He might disagree with Dean, but he at least gets that Dean is doing a good job even while disagreeing with him.
Carville has decided to take a win and use it to try and divide the party. Dandy, we can’t even get along when we win with this sort of crap.
I think the 50 State Project’s impact on this election is a bit overstated–sort of like the Trib’s slobberfest over Rahm. Both were important, but I don’t think the 50 State project is really showing that much impact yet. We’ll see it have a far greater impact in 2012 after the next redistricting.
I also tend to think the fight over resources wasn’t as clear cut as most in the blogosphere think it was, but I have enough faith in Dean and Rahm to know both were simply trying to do what they were tasked with.
That said, Carville is full of crap. Part of the reason it wasn’t a bigger win is that redistricting has reduced how easily a wave election creates turnover. We are still fighting off the legacy of the 1994 election in state houses. The 50 State Project is going to pay off by giving Democrats more control over redistricting and thus a better ability to hold a majority.
Rahm gets that part of it–remember he’s the one who wanted to do a mid-decade redistricting in Illinois. I am against that, but think that Democrats need to play hardball in Illinois on the next map. Ideally I’d like to see that as leverage for a federal Constitutional Amendment to essentially adapt Iowa’s redistricting process for the nation.
By my look at the Districts, Democrats could flip several seats including 6, 11, 10, and potentially one more. 8 and 17 can be made safe at the same time flipping it from a 10-9 map to a 14-5 map. 17 Can include Peoria, Knox County picking up labor strongholds to reinforce Hare’s seat. 11 Can be rearranged to be more of a South Suburban labor heavy seat. 6, 10, and 8 can be more spoke like to bring in some Democratic voters from Cook County and 10 and 8 can pick up some pockets from 9. Create 15, 18, and 19 to stick as many Republican strongholds down state into those Districts as possible. Then consider taking 14 and including Rockford and use it as a spoke like District from Cook, dumping Manzullo with all the upstate Republican strongholds we can find. That would leave 15, 16, 18, & 19 as Republican with 13 probably picking up the Republican strongholds in mid state. If we lose a seat the likeliest losses are in rural areas which continue to lose population relative to urban/suburban areas so we should be able to squeeze out a Republican in that process if necessary making it 14-4. It also reduces the Republican farm team. Shimkus and Manzullo survive–neither are going anywhere in the state. Weller, Biggert and Johnson all are pretty limited on the upside and they end up fighting over 2 out of 3 Districts if a District is lost.
If Republicans reading it don’t like it–get on the bandwagon to find a non-partisan solution to redistricting like Iowa has.
“Rahm gets that part of it–remember he’s the one who wanted to do a mid-decade redistricting in Illinois. I am against that, but think that Democrats need to play hardball in Illinois on the next map”
Well, why didn’t they last time? They did recieve the tie breaking vote on the commission when Jesse White drew their guy out of Abe’s hat. I guess I don’t see your point here. You’re against gerrymandering, unless it favors your guys. And your problem with the Dems in the legislature is that they didn’t do a good enough job of using the upper hand they had to gerrymander even more effectively? Is that it?
I think one reason the Dems didn’t play Hardball last time was because Denny was Speaker. A lot of state Dems were far more interested in that, is my guess, than which party actually controlled Washington.
With Denny out, and no longer in a position to deliver the goods to Illinois, the Dems in Springfield might play more hardball if they can in 2012.
You might have included the next sentence and the last sentence that both point to the need to institute a nation wide system of non-partisan redistricting.
Democrats didn’t do it last time because the Congressional delegation as a whole drew a map to protect incumbents. Only Phelps was thrown under the bus–probably because he was so stupid. Guitierrez, Johnson, and a couple others literally redistricted out opponents by a block or two. Having an insider club protect incumbents is just as bad as a partisan gerrymander. Both seek to insulate politicians from accountability.
However, if Republicans are going to redistrict mid-decade in Texas and Georgia and try it in other states, then Democrats need to make sure that Republicans understand that is a two way street–and the way out is to rely on a system that seeks to create Districts based on objective criteria and not partisan gerrymanders.
Does the Iowa plan really work in a less homogeneous state? It seems pretty similar the Gropenator’s plan in California, which would have been a fiasco.
It can–the only problem with it is that it could reinforce the urban/rural split in which Democratic votes are concentrated in urban areas. That can be dealt with in the language of the amendment though.
Accept nothing less than 15-4. After the 1990 census Indiana Governor Evan Bayh and a Democratic legislature passed a congressional map in Indiana (Indiana!) that resulted in a 8-2 Democratic split. After 1994, the seats of Jill Long, Phil Sharp, Frank McCloskey, and Jim Jontz were Republican, making it 4-6. By 2004, the Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer seats were also R, leaving just 2 of 9 Democratic.
With dramatically more Democratic voters, it should be a snap to create a 15-4 map. Illinois’ greater Democratic vote would be slightly offset by the need to preserve the 3 African American and 1 (or maybe 2 by then) Latino seats.
I’m not trying to be difficult or snide here, but I don’t follow your logic in that paragraph.
You say you want a fair, non-partisan redistricting process. And you think the way to achieve that is have the Dems screw the IL Republicans in 2011? I don’t get it. Where does the “leverage” come in? Is it that you think the GOP are the main ostacles for such an amendment presently, and that they will lay down and let the Dems propose and pass such a Constitutional Amendment if they are burned bad enough? If that’s the case, why not trying proposing it now and shaming the GOP into letting it pass, first.
Because basically, you’re saying, ‘trust us. We’ll take power, screw you out of even more power, but then do the right thing and level the playing field.’ Sorry, Arch, but I just don’t trust y’all that much.
No, I see your question–the thing is gerrymandering is out of control and is getting worse.
No party is above that, but the Republicans took it a step further and decided mid-Decade redistricting was a good idea.
So how do you fix it? One, you can let the GOP keep trying it and rollover. Two, you can try the same–I think the mid-district redistricting is a horrible idea. Three, you can take back State Leges and gerrymander. Four, you can use a mutually assured destruction scenario to push for reform.
What do I think Dems will do? Go for three. I’m not happy about it, but I do think if it happens there will be a bipartisan push for reform. And I’d rather do that then rollover. The problem, of course, is that at first three and four look exactly alike.
Now, you people keep asking me to explain things that are perfectly clear in my head. What is wrong with you all?
(That’s self deprecation in case it isn’t clear).