Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
Yes it certainly has been done in the past. Usually it helps if there is a redistricting and your party had the primary say in many states. But Nixon's resignation, or massive changes in economy cause big changeovers.
2006 wasnt economic, it was policy driven, 2008 was economic.
Quote:
Broad national demographic changes can be almost completely overshadowed by gerrymandering districts. Look at Nevada which went from one district to four.
Nevada elections went Republican 24 times, and Democrat 36 from 1864 to 1982 (a single at large district)
Nevada 1st went Republican 2 times and Democrat 16 times since 1982
Nevada 2nd went Republican 18 times and Democrat zero times since 1982
Nevada 3rd went Republican 6 times and Democrat 2 times since 2002
Nevada 4th went Republican 1 times and Democrat 2 times since 2012
So as Nevada's population grows, the 1st district becomes smaller and more dense and more Democratic. But it creates other less dense districts that are reliably Republican.
But those districts havent become reliably republican, and that was the point of your post.
As you pointed out, at one point Nevada was a toss up at large district, creating 3 more district didnt create 3 more Republican districts, as Nevada's current congressional delegation is 3-1 Democratic, not 3-1 Republican as your end statement would make it seem.
The truth of the matter is that what you got was 1 solidly Democratic district, and 3 toss up districts, Cook has them as +7 Republican, +2 Republican and +3 Democratic .
In fact, the one district you think is safely republican has actually tilted less and less so over the years. It would be interesting to see what happens if Democrats ever run a strong candidate there.
As you pointed out, at one point Nevada was a toss up at large district, creating 3 more district didnt create 3 more Republican districts, as Nevada's current congressional delegation is 3-1 Democratic, not 3-1 Republican as your end statement would make it seem.
All I am saying is that Nevada gets increasingly denser every year as one of the fastest growing states in the Union. But you can't say anything at all about political affiliation just because of increasing population density. Districts #3 and #4 are still battleground districts.
2014 Election Results 3-1 Republican
District 1 Democratic Dina Titus (inc.) 45,643 56.84 Republican Annette Teijeiro 30,413 37.87
District 2 Republican Mark Amodei (inc.) 122,402 65.73 Democratic Kristen Spees 52,016 27.94
District 3 Republican Joe Heck (inc.) 88,528 60.75 Democratic Erin Bilbray 52,644 36.13
District 4 Republican Cresent Hardy 63,466 48.53% Democratic Steven Horsford (inc.) 59,844 45.76%
2016 Election Results 3-1 Democratic
District 1 Democratic Dina Titus (inc.) 116,537 61.87% Republican Mary Perry 54,174 28.76%
District 2 Republican Mark Amodei (inc.) 182,676 58.30% Democratic H.D. Evans 115,722 36.93%
District 3 Democratic Jacklyn Rosen 146,869 47.23%Republican Danny Tarkanian 142,926 45.96%
District 4 Democratic Ruben Kihuen 128,985 48.52% Republican Cresent Hardy (inc.) 118,328 44.51%
Last edited by PacoMartin; 06-07-2017 at 11:15 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
All I am saying is that Nevada gets increasingly denser every year as one of the fastest growing states in the Union. But you can't say anything at all about political affiliation just because of increasing population density. Districts #3 and #4 are still battleground districts.
2014 Election Results 3-1 Republican
District 1 Democratic Dina Titus (inc.) 45,643 56.84 Republican Annette Teijeiro 30,413 37.87
District 2 Republican Mark Amodei (inc.) 122,402 65.73 Democratic Kristen Spees 52,016 27.94
District 3 Republican Joe Heck (inc.) 88,528 60.75 Democratic Erin Bilbray 52,644 36.13
District 4 Republican Cresent Hardy 63,466 48.53% Democratic Steven Horsford (inc.) 59,844 45.76%
2016 Election Results 3-1 Democratic
District 1 Democratic Dina Titus (inc.) 116,537 61.87% Republican Mary Perry 54,174 28.76%
District 2 Republican Mark Amodei (inc.) 182,676 58.30% Democratic H.D. Evans 115,722 36.93%
District 3 Democratic Jacklyn Rosen 146,869 47.23%Republican Danny Tarkanian 142,926 45.96%
District 4 Democratic Ruben Kihuen 128,985 48.52% Republican Cresent Hardy (inc.) 118,328 44.51%
Battleground =/= reliably republican.
You didnt say battle ground in your last post, you said Reliably republican.
As for population density, Remember your own post(again, LOL) you argued the 1st got more Democratic, if density(and population itself)continue to grow, then there will be to many people to fit in one district, and you get a suburban/urban secondary district that is also Democratic leaning or toss up, not reliably republican.
That is what I was talking about with density, and its obvious that is what is happening in Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, and Texas.
Broad national demographic changes can be almost completely overshadowed by gerrymandering districts. Look at Nevada which went from one district to four.
Nevada elections went Republican 24 times, and Democrat 36 from 1864 to 1982 (a single at large district)
Nevada 1st went Republican 2 times and Democrat 16 times since 1982
Nevada 2nd went Republican 18 times and Democrat zero times since 1982
Nevada 3rd went Republican 6 times and Democrat 2 times since 2002
Nevada 4th went Republican 1 times and Democrat 2 times since 2012
So as Nevada's population grows, the 1st district becomes smaller and more dense and more Democratic. But it creates other less dense districts that are reliably Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Battleground =/= reliably republican.
You didnt say battle ground in your last post, you said Reliably republican.
From 1982-2016 the 2nd Nevada district has been reliably republican, voting for a Republican Congressman and always voting for Republican candidate for President.
The 3rd district has been "mostly Republican" with the Republican candidate winning the congressional election 75% of the time.
Increasing state density has not favored the Democrats. The Republicans have had control more often than when they were an "at large" state
During "at large" period it was Republican 24 times, and Democrat 36 from 1864 to 1982
In the 18 elections since,the Nevada delegation has been Republican 7 times and Democrat 2 times and "split" 9 times
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
From 1982-2016 the 2nd Nevada district has been reliably republican, voting for a Republican Congressman and always voting for Republican candidate for President.
The 3rd district has been "mostly Republican" with the Republican candidate winning the congressional election 75% of the time.
Increasing state density has not favored the Democrats. The Republicans have had control more often than when they were an "at large" state
During "at large" period it was Republican 24 times, and Democrat 36 from 1864 to 1982
In the 18 elections since,the Nevada delegation has been Republican 7 times and Democrat 2 times and "split" 9 times
Have those districts trended more Democratic or more Republican ? The answer is more Democratic.
You keep making the same flawed argument of past elections which actually proves my argument, which is that a giant rural districts that were once Republican continue to shrink in size and move left of center. That was my argument, and you dont even seem to disagree.
And to be clear, we arent just talking about who wins the district, as I said in my previous post, this is about competitive seats.
A Seat where a Republican wins 48% to 45% is not reliably Republican
60%= 36/60 elections were Democrat when Nevada was a single congressman (1860-1982)
11%= 2/18 congressional delegations were majority Democratic when Nevada had multiple congressman (1982-2016)
Increased density does not necessarily mean that the state's congressional delegation is more likely to be Democrat
Now as district #1 formed in 1980 became smaller in area 2000 and smaller yet in 2010, it is less and less likely to vote Republican. It is also a majority-minority district.
22.9% White
9.9% Black
8.6% Asian
42.9% Hispanic
0.7% Native American
15% other
60%= 36/60 elections were Democrat when Nevada was a single congressman (1860-1982)
11%= 2/18 congressional delegations were majority Democratic when Nevada had multiple congressman (1982-2016)
Increased density does not necessarily mean that the state's congressional delegation is more likely to be Democrat
Now as district #1 formed in 1980 became smaller in area 2000 and smaller yet in 2010, it is less and less likely to vote Republican. It is also a majority-minority district.
22.9% White
9.9% Black
8.6% Asian
42.9% Hispanic
0.7% Native American
15% other
We are going back and forth with the same argument.
Again, population density(cities in general) tend to be more democratic, so when you get more suburban.urban districts, they tend to be more Democratic. You dont even disagree with that, you are just being argumentative by saying one doesnt automatically mean the other. And that would be a fine statement to make on its own, but you chose to then argue Demographics with in the same context, which is a weird choice. just as there are compact districts with Republicans, there are mahority minority ones with the same. In both cases, they are the exception, not the rule.
Your argument seems to be that since the congressional delegations were more split or more Republican then it means the voting blocks in the districts were the same. They were not.
As I pointed out before by quoting the Cook PVI, the 3 districts in question are +7R, +2R, and +3D. There is a giant difference between wining a district 80% to 20% vs winning 48 to 45
Again, your own phrasing was that these districts were reliably Republican, and yet 2 Democrats occupy those seats.
All im arguing is that when redistricting happens like it is here. those 80/20 seats get broken up, and you usually get some 48/45 seats. Im not denying that some solidly red seats dont get more solidly red.
I do understand your point. Let me try to make my point it another way by listing Urban and rural population in millions since 1900.
It became popular to think that Demographics favored the Democratic party as the urban population exploded.
In 1900 rural population outnumbered urban population 46 to 30 million. Rural population peaked in 1990 at just under 62 million. In the 1940's and 1950's there was a lot of internal migration from rural to urban areas. Urban population made massive gains in the 1980's and particularly 1990's, largely through international immigration.
At first, that hypothesis seemed true. Since the 1930's when the urban population outnumbered the rural population the House shifted to Democrat the overwhelming majority of the time (Republicans controlled the House twice from 1932 to 1992).
But clever gerrymandering of districts have produced a Republican dominated House for 10 of the last 12 elections despite an increase of over 60 million urban residents.
My conclusion is that nationwide demographics does not necessary favor the Democratic party, as long as districts can be carefully drawn. Many people favor a law where congressional districts have to obey some kind of geographic cohesion requirements, in particular to keep districts from being drawn that corral all the urban Democrats into a handful of districts.
=========================
In Nevada in particular, the Democrat candidate won the "at large" seat 84% (21 of 25 times) from 1932-1980.
In the 10 elections when there was 2 congressmen, the delegation was "split" 8 times, and Republican 2 times.
In the 5 elections when there was 3 congressmen, the delegation was Democratic only one time, and Republican 4 times.
In the 3 elections when there was 4 congressmen, the delegation has been "split", Republican, and Democratic one time apiece.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 06-10-2017 at 07:32 AM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
At first, that hypothesis seemed true. Since the 1930's when the urban population outnumbered the rural population the House shifted to Democrat the overwhelming majority of the time (Republicans controlled the House twice from 1932 to 1992).
But clever gerrymandering of districts have produced a Republican dominated House for 10 of the last 12 elections despite an increase of over 60 million urban residents.
My conclusion is that nationwide demographics does not necessary favor the Democratic party, as long as districts can be carefully drawn. Many people favor a law where congressional districts have to obey some kind of geographic cohesion requirements, in particular to keep districts from being drawn that corral all the urban Democrats into a handful of districts.
Again, thats not a point I argued against, only that it is the exception, not the rule.
Quote:
In Nevada in particular, the Democrat candidate won the "at large" seat 84% (21 of 25 times) from 1932-1980.
In the 10 elections when there was 2 congressmen, the delegation was "split" 8 times, and Republican 2 times.
In the 5 elections when there was 3 congressmen, the delegation was Democratic only one time, and Republican 4 times.
In the 3 elections when there was 4 congressmen, the delegation has been "split", Republican, and Democratic one time apiece.
Again, the Nevada argument does not work, because the argument is the composition of the district itself. not simply who won
Again, the Nevada argument does not work, because the argument is the composition of the district itself. not simply who won You keep glossing over that point.
As you pointed out, one measure of the composition of the district itself is the Cook Partisan Voting Index, also called PVI. The PVI is a measurement of how strongly a United States congressional district or state leans toward the Democratic or Republican Party, compared to the nation as a whole. The Cook Political Report introduced the PVI in August 1997 to better gauge the competitiveness of each district using the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections as a baseline.
So the 3rd and 4th district can be considered "battleground" districts, and indeed the Republican party has chosen them as 2 of the 36 target districts for 2018.
But I think you also have to look at who won. For the last 18 elections since NV was given more than one congressman, the Democrats have had a majority only two times, while the Republicans have had a majority seven times.
In some ways, Nevada is on the cusp of the demographic changes of our nation. Large increases in population, and a rapid increase in Latino percentage. Yet the Republican party has dominated the congressional representation to the House since the 1980 census.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
