« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The THREATENED NY Congressional District map.

I say “threatened” because if the NY state legislature doesn’t come to a deal by Wednesday, this is the map that is very likely going to be the one to get used:

…and there’s going to be several Members of Congress who will be very unhappy if that happens. Including Steve Israel of the DCCC.

Compare this map to the current one and the first thing that leaps out: the districts are a lot more straightforward, especially outside of NYC. That should be the first indication that the lines weren’t actually drawn by politicians, of course. As to the most obvious details: Representatives Hochul, Buerkle, and Turner will be playing the parts of Major Sacrificial Lambs (Turner has reportedly already decided to run for the US Senate instead). But there’s more subtle stuff going on below the surface; for example, as David Nir of dKos* noted but did not address, Charlie Rangel now has a Latino-majority seat. Frankly, that probably means that Rangel is on his last, or second to last, term. There’s little flourishes like this, scattered throughout the map; it, in fact, comes across as being somewhat hostile to New York politicians in general. Given that it was created because the state legislature is too busy fighting both itself and the governor over redistricting, this should hardly be surprising.

Moving along… below are a list of the incumbents that I think are most in trouble with this map. The data comes from Red Racing Horses (H/T: @CTIronman):

This chart needs a little explanation: ‘BO’ & ‘JM’ represent the popular vote totals for Barack Obama & John McCain in 2008; and ‘Dem’ & ‘GOP’ are likewise the partisan numbers. ‘Bush’ & ‘Lazio’ ask if either candidate won that area in the 2004 and 2000 elections, respectively. Green represents a candidate whose district went for both the opposite Presidential/Senatorial candidates in 2000 & 2004; yellow represents a candidate where the new district went for one, but not the other. So, looking at those numbers… pretty much explains why people consider Bishop, Buerkle, Owens, and Horchul at considerable risk: they’re now in districts that are historically hostile to their parties. And that’s also why people aren’t talking so much about Hayworth or the rest of the freshmen Republicans; 2008 may have been bad for the GOP in NY (and more or less everywhere else), but the historical numbers are good and they are, after all, incumbents.

Finishing this up: note that the above numbers represent voting percentages as they would have occurred if the districts had existed in that form back then. To give an example: current DCCC Chair Steve Israel is currently in NY-02, which went for 56/43 Obama/McCain and 53/45 for Kerry/Bush. He will be running in NY-03, which would have gone 54/46 Obama/McCain and 52/48 Kerry/Bush. Which is why he’s on the list above, actually (Lazio won what would later be NY-03 in 2004)… and why this entire map is a not-very-subtle hint to the legislature that they have run out the clock on this particular game.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Gimme a break, it was a decent if admittedly Democratic-partisan analysis.

COMMENTS

  • joekat

    that I could no longer be represented by Nita Lowey. On this new map I am in NY-17 which has no incumbent living in it. Although seeing that she and Engel are both in NY-16 I would assume that Lowey would sneak over the border back into my district. Curse you for giving me hope.

  • crispybacon

    Breaking up Saratoga County is unfortunate. But at least it appears they only took the more urban towns which would have more in common with Albany than Malone. Hard to tell if Stillwater got caught up in Albany’s gravity. Seeing the limited options, I start to see merit in the argument (often expressed by the likes of Nate Silver) to increase the number of congressional districts.

  • acat

    because increasing the number of districts (i.e. going back to a more accurate interpretation of the original intention of the House of Representatives as “citizen-legislators” .. people who are personally known to everyone they represent… ) means increasing the number of congresscritters…significantly.

    Mew

  • crispybacon

    I’ve thought it a terrible idea because it sounds unworkable. It necessarily dilutes the voice of each representative. I fear it would simply give the establishment more power simply to get anything done.

    Saratoga County has its own character apart from Albany or the North Country, it’s really a part of both. I could see combining Saratoga with Washington and Rensselaer counties. The numbers just don’t seem to be there to keep the areas together as they should be.

  • freemanja1991

    The map doesn’t look all that bad

    Burke might just be unsavable without nasty gerrymandering
    Slaughter might retire
    Looks like we can get or compete in all 4 of the Long/Nassau county seats (Do we have good candidates to besides Randy Altshculer and Peter King?)
    Deneen Borelli needs to run in 17, she would win.
    Could a Republican from Yonkers win in 16? (Hasn’t there been a few Republican Mayors of Yonkers?)
    Also don’t be certain Lowey moves into 17.

  • davenj1

    is that the state legislature is dysfunctional. Congressional redistricting is tied to their state senate and house redistricting and part of the gridlock in the state legislature is incumbents are trying to save their own political futures even if it means throwing the few Republican US House members under the bus to get there.

    And secondly, the New York GOP is a joke.

  • Juggernaut

    555

  • gawken

    Remember, after 2000, much of Northern Westchester was moved into Lowey’s district. This was primarily because Sue Kelly had voted to impeach Clinton, so the newest residents of Chappaqua didn’t want to have Kelly as their representative.

    Lowey was all set to run for the Senate, until Hillary bulldozed her out of the way.; Now, give that the GOP will most likely control the House for the rest of the decade, I expect Lowey to retire….there is no fun in being in the minority in the House…she’s maintained a very low profile this past term..and the Dem caucus is gonna be a zoo after November.

    I suspect her announcement is being delayed to thwart any others from running…until Chelsea announces for the seat. Yup..she’s gonna move to the ‘burbs..and get preggers…and you’ll be stuck with her…

  • crispybacon

    “right wing socialism”?! Brings to mind Gingrich calling Ryan’s reform plan “right wing social engineering.” And it is simply nonsensical. Socialism is left wing. No need to tarnish the term “right wing” by implying it is capable of including socialism.

    RomneyCare is dumb. It enshrines left wing ideals. Attack it on its own lacking merits, please.

  • Juggernaut

    you are in denial.

    You can lose your license in Massachusetts if you don’t have Romneycare or pay the fine. Read up, its socialism once you know the facts.

  • crispybacon

    RomneyCare is NOT right-wing. Read and repeat.

    Let me re-iterate my already clear point: “socialism” and “right-wing” are mutually exclusive.

    Putting them together is like saying “vegetarian meatloaf.” And yes, there does exist a food item with that name, but it really isn’t meatloaf. There is a saying on the internets that “the cake is a lie” but really the vegetarian meatloaf is a lie.

    We should reject RomneyCare as NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM “right-wing.” We do not need to tarnish the Right with charges of socialism.

    You’re playing right into the narrative of the Left by calling RomneyCare “right-wing.” The Left phrases it as, “even conservatives supported a mandate, Newt, the Heritage Foundation, even that conservative Lincoln Chafee! Look it really is a conservative idea!”

    No. No. No. It is not an idea of the Right. It is an idea offered by the formerly-professed “progressive” Romney, the ideologically inconsistent Newt, the liberal Chafee, and a thinktank that didn’t think hard enough, largely motivated by political reflex to respond to Clinton’s liberal plan.

    Call it socialist. But don’t call it right-wing.

    Your influence is admittedly less than 0, whether you sincerely think you’ve come up with a cute slogan or are a left-wing troll, but if the former, I hope to impress upon you how to be effective going forward. Tarnishing the Right with claims of socialism is the opposite of helpful. Thank you and have a good day.

  • Juggernaut

    yourself on the inner workings of the bill because you are too lazy. You fail to comprehend your ignorance let alone the denial game in your head. You are a liar and a pathetic squishish troll infesting your stupid nonsense while pretending to have a clue about RomneyCare.

    You have not read the bill, you are just another arm chair tiv troll who is uneducated and a quick ignorance reactionary living in denial. read the bill and get over your ignorance because your instant ramblings resemble the majority of the mindset at the DailyKOS.

    RomneyCare is Right Wing Socialism and this nation can’t afford it nor can we afford uneducated trolls like you. People like you are at fault for the deficit, you continue to vote for moderate fools and weak squish progressives.