Illinois

Illinois will be a interesting gerrymander. The Democrat districts in Chicago have to add a lot of people. I'm not sure how much can be gained in this state when you remove a GOP district. Such a move in theory would strengthen other Republican districts. I wonder what the target is? Do Dems go for a 11-7 map? I'm thinking in this case the VRA hurts a gerrymander of Illinois.

---

by: Quiet Man @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 18:09:33 PM UTC

Regarding Illinois

The goal will be to remove Republican gains in 2010. A map of 13-5 can be done fairly simply. Roskam is one they should leave in, because his district can be used to neutralize DuPage County.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 18:48:05 PM UTC

Iowa

The Iowa commission is required by law to disregard incumbent residence when drawing up districts. As I recall, they had no problem tossing Jim Leach and Jim Nussle into the same district in 2001. Why would they have a problem setting two Democrats and/or two Republicans in the same district this time around?

The redistricting commission is supposed to take only four considerations into account, in this order:

Population equality
Contiguousness
Respect of county and city unity
Compactness

Anyway, so far as I can figure, the following whole-counties map best equalizes the district populations according to these criteria, so I would guess that the initial proposed map will be very similar:

The incumbents would be in the following districts (unless/until they move):

IA-01: Braley; Loebsack
IA-02: Vacant
IA-03: Boswell; Latham
IA-04: King

Here are the 2008 Obama/McCain numbers:

IA-01: 227131 Obama to 156148 McCain (59.3% Obama to 40.7% McCain)
IA-02: 220755 Obama to 159698 McCain (58.0% Obama to 42.0% McCain)
IA-03: 205568 Obama to 172425 McCain (54.4% Obama to 45.6% McCain)
IA-04: 175486 Obama to 194108 McCain (47.5% Obama to 52.5% McCain)

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 20:11:45 PM UTC

Good work

In that case, I'm almost certain Loebsack would run in IA-02.  

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

---

by: Nathaniel90 @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 20:27:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's another version

This one keeps the current territory of the 1st, 2nd and 5th more intact, while still combining the 3rd and 4th in a "fair fight" way.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 13:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The population variance is too high

According to the figures at Dave's app, the population variance is too high on that map. This is the deviation by district:

IA-01 (blue): +4863
IA-02 (green): +11164
IA-03 (purple): +908
IA-04 (red): -16946

IA-02 and IA-04 are more than 1% off optimal and would surely be rejected. Of course, this is based on estimates so perhaps the actual Census figures would support a map similar to this.

The map below might fly (though IA-01 is now pushing the 1% limit at -6038). So, I won't argue that a map similar to this might be the final map. It's hard to make firm statements without the genuine Census figures.

That said, the map that I posted has the following variance according to Dave's app:

IA-01: +1517
IA-02: +1715
IA-03: -1977
IA-04: -1256

Since population equality is by statute the first priority, there's no doubt that if the data were accurate the map that I posted above would prevail over this one.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 19:47:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would love to see this map cross-posted

at Bleeding Heartland to see what people there have to say.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 23:11:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops! Sorry..

I just realized I placed a couple counties wrong when initially replicating your map. This seems to be the correct variance in your map:

IA-01: +4863
IA-02: -4369
IA-03: +908
IA-04: -1403

Does that sound about right?

If accurate, this would be within the 1% limit - so that obviously ups the odds.

Either way, I don't argue that a map similar to yours may be the actual map. It may turn out that it's the better version once we have the true Census data.

Also, the Iowa legislature has three opportunities to reject Commission maps (though that would be very atypical for Iowa).

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 20:02:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, those variences are the ones I calculated

Of course everything is provisional until the numbers from the 2010 census come, so some county shifting may still be necessary.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 20:21:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me say even more firmly

I think your alternative is just as viable as mine. In reading back over my comments, I realized that I might be coming across as dismissive or overly committed to my version. If so, that's certainly not my intent.

Until we have the actual data, I think any whole-counties Iowa map that keeps the districts within 1% is a perfectly viable alternative. Estimates are just that.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 20:26:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think the commission would go for this

As a Democrat, I really like the look of that map, and it's compact, but the size of IA-05 was controversial when the current map was drawn, and I think there would be serious objections to having one district contain almost half the state's counties.

Please consider cross-posting your effort at Bleeding Heartland. People love talking about redistricting there, and the blog runs on the same software platform as SSP.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 23:00:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a really good effort

The 3rd looks like about as fair a fight as you could get between Boswell and Latham, the 4th is sensible, and Braley and Loebsack would easily hold the 1st and 2nd (assuming Loebsack moves south.) I'd like to see desmoinesdem's thoughts on this plan.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 19:13:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

posted just above your comment

I like the map a lot, but the geographic size of IA-04 is so large that the commission probably wouldn't go there. In 2001 the current IA-05 was considered too large by many.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 23:01:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I might add that

only Iowa 5 the largest district yet under computer generated program but this map had the widest range of political%.  One of the main features of Iowa redistricting is the desire for competitive seats.  Iowa5 is the close to a GOP lock.  

Obama % in Iowa in 2008 were 58-60-54-53 and 44.  Lets play Sesame street and say which of these do not belong.

All the other four seats have had competitive elections in this cycle but #5.

I had someone tell me "oh its computer driven".  Yes its computer driven but there is more then one answer to the redistricting puzzle in Iowa.  There other models that more equally distributed political % but I believe political control was divided in 2001.

That's one reason I think the GOP will get a fair shake in this 2011 map.  If the GOP gets the shaft two cycles in a row this system will likely be modified or dumped.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 00:35:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're really, really stretching here

1) The map was 4-1 GOP in 2002 and 2004.  Obviously it wasn't that biased.
2) 60-53 is 7%, 53-44 is 9%.  That's not that big a difference.  If anything, you're packing Dems in 2 districts and Republicans in 1.
3) This was ALREADY the 2nd map in the 2000 cycle.  Although that was more tied to legislative districts.
4) I don't recall Tom Latham having any competitive races in the past decade.

---

by: powera @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:44:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The GOP did have several incumbents who

super over acheivers.  Jim Leach was a long term incumbent who can be described Iowa moderate.  Perfect for the district.  Here are the Obama % from 2008

1. 58%
2. 60%
3. 54%
4. 53%
5. 44%

The purpose of the Iowa redistricting plan is to encourage competition-to have compact seats that don't cross county lines and incumbency does not matter.  

Look at the five seats above.  There is a 16% difference between most democratic seat and most republican seats.  

44% is 10% below the state's average and its a noncompetive seat.  Its the only seat that really not been competitive this decade.  Make it a 48% and all of sudden you either have a 50% or a 56%D seat.  You have several seats that are more competitive.  That's just stats.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:37:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Purpose

The purpose of Iowa redistricting, by statute, is to meet four criteria, and only four criteria:

Population equality
Contiguousness
Respect of county and city unity
Compactness

Encouraging competition (or even using partisan data at all), keeping incumbents in their current district, and minimizing district alterations are not permitted as redistricting principles - much less required.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:01:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the issue in Iowa

is that the western half of the state, where only one-third of the population lives, is far more conservative than the eastern half, containing two-thirds of the population. No matter what you do you are going to have a district in western Iowa with dozens of counties and a strong Republican lean. There is no way to divide the state without having that happen.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:09:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take your point on Western Iowa

but I have looked at maps for congressional seats.  This is the 1st map that the western border of Iowa has not been split.  I fully admit that Iowa has gone from 7 to 6 to 5 seats so numbers have changed.  Yet this is still the 1st map that has had the Western border of Iowa intact.  

In response to RM above--getting close to my bedtime--you are correct that they do not mention competitiveness but a  hallmark of the Iowa plans for 20 years were that all seats were competitive. Iowa 5 is a GOP lock and King is much more partisan congressman then Iowa has had.  That's a sign that his map is out of balance.

To both guys.  There is more then one way to skin a cat.  
This is not the only configuration for five seats in Iowa.  Boswell's seat could go west instead of generally east of Des Moines.  Why did they choose that direction?  That's the root of the partisan inbalance.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:46:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is King really worse than Grandy?

If you're calling the Iowa map a Democratic gerrymander in effect, there's no real hope here, is there.  Maybe the 1990s map was slightly better for the GOP, but that's kind of distorted by Jim Leach holding the most liberal seat in the state for 10 years as well.

(NOT using new pop estimates here for 2000 numbers) Boswell's seat can't go west since there is no other seat to eat the population in Southeast Iowa.  For the 2nd to take it, Latham's district quickly becomes an ugly mess.  You can take the 1990s map and connect Des Moines and Omaha in a line that has to be 1 county wide at points (I get 7 counties including Polk, Dallas, and Pottawatamie), forces the 2nd to retain the Quad Cities and be even smaller, and a bunch of other side effects.  Once Omaha and Sioux City are paired, anything not taking the entire western border is a gerrymander.

The closest I can get to what you're saying is a "southern" district that has Omaha, Ottumwa, and Keokuk.  You can then pair Sioux City, Ft Dodge, and Mason City and get a compact Des Moines district.  I'm not sure that helps either, as the 1st and 2nd won't be much different and the Des Moines seat will be more liberal.  And having a 6-county and a 7-county district wouldn't fly with the "districts should be the same size" crowd.

You keep talking like you have expert knowledge of how each state would really have more Republican seats if it were a truely neutral plan, but the facts really don't back you up.  Any map is going to have 2 eastern Iowa seats and 1 Polk county seat.

---

by: powera @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:56:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

An ugly mess is a relative term

as CD wraps around the south of Des Moines and then goes to the Illinois border or actuall Mississippi river.  Likewise CD2 is 40 miles from Dubugue and then curls around to be south of Des Moines.

Not splitting counties means that in central Iowa you can drive through four districts in a four different counties in 90 minutes.

I do take your points. The center point of Iowa is apparently(population wise) just east of Des Moines.  I guess I would like to see two eastern and two western seats.  

Gopher Gandy was a conservative but  King & Bachmann are the Glen Beck golddust twins.  

There is no doubt that Leach hanging on to the most liberal seat in Iowa distorted matters but CD5 when was configured differently elected a democrat for years.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 15:11:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your plan actually works better with 4 districts

As I said, with 5 districts, you can't reasonably put Polk and Pottawatamie in the same district, and the only remaining option is to connect Council Bluffs and Sioux City in something like the 5th.  It's just not possible to draw a non-gerrymandered map without splitting Polk County that has 2 western seats out of 5.

With 4 districts, you actually can draw a Des Moines to Council Bluffs district.  (basically using the north and east borders of Polk County as the lines).  IA-01 would be northeast, IA-02 southeast, IA-03 northwest with Sioux City, Ft. Dodge and Mason City, (kind of like Latham's 1990s district), and IA-05 southwest (like Ganske's 1990s district).

That's actually a rather interesting map, since Boswell might actually run against Loebsack in IA-02 (Southeast) rather than in the Des Moines district.  Latham would presumably run in the northwest district that doesn't include Des Moines, but King probably couldn't get elected in the southwest district.

---

by: powera @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 20:51:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the comment

and I think you are right.  I guess complaining about the Iowa map when it was 4-1 R was a little out of left field.  Similar to the democrats in OR complaining about the current map there.

Yet as the decade went on and Leach/Nussle moved things changed.

I like the Iowa approach in a lot of ways I just don't think the basis for the map should be smallest variance.  An 800 person variance that splits the state four ways in fairly equal fashion would be better then a contorted split with a 500 person variance.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 21:02:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

King is WAY worse than Grandy

Grandy lives in a fact-based reality and had a lot more integrity. He left Congress to challenge Branstad in the 1994 GOP IA-Gov primary because Branstad was just that incompetent. Grandy was generally considered the more moderate candidate in that primary (but mainly he positioned himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate).

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 23:28:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there a reason not to have horizontal districts?

Why couldn't there be a North district, a South district, and two middle districts?  (I'm not saying this a great idea; I'm just questioning the assumption that there is no way to avoid a West district.)

---

by: JimJ @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 19:25:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No reason at all

for such an arrangement.  1991's map had a district that went from the Mississippi River all the way to Nebreska border along the south edge of the state.

Here's one last rehash of Iowa map.

1. Under the computer driven system there is not just one solution.  There several dozen allowable variations of the map of Iowa.  In fact there has never been a court fight on one man one vote issues but the assumption is that 4000 person variation is the max but that is untested.  This particular map has minute variations but why make a 300 person variation better then 1000 people and so forth.

2. As noted Western Iowa is more uniformly republican then most of the state.  So the only way to even out the district politically is to split Western Iowa.  Yes the computer folks are not to take that into account but lets be honest the folks all know this fact.  They are not political newbies.  When you leave Western Iowa in one seat you are going to be packing GOP voters in that district.  

3. In addition while political outcomes are not to be a consideration the good folks of Iowa went into this thinking that the system would not be stacked against either party.  Its nonpartisan and computer driven and not fixed.  If Western Iowa is not split for the second cycle and I will unofficially proclaim this system as having a bias against the GOP.  So will republicans in Iowa.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 19:59:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In this map

Would Latham have any shot in a primary against King? He has represented much of this IA-04 in the past.

---

by: emilysdad @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 19:29:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that is hard to say

I would guess no, because true believers up at Republican primaries. Although Latham would have more to spend and would be able to point to more money brought home to Iowa, I think King would win a GOP primary. But then again, Latham is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman, while King got taken down a peg on the Judiciary subcommittee he thought he'd be running.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 23:09:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

please consider cross-posting

your diary at the Iowa blog Bleeding Heartland. It runs on the same software platform as Swing State Project. Our community is very interested in redistricting diaries and liked abgin's contribution not long ago.

I don't care what Obama's percentage was in your new IA-03: that map you drew looks like a 2-2 to me. Once upon a time, Tom Harkin represented a bunch of those southwestern Iowa counties in the House, but that part of the state has been trending heavily Republican. Latham has been representing several of those counties for the last decade (Story, Dallas, Warren) and would probably hold that district without much trouble.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 22:58:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IN and IL

Your assessment of Indiana is spot-on, IMO. Donnelly can be screwed just by removing Michigan City and giving him Kosciusko County (and/or more of Elkhart County) instead. That's subtle enough that Daniels should go for it.

I doubt very much that cracking Marion County will happen, and the chances of cracking Lake County are even slimmer. Neither of those gerrymanders has political upside for the GOP - they'd antagonize not only minority groups and Democrats but also a lot of the RW crazy groups unhappy to be represented by a Democrat (especially, in CD7's case, a black Democrat) in what would still be a Dem-leaning district.

As for Illinois, if I were Dems my first move would be to draw Schock in with Shimkus - he may strike us all as the idiot that he is (giving nukes to Taiwan, hello?), but far too many GOPers see him as a "rising star" with future leadership potential stamped all over him. Best to get rid of him first, then knock off as many freshmen as possible. I agree with previous commenters - best strategy is to use CD6 as an exburban Chicago catch-all to weaken all of the other adjacent districts. (CDs 8, 10, 11 and 14). They can do what they will with CD13, and probably leave CD17 the way it is - that district went red because Hare sucked at campaigning, not because it wanted to elect an R. There are just so many swing districts held by R's in IL that could tilt D with minor manipulations of the map - especially with Obama on the top of the ballot.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 20:20:39 PM UTC

Idaho

There is one slightly interesting aspect to Idaho redistricting. ID-02 will need to pick up population and Raúl Labrador lives very close to the line in Ada County. It's quite possible his current residence will end up in Mike Simpson's district.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 21:05:23 PM UTC

Labrador

isn't well liked in the ID party establishment as I recall. So although there's no real chance of that seat swinging to the Dems (even a Boise-Nampa urban seat probably wouldn't be an easy pickup) there might be someone else occupying it by the end of the decade.

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 00:47:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting Note

A couple recent articles were discussing that the West Ada County portion of ID-1 is the swingest part of that district and that since it needs to be added to ID-2, if Simpson retires during the next decade, it might actually be a better pickup than ID-1 was in 2008.

---

by: apollo_7692 @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 20:16:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Illinois

It cannot be said enough, removing a suburban district is not going to happen.  Illinois population has shifted internally.  Downstate has shrunk, barring a few exceptions, Cook has shrunk slightly (Chicago has maintained population while some primarily south and west suburban areas have shrunk and the north suburbs have grown modestly), the collar counties have grown dramatically.

Kendall doubled in population, Will has jumped 35% (after jumping 40% 1990-2000), McHenry and Kane have seen 25%+ growth.  Lake and Grundy have seen double digit growth.  DuPage is more established and has seen only modest growth around 3%.

Illinois as a state has grown ~4% since 2000.  Because Illinois is losing a seat, even areas with growth similar to the the statewide growth will lose seats.  You would be hard pressed to find an area in downstate Illinois that has seen population growth that outpaces statewide growth (McLean is an example, driven by growth in the college town Bloomington-Normal).

Currently six districts (11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19) have territory in downstate Illinois, two more (14, 16) have territory outside the Chicago metro area in NW Illinois.  Losing a suburban district won't happen.  

I'll also argue that 11-7 is too conservative.  There are eight Democratic seats in Illinois currently.  All of those incumbents won with 65%+ of the vote, in 2010.  Those eight aren't going anywhere.

The 8th and the 10th can be strengthened by changing them from a N/S orientation to a E/W orientation.  This makes the 8th CD Lake County plus a few thousand people in Cook or McHenry.  The 10th then is all in Cook County.

That gives you ten Democratic seats.  Strengthening the 17th will be easy. Any Democrats in the area go into the 17th, any Republican areas can get dumped. We're at eleven Democratic seats.  Drawing at least one Democratic seat from the Chicago exurbs (Aurora, Elgin, Joliet) will be relatively simple.

That's twelve, likely thirteen D seats in Illinois fairly easily.  A map like that doesn't use Democratic areas in Rockford, Decatur, Danville, Springfield Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal and Putnam County, Bureau County, and LaSalle County.  These could be cobbled together into potentially another Democratic seat.

Twelve to thirteen should be the goal.  One, it's a waste of material.  Two, it then accounts for roughly 1/5 of the seats Dems need to take back the House in 2012.

IL-17 (Home) IL-10 (Born and raised) IL-8 (Learned the ropes)

---

by: WeIll @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 22:25:53 PM UTC

Illinois

I've been wanting to do an Illinois map, but I can't decide which numbers to use for calculating the partisan lean of the seats. The Obama-McCain numbers would obviously inflate Democratic prospects.

I think there's been some discussion of how to go about it, but I can't remember what people were saying. Any suggestions? Anyone?

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 22:35:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Use Kerry-Bush?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 22:37:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

kerry bush

is very accurate.  the swings in most suburbs around the country (pvi-wise) were betweeen gore and kerry, not kerry and obama.
(with a couple obvious exceptions: Southern California, parts of Texas and Virginia, as well as Illinois/Indiana)

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 22:57:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

13-5 is the goal.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 22:36:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm wondering about the 12th

That district is safe for Costello, but is not all that Democratic. Compared to the rest of the Illinois districts, there was not much movement between Kerry and Obama (Kerry 52%, Obama 54%.) Considering that any plan attacking Schilling will force the 12th to add some rural counties (to get it up to population requirements), it very well may end up as an even or even R+1 district that would be very competitive without Costello.

Before Pat Quinn won, I had a bipartisan Illinois map that linked East St. Louis and Belleville with Moline, essentially tracing the Mississippi river. This would make the 12th safe for Costello's Democratic successor, and would pit Schilling against Manzullo or Schock. Any chance of that happening?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 19:21:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Moline, Peoria and Rockford can be connected to make the 17th more Dem

Then you can draw a GOP vote sink anchored on Tazewell County, picking a few rural counties. The 12th could grab Democratic precincts in Springfield and Decatur, while shedding some rural territory further downstate.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 21:36:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Less drastic changes than that...

For the 12th, I would leave its tail down to Carbondale, and not just for selfish reasons (I teach history at SIU).  Jackson County is one of the few reliably Democratic counties in Illinois outside of Cook County and the pockets in Northern and Central Illinois; for example, it was the ONLY county in 1972 to vote for George McGovern!

You could keep the district largely as now, add a few more areas in Madison County if you need to, or perhaps grab Macoupin which is a Democratic-leaning county.

Besides, in any actual redistricting legislation that will be passed later this spring or early summer out of Springfield, Costello will get to draw his own map.  As the only Democratic member of the delegation currently not out of Chicago, he will have a veto over the lines.  And since he lives in St. Clair, I doubt very much he wants to be representing all the way up to the Quad Cities!

---

by: jsramek @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:48:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a follow up...

We need to consider that ambitious state legislators might want to be drawing themselves a seat in Congress.  I know about a month ago it was mentioned that someone from the Moline area might be a possibility.  

One more thing.  11-7 is a mild GOP gerrymander or something I would expect out of the courts, not something that Michael Madigan is capable of.  12-6 would be a defensive Democratic gerrymander, 13-5 or 14-4, depending on whether you conceded a DuPage vote sink or not, is more aggressive, and 15-3 is doable but probably a bit of a dummymander.  Personally I could live very nicely with a 8-11 delegation switching to 13-5 and ending the congressional careers overnight of 6 out of 11 current congresscritters.  That would probably even out the harm that the GOP can do to us in some of the other states (which isn't all that much considering they maxed out 10 years ago in most of them).

---

by: jsramek @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:53:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boswell has already said

he plans to run again in 2012, period.

A lot of Democrats in IA-03 aren't happy about it, and there is speculation that former first lady Christie Vilsack or someone else may challenge Boswell in the Democratic primary.

Speaking of IA-03, Latham is taking an unusually high profile (for him) on the health care reform issue. I think he is trying to build a reputation with a view to running in a Polk County-centered district.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 14:31:31 PM UTC

Could Vilsack win against Latham?

Does she have enough good will and strength?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 15:15:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's going to be tough against Latham

Especially if Dallas County (just west of Polk) is in IA-03, as it probably will be. Vilsack probably has higher name recognition and more fundraising ability than most of the other potential Democratic candidates.  

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 23:12:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course he'd say that, but is it true?

How are his fundraising numbers?

---

by: emilysdad @ Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 19:16:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]