Have Republicans hit a sweet spot in their gerrymandering strategy?

The Economist suggest that they have.

In the redistricting that happened after the 2010 census - and the 2010 election where Republicans did very very well which allowed them to control a large number of state legislatures - a large districts were drawn where Republicans dominated, but not too much. Republican votes were spread enough to guarantee majorities in a large enough number of districts to ensure control of legislature despite having fewer overall votes than Democrats.

They guaranteed themselves a majority, with a maximum number of safe seats. This makes them immune to negative opinion about things like shutting government down.

It was a neat trick:

Republicans have managed to both make their seats safer, and ensure there are more of them, despite the fact that they lost the overall popular congressional vote. How did they do that?

By finding the golden mean. The ideal strategy for elections is to make sure your districts have just enough of a partisan tilt to ensure you'll almost certainly win them, but not so much that you win them overwhelmingly and waste your votes. Meanwhile, you want to cram the opposition's voters into districts which they win by overwhelming margins and thus waste their votes. Republicans can make sure their seats are both safer and more numerous by achieving lots of districts where they're likely to win by a safe but not extravagant margin, say 15-30%. If they pursue this strategy, they should wind up with relatively fewer seats that tilt overwhelmingly Republican. Meanwhile for Democrats, whose votes have been "cracked" or "packed" such that they lose more districts, the districts that they do hold would be more likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic than is the case for Republicans.

And this is what the Republicans' redistricting appear to have achieved. Of members of congress who won their districts with a margin of 60% or more in 2012, 18 were Republicans, while 29 were Democrats. In the crucial safe-but-not-overwhelming zone, with victory margins between 15% and 30%, Republicans won 92 seats while Democrats won 42. The average margin of victory for Republicans was 28.6%; for Democrats, it was 35.7%.

So there you go. This is one big reason why Republicans in the House are likely to react to widespread anger over the shutdown by becoming more, rather than less, confrontational. The vote distributions in their districts would have to swing by 10% or more for any sizable number of them to lose their seats, and that's not very likely to happen.

State races v national races

Republicans are focusing more on state races than national races. The following article points out the advantage of doing so:

Of all election outcomes, state legislative races are the likeliest to have a direct impact on the lives of voters. But you wouldn’t know it from the national press. The morning after the 2010 elections, Americans woke up to headlines about a Republican landslide; most of those stories focused on Congress, where a new GOP House majority promised to fight President Barack Obama tooth and nail. What didn’t make so many front pages were Republicans’ historic victories at the state level, as the party wrested control of 21 house and senate chambers from the Democrats. North Carolina had its first Republican senate since 1870; Alabama hadn’t seen a Republican legislature since Reconstruction. Twenty states now had Republicans in charge of the senate, the house, and the governor’s office concurrently. 

While Republican members of Congress were focused on blocking the Democratic agenda, Republican state lawmakers began to drive the national policy debate. They wasted no time slashing social programs, weakening women’s reproductive rights and collective bargaining, and creating new barriers to voting rights. Taking their cues—and often the wording of their bills—from right-wing groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Republicans in the so-called laboratories of democracy began adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to issues from health care to labor to immigration.

Even if the media hasn’t figured out how much state races matter, it’s old news to conservative fundraisers. The sea change of 2010 didn’t happen by accident or Tea Party enthusiasm alone. The election served as an experiment in what big money can do in low-budget state races.

From the Washongton Post: What the tea party is — and isn’t

The story:

The tea party movement came into public consciousness sometime in the early months of President Obama’s tenure in the White House. Ever since, it has been an object of fascination, fear, scorn and admiration.

It has also been the object of misunderstanding. The tea party was described as the new kid on the block of American politics, when in fact it was the extension of forces long at work in the political system. . . .
read on

Poll: 40% say worst gridlock ever

Not a big surprise given the results of the 2010 election.

Washington is locked in the worst gridlock they’ve seen in their lifetimes, four in 10 Americans say as they voice dissatisfaction with how President Barack Obama and members of Congress are handling the country’s problems.

More than two-thirds of those surveyed for a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday say that members of Congress of both parties are putting their own interests ahead of the country’s, while they’re evenly divided on whether the president is more driven by his own interests or the country’s.
Both 2301 and 2302 should read up on the phenomena of divided and unified government to put this in perspective.

- United States Presidents and control of Congress.
- Gridlock.

Being a Democrat in Texas Doesn't Pay

Also from Texans for Public Justice, a report noting how few defeated Texas House Democrats found work as lobbyists after their defeat. Normally this is a perk. One transitions from a low laying job as a representative to a high paying job as a lobbyist (working the connections acquired over the previous years), but with Democrats reduced so far in power, what's the point of hiring one?

- Democrats Work for Food.

Early Projections for the U.S. House 2012 Race

A good read from Isaac Wood. Note the point he makes below that wave elections tend to happen in midterm, not presidential elections. This is almost certainly due to the fact that turnout in these elections tend to be slanted more towards the president's opponents.

While the midterm meltdown by Democrats was undoubtedly a severe setback—leaving them in need of a 25-seat gain to capture the House majority—it set them on firmer footing heading into 2012. Simply put, it will be very difficult for Republicans to find new Democratic seats to contest since their 2010 gains grabbed most of the districts they could easily flip. Conversely, Democrats now find themselves in the same position as the GOP was in two years ago, with a short list of districts to defend and a long list of potential targets. Republicans are at a high watermark in House seats—their current caucus of 242 members is their largest since 1949—and many of those new congressmen hail from districts where Democrats can wage a competitive contest.

The key difference between 2010 and 2012 is obvious: 2012 will be a presidential, not a midterm, election year. Although that fact may seem self-evident, it offers a litany of historical comparisons that can offer early clues as to what 2012 has in store at the House level. Over the past half-century, presidents who were reelected swept in on their coattails an average of 10 new House members of their same party. In fact, all four of the presidents who sought and won reelection since 1960 (Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2004) also picked up seats in the House. These gains ranged from 15 new House seats for Republicans in 1984 to just 3 new seats for the GOP in 2004.

If Obama wins reelection next November, history therefore suggests his party will gain a handful of House seats. There are fewer historical precedents in recent years for defeated presidents, with only Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980 and George H. W. Bush’s 1992 loss as potential analogies to a 2012 Obama ouster. While Carter’s loss was accompanied by Democrats surrendering 33 seats in the House, Republicans actually picked up 10 new House seats even as Bush was defeated at the top of their ticket.

Whatever the result of the presidential race, there is one constant that should be sobering for Democrats chomping at the bit to recapture the House majority. Over the 13 presidential elections of the past 50 years, only twice has either party registered a net gain of 25 or more House seats, the threshold Democrats must cross to regain control of the chamber. At least for the past half-century, the true wave elections have come in midterm years (2010, 2006, 1994, 1974, 1966) while the presidential years have seen calmer seas.

This is all you need to know about what drives political decisionmaking ...

From Ezra Klein via Andrew Sullivan.

86% of Incumbents Were Relected This Year

So much for throwing the bums out. Although the figure is generally higher -- in the upper 90s -- a high percentage of members of the House of Representatives were keep in office by their constituents. It could be, of course, that the mood was there and more should have been defeated, but incumbents were protected by representing gerrymandered districts that are so heavily skewed toward either party that incumbents can hardly ever be defeated. We discussed this in class -- see the post below -- when we noted that none of our area House members were defeated.

Wall Street Lobbyists Eye Financial Regulations

Over 700 firms hired almost 3000 lobbyists to address financial regulations passed last year.

2010 Election Spending

Here's a link to the Center for Responsive Politics page detailing total spending on the 2010 midterm elections.

Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.

In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.

2010 Election Results

Here are a few links with last week's election results.

It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.

From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.

Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.

From The Hill
- New Members Guide.

Did Roll Call Votes Matter?

More analysis of the 2010 vote from the Monkey Cage:

Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.

What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.

For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?

2010 Exit Polls

For my 2301s as they continue their readings about political party identification at this moment in time.

A Simple Explanation of the 2010 Vote

According to the Monkey Cage, its the 2008 vote:

If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. ... In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate's vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.


Focusing on the Democratic incumbents who lost shows how crucial the partisanship of their district was



Campaigns seem to matter much less than how districts are drawn. A comment on this story pointed out how many districts had more than 75% Democrats, and how few had more that 75% Republicans. This seems to indicate successful gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.

How They Did It

Here are two stories outlining how Republicans organized after the 2008 elections to win the House in 2010.

The Young, the Old, and the Election of 2010

This chart may say all you need to know about what happened between 2008 and 2010:


This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.

It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?

Did Sharron Angle Rally the Latino Vote?

There's evidence that her harsh tome towards Latinos drove them to the polls, and to vote against her.

The Return of the Liberal Republican?

Caught up in Tuesday's wave may have been moderates and liberals running as Republicans. What does this mean for (1) the ability of the party to retain its cohesiveness within the House and (2) the chance that Democrats may be able to field competitive challengers to them in 2012?

On to Redistricting

As we've discussed in class, the biggest factor in this election was control of state houses following the census and reapportionment. Republicans peaked at the right time. They are in a position to draw district that will expand their influence far beyond their actual numbers in the electorate.

Will Republicans Repeal Health Care Legislation?

In short, they can't since they will not control the Senate, and cannot override a presidential veto. Here's an argument that they lack any incentive to do it either.

This is a great (and perhaps cynical) statement on the difference between campaigning an governing:

There’s a big difference between campaigning and legislating. In the campaign, Republican candidates appealed to their base, which was worked up about health reform without much understanding of what it does and how it works (this lack of understanding is broadly held, it’s not just a Republican base thing). The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas.

But that thinking is of principal relevance to the campaign, not to governing. When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms.
It's the Tea Party vs. the insurance companies. The safe bet is the latter wins.