CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,261
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Mar 21, 2018 23:47:54 GMT
Oh, I do. Losa does not want to be in competition with her father. I think he will never give up whilst he is in control of his faculties.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 22, 2018 0:26:09 GMT
Oh, I do. Losa does not want to be in competition with her father. I think he will never give up whilst he is in control of his faculties. So he can’t run for Congress this year, let’s assume there are no Special Elections between January 2019 and November 2020, that makes his first opportunity to enter Congress sometime in January 2021, weeks before his 78th birthday. Really? Equally the question remains why did Lisa take all of Illinois politics by surprise and not run for re-election as Attorney General this year? The only remotely plausible explanation I’ve seen is that Durbin and Schumer are not gelling and the former won’t run for re-election in 2020, announcing early, and giving Lisa time to build a Senate campaign infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 22, 2018 0:41:05 GMT
Saccone has conceded in PA-18 so Conor Lamb can now be officially declared the winner.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 22, 2018 1:58:24 GMT
Saccone has conceded in PA-18 so Conor Lamb can now be officially declared the winner. Probably not unconnected to Tuesday night being the closing day for return of absentee ballots. Sadly Louise Slaughter’s passing means, at least for now, that the numbers in the House will remain unchanged.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by jamie on Mar 23, 2018 23:47:39 GMT
Bizarre poll from California. Quality pollster and rest of survey had believable numbers, but generic ballot was as follows:
Democrats - 53% Republicans - 39% DK - 8%
This is bizarre because in 2016 the House result was 62% Democrat and 37% Republican. So before DKs are even removed you have Republicans improving on 2016 while Democrats way down. This goes against all nationwide generic ballot polls, individual CD polls in California which show close races in seats where House Republicans won by 15% (but Clinton won by single digits) and just general common sense for an opposition party in the midterms. Presuming this poll is way off, it really emphasises how poor state polling has become (not that it was ever great).
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Mar 27, 2018 1:52:49 GMT
Why would it be hard to protect Lipinski (assuming Madigan doesn't pull a Bob Brady) and create a second Hispanic seat at the same time? I suspect a black/Hispanic coalition district might be unavoidable because of rock (black influence in CCDP) meets hard place (demographic shifts).
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 27, 2018 2:27:12 GMT
Bizarre poll from California. Quality pollster and rest of survey had believable numbers, but generic ballot was as follows: Democrats - 53% Republicans - 39% DK - 8% This is bizarre because in 2016 the House result was 62% Democrat and 37% Republican. So before DKs are even removed you have Republicans improving on 2016 while Democrats way down. This goes against all nationwide generic ballot polls, individual CD polls in California which show close races in seats where House Republicans won by 15% (but Clinton won by single digits) and just general common sense for an opposition party in the midterms. Presuming this poll is way off, it really emphasises how poor state polling has become (not that it was ever great). There’s a problem comparing actual 2016 election results with a generic poll in California particularly; their top two primary system resulted in a number of Democrat v Democrat or Republican v Republican House races, and the Senate race was an all Democratic affair, so overall share of the vote is hard to calculate as Republicans without a House candidate had little incentive to vote unless they were real die-hard Trump supporters wanting to make a statement (of which I suspect there weren’t many in California) knowing that HRC was always going to win the State at a canter.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,991
|
Post by maxque on Mar 27, 2018 4:51:09 GMT
Why would it be hard to protect Lipinski (assuming Madigan doesn't pull a Bob Brady) and create a second Hispanic seat at the same time? I suspect a black/Hispanic coalition district might be unavoidable because of rock (black influence in CCDP) meets hard place (demographic shifts). Illinois should lose a seat in 2022 with current population numbers (it's one of the few states that lose population). Black/hispanic coalition seats are not looked very well by the VRA law, as it doesn't allow both minorities to elect one of their own. If the numbers are there to create a 2nd hispanic seat in Chicago, they will have to take parts of his seat and go outer in the suburbs (so adding educated voters, not really the electors which are interested by his old-style "working-class" populism).
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by jamie on Mar 27, 2018 13:29:00 GMT
tiberius The poor population growth means Illinois will lose a district, Chicagoland is becoming better for Dems so they may need to look out for other incumbents in marginals/gerrymander away Republican seats, and a 2nd Hispanic district could be necessary which is based in the his Chicago heartland. Collectively, these things mean at the very least there should be a lot of change, which isn't helpful to unpopular incumbents.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by jamie on Mar 27, 2018 13:35:43 GMT
There’s a problem comparing actual 2016 election results with a generic poll in California particularly; their top two primary system resulted in a number of Democrat v Democrat or Republican v Republican House races, and the Senate race was an all Democratic affair, so overall share of the vote is hard to calculate as Republicans without a House candidate had little incentive to vote unless they were real die-hard Trump supporters wanting to make a statement (of which I suspect there weren’t many in California) knowing that HRC was always going to win the State at a canter. I agree that top-2 may have depressed turnout, but only a little. The vast majority of people ultimately still turned out for the presidential race and the limited number of same party House races were usually in ultra safe seats where there wasn't much turnout to suppress anyways. The top-2 could be worse this year without a presidential election and potentially no Republican in either statewide races. Also, the poll shows Republicans already doing better than 2016 so that even if undecideds went completely to the Democrats there would be a swing to the Republicans. This is pretty unlikely when the generic ballot nationally has went from R+2 to D+6-8, and California is likely to see some of the hardest swings to the Democrats considering how anti-Trump it was and the gap between the House and Trump numbers in many races.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 27, 2018 14:45:16 GMT
There’s a problem comparing actual 2016 election results with a generic poll in California particularly; their top two primary system resulted in a number of Democrat v Democrat or Republican v Republican House races, and the Senate race was an all Democratic affair, so overall share of the vote is hard to calculate as Republicans without a House candidate had little incentive to vote unless they were real die-hard Trump supporters wanting to make a statement (of which I suspect there weren’t many in California) knowing that HRC was always going to win the State at a canter. I agree that top-2 may have depressed turnout, but only a little. The vast majority of people ultimately still turned out for the presidential race and the limited number of same party House races were usually in ultra safe seats where there wasn't much turnout to suppress anyways. The top-2 could be worse this year without a presidential election and potentially no Republican in either statewide races. Also, the poll shows Republicans already doing better than 2016 so that even if undecideds went completely to the Democrats there would be a swing to the Republicans. This is pretty unlikely when the generic ballot nationally has went from R+2 to D+6-8, and California is likely to see some of the hardest swings to the Democrats considering how anti-Trump it was and the gap between the House and Trump numbers in many races. Not totally disagreeing with you, but turnout in California was 6% below the national average, and I can’t find numbers to back the quote, but Politico says it “was substantially higher amongst registered Democrats than Republicans”.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by jamie on Mar 28, 2018 0:16:31 GMT
The Ohio Republican primary is a shitshow. Attorney General Mike Dewine and Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor were having a pretty mild primary. Taylor, the lieutenant to Trump critic John Kasich, attacked Dewine as insufficiently Trumpian. Then Dewine, reminder, who is the attorney general, tweeted #lockerhup about Taylor. They are now attacking each other's children. At least the Dem side still has the torpedoing of Dennis Kucinich left to go.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Mar 28, 2018 7:14:44 GMT
Why would it be hard to protect Lipinski (assuming Madigan doesn't pull a Bob Brady) and create a second Hispanic seat at the same time? I suspect a black/Hispanic coalition district might be unavoidable because of rock (black influence in CCDP) meets hard place (demographic shifts). Illinois should lose a seat in 2022 with current population numbers (it's one of the few states that lose population). Black/hispanic coalition seats are not looked very well by the VRA law, as it doesn't allow both minorities to elect one of their own. If the numbers are there to create a 2nd hispanic seat in Chicago, they will have to take parts of his seat and go outer in the suburbs (so adding educated voters, not really the electors which are interested by his old-style "working-class" populism). Why couldn't they push IL-04 into DuPage County and give Danny Davis a seat he has a fighting chance in, yet also make it Hispanic enough that a Latino can succeed him when he retires? All while IL-03 loses its hook into the Back of the Yards yet keeps a share of SW Chicago? The coalition district might be needed because if a second Hispanic seat is created it might have to come at the expense of one of the three black incumbents (Rush, Kelly, or Davis). Geographically, Davis looks likely to have to walk the plank, but I doubt blacks in the CCDP would allow him to be dumped in a seat he can't win.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,991
|
Post by maxque on Mar 28, 2018 7:26:59 GMT
Illinois should lose a seat in 2022 with current population numbers (it's one of the few states that lose population). Black/hispanic coalition seats are not looked very well by the VRA law, as it doesn't allow both minorities to elect one of their own. If the numbers are there to create a 2nd hispanic seat in Chicago, they will have to take parts of his seat and go outer in the suburbs (so adding educated voters, not really the electors which are interested by his old-style "working-class" populism). Why couldn't they push IL-04 into DuPage County and give Danny Davis a seat he has a fighting chance in, yet also make it Hispanic enough that a Latino can succeed him when he retires? All while IL-03 loses its hook into the Back of the Yards yet keeps a share of SW Chicago? The coalition district might be needed because if a second Hispanic seat is created it might have to come at the expense of one of the three black incumbents (Rush, Kelly, or Davis). Geographically, Davis looks likely to have to walk the plank, but I doubt blacks in the CCDP would allow him to be dumped in a seat he can't win. If there is population for 2 Hispanic CDs under the VRA, a coalition district won't cut it. There is probably more Hispanics than Black people in Chicago at this point anyways and giving IL-04 to Danny Davis means throwing Chuy Garcia under the bus. They won't do that unless the CCDP wants to go to war against the Latino community (which would be unwise, given there is more Hispanics than Whites or Blacks in Chicago).
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Mar 28, 2018 7:40:28 GMT
Why couldn't they push IL-04 into DuPage County and give Danny Davis a seat he has a fighting chance in, yet also make it Hispanic enough that a Latino can succeed him when he retires? All while IL-03 loses its hook into the Back of the Yards yet keeps a share of SW Chicago? The coalition district might be needed because if a second Hispanic seat is created it might have to come at the expense of one of the three black incumbents (Rush, Kelly, or Davis). Geographically, Davis looks likely to have to walk the plank, but I doubt blacks in the CCDP would allow him to be dumped in a seat he can't win. If there is population for 2 Hispanic CDs under the VRA, a coalition district won't cut it. There is probably more Hispanics than Black people in Chicago at this point anyways and giving IL-04 to Danny Davis means throwing Chuy Garcia under the bus. They won't do that unless the CCDP wants to go to war against the Latino community (which would be unwise, given there is more Hispanics than Whites or Blacks in Chicago). It really depends on how one defines throwing him under the bus I guess. What is the Latino VAP of the seat he is getting? What is the second largest demographic group? I have toyed with this in DRA and I get the impression that getting two Hispanic seats means two seats with Hispanic VAP % of 42-43%, whites with 31-32%, and blacks with 20-21%. By 2010 census data anyhow...
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,991
|
Post by maxque on Mar 28, 2018 7:58:31 GMT
If there is population for 2 Hispanic CDs under the VRA, a coalition district won't cut it. There is probably more Hispanics than Black people in Chicago at this point anyways and giving IL-04 to Danny Davis means throwing Chuy Garcia under the bus. They won't do that unless the CCDP wants to go to war against the Latino community (which would be unwise, given there is more Hispanics than Whites or Blacks in Chicago). It really depends on how one defines throwing him under the bus I guess. What is the Latino VAP of the seat he is getting? What is the second largest demographic group? I have toyed with this in DRA and I get the impression that getting two Hispanic seats means two seats with Hispanic VAP % of 42-43%, whites with 31-32%, and blacks with 20-21%. By 2010 census data anyhow... <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_45922807" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -328px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_16646663" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_78248468" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_43797246" scrolling="no"></iframe> Well, we cannot know. In 2010 census data, the numbers were not there for a 2nd Hispanic district. The white and the hispanic populations increase while the black one decreases. I would assume the easiest way would to split the IL-4 in two and annex the Hispanic parts of IL-3 for the south. North will be a bit of creativity. All of that will be moot if Lipinski loses in 2020 primary, which is possible too.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 28, 2018 7:59:24 GMT
Worth noting that Davis will be 79 at the next election (2020), and has recently got himself into some trouble because of his links with and support for Louis Farrakhan, so might be getting to the stage where local Democrats are “encouraging” him towards retirement. He only won his primary against an underfunded challenger roughly 60-40 (much higher margin in Chicago itself), and the Chicago Sun-Times in its endorsement described him as “slowing down and frail”, so perhaps there isn’t a great pressure on the legislature to draw a District to protect him personally as they did with Lipinski.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Mar 28, 2018 8:02:21 GMT
i.imgur.com/6OjIvew.pngThis assumes IL loses 1 seat. 2010 numbers; the map would need to be tinkered obviously to equalize population. Davis looks pretty likely to retire if this were to be the final map...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,605
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 28, 2018 11:24:07 GMT
<iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_45922807" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -328px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_16646663" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_78248468" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_43797246" scrolling="no"></iframe> Seen this sort of thing in a few posts now - what is causing it?
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Mar 28, 2018 22:25:12 GMT
<iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_45922807" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -328px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_16646663" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_78248468" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1128px; top: -18px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_43797246" scrolling="no"></iframe> Seen this sort of thing in a few posts now - what is causing it? It happened to me yesterday. It appears to happen when quoting someone; perhaps if you back space it removes some of the characters required to create a quote bubble? When looking at the BBCode it looks like the makings of a table of the type middleenglander does, or the kind you encounter when editing Wikipedia.
|
|