12 is safely in the hands of John Dingell and John Conyers will keep his 13th District after Hansen Clarke decided to run in the new 14th District. This then sets up a primary in that district between Clarke and Gary Peters with the winner probably prevailing in the general election.

When all is said and done, Obama will garner Michigan’s 16 electoral votes in a race that will be closer than 2008. The Senate race can change on a dime, but at this point, given the advantages of incumbency and her advantage in money, I will go on a limb and give Stabenow a razor thin victory. Finally, the current congressional delegation is 9-6 Republican. Come 2013, it will be 9-5 Republican, representing a loss of one Democrat (or a gain of one Republican in the running count).

Running totals thus far:
Obama 145 electoral votes to 165 for GOP nominee;
Net gain of 2 Governors;
Net gain of 4 Senate seats, and;
Net loss of 8 House seats.

Next: Indiana, part 1

There will be interest in Wisconsin, some of it brought on by the cry baby union loudmouths- many of them not even from Wisconsin- who seek to recall Governor Scott Walker over his much publicized fight to gain concessions from public worker unions. To recall, upon facing office, like many Governors, he faced serious fiscal problems, most of them tied to structural problems in existing union pension and health care plans. Walker simply went for the jugular. To be fair, similar efforts were initiated in other states like New Jersey. It is simply that unions decided to make a stand in Wisconsin, and they lost. But, there was the nightly spectacle of the state house being taken over by angry, noisy protesters and people marching in the streets of Madison protesting against what they did not know in the first place. Having lost, they began what appears to be a never-ending recall effort against Walker.

The bottom line is that the GOP still controls the redistricting process and a little history is in order here. It has been a century since a Wisconsin House freshman lost in a redistricting cycle. In fact, since 1952, only one Wisconsin incumbent has ever lost a reelection bid in a redistricting cycle year. Two current Republicans fit this criteria- Sean Duffy in the 7th and Reid Ribble in the 8th District. Since 1952, the only incumbent Wisconsin representative to lose was Republican Alvin O’Konski in 1972 (to David Obey), but that was because the state lost a House seat that year and his 10th District was basically obliterated. All of this suggests that when redistricting, making the new districts more competitive is not the goal necessarily, but that simple demographics dictate the process. Wisconsin may very well prove to be the poster boy for how redistricting should occur without the VRA.

Some Democrats believe the norm will be broken this year and they view Duffy as particularly vulnerable. However, a little more history suggests otherwise. That is, nine of 11 freshman House members seeking reelection in a redistricting year won by an even greater margin in their follow up election than in their inaugural winning effort. When looking at it district by district, it would appear this trend will continue in 2012. If not, then the GOP could be in for a very long night.

The three Democratic districts are safe: Gwen Moore in the 4th, Ron Kind in the 3rd, and the vacant 2nd District. Paul Ryan will win in the 1st as his national prominence alone will catapult him to victory in a district that is only nominally considered Republican. Democratic challenger Robert Zerban should go down in a fairly easy win for Ryan. In the 5th and 6th- represented by Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri respectively- there is not even any Democratic opposition yet. The 5th is rated +13 Republican and the 6th is +4 Republican. The 8th- that of Reid Ribble- was pushed slightly into the 6th, but not enough to weaken Petri, nor strengthen Ribble much.

The main thrust of the effort was to bolster Duffy in the 7th. Here, the district was taken from +3 Democratic to dead even on the PVI, the best they could realistically do. There are four items that give Democrats better than average hopes here. First, they view Duffy as vulnerable and have targeted him since 2011. Second, they believe they have a viable candidate in former state senator Patrick Kreitlow. Third, they expect a motivated base to turn out on Election Day with a hotly contested Senate seat and Obama at the top of the ticket. And fourth, the possibility that Governor Walker may face a recall election is another factor to motivate the base. Given the new district boundaries, the history, and Wisconsin tendencies to go Democratic nationally, but not so much locally, I believe Duffy will prevail.

The Democrats believe they have a great candidate in 2nd District Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Openly gay and unabashedly liberal, she will prove a stark contrast to any Republican rival. Over the last several election cycles, she has never won with less than 60% of the vote in her home district. A member of the House Progressive Caucus, she has staked out positions that may be even too liberal for Wisconsin- positions like the impeachment of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez. Considering Republican gains of late in the state, she will most likely be reliant on Obama’s coat tails, high urban turn out and a motivated youth voting bloc.

For the Republicans, they are throwing no lightweight into the contest in the name of former Governor Tommy Thompson. Governor from 1987-2001, his welfare reform efforts were replicated elsewhere in the country and used as a model for federal reforms under Clinton. Also, his health care reforms managed to insure many residents who made too much to qualify for Medicaid, but enough to purchase on their own and his pilot school choice program in Milwaukee was a moderate success. That is, Thompson actually enacted many of the reforms that conservatives today use as templates for reforms at the federal level in many key areas- welfare, health care, and education.

While initial polls put Thompson ahead, there are two factors that need mentioning here. First, the election is ten months away. Not that big of a state, Baldwin’s low numbers may be attributable to name recognition. This will change as the campaign heats up. However, that could be a double edged sword for her. She is well-known in the more liberal areas around Milwaukee and Madison. It is the conservative northern reaches of the state that will reject her brand of liberalism.

The second factor is Thompson himself. Most voters are familiar with him since he was Governor for 14 years, a former Secretary of HHS, and a former candidate for President (albeit, short-lived). They should familiar with his occasional political gaffes. Baldwin and her campaign will likely highlight past comments about being in favor of workplace discrimination against gays and will portray him as being out of the mainstream with Wisconsin voters. And having a head cold as an excuse for misunderstanding questions will only work so many times. She will also likely highlight the fact that he mixed up the JDL with ADL and some comments that, when taken out of context, could be seen as perpetuating Jewish stereotypes. There was also his alleged mistreatment of Native American tribes in Wisconsin over, of all things, spearfishing. That is, Thompson enters the fray with some baggage.

On the national level, Wisconsin (like Minnesota) is tough to predict. The birthplace of the socialist movement in America, five of their eight Congressmen are Republican along with a Republican governor and possibly both Senators. On one level, I feel like Wisconsin electing two Republican Senators in back-to-back elections may be asking too much. But then again, this is Wisconsin and I feel that Baldwin is just too damn liberal, even for Wisconsin. This will motivate the conservatives and independents to negate the liberal turnout.

In presidential politics, the state voted for Obama in 2008 and there is reason to believe they will break that way again in 2012, although it will be by less than the 14 point margin of victory he enjoyed in 2008. The most recent poll put him ahead of likely GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. His approval rating in the state stands at 45% with a disapproval rating of 51%. Obama will have his most trouble with the independent voters where his approval rating stands at 40%. This spells trouble for Obama, but I believe recent trends should continue and he will eventually win their 10 electoral votes.

To summarize, Obama takes the ten electoral votes, Thompson is elected Senator and the congressional delegation remains 5-3 in favor of the GOP in Wisconsin.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 129 electoral votes to 165 for GOP nominee;
Net gain of 2 Governors;
Net gain of 4 Senate seats;
Net loss of 9 House seats.

Before Republicans self implode over redistricting in Illinois, it is potentially not the great apocalypse for the GOP many envision. The current delegation is 11-8 Republican and come 2013, they may lose a couple seats. Most of the population lost that cost Illinois a House seat occurred in Chicago and should have been worse had not some of that population moved to the suburbs.

First, a look at the old Congressional map with 19 districts shows how absolutely bizarre redistricting was in the past. With several districts concentrated in the Chicago area, Cook County and DeKalb County, the remains have become large chunks of territory that meandered and ejected finger-like projections into neighboring districts to capture ideal population. For example, the old 17th District ran along the Iowa border before morphing into a thin strip when it reached the Missouri border on the state’s western border, then veered eastward into the 19th District. The 15th District is a large one that suddenly snakes along the Indiana border on the east and the 19th District to the west. Although redistricting may potentially disadvantage Republican incumbents in 2012, the new map looks a hell of a lot better, from a contiguous standpoint, than the old map. That is, they look more sensible and logical.

Second, did any rational Republican honestly believe a state government dominated by Democrats would draw a map advantageous to incumbent Republicans? One can cry foul all they want, but to the victor belongs the spoils. However, the attempt to force a second Hispanic majority district in the Chicago area has to be one of the most creative attempts by the GOP in redistricting efforts this year. It was a nice try.

Third, the population of Chicago is spreading into the suburbs and one needs to ask why. It certainly is not for a lack of housing or social services and there have been no major natural disasters such as what happened to decrease the population in New Orleans. It is by choice that people are migrating out of Chicago to the suburbs, if not migrating out of the state altogether. WE can look at this in one of two ways. Either this tendency is liberalizing the suburbs which would create demographic problems for Republicans now and later in the decade, or the suburbs are becoming an oasis for the more conservative or moderate elements of the Chicago population. If that is the case, the Democrats can expect demographic challenges in the future.

Fourth, when one party has an advantage in a congressional delegation and a House seat is lost, assuming no one from the majority party retires, incumbent versus incumbent conflicts are an inevitability. Illinois was just very audacious. As a baseline in Illinois, I think it would be reasonable that the GOP would lose a seat in the delegation. Also, since this is a blue state, an 11-8 split is probably at the upper end of expectations. Anything greater than a two-seat loss in the delegation would be cause for concern in the short term.

There is only one retirement this year- that of Democrat Jerry Costello in the 12th District. Looking at the safe Democratic districts, we see that they are the 1st through 5th, 7th and 9th. The 12th is Costello’s and the only one now not in the greater Chicago area. Several Democrats are lining up for this district while I believe Terri Neumann has a better than even chance for the Republicans. Where these districts get weaker, however, is in the 1st where Bobby Rush’s district now extends into the Chicago suburbs and picks up parts of rural Will County. In the 2nd, incumbent Jesse Jackson, Jr. will face a serious primary challenge from Debbie Halvorson who moves over from the 11th District, plus it picks up Kankakee County and parts of Will County before extending into Chicago. Whether these changes present an opportunity for Republican Jim Taylor remains to be seen, although it is doubtful either Halvorson or Jackson will lose. The 3rd (Dan Lipinski) is safe while the 4th is the Chicago-based Hispanic majority district and the 5th (Mike Quigley) encompasses the very liberal north side of Chicago.

The 6th, which encompasses the western suburbs of Chicago, is represented by Republican Pete Roskam and is safe. The 8th is being vacated by Republican Joe Walsh who will now run in the new 14th leaving the door open for a probable Democratic victory. Originally, this created an opportunity for Melissa Bean to regain this seat, but she passed making the frontrunner Raja Krishnamoorthi, although they may face a primary challenge from Tammy Duckworth. They are both considered more likely choices than any Republican.

The 10th, which includes mostly GOP territory north of Chicago to the Wisconsin border, should see Republican Robert Dold returned to Congress. He currently lives in the 9th District although this should not present any problems and would avoid a likely loss against Jan Schakowsky in that district. The 11th, a bizarre shaped district southwest of Chicago will feature a battle of incumbents. Bill Foster (Democrat) of the neighboring 14th will likely face Judy Biggert who moves over from the 13th. The district is being vacated by Adam Kinzinger who will move to the more Republican friendly 16th District. The money would have to be on Foster as the district picked up the Democratic areas of Joliet and Aurora.

With Costello out in the new southern 12th district, it actually opens an opportunity for a GOP gain, although it will be hard. Judy Biggert vacates the 13th- a huge swath in central Illinois that extends to the Missouri border. Tim Johnson should keep this seat in Republican hands. The new 14th, to the west of Chicago and extending to the Wisconsin border, is represented by Republican Randy Hultgren. However, Walsh leaves the 8th to run here setting up a primary of incumbents. The 15th, comprising the southeast portion of the state, will be retained by Republican John Shimkus. The 16th District, which pulls in the rural counties to the west of Chicago and wraps around from the Wisconsin to the Indiana border, will pit Republican incumbent Dan Manzullo against fellow Republican Adam Kinzinger, who leaves the neighboring (sort of) 11th District.

The 17th was extended into the more Democratic areas of Rockford and Peoria. Bobby Schilling, the current GOP incumbent, will face a tough race in 2012 against any potential Democratic rival- Greg Aguilar, Cheri Bustos, or George Gaulrapp. And the 18th should be a solid Republican victory for incumbent Aaron Schock.

This is one of Obama’s home states and he will win its 20 electoral votes. With approval rates well above the national average, there will be some coat tail effect, especially in the suburban Chicago districts currently held by Republicans. The current split is 11-8 for the GOP. When the dust settles, it should be 9-9, a two seat Republican loss. Given what could have been, it is not as bad as the worst case scenario. The reshuffling that occurred among the GOP candidates created something out of nothing. So the Republicans should just take their hits in 2012 and realize the future looks brighter. But then again, this is Illinois and anything can happen.

Running count thus far:
Obama with 119 votes to 165 for the GOP nominee;
Net gain of 2 Governors;
Net gain of 3 Senate seats;
Net loss of 9 House seats.

Next: Wisconsin

There is a lot riding on redistricting in Kentucky, most of it centered around the Lexington-based 6th District held by Democratic incumbent Ben Chandler. However, unlike its neighbor to the south, there will be interest in other districts also. Some of it will manifest itself in 2012 while others will occur later in the decade since Democrats feel they have a stable of good candidates coming up the ranks who will provide serious threats to the current Republican domination in 2014 and beyond.

However, we first have to get through 2012. In 2008, Obama lost the state handily by 16 points and there is no reason to believe 2012 will be any better to him. As the election of Tea Party favorite Rand Paul illustrated, the conservatism of the state has maintained its status quo, if not strengthened. Give this state to the eventual GOP nominee. Adding to Obama’s miseries is his environmental policies and attacks upon the coal industry. Coal still plays a major role in the economy and persona of kentucky.

The 1st District, which covers the more rural western part of Kentucky, is represented by Republican Ed Whitfield who is seeking reelection. He has stated that he is not opposed to running with Owensboro in his district and has been raising money at a fairly good clip. There is some limited controversy about him, particularly his residency, but he has seemingly answered those questions. Another is questions about campaign contributions from energy sector donors, especially after he assumed a leadership role on an energy committee in the House. However, this should be a blip on the radar in Kentucky politics. State senator Brent Yonts would be a good challenger, but he will most likely pass up a run in 2012 citing the top of the ticket- specifically, Obama- as the primary reason. Due to redistricting and the fact that 2014 is not a presidential election year, he would more likely run then rather than now.

The talk out of Republican Ben Guthrie’s district is that he will lose Owensboro to the 1st and Ashland to the 5th, he should prevail considering that his most serious Democratic threat- former Kentucky secretary of state Elaine Walker- will also probably bypass the 2012 elections. Although she has not completely ruled out a run in her district, it is no secret she aspires to statewide office stating she likes traveling around the state. If that is the case, a more likely race would be in 2014 as an opponent to Senator to Mitch McConnell. Hence, Guthrie appears safe. Democrat John Yarmuth in the 3rd should win reelection against unsuccessful 2010 challenger Brooks Wicker. In the 5th, besides possible redistricting decisions (gaining Ashland, or some Republican territory from the 6th), Republican Hal Rogers also appears safe.

The 4th District seemed like a yawn until Republican incumbent Geoff Davis announced his retirement recently. Since then, Republicans and Democrats alike have been rushing in to succeed him. For the GOP, Lewis County judge Thomas Massie is trying to shore up $100,000 in funding before seeking a run and the district’s GOP chair Kevin Sell is also trying to gain supporters before announcing a run, as is Boone County judge Gary Moore. Hunter Bates, a former aid to McConnell, would be an interesting possibility. Many in Republican circles are also touting the virtues of Alecia Webb-Edgington as a viable candidate.

Even though Democrats realize it will be difficult winning this seat, they still view it as a unique opportunity. Specifically, realizing that Obama is not exactly the most popular figure in Kentucky, they still feel that Kentucky voters, especially those in the 4th District, are not particularly thrilled about the possibility of a President Romney either. Campbell County commissioner Ron Rechton and Linda Klembara of the Kentucky Woman’s Network are two possibilities. However, the two better candidates may be Nathan Smith, the former vice chair of the state party, who has has expressed some interest stating that any candidate has to be pro-business and that he has those credentials. Grant County judge Darrell Link is also another possibility as his name has surfaced in some circles. Whoever faces off against who, this district should remain in Republican hands, but political careers on either side of the aisle will begin.

Finally, the 6th District, held by Democrat Ben Chandler, is the main focus of redistricting efforts. It has to lose 36,000 people in order to reach the ideal population. One plan has it losing Jessamine County to the 2nd and Garrard County to the 5th. Since they are both Republican leaning counties, Hal Rogers and Ben Guthrie would benefit. Long term, Rogers does not really need the help although Guthrie will in the future. Although the overall effect will be to protect Chandler, in the long term it also benefits the GOP in the 2nd District.

Regardless, Chandler will face a rematch against Andy Barr who he defeated in 2010 by only 647 votes. Chandler survived the GOP wave of 2010 and feels the worst is now behind him. Also, with greater Democratic turnout in 2012 because it is a presidential election year, he believes his chances will be enhanced further. And while it is true that the number of registered Democrats far exceeds the number of registered Republicans, as voting totals show, crossing party lines is the norm.

Barr acknowledges that 2012 will prove more difficult than 2010 because of redistricting and turnout concerns. In fact, he is a vocal opponent of the proposed district changes. Still, he believes that having the unpopular Obama at the top of the ticket will help him and take votes from Chandler. Further, a 6-way primary in 2010 left Barr bruised entering the general election. This year should prove different as it appears he has a clear path to the GOP nomination. Finally, he will stress the fact that Chandler, when given the opportunity, still showed support for Nancy Pelosi when he voted for her to be House minority leader instead of fellow Democrat, southerner, and Blue Dog Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

At worst, the congressional delegation remains 4-2 in favor of the Republicans. Barr’s chances of winning in the 6th District are better than any Democrat’s chances of winning in the 4th. Still, when all is said and done, Chandler should win reelection.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 99 votes to 165 for the GOP nominee;
Net gain of 2 Governors;
Net gain of 3 Senators;
Net loss of 7 House seats.

Next: Illinois

Tennessee neither gains nor loses a seat in the House, but because of population shifts in the state, the political power has moved to the central regions. Also, for the first time since Reconstruction, the GOP controls the redistricting process. In terms of needs, one first looks at the ideal population count for each district within a state. The 7th and 9th districts show the greatest deviation from that ideal population. So it stands to reason that the most impacted incumbents are Republicans Marsha Blackburn in the 7th and Democrat Steve Cohen in the 9th. The 7th is over populated while the 9th needs population. Also, as a black majority district, any decision to weaken Cohen’s hold on the area must pass muster under the VRA. The 7th could b adjusted by shedding those parts of Memphis currently in the district, which would help the GOP. Additionally, by shoring up Cohen, Steve Fincher in the 8th could benefit if he cedes Democratic precincts in his district to Cohen’s 9th District. In the end, it eventually boils down to Democrat Jim Cooper, who represents the Nashville area.

But first, there is a Senate race as Republican incumbent Bob Corker seeks reelection. The former mayor of Chattanooga currently has no declared Democratic opponents. Although Corker may face a primary challenge, no opponents are really considered serious threats. However, in polling of likely Republican voters, on a generic basis, 43% of voters stated they would prefer a more conservative candidate to Corker’s 38% preference. In order for any Democrat to prevail against Corker, since Tennessee is a conservative state, they would have to run to the right of Corker (fat chance), or Corker would have to be scandal-ridden to lose. Although there are conservative options to him, they come from within his party and to the extent that they exist, no one has stepped forward as of yet.

However, there are some potential Democratic candidates starting with former representative John Tanner. A former leader of the Blue Dog Democrats, at one point there were serious rumors that he may switch parties, although he later dismissed them. State senator Roy Herron, who lost his bid to succeed Tanner in the 8th District in 2010, is also a possibility based upon that 2010 effort. Bart Gordon may be considered too liberal for the voters of Tennessee on a statewide basis. An intriguing choice would be Lincoln Davis, a former representative, who remains fairly popular. By Tennessee standards, he is considered a moderate Democrat, but by national standards he would be considered a conservative Democrat. Regardless of who steps forward, if anyone, it would appear the seat is safely in the hands of Corker.

As far as presidential politics is concerned, it is a safe bet that if they failed to vote for favorite son Al Gore in 2000, they will not support Obama in 2012. Nor will he come close. Although he may carry some traditional Democratic urban areas, the eventual nominee will win their 11 electoral votes.

At the House level, because of the shift of political power to central Tennessee, the final scenarios are hard to discuss since the final plans have not been completed. But it centers around two dynamics- what to do about the Nashville-based 5th District, and the political aspirations of Bill Ketron.

Lets first look at the easy districts. Republicans Phil Roe and Jim Duncan are safe, as is Chuck Fleischmann in the southeast section of the state. As mentioned earlier, Steve Cohen’s 9th District needs to gain population and that means the 7th will lose certain parts of Memphis to the 9th. While that would simultaneously help Republicans Diane Black and Steve Fincher, it would also bolster Cohen.

That leaves the 4th, 5th, and 6th Districts. One goal of the Republican-led legislature is to shore up Diane Black in the 6th and that can be done by removing some of the central Tennessee counties. Unfortunately, that would then cause Cooper’s 5th District to shift eastward and pick up some more Democratic areas. Although that would make any Republican’s job tougher in an attempt to unseat him, state house speaker Beth Harwell has been mentioned as a good candidate to run against Cooper. This then creates what amounts to a non-problem in the 4th District. If Rutherford City is drawn into that district, then Bill Ketron would likely enter the race and set up a primary battle between Ketron and Republican incumbent Scott Desjarlais. The Democrats would then likely run state senator Eric Stewart with the GOP eventually prevailing in November, assuming Ketron and Desjarlais do not inflict heavy damage on each other. The bottom line is that shoring Blackburn and Black, they inadvertently also have to strengthen Cooper and expose Desjarlais to a primary battle. The result would be no change in the party make up of their congressional delegation, but they would probably have to sacrifice an incumbent along the way to solidify their political future.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 99 electoral votes to 157 for GOP nominee;
Net gain of 2 Governors;
Net gain of 3 Senate seats;
Net loss of 7 House seats.

Next: Kentucky

Like Mississippi, there should be little drama in neighboring Alabama in 2012. The state is solidly red and will vote solidly Republican while the GOP nominee will capture their nine electoral votes. With no Senatorial race, no Governor’s race, general anti-Obama tendencies and redistricting efforts that bolstered all incumbents, politics should bode well for the GOP in Alabama.

In the Mobile-based 1st District, Republican incumbent Jo Bonnor actually faces their toughest challenge in the March 13th primary against Dean Young, who is actually running to the right of Bonnor, and Peter Gouranres, who unsuccessfully challenged Bonnor in 2010.

If any district’s incumbent was in any conceivable way in danger, it would have been Martha Roby’s 2nd District. However, redistricting made it more GOP friendly territory. Thus far, she faces a possible rematch against Bobby Bright who had been seriously thinking about a run for his old seat and feels that 2010 was an aberration and they have a better chance of winning their seat back in 2012 than they did of retaining it in 2010. If not Bright, then her opponent will most likely be state representative Joe Hubbard.

The 3rd is safe for Mike Rogers while the 4th gained the northern part of Tuscaloosa while losing Blount County. It additionally gained Morgan County while losing Franklin County to the 5th District. All this makes Roger Aderholt safe also. The 6th- represented by Spencer Bacchus, Alabama’s longest serving representative among the current crop- is safe and Alabama’s lone Democrat, Terri Sewell, is safe in the black majority 7th District.

That leaves only the northern 5th District which underwent the most population changes. Due to dramatic population growth in the Huntsville/Madison County area, it had to shrink in size. Business and local leaders of the Decatur and Huntsville areas have long argued for a single, unified district and they got their wish this time. The resulting changes made Republican Mo Brooks more safe, but also had the domino effect elsewhere of moving the 4th even more in the GOP direction and also the 2nd further down state. In fact, the changes north, make Roby safe in her district.

Running totals thus far:
Obama 99 votes to 146 for the GOP nominee;
Net gain 2 Governors;
Net gain 3 Senators;
Net loss 7 House seats.

Next: Tennessee

This will be a quick entry as there is not much drama in Mississippi. In fact, redistricting efforts were rather smooth, all things considered. Although the new plan landed expectedly in court, that panel of judges essentially rubber stamped the plan with minimal changes that do not seriously affect the final district boundaries. As a result, they will remain basically the same for the next decade which should not alter the balance of power.

For President, it is a foregone conclusion that all 6 of their electoral votes will NOT go to Obama. His approval and popularity ratings are very low in the deep south outside of some urban areas.

For Senate, Roger Wicker, the Republican incumbent, who first won a special election in 2008 to take over the seat of Trent Lott, now seeks a full term. His conservative credentials in a conservative state are solid and he should win reelection easily. Thus far, Albert N. Gore, Jr. (no relation to Manbearpig) is the only declared sacrificial lamb (I mean, candidate) for the Democrats.

In 2010, when analyzing the midterm elections, I mentioned that Mississippi’s 4th District results would be indicative of what kind of night it would be for the Democratic Party. Specifically, I stated that if Gene Taylor, the incumbent Democrat, went down to defeat, there would be a Republican wave up the Mississippi Valley, then east through the Rust Belt and that is exactly what happened. The reason was that Taylor was sufficiently conservative enough for a Democrat since he broke ranks with his party on many hot button issues. If he lost, I reasoned, it would be a repudiation of the Democratic brand and people were voting party, not person. That same dynamic will be in effect this year, but only in reverse and only if certain circumstances ensue.

Allan Nunnellee represents the 1st District in the northeast part of the state after defeating another incumbent Democrat- Travis Childers- in 2010. Incidentally, Childers has been mentioned as a potential challenger to Wicker although most polls indicate this would not be as close a match up as most Democrats would prefer. It may just not be politically feasible for Childers to run against Wicker. Two other Republicans have announced their intentions to run against Nunnellee in a primary. In the western 2nd District, incumbent Democrat Bernie Thompson should win reelection in the state’s only black majority district.

Likewise, the 3rd should be an easy win by Republican Gene Harper who will most likely oppose Heather McTeer in the general election. The only surprise could be the coastal southeast corner- the state’s 4th District. In 2010, Republican Steve Pallazzo managed to knock off Gene Taylor. Although Ron Vincent will challenge Pallazzo in the primary, only Mike Herrington has announced a run for the Democrats. In 2010, Taylor was the perfectly suited Democrat for the area. He represented a district with a PVI of +20 Republican. Considered a Blue Dog Democrat, his views, stances, and votes often deviated from the Democratic orthodoxy. In short, in 2010, I believed that if either Taylor or Childers (or both) were voted out of office, it was a rejection of Democrats in general, not individuals who happened to be Democrats. Perhaps there are other districts out there that may be more predictive this year, but if Taylor should get in this race and challenge Pallazzo in a rematch, then a much closer look is in order and we will have to revisit this district as a possible bell weather for the 2012 elections. Should Taylor run and win, then I believe it will be a long night for the GOP. Instead, it would represent a repudiation of the House in general, and the Republicans would suffer by guilt by association. Given the lack of a viable candidate at this time, however, Pallazzo should win reelection.

Running totals thus far:
Obama 99 votes to 137 for GOP nominee;
Net gain 2 Governors;
Net gain 3 Senate seats;
Net loss 7 House seats.

Next: Alabama

President Obama:

Your recent decision to effectively cancel the Keystone XL pipeline is perhaps the most ill-advised, “monumentally stupid” decision of your tenure in office. This was a no-brainer from Day 1. While you use the hard earned tax dollars of American citizens and borrowed money creating staggering debt for future generations in your economic stimulus that created jobs at a rate of something like $350,000 per alleged job created, this was a venture funded by private money to the tune of $7 billion. I know that dwarfs the $800 billion stimulus that accomplished little, but this would have accomplished something without costing the taxpayer a dime.

First, there is the issue of job creation. I really don’t care about the estimates of the American Petroleum Institute (20,000 jobs), the government (8,000 jobs) or eggheads at Cornell University (2,400 jobs). A job is a job is a job. Even the low end- 2400 jobs- is better than no jobs, which is exactly what your decision created. And speaking of jobs, were those jobs created for maintenance of the pipeline and refinery jobs at terminals taken into account? How about the spill over effect of construction jobs? This was a privately funded job creator that you killed.

Second, you killed the project over environmental concerns. But it is my understanding that this project was twice given the go-ahead by the EPA after detailed studies and after TransCanada, the pipeline’s builder, addressed concerns the EPA had with the pipeline in their original plan. Were you aware that more oil is spilled in the world from oil tanker accidents than from pipeline problems? The “XL” in the project’s name is for “extension.” This pipeline already extends into the United States and oil refineries in Illinois, one of your home states, refines this oil now. Has there ever been a problem with the construction or operation of the existing pipeline that does not employ the advanced technology and monitoring the new pipeline would have? How many EPA studies are required? Is the environment going to change between now and after November 6th, 2012?

Third, you, like other Presidents, have noted that we rely on oil imports from some dubious allies, particularly in the Middle East and Venezuala, as well as Nigeria. These are not exactly stable governments. Yet, when given the opportunity to import oil from a stable, reliable ally that we happen to share a very long border with, you turn the opportunity down leaving us just as dependent on oil from unstable governments as the day before.

Fourth, one way or another, that Canadian oil is leaving Canada. Now, it looks likely that it will end up being refined in China or Singapore in refineries that belch filth and smog instead of the environmentally regulated, cleaner, and more efficient refineries here in the United States. If you had a true concern for the environment, it is not evident from your decision here. Additionally, that oil now has to be transported over many miles to western Canadian port facilities, onto tankers, then across the Pacific. The laws of probability indicate a greater chance of environmental disaster from this action than from building that pipeline. Incidentally, ocean currents know no international boundaries. When, God forbid this happens, will the liberals demand that you be tried as an environmental terrorist?

Fifth, you have proven yourself a slave to a subset of a subset of a subset of your liberal constituency. When some environmentalist nobodies are dictating environmental policy and killing jobs in this country while placing us even more dependent on foreign oil from unstable sources, you have abdicated your role as leader of ALL Americans. I, like any environmentalist out there, appreciate clean water and clean air, but enough is enough already. If it isn’t concrete manufacturing runoff, or toilet capacity, or a damn light bulb, your idea of environmental stewardship is way outside the mainstream of most Americans, of which you represent all of them. For at least two years, misinformed activists have been spreading their misinformation to ranchers, farmers and landowners in the affected states driving up land prices, yet you are strangely silent. Perhaps, that is because you are a slave to their views.

Sixth, stating that Congress forced your hand at this decision is ludicrous at the least and insulting at its worst. The project was first proposed during the Bush Administration, plenty of time for you to make a decision instead of dragging your feet. Yet, political expediency took priority while the jobless rate increased. I thank Congress for forcing your hand and revealing you for what you are- a puppet for the radical environmental movement. It is insulting to the intelligence of the American public and insulting to the government of Canada. You stated that you could reconsider later, but in the meantime, what is Canada expected to do? Sit on the oil? Stop extraction?

Finally, you have a very real chance of losing in November. I realize that you have very little chance of winning the states that would have received the greatest economic benefit from construction of the pipeline, but that refined oil would have created benefits for people nationwide, not just in Nebraska, or the Dakotas, or Texas. Nationwide, Mr. President. You are the President of a Nation, not President of the Nature Conservancy. It is time that we had a leader that acted like the President of the United States of America, someone that would make the tough decisions. The irony here is that this was not even a tough decision. And that more than anything is proof that you should be punished at the polls in November. Let us, as a Nation, elect a real leader, not a panderer.

So much can be written about Louisiana in any election cycle given their penchant for corruption and unique pecadilloes intrinsic to that state. Importantly, they have a Governor now who has avoided scandal and corruption. Given his handling of the BP oil spill and his incessant, commonsense attacks on the government’s bureaucracy in responding to emergencies that affected his state, his status in the state is at an all time high. There is also the fact that he maintains a high national profile and, to some, illustrates the changing face of the GOP along with the likes of Marco Rubio, Susanna Martinez and Nikki Haley. Hence, his role in support of Republican candidates in Louisiana will be very important this election cycle.

Redistricting in Louisiana is a hotly contested issue. Normally when one party dominates the other in the congressional delegation, one would expect the majority party to suffer the most ill effects, especially if no incumbent desires retirement. This is not the case in this state. The bulk of the population decrease in Louisiana is the direct effect of Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav and the minority population in the greater New Orleans area. As one remembers, the Democrat representing New Orleans was defeated in 2008 because of scandal. Hence, Congressman Gao, a Republican, managed to eke out a victory only to be defeated in 2010. When a state loses a House seat and no incumbent retires, usually this pits one incumbent against another, usually in neighboring districts. Since the GOP dominates, that would most likely pit one Republican against another Republican. The state will drop from seven to six districts in 2012 with the current delegation 6-1 Republican.

First, under the Voting Rights Act, the 2nd District, which is a black majority district, is essentially protected. But, the problem is this district lost 120,000 blacks because of displacement due to natural disasters. Therefore, any change to maintain its minority-majority status involved some pretzel logic and the likely target to draw in more blacks was from the parishes south of New Orleans. In this way, 2nd District Congressman Cedric Richmond is basically protected and ensured reelection. He is also Louisiana’s sole black representative in a state that has a black population of 33%. However, like in other states, civil rights groups practically demand that another black majority district be drawn in order to enhance the chances of another black winning a seat. In that way, one third of the delegation would be black and more representative of the state’s population at large. Really? They ignore the fact that although 33% of the state’s population is black, the majority of that black population is located in and around New Orleans and they, in essence, have their black representative already.

Regional politics also played a role in redistricting. For example, residents of southern and central Louisiana correctly note that these areas lost fewer population than the northern part of the state and that they are therefore entitled to retain their two districts- the 3rd and 7th. This battle pitted northeast Louisiana against the southeast region of the state. Northern Louisiana wanted to retain their two districts represented by the population hubs of Shreveport and Monroe. The end result is that the 3rd District was basically eliminated. To summarize the new map, the 1st District remains the suburbs of New Orleans while the 2nd remains New Orleans proper although it now reaches into Baton Rouge to capture more of the black population. The 4th is still centered around Shreveport, the 5th around Monroe and the 6th around Baton Rouge although the core of that city was carved out and given to the Second. The difference is the 3rd which is the majority of the old 7th across Lake Charles and Lafayette. The remainder was parceled out to other districts.

The result is that the new 3rd District is now poised to be a battleground between Republican incumbents Charles Boustany and Jeff Landry. When the district got dismantled, Boustany got 575,000 of the residents he originally represented while Landry got only 180,000 of his residents giving Boustany a huge advantage. Of the old Third District, 29% ended up in LA-1, 28% in the new LA-3, 24% in LA-6 and 18% in LA-2. Because of this, Landry would likely have a better chance in the First District.

So where is everyone running and who are the opponents? The 1st goes to Republican Steve Scalise and he would be favored to win reelection assuming Landry does not challenge him here. Even if he did, the winner of the GOP primary would win the general election as there are no declared Democratic candidates, nor are there any on the horizon. When reconfigured, this district would have given Obama only 25% of the vote in 2008. The 2nd would be Democratic incumbent Cedric Richmond who may face a general election battle against conservative sexual abstinence advocate Gail Dignam, although an are, when reconfigured, would have given Obama 74% of the vote and GOP chances are slim to none. For now, the 3rd would face a primary battle between incumbents Jeff Landry and Charles Boustany with Boustany having the inside track. Regardless of who wins the primary, they would be sent back to DC. The 4th would be represented by Republican John Fleming who faces no primary or general election opponent. Although some believe that the district became slightly more Democratic in the process, it should remain in GOP hands for the remainder of the decade.

Rodney Alexander in the 5th and Bill Cassidy in the 6th should win handily against any potential Democratic opponent. In June 2011, the Justice Department cleared the House districts in Louisiana and the state rejoiced. The worry is that the Holder Justice Department would have required a second black majority district, but they did not. In reality, had Holder required that, it would have set up a serious constitutional challenge to the VRA as a whole because then you would have a case of the federal government demanding a second minority district when the minority population of the state actually decreased. That would have set the VRA on its head and Holder wisely decided against this strategy.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 99 electoral votes to 131 for GOP nominee;
Net gain 2 Governors
Net Gain 3 Senate seats;
Net loss 7 House seats.

Next: Mississippi