Browsing Category

Diary

2018 Michigan State Senate Elections

Cross-posted at The Western RightRight Michigan, and Red Racing Horses.

All 38 seats in the Michigan Senate are up for election in 2014.  Republicans currently have a 27-11 supermajority, and have controlled the senate since 1983.  Republican control of the state senate has prevented democrats from complete control of Michigan’s government in some years, and stopped a lot of bad things from being passed.

Fortunately for Republicans, the Michigan state senate is up only in midterms, which usually favor Republicans much more than presidential years.  Republicans had a good year in 2014, picking up one state senate seat, following four pickups in 2010.

The 2010 redistricting produced a map that was moderately pro-Republican, while complying with all relevant laws.

Michigan Redistricting: Official Republican State Senate Map Released
Michigan Redistricting: Republican State Senate Map Passed

There are 26 open seats due to term-limits, 7 D and 19 R.  There may be other openings due to retirement or seeking another office.

All current state senators are former state representatives except three (Colbeck, Conyers, Hertel).  This pattern held in the past, and most credible candidates this time are current or former state reps.

I have included election data for the 2014 state senate election, and McCain (2008), Romney (2012), and Trump (2016) results in each district.  More data is available from Republican Michigander and RRH Elections.

Republican Michigander district profiles (see sidebar)
RRH Michigan Senate Data File

The McCain numbers look terrible for Republicans because he collapsed after publicly pulling out of Michigan.  The largest McCain percentage in any Michigan state senate district won by a democrat in the past twelve years is 46.2% in (old) district 31.

Here is a breakdown of the individual races.  State reps years in office are listed after their names, with P meaning present.

1. [Detroit riverfront, Downriver] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 28-72 McCain: 22.0 Romney: 21.5 Trump: XX
Incumbent: Coleman Young (D term-limited)
Analysis: One of five black-majority districts based in Detroit.  Several state reps may compete here.

2. [NE Detroit, Grosse Pointes] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 25-71 McCain: 20.1 Romney: 19.3 Trump: XX
Incumbent:  Bert Johnson (D term-limited)
Analysis: One of five black-majority districts based in Detroit.  Several state reps may compete here, including disgraced rep Brian Banks (12-17), who resigned in a plea bargain.

3. [West-central Detroit, Dearborn, Melvindale] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 20-80 McCain: 16.3 Romney: 14.5 Trump: XX
Incumbent: Morris Hood (D term-limited)
Analysis: One of five black-majority districts based in Detroit.  Several state reps may compete here.

4. [Central Detroit, Lincoln Park, Southgate, Allen Park] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 16-84 McCain: 18.5 Romney: 16.7 Trump: XX
Incumbent: Ian Conyers (D)
Analysis: One of five black-majority districts based in Detroit. Virgil Smith resigned after pleading guilty to shooting at his ex-wife.  The 2016 special election was won by Ian Conyers, the great-nephew of Congressman John Conyers.

5. [W Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Garden City, Inkster, Redford] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 18-82 McCain: 20.6 Romney: 18.4 Trump: XX
Incumbent: David Knezek (D)
Analysis: One of five black-majority districts based in Detroit.  Knezek, who is white, won a split primary with 29% in 2014.

6. [SW Wayne, Westland, Taylor] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 38-62 McCain: 34.3 Romney: 35.1 Trump: XX
Incumbent: Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D)
Analysis: State reps Doug Geiss (08-14), Erika Geiss (14-P), Robert Kosowski (12-18), and Darrin Camilleri (16-P) are potential candidates.

7. [Livonia, Canton, Plymouth, Northville, Wayne city] Lean Republican
SS 2014: 52-48 McCain: 47.3 Romney: 50.0 Trump: 49.0
Incumbent: Patrick Colbeck (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state rep Laura Cox (14-P), who represented more than half of the district on the Wayne County commission, is likely the favorite here.  R state reps. Kurt Heise (10-16) and Jeff Noble (16-P) could also run.  D state reps Dain Slavens (08-14), who lost to Colbeck in 2014, and Kristy Pagan (14-P) could run.

8. [N/E Macomb] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 62-38 McCain: 50.3 Romney: 54.0 Trump: 62.4
Incumbent: Jack Brandenburg (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state reps. Pete Lund (08-14), Peter Lucido (14-P), Ken Goike (10-16), and Tony Forlini (10-16) may run here.

9. [Warren, Roseville, Eastpointe, Fraser, S Clinton] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 32-68 McCain: 37.7 Romney: 36.7 Trump: 44.2
Incumbent: Steven Bieda (D term-limited)
Analysis: D state reps Jon Switalski (08-14), Derek Miller (14-16), Patrick Green (16-P), John Chirkun (14-P), Harold Haugh (08-14), and Marilyn Lane (10-16) could run.

10. [Sterling Heights, Macomb, N Clinton] Lean Republican
SS 2014: 63-37 McCain: 47.8 Romney: 51.1 Trump: 58.4
Incumbent: Tory Rocca (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state reps Leon Drolet (00-06), Kim Meltzer (06-10), Jeff Farrington (10-16), and Diane Farrington (16-P) may run, though the Farringtons live just outside the district.  D state reps Henry Yanez (12-18) and William Sowerby (16-P) could run.

11. [Farmington, Southfield, Oak Park, Madison Heights] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 24-76 McCain: 25.8 Romney: 26 Trump: 25.6
Incumbent: Vincent Gregory (D term-limited)
Analysis: Gregory narrowly defeated state reps, Vicki Barnett (08-14) and Ellen Cogen Lipton (08-14) in the 2014 primary.  Both could run again, along with reps Christine Grieg (14-P), Robert Whittenberg (14-P), and Jeremy Moss (14-P).

12. [NE Oakland, Pontiac, Bloomfield Twp.] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 57-43 McCain: 46.4 Romney: 50.2 Trump: 50.3
Incumbent: Jim Marleau (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state reps Bradford Jacobsen (10-16), John Reilly (16-P), Michael McCready (12-18), and Jim Tedder (14-P) could run.  D state house minority leader Tim Greimel (12-18) could run, but low turnout in Pontiac hurts Ds in midterms in this district.

13. [Troy, Rochester, Royal Oak, Birmingham] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 58-42 McCain: 46.5 Romney: 50.4 Trump: 46.9
Incumbent: Marty Knollenberg (R)
Analysis: Knollenberg won a very close primary in 2014.  D state rep Jim Townsend (10-16) could run.

14. [SW Genesee, NW Oakland, Waterford] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 58-42 McCain: 48.5 Romney: 51.9 Trump: 58.9
Incumbent: David Robertson (R term-limited)
Analysis: Surprisingly, Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, who once represented this area as a state rep (98-04), is exploring moving down to the state senate.  If she doesn’t run, state rep Joe Graves (12-18) would likely be the favorite.

15. [SW Oakland] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 58-42 McCain: 48.3 Romney: 52.9 Trump: 52.2
Incumbent: Mike Kowall (R term-limited)
Analysis: Kowall beat Tea Party leader Matt Maddock only 50-43 in the 2014 primary.  Maddock may run again, and state reps Klint Kesto (12-18) and Jim Runestad (14-P) could run.

16. [Jackson, Hillsdale, Branch] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 61-39 McCain: 50.8 Romney: 55.6 Trump: 64.8
Incumbent: Mike Shirkey (R)
Analysis: Shirkey, who led the fights for both Right to Work and Medicaid expansion, may be a candidate for leadership in the state senate.

17. [Monroe, Lenawee] Lean Republican
SS 2014: 51-46 McCain: 47.6 Romney: 49.9 Trump: 61.5
Incumbent: Dale Zorn (R)
Analysis: Rs have held this competitive district for at least the last five elections.  Zorn defeated rep Doug Spade (98-04) in 2014.  Other possible D candidates include state reps Dudley Spade (04-10) and Bill Lavoy (12-16).

18. [Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 28-72 McCain: 24.9 Romney: 27.0 Trump: 23.6
Incumbent: Rebekah Warren (D term-limited)
Analysis: Ann Arbor loves electing left-wing feminist state senators, including Warren, Liz Brater, Alma Wheeler Smith, and Lana Pollack.  D state reps Jeff Irwin (10-16), David Rutledge (10-16), Adam Zemke (12-18), Yousef Rabhi (16-P), and Ronnie Petersen (16-P) could run.

19. [Calhoun, Barry, Ionia] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 62-38 McCain: 49.6 Romney: 53.4 Trump: 61.8
Incumbent: Mike Nofs (R term-limited)
Analysis: R former rep. Mike Callton (10-16) is likely to run.  Reps. John Bizon (14-P) and Jase Bolger (08-14) could also run.  D rep Kate Segal (08-14) could run.

20. [Kalamazoo County] Tossup
SS 2014: 45.5-45.4 McCain: 40.1 Romney: 43.3 Trump: 43.2
Incumbent: Margaret O’Brien (R)
Analysis: Kalamazoo County is a battleground, with democrats usually winning the top of the ticket, and Republicans doing better at the bottom.  In 2014, O’Brien (10-14) defeated D state rep Sean McCann (10-14) and Libertarian former state rep Lorence Wenke (04-10).  D state rep Jon Hoadley (14-P) is a likely candidate.

21. [Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 64-36 McCain: 48.1 Romney: 54.6 Trump: 60.5
Incumbent: John Proos (R term-limited)
Analysis: State reps Al Pscholka (10-16), Dave Pagel (12-18), Sharon Tyler (08-12), Matt Lori (08-14) and Aaron Miller (14-P) could run.

22. [Livingston, W Washtenaw] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 59-41 McCain: 52.8 Romney: 57.2 Trump: 59.2
Incumbent: Joe Hune (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state rep Lana Theis (14-P) is likely the favorite. Other possible candidates are state reps Henry Vaupel (14-P), Cindy Denby (08-14), and Bill Rogers (08-14).

23. [Ingham] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 34-66 McCain: 31.9 Romney: 34.5 Trump: 34.6
Incumbent: Curtis Hertel Jr. (D)
Analysis: Hertel, then Ingham Register of Deeds, won in 2014.

24. [Eaton, Clinton, Shiawassee, NE Ingham] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 56-44 McCain: 47.1 Romney: 50.1 Trump: 56.1
Incumbent: Rick Jones (R term-limited)
Analysis: Speaker Tom Leonard (12-18), and state reps Tom Barrett (14-P), Ben Glardon (10-16), and Ben Frederick (16-P) could run.

25. [St. Clair, Sanilac, Huron] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 56-44 McCain: 50.1 Romney: 55.6 Trump: 68.4
Incumbent: Phil Pavlov (R term-limited)
Analysis: State reps Dan Lauwers (12-18), Andrea LaFontaine (10-16), Pam Hornberger (16-P), Paul Muxlow (10-16), and Shane Hernandez (16-P) could run.

26. [Van Buren, Allegan, Kentwood] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 61-39 McCain: 51.5 Romney: 55.4 Trump: 58.9
Incumbent: Tonya Schuitmaker (R term-limited)
Analysis: Tonya is likely to run for Attorney General. State reps Aric Nesbitt (10-16), Beth Griffin (16-P), Bob Genetski (08-14), Mary Whiteford (16-P), Ken Yonker (10-16), and Steve Johnson (16-P) could run.

27. [Flint, central Genesee] Safe democrat
SS 2014: 23-77 McCain: 24.0 Romney: 25.0 Trump: XX
Incumbent: Jim Ananich (D)
Analysis: Ananich, who won a special election in 2013, is now the D state senate minority leader.

28. [N Kent, Walker] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 66-34 McCain: 56.5 Romney: 61.1 Trump: 61.9
Incumbent: Peter MacGregor (R)
Analysis: MacGregor holds one of the safest R districts in Michigan.

29. [Grand Rapids, SE Kent] Tossup
SS 2014: 58-42 McCain: 42.8 Romney: 46.8 Trump: 41.9
Incumbent: Dave Hildenbrand (R term-limited)
Analysis: This district has been trending away from Rs at the top of the ticket, but has more R strength downballot.  Dave LaGrand, 2006 and 2010 D nominee, is now a state rep (16-P). D state rep Winnie Brinks (12-18) could also run.  D state chairman Brandon Dillon (10-15) seems unlikely to run. Former R state rep Lisa Lyons (10-16) would be a strong candidate, but is now Kent County Clerk.  R state reps Chris Afendoulis (14-P) and Thomas Albert (16-P) could also run.

30. [Ottawa County] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 71-29 McCain: 62.1 Romney: 67.4 Trump: 66.3
Incumbent: Arlan Meekhof (R term-limited)
Analysis: Ottawa County is usually the most Republican in Michigan.  R state reps Roger Victory (12-18), Amanda Price (10-16), Jim Lilly (16-P), Daniella Garcia (14-P), and Joe Haveman (08-14) could run.

31. [Bay, Tuscola, Lapeer] Tossup
SS 2014: 55-45 McCain: 47.2 Romney: 52.0 Trump: 64.4
Incumbent: Mike Green (R term-limited)
Analysis: This district has alternated between parties every 8-10 years since the 1980s.  Mike Green narrowly won the 2014 primary 50-46 over conservative state rep. Kevin Daley of Lapeer County.  Daley has already declared for 2018.  R state reps Edward Canfield (14-P) and Gary Howell (16-P) could also run.  D state rep Charles Brunner, a moderate from Bay City, is likely to run.

32. [Saginaw, W Genesee] Lean Republican
SS 2014: 54-46 McCain: 43.1 Romney: 45.9 Trump: 53.2
Incumbent: Ken Horn (R)
Analysis: Incredibly, despite D dominance of Saginaw County, Rs have won this district for the last seven elections.  Ds tend to nominate black state reps from Saginaw who don’t appeal to the white union voters who dominate the rest of the district.  D state rep Vanessa Guerra (14-P) could run.

33. [Montcalm, Isabella, Gratiot, Mecosta, Clare] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 57-43 McCain: 46.8 Romney: 51.5 Trump: 62.3
Incumbent: Judy Emmons (R term-limited)
Analysis: State reps Rick Outman (10-16), James Lower (16-P), Kevin Cotter (10-16), and Roger Hauck (16-P) could run.

34. [Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana] Tossup
SS 2014: 56-44 McCain: 39.8 Romney: 46.0 Trump: 55.5
Incumbent: Geoff Hansen (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state rep Jon Bumstead (10-16) of Newaygo, an early endorser of Trump, is already running.  State rep. Holly Hughes (10-12, 14-18) of Muskegon County is also likely to run.  Bumstead is somewhat more conservative.  D state reps Marcia Hovey Wright (10-16) and Terry Sabo (16-P) could run.

35. [NC Lower Peninsula] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 60-40 McCain: 49.8 Romney: 54.5 Trump: 64.6
Incumbent: Darwin Booher (R term-limited)
Analysis: R state reps. Ray Franz (10-16), Phil Potvin (10-16), Bruce Rendon (10-16), Curt VanderWall (16-P), Michelle Hoitenga (16-P), and Daire Rendon (16-P) could run.

36. [NE Lower Peninsula, Midland] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 61-39 McCain: 50.8 Romney: 56.0 Trump: 65.4
Incumbent: Jim Stamas (R)
Analysis: This district was competitive in 2002, but has moved right since then.  Stamas is a leadership candidate.

37. [NW Lower Peninsula, E Upper Peninsula] Safe Republican
SS 2014: 61-39 McCain: 51.9 Romney: 56.8 Trump: 61.1
Incumbent: Wayne Schmidt (R)
Analysis: Schmidt won a bitter primary in 2014.  He may get a challenge from the right in the 2018 primary.

38. [Upper Peninsula excluding Mackinac, Chippewa, Luce] Tossup
SS 2014: 62-38 McCain: 46.2 Romney: 51.0 Trump: 59.0
Incumbent: Tom Casperson (R term-limited)
Analysis: This district was held for Ds for decades until Casperson won it in 2010.  The likely R candidate is state rep Ed McBroom (10-16) of Dickinson County.  Moderate D state rep Scott Dianda (12-18) from western UP is likely to run.  D state rep John Kivela (12-18) of Marquette, who pled after being charged with “super drunk” driving could also run.

Summary of Ratings:
Safe democrat: 11
Toss-up: 5
Lean Republican: 4
Safe Republican: 18

GOP should stop gerrymandering for its own good

Yes it is time, way past time really. Otherwise, the GOP  runs the risk of winning the battle, while losing the war. Focusing on CD districts, it seems pretty clear to me, that the net effect of gerrymanders currently in place nets the GOP a max of maybe 10 CD’s nationwide. I suspect it’s less now, as the the GOP loses cosmopolitan voters in big metro areas, while cutting into the white working class elsewhere in more exurban and rural areas, and smaller industrial towns. Meanwhile the Dems are launching a jihad to gerrymander CD’s in their favor, on the premise that the share of the pie in legislatures, should be more reflective of the share of the pie in statewide popular votes. That has some appeal, and the GOP is more vulnerable to the extent it plays its own gerrymandering game.

A case in point is PA. Just look at the graphics. This is a map I drew based on projected 2020 census numbers, in other words, a map that one might draw in 2021. Without a gerrymander, net the GOP cedes the CD that PA losses after the next census. Sure, the PVI numbers are based on the 2016 election alone, where Trump cut into the white working class in a way that might not hold for the GOP in general going forward. But that is not the point. The point is that the GOP abandoning its hideous gerrymander in PA, does not cost it much, while giving it the high ground, the better to the deflect the coming Dem jihad on this issue. It’s kind of ironic, that the GOP Dem pack of PA-17, is now having the effect of saving the seat for the Dems, that otherwise might well go down the drain. One would think, the GOP would go about the unpacking business. Yes, some seats are somewhat marginal, that could with a hideous gerrymander, be made safe GOP, but I think more marginal seats is just what the public square needs. It tends to encourage folks to run, actually interested in trying to find common ground, rather than divisive slash and burn policies, that in the end tend to be public policy failures. Just the opinion of this old man, who has been running around the track since rocks cooled.

So says this former Pub, now a Dem, but really not a very partisan person. I am more of a data based good government person, more of a technocrat that anything else. What do you think? Yes, I know it might be something of a pipe dream. In my opinion, both parties are well, not very helpful when it comes to intelligent public policy. No, they tend to be more into high school towel snapping, but I digress.

Addendum:

Below is a slightly revised PA map that gets a slightly higher score, using totally objective criteria. I won’t bore you as to the details as to why, unless someone is interested. But as you can see, it looks a bit better to the eye. Avoid chops, either by county or county subdivision, and  minimize erosity, and keep metro areas intact, as much as one can, to get the max score. A computer does it all. Mere humans need not apply. When it comes to redistricting, humans are just too biased. Even God may be too biased to do it. One needs to set up tight rules in advance, and let a computer do the implementation. This works guys. It really does. 

Addendum 2:

Somebody below mentioned Missouri, the “Show Me” state, expressing doubt that the rules as outlined by me, would effect anything other than aesthetic excrescence of a map for the state. So I drew the map, based on 202o census projections to find out. What do you guys think? Is it map malpractice, or a museum quality object d’art?  I feel the force is with the creator of this algorithm, yes I do.  And you guys are getting an advance preview. Isn’t that exciting? 🙂

 

Addendum 3:

Addendum 4; a higher scoring Michigan map

The Torymander, Part 6: The West Country

Well, here we are; the last diary in the series. The West Country is culturally similar but subtly different from the rest of Southern England. It has a fairly conservative culture, but less militant than that of the home counties. It values relative moderation in its leaders, but has a fairly intense dislike of socialism outside of a few pockets of red. That means that the two largest parties in the region are the Tories and and the LibDems. By 2015, the LibDems had managed to capture a very good share of the seats in the region after decades of hard work. That all got wiped away in an instant as the Tories took every LibDem seat in the West Country.

 

Old

New

 

Dorset:

Old

New

Dorset is probably the most conservative part of the region, with big retirement and tourist sectors and very few non-white people. The population growth here is okay, but not blowing the doors off. Therefore, it loses most of a seat, taking its total from eight seats to seven so that Wiltshire doesn’t lose one (Bournemouth West is the seat that gets axed). All seven seats are Safe Conservative, as was the seat that was eliminated.

 

Wiltshire:

Old

New

Wiltshire is hair less conservative than Dorset, but all seven constituencies here are also Safe Conservative. The LibDems used to compete for South Swindon, but no longer.

 

Gloucestershire:

Old

New

Gloucestershire actually had some competitive seats, but no longer. Stroud expands a bit and moves from Likely Conservative to Safe Conservative. Thornbury and Yate should theoretically be a target for recapture for the LibDems. However, its successor of Dursley, Thornbury and Yate is now Safe Conservative as well. All seven other seats keep that same rating.

 

Somerset and Bristol:

Old

New

There’s a similar story in Somerset. The LibDems used to have several seats here, but lost them all in 2015. Bath would still be competitive, except that it added some rural territory and moved to Safe Conservative. All eight other seats are playing the same tune.

For a change of pace, Bristol is an island of red in a sea of blue. Bristol East and Bristol South are Safe Labour. Bristol North West is Safe Conservative. Bristol West is somewhat competitive between Labour and the Greens, so we’ll call it Likely Labour.

 

Devon and Cornwall:

Old

New

And here we come to Devon. Fun fact: Devon is the home of the protagonist Arthur Dent in Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. As with Somerset and Gloucestershire, the LibDems used to perform well here. With their current poll numbers, though, they’re only really competing to take back Torbay, and that’s Likely Conservative. The two Plymouth seats, though Tory-held, are competitive. The Plymouth seats repeat the pattern the we’ve seen with other two-seat cities; the more conservative seat takes some leftist or swingy territory from the more leftist seat, while the more leftist seat takes in some very conservative surrounding territory. To accomplish that, Plymouth Moor View takes in more of Plymouth and moves from Tossup to Likely Conservative, becoming Plymouth North. Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also moves from Lean Conservative to Likely Conservative and becomes Plymouth South (Labour is the second party in both seats). Exeter remains Safe Labour. The other six seats are Safe Conservative.

Cornwall is a land all it’s own. It’s part of the Celtic Fringe, and the locals recently managed to save their native language from dying out. Unlike Wales, though, it’s historically had a privileged position; before the Great Reform Bill, Cornwall had forty-four MPs because The Crown heavily valued the local tin mining industry. These days, Cornwall has six constituencies (in the new map one seat has part of Devon). Five of them were already Safe Conservative. St. Ives was Likely Conservative, but it had to expand and becomes Safe Conservative as well.

 

And there you have; That’s the last in the series, as I won’t be doing a full piece on Scotland (though I may include a few notes on it in the future). The final totals (sans Scotland) are: 290 Safe Conservative, 157 Safe Labour, 19 Likely Conservative, 17 Likely Labour, 2 Likely Liberal Democrat, 2 Likely Plaid Cymru, 12 Lean Conservative, 6 Lean Labour, 1 Lean Liberal Democrat, 1 Lean Plaid Cymru, 21 Tossup. You read that right, folks. The Tories could lose every Tossup and still have a comfortable majority of 321. Remember, these ratings assume a movement to the Tories of four points or less, which is pretty modest given their current poll numbers. The flip side of that is that a few of the Tossups don’t involve Team Blue and Labour has relatively few Likely seats that can be poached in a big Tory win. May should have a fairly comfortable majority, but she’d probably need the supposed breakthrough in Scotland to materialize in good seat gains to get a very large majority.

11-3 North Carolina

Here’s my 11-3 NC map, as promised. This is going to be quick and dirty because I’m working to get the last UK diary out in a few days. These aren’t final, but they’ve got rough population estimates. Once we get the real numbers, the map can be refined. Keep in mind that we’re using 2008 numbers, so adjust accordingly.

 

Statewide

 

NC-01

This one is blacker than the current district, so there’s no problem on that front. Not much changes except the acquisition of part of Nash County.

 

NC-02

Pro-Dem trends in Wake County should be mostly counteracted by exurban Republican growth in Franklin and Johnston Counties.

 

NC-03

Jones will be fine in his own little world and he even gets to keep his beloved Camp Lejeune. I suppose that if you dropped Goldsboro into this seat you could get a bit more juice out of it to use in the 14th, but we can try that adjustment another day.

 

NC-04

David Price will remain one of the most anonymous members of the House who ever actually had tough races.

 

NC-05

Foxx should be fine here as this seat should have trended rightward a bit over the last few cycles.

 

NC-06

The same goes for Rev. Walker.

 

NC-07

I had to play around with Fayetteville a fair amount to get 7, 8, and 9 right, but I think I found the balance. I would be worried that a possible successor to Rouzer comes from Wake County. I guess that just gives us license to split up Wake County more in 2030, though.

 

NC-08

The challenge with this district was actually making it LESS Republican, but Fayetteville obliged me.

 

NC-09

And here we see the fruits of that effort. Pittenger isn’t going to break any margin records, but this should be fine for him.

 

NC-10

There’s not much to say here, so I won’t.

 

NC-11

Ditto on this one.

 

NC-12

I’m almost certain that adams will get another primary challenge because she doesn’t actually live in Charlotte. If she’s in office to see a map like this though, she;ll likely be entrenched.

 

NC-13

Tedd Budd actually gets some PVI improvement. I guess that I could have given the 6th a bit of help, but again, that detail can be worked out later.

 

NC-14

And here is the new district. As I said earlier, some moves with the 7th and 3rd could boost the numbers a bit. However, it should be noted that Trump will have done a lot better than McCain here. Also, the growth in the area (and there’s a lot of it) is mostly Yankee Rs, especially military and middle-class retirees.

Europe’s Modern Political History

Here is a slightly complicated but interesting Excel table I made comparing various Western countries and how strong the left and right have been over time.

The three columns on the left compare the strength of the mainstream left and mainstream right (excluded parties are on the far right) during three periods of European history, the “30 Glorious Years” from the end of WWII until the mid-70s, the period from the mid-70s to 2008, and the period since 2008.

The three columns on the right show the average strength of a theoretical coalition between the centrist and left-wing parties, again excluding parties not considered in the mainstream.

Europe.JPG

As you can see, the trend is mostly consistent; the left has gradually been weakening since the 50s and 60s.  It’s unclear to me if this is because of cultural issues (I don’t think Europe was really grappling with cultural issues in the 1980s, for example) or simply because people felt the left had “done its job” and built a strong welfare state, so now there was no imperative to keep electing them.

The trend definitely accelerated after 2008, and part of that is likely cultural issues.

Anyway I found this interesting and I hope you do too.

Congressional districts ranked by PVI.

All congressional districts ranked by PVI. Note that my PVI formula is 1/2 weight for 2016, 1/3 for 2012, and 1/6 for 2008. Results are posted for 2-party republican votes. Racial data and communities also included

hispanicblackasianwhite200820122016PVI index community
26.4%5.2%1.9%64.1%TX-13Thornberry, Mac77.8%81.3%82.5%83.1%Amarillo/Wichita Falls
37.5%3.5%1.0%56.6%TX-11Conaway, Michael76.8%80.2%80.3%81.5%Midland/San Angelo
12.5%7.2%1.0%77.5%GA-09Collins, Doug75.5%79.2%80.1%80.9%Gainesville/NE Georgia
6.0%6.8%0.5%84.0%AL-04Aderholt, Rob74.2%75.7%82.2%80.5%Gadsden/Muscle Shoals/Cullman
0.9%1.6%0.3%96.1%KY-05Rogers, Hal67.8%76.4%82.0%79.6%London/Morehead/Pikeville
3.5%2.1%0.6%91.8%TN-01Roe, Phil71.0%73.9%79.6%78.1%Kingsport/Morristown
12.0%1.0%1.7%81.8%UT-01Bishop, Rob69.7%79.1%76.3%78.0%Ogden/Park City
9.8%0.7%1.9%83.0%UT-03Chaffetz, Jason69.6%80.1%75.5%77.8%Provo/Moab
20.9%7.9%2.9%66.1%TX-08Brady, Kevin73.7%78.0%75.3%77.7%The Woodlands/Huntsville
9.2%4.0%1.5%74.6%OK-03Lucas, Frank72.9%73.9%77.9%77.5%Stillwater/Yukon/Guymon
13.6%10.1%0.8%72.4%TX-04Ratcliffe, John70.7%74.9%77.6%77.4%Sherman/Denison/Texarkana
11.0%9.6%0.9%77.4%GA-14Graves, Tom71.9%74.3%77.2%77.2%Rome/Hiram/Dalton
11.1%1.1%0.6%85.0%NE-03Smith, Adrian68.4%71.4%78.9%76.5%Grand Island/Scottsbluff
35.6%5.7%1.3%55.3%TX-19Arrington, Jodey71.7%74.6%75.5%76.4%Lubbock/Abilene
4.9%14.4%1.9%77.2%AL-06Palmer, Gary74.8%75.1%73.1%75.8%Birmingham suburbs
24.2%9.0%1.9%62.5%TX-36Babin, Brian69.7%74.0%74.1%75.1%Houston/Baytown
16.8%18.3%1.0%62.6%TX-01Gohmert, Louie69.7%72.3%74.1%74.5%Tyler/Lufkin
9.8%1.0%0.9%84.0%WY-ALCheney, Liz66.6%71.2%75.7%74.5%Wyoming ALL
9.1%13.4%2.5%71.9%LA-01Scalise, Steve74.2%72.5%72.0%74.4%New Orleans/Hammond/Houma
15.5%2.9%1.4%77.2%KS-01Marshall, Roger68.4%71.8%74.0%74.2%Salina/Hutchinson/Garden City
3.7%4.4%1.0%89.0%TN-06Black, Diane66.0%70.1%75.4%73.9%Cookeville/Lebanon/Hendersonville
1.8%4.9%0.7%90.4%MO-08Smith, Jason61.0%67.3%78.2%73.5%Cape Girardeau/Rolla/West Plains
5.0%3.4%0.6%64.6%OK-02Mullin, Markwayne65.7%67.8%76.2%73.5%Muskogee/Miami/Durant
4.8%2.1%1.2%88.7%MO-07Long, Billy64.1%69.1%74.0%72.5%Springfield/Joplin
2.9%6.9%0.5%87.5%KY-01Comer, James62.5%67.4%75.2%72.3%Paducah/Hopkinsville
3.6%23.7%1.1%69.2%MS-04Palazzo, Steven68.6%68.4%71.1%71.6%Gulfport/Hattiesburg
6.2%13.4%2.6%73.6%FL-01Gaetz, Matt67.6%69.5%70.5%71.5%Pensacola/Crestview
0.9%3.9%0.4%93.2%WV-03Jenkins, Evan56.8%66.5%75.7%71.3%Huntington/Beckley
18.0%1.7%1.4%75.3%AZ-04Gosar, Paul65.1%68.4%71.1%71.0%Kingman/Prescott/Yuma/Apache Junction
10.4%0.3%1.1%85.1%ID-01Labrador, Raul64.0%66.8%71.5%70.5%Nampa/Meridian/Coeur d’Alene
5.8%8.1%1.5%81.1%TN-04DesJarlais, Scott63.6%66.4%71.5%70.3%Murfreesboro/Cleveland
8.4%6.8%2.1%71.2%OK-04Cole, Tom66.1%67.1%69.9%70.2%Norman/Lawton
2.4%4.3%0.6%91.3%IL-15Shimkus, John56.4%65.2%74.3%70.1%Danville/Effingham/Fairfield
3.6%24.9%1.5%68.0%LA-0365.3%67.2%69.7%70.0%Lafayette/Lake Charles
4.9%10.3%1.7%80.8%TN-07Blackburn, Marsha63.2%66.6%70.5%69.8%Franklin/Clarksville
3.8%6.5%1.6%86.4%TN-02Duncan, John65.0%68.5%68.7%69.8%Knoxville
4.3%24.3%2.2%67.5%LA-06Graves, Garret68.6%67.4%67.6%69.5%Baton Rouge
4.3%18.1%0.7%74.7%SC-03Duncan, Jeff64.4%65.5%69.8%69.3%Anderson/Greenwood
3.3%5.1%1.2%87.5%KY-02Guthrie, Brett62.3%64.3%71.0%69.1%Bowling Green/Owensboro
3.3%19.4%1.8%73.8%TN-08Kustoff, David64.7%66.8%68.4%69.1%Memphis/Jackson
2.0%5.7%1.1%89.7%VA-09Griffith, Morgan59.7%64.3%71.6%69.0%Blacksburg/Martinsburg/Abingdon
2.1%2.8%0.5%93.0%PA-09Schuster, Bill58.6%63.6%72.0%68.8%Altoona/Uniontown/Chambersburg
1.3%2.6%0.9%93.7%WV-01McKinley, David57.7%63.7%72.0%68.7%Morgantown/Wheeling/Parkersburg
13.8%3.0%2.6%76.1%AR-03Womack, Steve65.3%67.5%67.0%68.7%Fayetteville/Fort Smith
5.8%24.7%2.0%64.7%FL-02Dunn, Neal64.3%65.5%68.4%68.6%Tallahassee/Panama City
16.1%1.1%2.4%76.0%UT-02Stewart, Chris60.4%70.0%66.3%68.3%Salt Lake City/St. George
3.0%3.1%0.9%90.7%KY-04Massie, Thomas62.4%64.6%69.0%68.2%Covington/Ashland
5.2%24.2%1.9%66.1%GA-03Ferguson, Drew65.8%66.6%66.2%68.1%Columbus/Newnan/Griffin
22.6%8.8%3.5%62.5%TX-12Granger, Kay64.6%67.8%65.8%68.1%Fort Worth/Weatherford
3.5%11.0%1.2%82.4%TN-03Fleischmann, Chuck62.2%64.3%68.4%67.8%Chattanooga
5.0%17.1%1.4%73.1%AL-05Brooks, Mo63.3%64.7%67.3%67.6%Huntsville/Florence
2.2%3.6%0.7%90.9%MO-03Luetkemeyer, Blaine56.6%63.2%70.5%67.6%Jefferson City/St. Peters
17.8%6.3%5.6%67.0%TX-26Burgess, Michael64.6%68.8%63.9%67.5%Denton/Lewisville/Keller
2.2%2.9%1.3%92.1%IN-06Messer, Luke55.8%61.8%71.2%67.3%Muncie/Columbus/Greenfield
15.9%1.5%2.8%76.1%UT-04Love, Mia57.8%69.0%65.5%67.2%West Jordan/Nephi
8.2%13.3%4.6%71.2%FL-04Rutherford, John64.8%66.8%64.3%67.1%Jacksonville suburbs
10.7%8.4%2.3%65.6%OK-01Bridenstine, Jim64.2%65.8%65.2%67.1%Tulsa
3.3%6.1%1.8%86.5%OH-08Davidson, Warren61.3%63.0%68.0%67.0%Hamilton/Springfield
3.2%30.6%1.1%63.3%AL-02Roby, Martha64.8%63.3%66.4%66.9%Montgomery/Dothan
10.8%16.7%3.4%67.2%GA-11Loudermilk, Barry64.9%68.0%63.1%66.8%Marietta/Canton
3.0%25.9%1.4%67.7%AL-03Rogers, Mike D.63.1%62.9%67.0%66.8%Auburn/Oxford
3.5%4.7%1.4%86.9%MO-04Hartzler, Vicki57.4%62.7%69.0%66.8%Columbia/Lebanon/Belton
3.1%18.2%0.3%76.5%AR-01Crawford, Rick59.7%62.7%68.3%66.8%Jonesboro/Mountain Home
5.5%19.9%0.6%71.9%AR-04Westerman, Bruce61.6%63.3%67.2%66.8%Hot Springs/Pine Bluff/El Dorado
5.8%5.8%2.2%83.6%IN-03Banks, Jim56.6%63.6%68.4%66.7%Fort Wayne/Warsaw
3.0%27.2%0.6%67.6%MS-01Kelly, Trent63.0%62.6%66.9%66.6%Tupelo/Memphis suburbs
13.8%1.0%1.7%80.3%ID-02Simpson, Mike62.0%65.9%64.7%66.5%Boise/Twin Falls/Idaho Falls
27.6%15.6%2.5%52.2%TX-05Hensarling, Jeb62.6%65.2%64.6%66.3%Dallas/Mesquite/Palestine
1.7%4.4%0.6%90.9%WV-02Mooney, Alex55.5%61.2%69.1%66.0%Charleston/Elkins/Martinsburg
4.0%3.5%0.8%90.1%PA-10Marino, Tom57.2%61.0%68.6%66.0%Williamsport
2.8%2.0%1.2%86.8%ND-ALCramer, Kevin54.4%60.1%69.8%65.9%North Dakota ALL
0.9%2.4%0.5%94.7%OH-06Johnson, Bill54.3%56.4%72.2%65.8%Steubenville/Marrieta
5.9%3.6%2.7%85.7%IN-04Rokita, Todd54.9%62.3%68.0%65.7%Lafayette/Kokomo
2.0%35.6%0.7%60.1%LA-05Abraham, Ralph62.8%61.8%65.1%65.4%Monroe/Alexandria
3.1%27.8%1.4%65.3%AL-01Byrne, Bradley61.3%62.3%65.2%65.4%Mobile
5.9%30.6%1.2%60.5%GA-08Scott, Austin62.0%62.2%64.8%65.3%Warner Robins/Valdosta
11.8%6.9%3.3%74.3%KS-04Pompeo, Mike59.7%63.1%64.6%65.1%Wichita
8.3%19.3%2.2%68.3%SC-04Gowdy, Trey61.6%63.2%63.6%64.9%Greenville/Spartenburg
3.7%4.0%1.2%88.5%MO-06Graves, Sam56.2%61.3%66.6%64.9%St. Joseph/Kirksville
3.6%11.9%2.4%80.2%MD-01Harris, Andy60.8%61.5%64.9%64.9%Eastern Maryland/Bel Air
4.9%26.5%2.1%64.9%GA-10Hice, Jodi60.9%63.3%63.1%64.6%Athens/Milledgeville
18.6%2.6%4.5%70.8%AZ-05Biggs, Andy63.3%64.8%61.2%64.6%Mesa/Gilbert/Chandler
9.3%8.2%1.2%78.8%FL-11Nugent, Rich56.8%59.8%66.6%64.5%Spring Hill/The Villages
5.9%3.3%1.3%86.3%NC-11Meadows, Mark57.9%60.4%65.3%64.3%Western Appalachians
38.0%7.0%4.7%46.5%CA-23McCarthy, Kevin62.9%63.0%61.7%64.1%Bakersfield/Porterville/Lancaster
1.9%4.1%1.0%91.1%IN-08Bucshon, Larry51.3%59.6%67.6%64.1%Evansville/Terre Haute
3.1%5.1%0.9%88.0%OH-04Jordan, Jim55.5%57.1%67.7%64.0%Lima/Fremont/Marysville
2.7%3.4%2.6%89.3%IL-18LaHood, Darin55.2%61.9%64.5%63.9%Peoria/Bloomington/Quincy
15.4%5.1%2.6%72.0%CO-05Lamborn, Doug59.7%60.7%63.3%63.6%Colorado Springs
3.4%1.7%1.3%83.2%SD-ALNoem, Kristi54.3%59.2%66.0%63.6%South Dakota ALL
2.0%35.2%1.1%60.1%MS-03Harper, Gregg61.3%60.5%62.5%63.5%Jackson suburbs/Meridian
19.1%5.0%3.4%69.4%AZ-08Franks, Trent61.2%62.6%61.1%63.4%Peoria/Surprise/Goodyear/Anthem
38.1%1.0%1.5%55.0%WA-04Newhouse, Dan60.0%61.2%62.3%63.4%Kennewick/Yakima
51.5%5.2%1.5%40.3%TX-27Farenthold, Blake59.6%61.3%62.2%63.3%Corpus Christi/Victoria
4.8%10.8%1.9%80.5%VA-06Goodlatte, Bob58.3%60.1%63.1%63.1%Roanoke/Lynchburg/Harrisonburg
4.0%33.5%0.8%58.7%LA-0459.6%59.8%62.3%62.9%Shreveport
14.7%8.9%13.7%59.6%TX-03Johnson, Sam62.2%65.3%57.4%62.7%Plano/Frisco/McKinney
21.7%1.5%1.9%72.4%CO-04Buck, Ken57.4%59.9%62.6%62.6%Greeley/Longmont/Parker/E. Colorado
5.9%11.8%1.4%78.8%NC-10McHenry, Patrick58.0%59.1%62.8%62.6%Gastonia/Asheville
19.2%8.3%1.6%68.9%FL-17Rooney, Tom55.5%58.2%64.0%62.5%Port Charlotte
5.8%1.8%2.7%88.0%WI-05Sensenbrenner, Jim57.8%61.9%60.6%62.4%Waukesha/Watertown
19.1%7.8%1.4%70.6%FL-19Rooney, Francis57.3%61.0%61.4%62.4%Cape Coral/Naples
3.2%2.4%1.7%90.7%MI-10Mitchell, Paul51.0%55.9%66.9%62.4%St. Clair/Shelby/Thumb area
2.0%2.3%1.6%92.4%PA-05Thompson, Glenn52.2%57.9%65.0%62.3%State College/DeBois
2.6%2.6%2.2%90.1%MN-06Emmer, Tom55.9%57.7%64.0%62.3%St. Cloud/Elk River/Blaine/Waconia
3.2%2.8%2.2%89.8%IN-09Hollingsworth, Trey53.3%58.4%64.1%62.2%Louisville suburbs/Bloomington
7.9%18.5%0.8%69.8%NC-03Jones, Walter57.3%59.0%62.3%62.2%Jacksonville/Kill Devil Hills
4.3%1.3%0.7%89.8%MN-07Peterson, Collin51.7%55.0%66.6%62.1%Moorhead/Bemidji/Marshall
24.6%13.0%4.5%55.8%TX-17Flores, Bill58.6%61.6%59.2%61.7%Waco/College Station
2.3%3.8%0.6%90.9%OH-07Gibbs, Bob52.0%54.9%65.6%61.6%Canton Suburbs/Amish country
23.8%19.7%3.1%51.6%TX-14Weber, Randy57.6%60.0%60.2%61.5%Galveston/Beaumont
5.4%23.0%1.9%67.0%SC-02Wilson, Joe60.2%60.0%59.3%61.5%Columbia/Aiken
31.2%2.5%5.7%55.6%CA-50Hunter, Duncan59.8%61.6%58.0%61.3%Santee/Escondido/Temecula
2.1%4.5%1.0%90.4%PA-03Kelly, Mike53.0%56.4%63.5%61.2%Erie/Butler/New Castle
3.0%2.8%0.9%91.3%NY-27Collins, Chris55.1%56.3%62.9%61.2%Buffalo suburbs
8.3%2.8%2.6%83.2%NE-01Fortenberry, Jeff55.1%58.2%61.4%61.1%Lincoln/Norfolk
30.7%9.3%6.8%50.7%TX-02Poe, Ted62.6%63.9%54.9%61.0%Houston
13.6%0.4%1.0%80.1%OR-02Walden, Greg55.4%58.4%60.8%60.9%Bend/Medford/Grants Pass
13.4%1.4%2.5%77.1%CA-01LaMalfa, Doug55.8%58.4%60.6%60.9%Redding/Chico/Grass Valley
1.2%3.2%1.6%92.0%PA-12Rothfus, Keith54.8%58.6%60.8%60.9%N. Allegheny County/Johnstown
6.9%7.5%2.1%81.2%PA-04Perry, Scott54.4%57.9%61.2%60.8%York/Harrisburg
1.4%2.4%1.9%92.9%PA-18Murphy, Tim55.8%58.5%60.1%60.7%S. Allegheny County/Washington/Greensburg
4.8%2.8%1.3%89.4%OH-05Latta, Bob53.2%55.0%63.3%60.7%Toledo Suburbs/Findlay
18.3%6.9%2.9%68.6%TX-25Williams, Roger56.6%61.3%57.8%60.6%Austin/Cleburne
10.0%9.9%2.1%75.6%FL-08Posey, Bill55.6%57.3%60.8%60.6%Melbourne/Titusville
6.5%1.2%1.9%88.5%IA-04King, Steve50.9%54.1%64.5%60.6%Sioux City/Fort Dodge/Mason City
6.7%3.2%5.9%61.8%AK-ALYoung, Don61.0%57.3%58.4%60.3%Alaska ALL
9.1%6.7%1.1%80.5%IN-02Walorski, Jackie49.8%57.1%62.2%60.3%South Bend/Elkhart
15.3%13.3%3.1%58.9%OK-05Russell, Steve59.2%59.2%57.2%60.0%Oklahoma City/Edmond/Shawnee
5.6%4.9%1.5%86.5%PA-11Barletta, Lou52.3%54.8%62.4%60.0%Harrisburg suburbs/Hazelton
3.4%0.6%0.8%86.7%MT-ALZinke, Ryan51.1%57.1%61.1%59.9%Montana ALL
24.5%13.3%17.7%42.7%TX-22Olson, Pete60.6%62.9%54.1%59.9%Sugarland/Cinco Ranch
23.8%10.8%4.6%57.7%TX-31Carter, John56.6%60.9%56.7%59.9%Round Rock/Killeen/Temple
12.8%1.2%5.0%76.8%CA-04McClintock, Tom55.7%59.4%57.9%59.9%Roseville/S. Lake Tahoe/Mariposa
6.3%4.4%1.4%83.0%KS-02Jenkins, Lynn53.8%57.0%59.9%59.7%Topeka/Lawrence
3.1%1.8%0.9%91.8%MI-04Moolenaar, John49.5%54.0%63.2%59.7%Midland/Cadiallac/Mount Pleasant
3.8%26.8%1.0%65.5%SC-05Mulvaney, Mick55.7%55.8%59.6%59.5%Rock Hill/Sumter
8.8%12.8%1.4%75.5%NC-05Foxx, Virginia54.9%57.2%59.0%59.5%Winston-Salem
6.5%18.2%2.0%70.7%SC-01Sanford, Mark56.8%59.2%57.0%59.5%Charleston
30.1%3.1%3.1%61.8%TX-21Smith, Lamar57.1%61.2%55.3%59.4%San Antonio/Austin/Fredericksburg
9.1%16.9%0.8%69.5%NC-07Rouzer, David55.0%56.4%59.1%59.4%Wilmington/Clayton
15.9%2.2%5.0%73.4%AZ-06Schweikert, David58.3%60.5%55.3%59.4%Scottsdale/N. Phoenix
9.1%12.4%2.9%72.6%FL-03Yoho, Ted55.3%57.5%58.3%59.3%Gainesville/Ocala
39.4%7.5%3.4%45.5%CA-08Cook, Paul56.7%57.1%58.0%59.3%Victorville/Barstow/Twenty-Nine Palms
22.6%19.2%4.2%51.4%TX-06Barton, Joe57.6%58.7%56.4%59.2%Arlington/Corsicana
3.9%29.0%0.9%64.0%SC-07Rice, Tom54.2%55.1%59.7%59.1%Myrtle Beach/Florence
4.6%8.8%1.8%82.5%KY-06Barr, Andy54.5%56.9%58.1%59.0%Lexington/Frankfurt
5.7%35.3%1.7%55.4%GA-12Allen, Rick55.9%56.0%58.3%58.9%Augusta/Statesboro
18.3%18.3%13.0%47.8%GA-07Woodall, Rob60.6%61.1%53.3%58.9%Lawrenceville/S. Forsyth County
9.4%5.8%2.1%79.4%MI-02Huizenga, Bill51.2%56.5%59.4%58.9%Holland/Muskegon
6.2%29.3%2.1%59.5%GA-01Carter, Buddy55.3%56.5%58.0%58.9%Savannah/Brunswick
27.8%9.6%5.1%55.5%TX-10McCaul, Michael56.6%60.4%54.8%58.8%Cypress/Katy/Austin
1.7%1.6%0.6%91.2%MI-01Bergman, Jack49.3%54.2%61.3%58.7%N. Michigan/Upper Peninsula/Traverse City
2.0%8.5%1.3%86.0%OH-02Wenstrup, Brad55.0%55.6%58.4%58.7%Cincinnati Suburbs
24.2%10.7%12.2%49.7%TX-24Marchant, Kenny58.6%61.4%53.3%58.7%DFW Airport
7.2%15.5%2.5%72.9%NC-06Walker, Mark54.3%56.4%57.8%58.6%Greensboro/Burlington
37.5%6.0%7.8%44.7%CA-42Calvert, Ken55.7%57.7%56.3%58.5%Murrieta/Eastvale/Menifee
3.8%7.4%3.5%83.1%IN-05Brooks, Susan53.0%58.6%56.3%58.3%Hamilton County/Anderson
13.0%5.0%2.7%77.0%FL-12Bilirakis, Gus51.9%53.8%59.7%58.3%Pasco County/St. Petersburg suburbs
9.3%19.1%1.3%61.5%NC-08Hudson, Richard54.3%55.2%57.7%58.1%Kannapolis/Pinehurst
9.3%16.4%3.6%66.6%VA-01Wittman, Rob55.8%56.2%56.5%58.1%Fredericksburg/Williamsburg
46.7%3.2%7.9%39.4%CA-22Nunes, Devin56.7%57.6%55.0%58.0%Fresno/Visalia
9.8%6.3%3.9%78.2%NJ-04Smith, Chris54.2%54.8%57.6%57.9%Lakewood/Neptue/Trenton suburbs
2.2%2.1%2.1%92.1%OH-16Renacci, Jim52.1%54.2%58.7%57.9%Cleveland & Akron suburbs/Wooster
12.4%13.2%10.4%61.3%GA-06Price, Tom59.5%61.9%50.8%57.8%Alpharetta/Sandy Springs
18.1%13.6%2.9%62.2%FL-15Ross, Dennis52.7%52.8%59.0%57.7%Lakeland/Tampa Suburbs
3.0%3.2%4.7%87.2%MO-02Wagner, Ann53.1%58.0%55.4%57.7%St. Louis County
8.5%12.3%4.5%71.6%NC-09Pittenger, Robert54.4%55.8%56.2%57.6%Fayetteville/Monroe
8.4%3.9%1.4%84.5%IL-16Kinzinger, Adam49.1%53.9%59.2%57.6%Rockford/Ottawa/Pontiac
4.4%1.6%2.4%90.0%WI-06Grothman, Glenn49.9%53.7%58.9%57.5%Sheboygan/Oshkosh
6.2%1.5%2.3%84.4%WA-05McMorris Rodgers, Cathy52.5%55.0%57.1%57.5%Spokane
5.1%22.2%1.4%69.0%AR-02Hill, French54.8%56.0%55.7%57.5%Little Rock/Conway
2.0%4.0%2.4%89.2%OH-15Stivers, Steve53.1%52.9%58.1%57.3%Columbus Suburbs/Lancaster
2.3%3.9%3.4%87.0%OH-12Tiberi, Patrick54.5%55.3%55.9%57.3%Columbus Suburbs/Mansfield
10.9%16.5%4.0%65.0%NC-02Holding, George54.8%56.5%54.9%57.2%Raleigh suburbs
7.8%9.1%1.9%79.0%FL-06DeSantis, Ron49.3%52.8%58.8%57.0%Dayton Beach/Palm Coast/Deltona
2.1%0.6%1.6%92.1%WI-07Duffy, Sean46.0%51.6%60.7%57.0%Wausau/Superior/Rhinelander
31.4%12.7%10.7%43.2%TX-07Culberson, John59.6%60.8%49.3%56.7%Houston
4.4%4.0%0.9%88.3%MI-07Walberg, Tim48.3%51.6%59.0%56.6%Jackson/Monroe
21.8%1.5%3.7%67.6%NV-02Amodei, Mark49.4%54.1%56.7%56.5%Reno/Elko
3.6%20.0%1.6%72.6%VA-05Garrett, Tom52.7%53.8%55.8%56.4%Charlottesville
12.0%6.6%1.7%78.1%FL-16Buchanan, Vern51.8%54.4%55.6%56.4%Sarasota/Bradenton
4.9%1.2%2.2%87.7%WI-08Gallagher, Mike45.6%51.9%59.3%56.4%Green Bay/Appleton
24.8%0.8%0.7%70.6%CO-03Tipton, Scott50.8%53.1%56.5%56.2%Grand Junction/Pueblo
5.9%14.6%4.9%71.6%VA-07Brat, Dave54.7%55.6%53.4%56.2%Henrico/Culpeper/Richmond
3.5%3.6%2.7%88.1%NY-22Tenney, Claudia50.0%50.2%58.2%56.0%Utica/Binghamton
53.4%1.7%0.8%37.7%NM-02Pearce, Steve50.9%53.5%55.7%56.0%Las Cruces/Roswell
3.7%2.7%2.3%88.6%NY-23Reed, Tom49.5%50.6%57.9%55.9%Ithaca/Elmira/Jamestown
8.5%17.5%2.3%69.2%NC-13Budd, Ted51.7%53.4%54.8%55.6%High Point/Statesville
7.0%8.6%1.8%79.9%MI-03Amash, Justin49.4%53.7%55.0%55.5%Grand Rapids/Battle Creek
2.8%4.0%2.0%89.3%OH-14Joyce, David50.2%51.7%56.0%55.4%Ashtabula/Cleveland & Akron suburbs
70.8%5.8%2.2%20.5%FL-25Diaz-Balart, Mario59.2%54.8%50.8%55.4%Hialeah/Miami Suburbs
6.2%2.9%2.6%86.7%MN-01Walz, Tim47.9%49.3%58.1%55.3%Rochester/Mankato
9.5%5.5%1.8%81.1%WI-01Ryan, Paul48.6%52.1%55.4%55.0%Kenosha/Janesville/Racine
2.9%22.1%3.0%69.8%OH-01Chabot, Steve52.3%53.1%53.4%55.0%Cincinnati
25.8%12.0%7.6%51.7%TX-32Sessions, Pete55.6%57.9%49.0%54.9%N. Dallas County
12.8%5.0%3.7%76.6%NY-01Zeldin, Lee48.5%49.7%56.4%54.7%Eastern Long Island
17.7%6.4%2.0%72.3%PA-16Smucker, Lloyd49.4%53.1%53.8%54.6%Lancaster/Reading/Coatesville
14.9%12.6%1.8%68.8%FL-18Mast, Brian48.3%51.9%54.8%54.6%Port St. Lucie
3.4%16.6%1.1%76.5%IL-12Bost, Mike44.4%49.2%57.8%54.5%E. St. Louis/Carbondale
1.6%0.9%0.6%92.0%MN-08Nolan, Rick45.6%47.2%58.4%54.4%Duluth
11.9%2.9%4.7%78.8%IL-14Hultgren, Randy48.6%55.1%52.1%54.3%McHenry/Batavia/Oswego
3.4%2.9%1.0%89.9%NY-21Stefanik, Elise47.5%46.9%57.4%54.1%Watertown/Potsdam/Glens Falls
2.6%17.0%2.2%75.3%OH-10Turner, Michael50.0%51.0%53.8%54.1%Dayton
17.1%6.4%13.0%61.4%NY-11Donovan, Dan51.5%47.8%55.0%53.9%Staten Island
21.4%1.1%18.3%55.3%CA-48Rohrabacher, Dana52.6%56.0%49.1%53.8%Huntington Beach/Newport Beach/Laguna Beach
9.0%1.3%2.9%80.9%WA-03Herrera Beutler, Jaime48.1%50.9%54.0%53.8%Vancouver/Centralia
3.5%5.3%9.1%79.9%MI-11Trott, Dave49.0%52.7%52.3%53.7%Livonia/Troy/Auburn Hills
15.3%4.0%2.3%76.3%PA-15Dent, Charlie47.2%51.5%53.7%53.7%Allentown/Bethlehem/Hershey
4.8%5.8%4.2%82.3%MI-08Bishop, Mike47.2%51.6%53.5%53.6%Lansing/N. Oakland County
5.9%8.3%1.6%81.1%MI-06Upton, Fred46.0%50.7%54.5%53.6%Kalamazoo/Benton Harbor
11.0%9.6%2.9%73.4%NE-02Bacon, Don49.5%53.5%51.2%53.5%Omaha
10.6%3.5%9.9%74.2%NJ-11Frelinghuysen, Rodney52.6%52.9%50.5%53.5%Morristown/Pompton Lakes/Hopatcong
7.5%20.9%4.9%62.6%VA-02Taylor, Scott51.6%51.2%51.8%53.4%Newport News/Virginia Beach
11.6%8.4%4.2%72.6%KS-03Yoder, Kevin50.6%54.8%49.3%53.2%Kansas City/Overland Park
22.0%9.5%2.5%64.1%NY-02King, Peter48.5%47.8%54.7%53.2%Islip/Lindenhurst
12.2%4.9%9.8%71.9%NJ-07Lance, Leonard52.2%53.1%49.4%53.0%Phillipsburg/Somerville/Westfield
20.0%1.8%21.5%52.4%CA-45Walters, Mimi52.6%56.0%47.1%52.8%Irvine/Mission Viejo
21.8%2.3%1.4%49.7%AZ-01O’Halleran, Tom51.6%51.3%50.6%52.8%Flagstaff/Casa Grande/Oro Valley
13.6%4.9%10.9%69.2%NJ-05Gottheimer, Josh51.0%51.6%50.6%52.8%Sussex/Washington/Franklin Lakes/Paramus
3.4%11.5%3.5%78.7%IL-13Davis, Rodney44.4%50.2%52.9%52.4%Champaign/Decatur/Springfield
7.7%9.8%3.7%75.5%NJ-03MacArthur, Tom48.3%47.7%53.2%52.4%Willingboro/Toms River
1.2%0.7%0.8%94.3%ME-02Poliquin, Bruce43.9%45.4%55.7%52.1%Bangor/Lewiston/Caribou
6.9%4.1%1.7%85.2%NY-19Faso, John45.9%46.8%53.9%52.0%Kingston
5.6%4.3%4.4%82.6%MN-02Lewis, Jason48.5%49.9%50.7%51.9%Apple Valley/Shakopee
6.6%3.9%2.9%84.5%IA-03Young, David46.9%47.9%51.9%51.5%Des Moines
6.0%4.2%4.1%83.8%PA-06Costello, Ryan46.5%51.3%49.7%51.5%West Chester/Downington/Pottstown/Lebanon
3.2%1.2%2.5%91.0%NH-01Shea-Porter, Carol46.8%49.2%50.8%51.4%Manchester/Portsmouth/Laconia
67.7%3.0%1.2%26.6%TX-23Hurd, Will49.5%51.3%48.2%51.3%San Antonio suburbs/Del Rio/Fort Stockton
8.1%5.4%2.0%82.6%PA-17Cartwright, Matt42.4%43.9%55.5%51.3%Scranton/Pottsville/Easton
5.0%3.8%5.2%84.3%PA-08Fitzpatrick, Brian46.2%50.1%50.1%51.3%Buck County
17.0%6.1%12.9%58.1%NV-03Rosen, Jacky45.5%49.6%50.5%51.2%Henderson/Summerlin/Enterprise
16.5%9.0%3.0%69.2%NY-18Maloney, Sean47.5%47.8%51.0%51.2%Newburgh/Poughkeepsie
9.5%2.6%9.5%76.7%IL-06Roskam, Peter48.0%54.2%46.3%51.0%Cary/Lake Zurich/Wheaton
15.9%12.2%4.0%65.7%NJ-02LoBiondo, Frank46.1%45.9%52.4%51.0%Atlantic City/Vineland
24.6%2.2%6.5%62.6%CA-49Issa, Darrell49.5%53.4%46.0%50.9%San Clemente/Oceanside/Encinitas
27.6%3.3%3.0%61.9%AZ-02McSally, Martha50.5%50.8%47.4%50.9%Sierra Vista/Tucson
3.3%5.5%4.6%85.0%PA-07Meehan, Pat48.3%51.0%47.8%50.7%Delaware County/Philadelphia Suburbs
34.2%2.4%29.1%31.4%CA-39Royce, Ed51.0%51.9%45.4%50.3%Yorba Linda/Chino Hills/Buena Park
10.3%3.1%8.0%73.1%WA-08Reichert, David47.6%49.2%48.4%50.3%Auburn/Issaquah/Wenatchee
37.5%8.0%8.5%42.1%CA-25Knight, Steve49.5%51.0%46.4%50.3%Santa Clarita/Palmdale/Simi Valley
42.3%2.4%7.1%43.8%CA-10Denham, Jeff48.5%48.2%48.4%50.1%Modesto
21.2%9.5%3.6%62.6%FL-07Murphy, Stephanie48.4%50.0%46.2%49.7%Orlando/Winter Park/Sanford
7.2%0.8%2.3%84.9%OR-04DeFazio, Peter44.1%46.5%49.9%49.6%Eugene/Corvallis/Roseburg
12.6%6.6%13.5%63.2%VA-10Comstock, Barbara50.0%50.8%44.7%49.4%Leesburg/Winchester
2.4%1.0%2.3%92.4%WI-03Kind, Ron39.7%44.4%52.4%49.4%Eau Claire/La Crosse/Stevens Point
5.2%3.7%2.3%86.4%IA-02Loebsack, David42.1%43.4%52.2%49.4%Iowa City/Davenport/Newton
16.2%1.0%2.9%75.5%OR-05Schrader, Kurt45.5%48.3%47.7%49.3%Salem/Oregon City/Newport
12.3%2.6%15.0%68.1%NY-03Suozzi, Tom46.0%48.7%46.9%49.2%Glencove/Huntington
3.7%3.4%1.6%89.4%IA-01Blum, Rod40.8%43.1%51.9%48.9%Cedar Rapids/Dubuque/Waterloo
4.5%6.6%7.7%78.3%MN-03Paulsen, Erik48.2%49.6%44.9%48.8%Bloomington/Maple Grove
49.1%3.9%3.5%40.7%CA-36Ruiz, Raul48.5%48.4%45.4%48.7%Palm Springs/Hemet
3.2%1.1%2.6%91.3%NH-02Kuster, Annie43.5%45.1%48.7%48.5%Nashua/Concord/Berlin
9.6%5.8%3.3%78.2%FL-13Crist, Charlie43.7%44.6%48.3%48.1%St. Petersburg
17.6%6.0%3.6%69.7%CT-05Esty, Elizabeth42.9%45.5%47.9%48.0%Waterbury/Danbury/Meriden/Torrington
20.0%8.9%5.2%62.1%CO-06Coffman, Mike45.6%47.4%45.1%47.8%Aurora/Highland Ranch/Brighton
16.5%6.9%14.8%56.0%CA-07Bera, Ami47.4%48.0%43.9%47.7%Folsom/Citrus Heights/Elk Grove
29.2%14.1%5.7%45.8%NV-04Kihuen, Ruben42.3%44.5%47.4%47.4%N. Las Vegas/Pahrump/Ely
9.2%11.0%1.1%75.9%IL-17Bustos, Cheri39.1%41.3%50.4%47.3%Rockford/Moline/Peoria
7.9%4.0%3.0%82.0%CT-02Courtney, Joe40.4%43.4%48.5%47.3%New London/Norwich/Enfield
4.1%8.2%2.6%82.3%NY-24Katko, John42.9%41.9%48.1%47.0%Syracuse
27.2%5.3%4.5%57.2%AZ-09Sinema, Kyrsten48.0%47.7%41.3%46.4%Phoenix/Tempe
20.1%13.8%6.4%57.8%NY-04Rice, Kathleen44.4%43.2%45.1%46.2%Nassua County
76.1%5.2%1.8%16.1%FL-27Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana49.6%46.6%40.1%45.7%Miami/Miami Beach/Coral Gables
2.1%13.1%3.9%78.1%MI-09Levin, Sander40.8%42.3%45.9%45.7%Warren/Eastpointe/Clinton Twp/Royal Oaks
47.4%9.3%4.4%36.5%FL-09Soto, Darren44.9%43.8%43.3%45.5%Kissimmee
4.8%3.0%1.4%86.8%MA-09Keating, Bill41.3%43.7%44.3%45.4%New Bedford/Plymouth/Yarmouth
68.8%8.5%1.8%20.1%FL-26Curbelo, Carlos48.2%44.2%41.7%45.4%Homestead/Key West
29.0%5.8%11.1%48.8%CA-03Garamendi, John43.3%44.3%43.3%45.4%Davis/Fairfield/Woodland/Yuba City
73.9%3.3%3.3%17.2%CA-21Valadao, David46.9%44.3%41.8%45.3%Bakersfield/Hanford
11.0%5.7%6.5%67.5%WA-10Heck, Denny41.8%42.2%43.8%44.7%Olympia/Puyallup
4.8%17.1%1.0%74.0%MI-05Kildee, Dan35.9%38.7%47.8%44.6%Flint/Saginaw
27.9%1.4%3.4%64.5%CO-07Perlmutter, Ed41.5%42.4%43.4%44.6%Thornton/Arvada/Lakewood
4.9%21.4%2.6%68.5%KY-03Yarmuth, John43.2%43.5%42.1%44.6%Louisville
7.7%3.5%4.1%77.1%WA-06Kilmer, Derek41.8%42.3%43.2%44.5%Tacoma/Bremerton/Aberdeen
5.0%51.3%1.0%40.2%GA-02Bishop, Sanford41.8%41.0%44.0%44.5%Macon/Albany/Columbus
10.7%4.2%3.8%79.2%RI-02Langevin, Jim39.0%39.0%46.3%44.5%
8.8%1.1%9.2%76.1%WA-01DelBene, Suzan42.7%44.5%41.1%44.3%Redmond/Mt. Vernon/Lynden
12.8%11.9%10.8%60.9%MD-06Delaney, John42.7%43.5%41.6%44.2%Germantown/Frederick/Hagerstown
20.9%12.1%2.8%62.1%FL-22Deutch, Ted41.3%43.3%42.0%44.1%Broward County/Palm Beach County
31.1%4.1%4.6%59.0%IL-03Lipinski, Dan40.9%43.2%42.0%44.0%Oak Lawn/Lemont/Lockport
8.2%2.8%4.1%82.9%MA-06Moulton, Seth42.1%44.5%40.5%43.9%Gloucester/Billerica
14.5%2.9%19.0%58.6%CA-52Peters, Scott43.9%46.7%38.0%43.7%N. San Diego
81.4%1.7%1.0%15.3%TX-15Gonzalez, Vicente42.4%42.0%41.4%43.6%McAllen/Edinburg/Seguin
8.9%21.1%3.9%63.5%DE-ALBlunt Rochester, Lisa37.3%40.6%44.0%43.6%Delaware ALL
9.1%24.8%2.9%60.7%TN-05Cooper, Jim41.8%43.2%40.3%43.3%Nashville
6.1%8.4%4.7%77.7%NY-20Tonko, Paul40.8%39.6%42.9%43.2%Albany/Schenectady
35.6%1.7%4.4%55.1%CA-24Carbajal, Salud42.3%44.3%39.2%43.2%Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo
3.1%11.7%1.9%80.9%OH-13Ryan, Tim36.5%36.0%46.6%43.2%Youngstown/Akron
44.7%1.6%6.3%44.3%CA-26Brownley, Julia42.3%44.7%38.3%42.9%Ventura/Oxnard/Thousand Oaks
29.0%24.1%3.5%40.7%FL-14Castor, Kathy41.3%41.7%40.6%42.9%Tampa
8.9%22.0%1.7%64.0%MO-05Cleaver, Emanuel37.2%40.1%42.9%42.8%Kansas City
22.5%10.0%5.8%59.8%NY-17Lowey, Nita41.4%42.3%39.6%42.6%White Plains/Spring Valley/Peekskill
37.1%9.3%13.7%35.4%CA-09McNerney, Jerry42.3%41.0%40.2%42.6%Stockton/Lodi/Brentwood
8.1%15.0%3.4%70.9%NY-25Slaughter, Louise40.4%40.1%41.3%42.6%Rochester
48.8%2.4%2.1%40.7%NM-01Lujan Grisham, Michelle39.5%41.7%40.5%42.6%Albuquerque
19.0%11.6%5.4%62.1%CT-04Himes, Jim40.0%44.4%38.0%42.3%Stamford/Bridgeport
40.7%1.4%1.3%37.7%NM-03Lujan, Ben38.0%40.2%41.5%42.3%Santa Fe/Farmington/Clovis
1.7%1.7%1.4%93.0%ME-01Pingree, Chellie38.4%38.8%42.2%42.3%Portland/Augusta
21.7%9.4%18.7%48.4%NJ-06Pallone, Frank41.0%37.9%41.9%42.2%
15.0%19.1%1.3%62.9%IN-01Visclosky, Pete36.1%37.9%43.4%42.2%Gary/Michigan City
51.1%10.0%8.2%27.7%CA-31Aguilar, Pete42.3%41.5%38.8%42.1%San Bernadino/Rancho Cucamonga
76.9%3.8%0.9%17.3%TX-28Cuellar, Henry41.4%39.1%39.8%41.6%Laredo/San Antonio
19.1%2.1%7.4%69.1%MA-03Tsongas, Niki40.1%42.1%37.8%41.5%Lowell/Lawrence/Marlborough
59.1%5.6%8.7%24.0%CA-16Jim Costa41.2%40.2%38.6%41.4%Fresno/Merced
9.3%4.5%5.3%78.7%MA-02McGovern, Jim38.3%40.0%39.6%41.3%Worcester/Northampton
28.6%4.0%13.2%52.5%IL-08Krishnamoorthi, Raja37.6%41.6%38.5%41.2%Schaumburg/Elgin
14.4%12.4%4.0%66.9%CT-03DeLauro, Rosa36.4%36.4%42.0%41.0%New Haven
22.0%12.6%3.7%59.1%FL-21Frankel, Lois36.2%39.2%40.0%40.9%Palm Beach County
4.2%2.7%5.8%84.8%MA-04Kennedy, Joe38.6%42.0%37.2%40.8%Newton/Milford/Fall River
10.2%0.8%2.9%83.5%CO-02Polis, Jared37.8%40.6%38.3%40.8%Boulder/Fort Collins/Vail
5.4%31.2%2.4%57.9%VA-04McEachin, Donald39.4%39.1%38.7%40.8%Richmond/Chesapeake/Petersburg
14.3%1.6%7.3%72.3%OR-01Bonamici, Suzanne38.7%41.1%37.6%40.8%Washington County/McMinnville
83.8%1.1%0.5%14.2%TX-34Vela, Filemon39.4%38.6%38.9%40.7%Brownsville/Beeville/Kingsville
26.6%11.7%6.8%52.1%IL-11Foster, Bill38.0%41.3%37.5%40.7%Aurora/Joliet
5.3%9.3%7.5%75.1%MA-08Lynch, Stephen41.2%41.4%36.3%40.6%Boston/Brockton/Quincy
10.8%2.7%8.7%71.4%WA-02Larsen, Rick38.3%39.1%38.0%40.2%Everett/Bellingham
68.8%5.0%3.3%21.4%TX-20Castro, Joaquin41.4%40.3%36.0%40.1%San Antonio
5.8%17.6%4.1%69.9%NY-26Higgins, Brian35.7%34.9%39.7%39.3%Buffalo/Niagra Falls
18.5%11.4%4.1%63.4%FL-10Demings, Val38.7%38.7%36.1%39.3%Orlando/Disney World
40.0%11.1%3.2%43.6%FL-23Wasserman Schultz, Debbie37.6%38.2%36.7%39.2%Broward County
23.2%6.4%10.0%57.9%IL-10Schneider, Brad36.3%41.7%34.5%39.0%Waukegan/Round Lake/Highland Park
6.6%33.1%5.3%51.9%MD-02Ruppersberger, Dutch38.2%35.8%37.2%38.7%
16.7%5.9%1.9%73.5%MA-01Neal, Richard34.5%34.9%39.0%38.7%Springfield/Pittsfield
16.2%14.5%4.8%62.3%CT-01Larson, John33.3%36.4%37.9%38.5%Hartford
12.9%51.9%2.6%30.4%FL-05Lawson, Al36.2%35.8%37.2%38.4%Jacksonville/Tallahassee
11.0%29.7%2.4%54.1%IN-07Carson, Andre33.1%36.0%38.0%38.4%Indianapolis
61.6%4.1%1.5%28.1%AZ-03Grijalva, Raul41.2%37.5%34.2%38.3%Tucson/Avondale/Yuma
58.9%8.1%6.4%23.1%CA-41Takano, Mark39.2%37.1%35.2%38.3%Riverside/Moreno Valley
34.3%6.9%22.9%32.6%CA-47Lowenthal, Alan40.2%38.5%33.1%37.9%Long Beach/Westminster
8.5%22.9%7.5%58.1%MD-03Sarbanes, John38.7%38.0%33.8%37.8%
13.1%16.4%4.8%63.9%NJ-01Norcross, Donald34.6%34.2%37.3%37.6%Camden
11.0%14.9%1.4%69.4%OH-09Kaptur, Marcy32.1%31.4%38.3%36.8%Toledo/Cleveland suburbs
2.1%66.1%0.4%30.7%MS-02Thompson, Bennie35.4%33.2%35.6%36.6%Jackson/Vicksburg
6.5%9.5%12.1%68.2%MN-04McCollum, Betty36.2%36.2%33.2%36.5%St. Paul/Stillwater
17.3%6.8%2.9%69.0%RI-01Cicilline, David32.3%32.7%36.6%36.4%Newport/Woonsocket
15.0%11.5%9.3%61.4%MD-08Raskin, Jamie36.2%36.8%32.4%36.3%Silver Spring/Rockville/Westminster
5.8%10.5%5.4%74.8%MI-12Dingell, Debbie31.9%33.1%36.2%36.3%Ann Arbor/Dearborn
33.4%7.4%13.8%40.6%CA-53Davis, Susan37.1%37.2%31.5%36.1%Lemon Grove/La Mesa/Chula Vista
44.0%10.8%8.1%33.5%NV-01Titus, Dina33.8%33.1%34.6%35.8%Las Vegas
60.9%9.9%1.3%26.1%TX-35Doggett, Lloyd35.7%35.5%32.2%35.7%Austin/San Antonio
66.8%1.3%12.9%17.2%CA-46Correa, Lou40.2%37.1%29.6%35.7%Anaheim/Santa Ana
8.0%37.0%4.2%46.8%MD-05Hoyer, Steny34.0%32.8%33.9%35.4%Bowie/Waldorf/Lexington Park
19.0%12.4%17.4%47.0%VA-11Connolly, Gerry38.8%37.3%29.1%35.3%Reston/Fairfax/Dale City
11.5%17.0%9.5%59.6%PA-13Boyle, Brendan34.0%33.2%33.2%35.2%Philadelphia/Lansdale/Norristown
36.1%9.3%12.4%40.4%NJ-09Pascrell, Bill35.5%31.1%34.0%35.1%Paterson
1.7%0.9%1.6%93.2%VT-ALWelch, Peter31.1%31.8%34.8%35.0%Vermont ALL
6.1%56.6%2.1%31.6%VA-03Scott, Bobby34.1%32.1%33.4%34.9%Norfolk/Newport News
28.1%3.9%37.9%27.3%CA-27Chu, Judy36.5%35.9%30.1%34.9%Pasadena/Rosemead/Monterey Park/Claremont
19.6%3.4%39.6%35.0%NY-06Meng, Grace36.4%31.4%33.0%34.9%Queens (flushing)
16.2%16.5%16.5%48.1%NJ-12Watson Coleman, Bonnie33.6%32.8%32.9%34.8%Trenton/Princeton
12.9%2.1%13.8%66.0%CA-33Lieu, Ted34.0%37.8%28.1%34.1%Santa Monica/Malibu
79.2%3.8%1.2%14.7%TX-16O’Rourke, Beto35.4%35.0%28.6%33.7%El Paso
63.1%3.3%14.9%16.4%CA-38Sanchez, Linda36.5%33.7%29.0%33.6%Artesia/Norwalk/Whittier
62.0%3.0%17.9%15.5%CA-32Napolitano, Grace36.1%33.3%29.4%33.6%El Monte/West Covina
11.9%29.2%5.8%49.4%NC-04Price, David33.5%34.6%29.2%33.6%Raleigh/Chapel Hill
2.3%21.2%3.3%70.0%PA-14Doyle, Michael32.3%31.0%31.6%33.4%Pittsburgh
8.3%53.2%1.4%34.6%NC-01Butterfield, G.K.32.4%31.4%30.6%33.0%Durham/rural Black
8.0%2.1%48.7%16.9%HI-01Hanabusa, Colleen28.7%29.4%32.6%32.7%Honolulu
13.7%50.7%4.1%28.5%NC-12Adams, Alma31.5%31.6%29.5%32.4%Charlotte
77.0%11.1%1.2%10.0%TX-29Green, Gene37.4%33.4%26.3%32.3%Houston
6.3%4.3%4.0%82.9%WI-02Pocan, Mark29.0%30.9%30.6%32.3%Madison
8.7%5.1%11.5%72.3%MA-05Clark, Katherine32.7%33.7%27.1%32.0%Lexington/Framingham
70.5%5.8%5.7%15.2%CA-35Torres, Norma33.3%31.2%28.4%32.0%Pomona/Ontario/Fontana
6.2%32.1%3.6%53.5%OH-03Beatty, Joyce31.7%29.3%29.9%31.8%Columbus
4.8%56.4%1.1%35.5%SC-06Clyburn, Jim29.2%28.4%31.2%31.7%Columbia/Charleston
26.9%5.2%12.0%52.1%CA-30Sherman, Brad32.0%33.0%27.1%31.7%San Fernando Valley
12.2%1.9%24.4%28.9%HI-02Gabbard, Tulsi25.3%27.2%32.5%31.4%Outer Islands
10.8%9.0%13.2%64.6%IL-09Schakowsky, Jan30.6%33.9%26.2%31.3%Evanston/Des Plaines
12.4%55.6%2.4%28.0%GA-13Scott, David32.5%30.2%27.3%30.9%Stockbridge/Douglasville
2.6%63.7%0.6%31.5%AL-07Sewell, Terri28.2%27.2%29.4%30.3%Birmingham
19.0%2.5%6.5%69.7%IL-05Quigley, Mike29.2%32.5%25.3%30.2%Chicago
22.8%6.4%32.5%33.0%CA-15Swalwell, Eric30.9%30.5%25.7%30.0%Hayword/Dublin/Livermore
29.0%12.6%15.5%36.1%CA-06Matsui, Doris29.9%29.1%26.1%29.5%Sacramento
12.1%10.3%23.9%46.1%WA-09Smith, Adam30.4%30.2%24.9%29.4%Bellevue/Federal Way
19.1%13.4%12.1%51.8%VA-08Beyer, Don33.1%32.3%22.1%29.2%Arlington/Alexandria
70.9%6.4%7.5%13.0%CA-51Vargas, Juan33.0%29.4%24.1%29.2%Chula Vista/El Centro
26.7%7.5%13.0%47.3%CA-11DeSaulnier, Mark28.9%30.7%24.1%28.9%Concord/Richmond/Pittsburg
28.2%8.1%3.6%57.2%CO-01DeGette, Diana28.0%29.4%25.2%28.9%Denver
27.6%6.3%11.1%50.1%CA-05Thompson, Mike27.1%28.3%26.0%28.8%Vallejo/Napa/Santa Rosa
64.0%8.9%2.8%20.2%AZ-07Gallego, Ruben34.5%27.0%24.0%28.6%Phoenix
63.2%16.7%2.3%16.3%TX-33Veasey, Mark31.0%27.3%24.5%28.4%Dallas/Fort Worth
17.9%1.5%3.9%70.8%CA-02Huffman, Jared26.0%28.1%25.2%28.2%Eureka/San Marin County
52.4%1.8%5.2%37.4%CA-20Panetta, Jimmy26.8%27.0%24.8%27.7%Monterey/Santa Cruz
26.6%2.1%13.6%54.4%CA-28Schiff, Adam27.1%27.4%23.6%27.3%Burbank/Glendale
41.6%2.6%27.0%25.5%CA-19Lofgren, Zoe29.9%27.1%22.8%27.2%San Jose/Morgan Hill
16.7%2.2%22.3%54.6%CA-18Eshoo, Anna27.8%29.8%21.6%27.2%San Jose/Mountain View
11.1%4.7%6.3%72.0%OR-03Blumenauer, Earl25.0%25.5%24.1%26.6%Portland
24.1%29.0%5.5%39.0%NY-16Engel, Eliot26.3%25.7%23.1%26.3%Yonkers/Bronx/Rye
16.1%2.6%52.0%25.4%CA-17Khanna, Ro28.9%26.2%21.7%26.2%Sunnyvale/Fremont
10.2%56.4%5.2%25.9%GA-04Johnson, Hank26.4%25.8%22.8%26.2%DeKalb County
16.3%33.8%3.7%43.3%WI-04Moore, Gwen24.8%24.0%22.7%25.3%Milwaukee
5.6%61.8%2.3%28.6%LA-02Richmond, Cedric25.7%23.1%22.9%25.3%New Orleans/Baton Rouge
9.1%16.3%5.7%64.4%MN-05Ellison, Keith25.0%24.6%20.1%24.2%Minneapolis
54.9%8.5%9.5%24.8%NJ-08Sires, Albio26.2%20.9%22.1%24.2%Hoboken/Union City
4.0%53.2%6.7%33.5%MD-07Cummings, Elijah22.7%22.8%21.4%23.9%Baltimore
12.5%3.1%18.4%63.3%NY-10Nadler, Jerrold23.2%25.4%19.4%23.8%Manhatten/Brooklyn
41.2%38.7%3.3%15.5%TX-18Jackson-Lee, Sheila23.0%23.1%20.7%23.7%Houston
24.2%3.2%32.6%34.8%CA-14Speier, Jackie24.7%24.1%19.1%23.6%San Mateo/Daly City
6.6%65.6%1.8%24.0%TN-09Cohen, Steve22.6%21.1%20.3%22.8%Memphis
9.9%50.9%1.6%36.1%IL-01Rush, Bobby18.6%20.4%22.1%22.8%Chicago/Frankfort
15.7%52.3%2.8%26.9%MD-04Brown, Anthony22.0%20.9%19.8%22.4%DC black suburbs
37.7%37.6%12.3%10.5%TX-09Green, Al23.2%21.3%18.5%22.0%Houston
47.9%9.8%16.7%23.9%NY-14Crowley, Joe23.2%18.5%20.3%22.0%Bronx/Queens
69.1%3.7%7.4%18.3%CA-29Cardenas, Tony23.7%21.0%17.8%21.7%San Fernando Valley
39.0%42.5%1.9%14.8%TX-30Johnson, E.B.21.2%19.8%18.8%21.3%Dallas
45.8%23.6%11.3%15.1%CA-43Waters, Maxine22.7%20.4%17.6%21.2%Inglewood/Torrance
2.8%49.1%2.5%42.2%MO-01Clay, Lacy18.8%19.1%19.6%21.1%St. Louis
13.2%55.3%0.7%29.6%IL-02Kelly, Robin18.3%18.6%19.7%20.9%S. Chicago Suburbs/Kankakee
4.7%56.5%4.7%31.1%MI-14Lawrence, Brenda17.2%18.7%18.8%20.3%Detroit/Southfield/Pontiac
16.4%35.2%6.6%39.8%PA-01Brady, Bob20.7%17.0%18.6%20.3%Philadelphia
21.5%51.3%2.2%22.8%FL-20Hastings, Alcee18.7%17.2%18.4%19.9%Broward County/Palm Beach County
14.2%4.4%13.2%65.1%NY-12Maloney, Carolyn19.2%21.8%13.9%19.3%Manhatten/Brooklyn
3.7%54.0%2.3%37.7%OH-11Fudge, Marcia17.3%16.6%17.4%19.0%Cleveland/Akron
6.8%54.9%1.2%34.3%MI-13Conyers, John14.3%14.4%18.7%18.3%Detroit/Romulus/Wayne
70.6%4.2%3.3%20.7%IL-04Gutierrez, Luis18.4%17.4%13.9%17.6%Chicago
7.6%4.1%10.3%71.7%WA-07Jayapal, Pramila18.3%18.6%12.9%17.5%Seattle
86.9%4.6%2.9%4.7%CA-40Roybal-Allard, Lucille19.8%16.8%13.5%17.5%Huntington Park/Downey
32.1%54.3%1.5%10.6%FL-24Wilson, Frederica15.7%14.0%15.5%16.8%Miami
11.5%47.8%7.1%31.4%NY-09Clarke, Yvette15.2%14.0%14.7%16.4%Brooklyn
20.8%22.9%9.8%42.2%MA-07Capuano, Mike16.9%15.9%12.4%16.1%Boston
6.6%57.6%4.4%29.3%GA-05Lewis, John15.1%16.0%12.3%15.8%Atlanta
70.5%15.4%5.8%6.1%CA-44Barragan, Nanette16.5%13.8%12.9%15.6%Compton
64.8%3.7%20.4%9.5%CA-34Becerra, Xavier19.8%14.5%11.3%15.6%Los Angeles Downtown
18.9%52.3%6.3%20.5%NJ-10Payne, Donald14.7%11.6%13.1%14.7%Newark
18.2%52.2%4.9%22.4%NY-08Jeffries, Hakeem14.0%10.3%13.8%14.5%Brooklyn
18.4%49.0%13.7%10.4%NY-05Meeks, Gregory14.0%9.1%12.9%13.6%Queens
39.3%21.8%10.4%25.5%CA-37Bass, Karen13.4%13.0%10.1%13.4%USC campus/Culver City
40.7%7.7%19.4%30.2%NY-07Velazquez, Nydia15.2%10.4%10.7%13.2%Brooklyn
14.8%5.1%31.7%43.3%CA-12Pelosi, Nancy13.4%12.9%9.2%13.0%San Francisco
14.8%49.2%7.3%27.0%IL-07Davis, Danny10.0%11.9%9.5%12.2%Chicago/Oak Park
22.4%16.9%19.2%35.2%CA-13Lee, Barbara10.3%9.3%7.2%10.3%Oakland
6.2%56.8%5.0%28.8%PA-02Evans, Dwight8.8%9.1%7.7%10.2%Philadelphia
54.5%25.2%5.0%12.7%NY-13Espaillat, Adriano6.1%4.6%5.5%7.1%Manhatten
65.3%29.9%1.5%2.0%NY-15Serrano, Jose5.0%3.0%5.0%6.1%Bronx

 

Re-Redistricting North Carolina’s Legislature, Part 2 1/2: A Revised House Plan

Here is an addendum to the collaboration between me and GOPTarHeel on Re-redistricting the North Carolina House. The special election order has been stayed, but we thought we’d take a gander at it anyway to show how it should be done in the very possible event that the order is reinstated by SCOTUS. Basically we’ve been informed that cracking Mecklenburg is not feasible, so with some rejiggering we have come up with a plan that does not have a district crossing out of Mecklenburg County.

The non-Charlotte urban portions of the map (in Cumberland, Durham, Guilford, Orange, and Wake Counties) are identical to the previous version with two numbering exceptions – district 11 on the current map is renumbered to 48 instead of 55 on the old version, and the numbers of districts 40 and 49 have been flipped to better correspond to incumbent residencies. The unaffected counties are ate the bottom of the post. This map affects 7 more districts (6 R, 1D) than the part 2 version, but one district (the current district 55) is now unaffected. All 6 newly-affected GOP seats should be Safe for their incumbents, and all but one (16) are at least 90% similar to their current seats, so it’s more a nuisance for them than anything.

Part 1 covers the Senate. Part 2 was our original House plan which split Mecklenburg.

General principles, in order of hierarchy were as follows:

1) Respect county lines and compactness and meet population targets (+/-5% deviation from ideal). No multi-district county “pod” in this map is more than 4 counties, significantly less than is the case in the current map.
2) Be racially neutral except where there are obvious opportunities to make a clean minority-opportunity seat
3) Attempt to give all GOP incumbents districts that are Lean R at worst, contain their homes, and are relatively similar to their current seats (I think I’ve succeeded in all but two cases, one in each chamber)
4) Otherwise maximize GOP advantage and maximize the number of GOP incumbents that don’t have to run at all in 2017 (i.e. leave as many Republican seats alone as possible)

If a racial breakdown is not given that means the seat is at least 60% White VAP. The map places 64 seats up in 2017 if the special election order is upheld. For comparison, HERE is an interactive version of the current map from DKE. Now here is our statewide map – white is seats that are unchanged.

The seats break down as follows: 27 GOP-held, 37 Dem-held.
16 Safe R (1 D-held)
9 Likely R
3 Lean R (1 D-held)
3 Tossup (all D-held)
1 Lean D (R-held)
4 Likely D
28 Safe D

Eastern NC:

1. Steinberg (R-Edenton) R+4 Lean R

Unfortunately we start off with one of the worst parts of the map; because of the small size of the counties in NE NC, you pretty much have to respect county lines and that means Bob Steinburg (R) has very little choice but to drop blood-red Currituck County and picks up the black parts of Elizabeth City. This seat was almost won by Obama in 2008 but has trended right since (Trump won it 55-42). That said, it has some Dem heritage that could give Steinburg trouble if Dems recruit a strong candidate. For 2017 I’d say Steinburg starts as a moderate favorite.

2. Yarborough (R-Roxboro) R+7 Likely R

This seat was held by Dems until 2014; it undergoes some very minor modifications in the remap just to clean up the lines in Oxford that are currently a jagged set of interlocking tentacles with district 32. Incumbent Larry Yarborough (R) should be okay, but he also lives in an open State Senate seat under my plan, so the seat may be open and Dems might have an outside shot at flipping it.

3. Speciale (R-New Bern) R+9 Safe R

The old version of this district included Pamlico and the southern half of Beaufort, which comprised most of the district’s land area, but the bulk of its population, and incumbent Michael Speciale’s (R) residence, lies in New Bern, which is now united in one seat after being chopped up into 3 different districts in the previous map. Still totally safe for Speciale.

4. Dixon (R-Warsaw) R+13 Safe R

This seat loses its arm into the Goldsboro area and gets an arm into the Kinston area instead in order to make a Goldsboro-to-Kinston black-opportunity seat. This is a seat that would have been competitive 10 years ago but should be safe for Republicans now.

5. Hunter (D-Ahoskie) D+8 44W/52B Safe D

This seat loses its portion of Elizabeth City and gains Martin County; it remains black-majority.

6. Boswell (R-Kill Devil Hills) R+9 Likely R

Incumbent Beverly Boswell (R) squeaked to her first term this year after her opponent died the week before the election. She gets a significant boost by losing some historically D areas of Beaufort County and adding blood-red Currituck County; Trump won this seat 60-36. However, this area has enough Dem heritage and Boswell seems weak enough to lose if enough things go Dems’ way.

7. B. Richardson (D-Louisburg) R+3 62W/30B Tossup

This seat previously had a large number of tentacles to grab every black-majority area in Nash and Franklin counties. Now it loses those tentacles, most notably Rocky Mount city, and becomes Franklin County and some rural areas in northwestern Nash. Obama narrowly carried this seat in 2008, but Franklin went for Trump by about 10 and he probably carried this district overall too. Incumbent Bobbie Richardson (D) will definitely have a tough race on her hands, though she may also run for State Senate as she lives in an open swingy Senate seat. Dems have the heritage of the area on their side, particularly if a more conservative Dem is nominated, but this is nowadays a mildly R-leaning district. Overall it looks like a pure Tossup.

8. S. Martin (R-Wilson) and Farmer-Butterfield (D-Wilson) EVEN 53W/37B Lean D Pickup

And now we come to the one GOP House member who is really not going to be happy about this plan. Incumbent Susan Martin (R) squeaked to re-election in a district covering the white parts of Wilson County and a chunk of Pitt this past year. But she unfortunately lives in Wilson County, which happens to be the perfect size for a State House district. Under NC’s redistricting standards, if a county is the right size for a House seat, you better have a good reason to split it, and since the prior good reason (VRA5) is gone, Wilson County pretty much has to be kept whole. Which sucks for Martin, because Clinton carried the county by a few points, and it also has another incumbent, Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D) of district 24. Farmer-Butterfield, ex-wife of US Rep. GK (D), is probably a significant favorite over Martin, but there’s a possibility low turnout could mean an upset. If Farmer-Butterfield didn’t run here, 2016 nominee Charlie Pat Farris (D) would probably be just as strong a favorite. Martin might be better advised to take her chances against Freshman State Sen. Rick Horner (R) in a primary for an R-leaning district covering the area.

9. Murphy (R-Greenville) R+11 Safe R

Dems targeted the current version of this seat in 2012 and came close to winning it, so I gave it a boost by taking out downtown Greenville and taking Greene County. The tentacles near Greenville are there to include the home of incumbent Greg Murphy (R). It is a fair amount of new territory for Murphy, but this winds up being the cleanest way to make a bulletproof Republican seat out of the overall Dem-leaning Greenville area. Given continued trends in the area it should be Safe.

10. J. Bell (R-Goldsboro) R+16 Safe R

The current version of this seat is one of the most contorted legislative districts in the country, a spiraling mass of spaghetti stretching from Goldsboro to Kinston to New Bern. But the new seat is much nicer – it covers Wayne County outside the central part of Goldsboro, including some nearby areas that had been in the old 4th. It is still Safe; though it has quite a bit of new territory for incumbent John Bell (R), it’s all closer to his home so he should be okay unless he screws up.

11. OPEN (D) R+11 Safe R Pickup

This is a brand new seat, carved out of portions of 5 current seats. This seat is ultimately being relocated from the Sandhills area – districts 21, 22, 48, and 66 have overall been condensed down to form the cores of three new districts. As all four of those are Dem-held, this seat should be an automatic flip (as this seat is solidly Republican barring exceptional circumstances). This seat is also relatively clean and doesn’t really wreak havoc on any current GOP incumbent’s district.

12. G. Graham (D-Kinston) D+6 45W/47B Safe D

Goldsboro and Kinston anchored two black-majority seats on the old map, which sprawled across a large territory to grab black voters. However, by combining the two you can make a very clean black-plurality seat that should be safe for a black Dem. Incumbent George Graham (D) lives here and would probably get this seat, but a slightly larger amount of the territory is from district 21 of Larry Bell (D), who may decide to move to Goldsboro and run here if he wants the best chance of staying in the legislature. This seat can be bumped up to black majority with minor changes, while only getting a bit uglier and not affecting any of the adjacent districts’ safety, but since the court had a relatively broad concept of “racial gerrymander” I decided to prioritize cleanliness here.

14. Cleveland (R-Jacksonville) R+13 Safe R

This is the first seat that undergoes very minor modifications. Jacksonville’s districts are underpopulated, so I used district 16 to soak up some population from the Sandhills. The other two then need to take a small amount of territory from district 16. This seat is about 90% identical to the previous version.

15. Phillips (R-Jacksonville) R+13 Safe R

Another seat that just needed to be modified to make the populations work out and is 90% identical to its previous form. Other than the nuisance of having to run in 2017 if the special election is upheld neither incumbent should face the slightest trouble.

16. Millis (R-Hampstead) R+10 Safe R

This is the only seat not directly affected by or adjacent to a seat covered by the litigation that gets a significant revamp, in order to take population away from the Sandhills seats. Incumbent Chris Millis (D) loses some deep-red areas around Jacksonville and gets a multi-ethnic, historically D slice of Bladen County. However, this seat is about 80% the same as Millis’s old seat and still pretty strongly Republican, so he should be safe in the primary and general.

21. OPEN D+6 43W/33B/10H/10N Likely D

The current districts in the Sandhills area are a massive pile of spaghetti. This is the seat that falls out from cleaning up the lines and trying to make a district of just Richmond and Scotland counties. This area zoomed right last year, but this multi-ethnic seat is probably still Dem-leaning. District 48 incumbent Garland Pierce (D) lives just outside the seat and could run here, while State Sen. Ben Clark (D) lives in this seat but not in his new Senate district as I drew it and could drop down rather than moving or running in a conservative district. This seat may be worth contesting by Republicans given how this area has been trending, but given the demographics Likely D may be something of a generous call.

22. L. Bell (D-Clinton) and Brisson (D-Dublin) R+7 57W/28B/12H Tossup

Longtime incumbent Bill Brisson (D) of district 22 is one of maybe 3 rural Conservadems left in NC. He was unopposed the last couple cycles, but gets a revamped district here, and gets double-bunked with black incumbent Larry Bell (D) of the adjacent district 21. This is far more Brisson’s district than Bell’s. However, Brisson barely won his primary last year and with less of his native Bladen County in the seat Bell would probably be favored in a primary matchup if they both ran. This is an area with a strong Dem heritage, and Brisson is a strong incumbent, so Brisson would probably be slightly better than even money to hold this seat if he were renominated. But this area continues to trend right, and Republicans would probably be favored to pick up this district if Democrats nominate Bell or anyone other than Brisson.

23. Willingham (D-Rocky Mount) D+10 43W/51B Safe D

Incumbent Shelly Willingham (D) had a simple district of Edgecombe and Martin counties, which I was hesitant to break up, but this change was necessary to minimize county splits through the rest of the map. This district loses Martin (about a third of the old seat) and replaces it with suburban and rural northern and western Pitt county. It is still black majority and should be safe for Willingham.

24. OPEN (D) D+12 57W/35B Safe D

This is the seat that opens up from Farmer-Butterfield’s chunk of Pitt County, with most of the population base in urban Greenville. Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D) might move here if she doesn’t want to take on Susan Martin (R) in Wilson’s district 8, but otherwise this seat should elect a black Dem from Greenville. Blacks and liberal whites from ECU keep this Safe D and blacks should dominate the Dem primary, though there is some chance this seat could elect a white liberal instead.

25. Collins (R-Rocky Mount) R+7 59W/33B Likely R

The remainder of Nash County not in district 7 goes to district 25, which had been the white half of a set of interlocking tentacles sprawling across Nash and Franklin counties. Incumbent Jeff Collins (R) takes a hit by adding in the heavily black western half of Rocky Mount, but the exurban and rural southwestern part of this district is deep red, so he should be okay barring very unusual circumstances. The seat also takes in a little bit of deep-red Johnston to equalize population and give Collins a marginal boost. That said, this area has some Dem heritage, which is enough to make me put it in the Likely R category out of an abundance of caution.

26. McDowell-White (R-Clayton) R+11 Safe R

The two Johnston County districts undergo very minor modifications. Johnston is just a little too much for two seats. It had been attatched to Sampson, which also has overpopulated districts. By attaching it to Nash instead you make the populations more even and help out district 25 a little. This seat is 90% identical to the previous version.

28. Strickland (R-Pine Level) R+19 Safe R

Another seat that undergoes minor modifications to equalize population but is 90% identical to the current configuration; it just shifts south very slightly. Still based in the deep-red outer Johnston County exurbs. Both Johnston seats should be safe for their incumbents in the primary and general.

32. Garrison (D-Henderson) D+12 45W/48B Safe D

This seat is basically unchanged, it just cleans up its interlocking tentacles with district 2 in Oxford, and that causes it to lose its black majority by a hair. It should still be safe for a black Dem.

46. Br. Jones (R-Tabor City) R+9 Lean R

Freshman Rep. Brenden Jones (R) lost a bid for this seat in 2014 but won it in 2016 by a 20-point margin when his opponent self-destructed. That said, this is one of the most historically-D areas of the state and a credible Dem would still have a shot at flipping this seat with low turnout. Thus I tried to give Jones only the most Republican parts of Robeson County to add to his Columbus County base. Lean R is something of a cautious rating on this district as it continues to trend right, but if Dems want to claw back a rural seat this one and district 1 are probably their only good opportunities.

47. C. Graham (D-Lumberton) D+7 20W/21B/52N Likely D

This is a Lumbee-majority district, represented by Charles Graham (D), who is of Lumbee heritage. This seat zoomed right in 2016 to a degree seen in few other places in the entire nation, and there is a chance Trump may have actually won the seat. Seeing as we ousted the local state Senator from a Dem vote sink in 2016 as well, this seat would be worth seriously contesting. The D heritage here is strong, so Graham is probably still a significant favorite, but if we get a strong challenger this district could be in play. It’s probably worth contesting just for the sake of trying to reinforce our inroads with the Lumbee population.

52. Boles (R-Southern Pines) R+12 Safe R

This is the final seat that undergoes minor modifications. The Sandhills Dem seats were way overpopulated, while the districts for Moore and Randolph Counties were way underpopulated. So to fix that, I transferred the small portion of Montgomery belonging to the old district 66 into district 52. It’s only about 5K so this seat is still within population targets. Other than the annoyance of having to run in 2017 if the specials are still on, Boles should face no problems.

66. Pierce (D-Wagram) and Goodman (D-Rockingham) EVEN 57W/32B Likely D

Incumbent Garland Pierce (D) of district 48 and incumbent Ken Goodman (D) of district 66 are double-bunked here in a simple pairing of Richmond and Scotland Counties; their two current districts consist of a messy set of tentacles sprawling across the entire Sandhills region. This seat seat could see a messy primary, or Pierce could potentially run in district 21 next door which contains a significant amount of his current territory. This seat trended right last year, and Trump won this district by 2 points. That said, this is still a very historically-D area, so either Goodman or Pierce would probably be favored. But this seat would definitely be worth contesting by Republicans.

Mecklenburg County:

Much like Wake County, the seats in Charlotte were a dummymander. Of the 12 seats in Mecklenburg on the current map, we tried for 6 and currently hold 4. As wealthy areas of Mecklenburg have been trending hard away from us, I decided to try and just preserve those four seats, while keeping 5 black-opportunity seats. The other 3 are white liberal districts.

88. Belk (D-Charlotte) D+13 44W/27B/22H Safe D

This seat was dummymandered; we lost it last year as the wealthy south side of Charlotte stampeded away from us. This map shifts it south and west, becoming white-plurality rather than majority, and it should be safe for a white liberal. First-term incumbent Mary Belk (D) may live in the adjacent district 102 but most of her territory is here.

92. Beasley (D-Charlotte) D+19 37W/44B/11H Safe D

This was another dummymandered seat, as we attempted to wrap around a seat through the western Mecklenburg suburbs, which are stampeding left as middle-class blacks are moving in. A large portion of African-Americans in southwest Charlotte from the black-majority district 102 are moved here as it makes the seats a bit cleaner.

98. Bradford (R-Cornelius) R+10 Safe R

This seat doesn’t change much at all, but Trump held up better in the exurban northern part of Mecklenburg than the wealthy suburban south side of Charlotte, so this seat should still be safe.

99. R. Moore (D-Charlotte) D+24 31W/46B/17H Safe D

This seat goes from black-majority to black-plurality and cleans up a bit but should still be safe for a black Dem. It is probably majority-black by CVAP because of the sizeable Hispanic population.

100. Autry (D-Charlotte) D+17 43W/34B/19H Safe D

This seat undergoes minor changes; it is still a multi-ethnic white plurality seat that should be safe for a white liberal.

101. Earle (D-Charlotte) D+19 39W/50B Safe D

The seat expands out to the Catawba River to become cleaner but maintains its black-majority status by a hair.

102. Carney (D-Charlotte) D+19 54W/29B/10H Safe D

This seat was previously black-majority but it winds up being cleaner to make it into a downtown-based white liberal seat. Incumbent Becky Carney (D), who is white, should be favored here even though she has a lot of new territory. However, freshman incumbent Mary Belk (D) of district 88 may actually live here as well and it contains a chunk of her territory. A primary between the two would be competitive.

103. Brawley (R-Matthews) R+10 Likely R

This seat loses a couple tough precincts but is largely the same. Incumbent Bill Brawley (R) should be fine here unless we really erode further in wealthy suburbs over the next year.

104. Dulin (R-Charlotte) R+10 Likely R

The wealthy southern part of Charlotte stampeded away from us this past year, so this combines the more Republican parts of the dummymandered districts 88 and 104 to make a single Republican seat. Incumbent Andy Dulin (R) should be favored barring additional massive erosion of the GOP baseline.

105. Stone (R-Charlotte) R+9 Likely R

This seat makes only minor changes though it loses a couple choice tough precincts. Incumbent Scott Stone (R) should still be favored here unless there is major continued dropoff in the wealthy suburbs.

106. Cunningham (D-Charlotte) D+29 32W/44B/14H Safe D

Loses its black majority and cleans up a bit but is still safe for a black Dem. It may be black-majority by CVAP because of the Hispanic population.

107. Alexander (D-Charlotte) D+23 37W/48B Safe D

This seat cleans up slightly but is similar to the previous version. It is black-plurality as of 2010 but is probably black-majority by now given population trends in this area.

Seats unaffected from prior version (analysis is identical):

Durham County:

29. L. Hall (D-Durham) D+30 35W/49B Safe D

House Minority Leader Larry Hall (D) loses his seat’s black majority by a hair and shifts south to the county line but otherwise few changes.

30. Lehman (D-Durham) D+23 59W/19B/12H Safe D

Drops some tentacles but otherwise doesn’t change much.

31. Michaux (D-Durham) D+28 31W/49B/17H Safe D

Moves out to the county line and drops tentacles, and is just a hair shy of majority black, but otherwise only very  minor changes.

50. Meyer (D-Chapel Hill) D+5 Safe D

Drops some tentacles but otherwise very minor changes. The Orange County portion of the district is entirely identical to the previous version. The PVI might be close to the competitive range, but I would wager the seat has trended left in the last 8 years.

Wake County:

The Wake County portion of the map is very much a dummymander: Republicans tried to go for 6/11 seats, which has turned into an 8D-3R map as Wake has trended hard left. This map protects our three remaining incumbents and carves a fourth Republican seat out of two districts we lost this past year.

33. Gill (D-Raleigh) D+25 34W/50B/12H Safe D

Extends out to the Wake County line, but is still majority-black.

34. G. Martin (D-Raleigh) and Ball (D-Raleigh) D+10 Safe D

Incumbent Grier Martin (D) is considered a rising star in the NCDP; his seat is still a Raleigh white liberal vote sink, but he now takes on some liberal precincts from the adjacent district 49. Fellow incumbent Cynthia Ball (D) lives in one of those precincts and could run here, but if she did Martin would probably still be favored as this seat is almost entirely Martin’s territory.

35. Malone (R-Wake Forest) R+7 Likely R

Incumbent Chris Malone (R) drops some of his toughest precincts and gets a relatively safe seat. The area could continue to trend left so this might be a long-shot opportunity for Dems, but it’s a lot more secure than his old district.

36. Dollar (R-Cary) R+8 Likely R

Incumbent Nelson Dollar (R) is a big fish in the House GOP caucus and is sitting in a pretty tough district. Dollar barely held on this year, but this map should help him a lot as he drops some tough inner suburban precincts and expands south into more Republican exurbs. This seat will likely continue to trend left but for now Dollar should be a strong favorite barring something unexpected.

37. Hunt-Williams (R-Holly Springs) R+8 Likely R

Freshman Rep. Linda Hunt-Williams (R) won the one Wake district that was still relatively secure on the old map, but expanding her seat west into territory that was wasted on the dummymandered district 41 allows Dollar to be more secure. It’s still a fairly strong but not idiot-proof GOP district.

38. Lewis-Holley (D-Raleigh) D+26 33W/45B/16H Safe D

This was the second black-majority district in Raleigh. Because of the jagged precinct lines here the seat isn’t much cleaner than the old version. It’s still plurality black (probably still CVAP majority black) and totally safe for any black Dem.

39. Jackson (D-Raleigh) D+7 51W/31B/13H Safe D

This was a seat that Republicans tried to get as a long-shot pickup opportunity on the old map, which was pretty well obviated by Wake’s leftward trend. Here it soaks up some blue precincts from district 35 and focuses on some fast-growing suburbs that are becoming home to more black middle class residents.

40. John (D-Raleigh) R+8 Lean R Pickup

This very wealthy seat is carved out of two seats that were both flipped by Dems in 2016. District 40 incumbent Joe John (D) lives here, while district 49 incumbent Cynthia Ball (D) represents most of the seat’s southern half. John could potentially run here, the revamped and much more Dem-heavy district 49 around RDU airport, or the GOP-held State Senate seat covering the area. This seat should be a GOP pickup, especially with low turnout; State Sens. John Alexander (R) and Chad Barefoot (R), who are double-bunked on the Senate map, both live here. Hopefully one would agree to drop down. There is a chance John could hang on here with the benefit of incumbency, but honestly Lean R is probably a cautious rating for this seat.

41. Adcock (D-Cary) EVEN Likely D

This seat formerly included deep-red territory in the southwest corner of Wake County in an attempt to make a swing seat. But incumbent Gale Adcock (D) won this seat in 2014 and was not seriously challenged in 2016, so the seat is made more Dem to help out the remaining incumbents. The PVI of this seat is likely well into D+ territory by now after eight years of leftward shifts. With low turnout it could be a long-shot GOP pickup opportunity in 2017, but Adcock looks like a very significant favorite.

48. Du. Hall (D-Raleigh) D+9 Safe D

This seat is basically the same as the old district 11, a Dem vote sink for upper-middle-class suburban white liberals and NC State students in Raleigh and Cary.

49. OPEN D+6 Safe D

This seat is full of medium-blue upper-middle-class suburbs that were sliced and diced between three Republican districts on the old map – and caused all three to fall to Dems. Here they’re consolidated into a new Safe D district. Newly elected Reps. Joe John (D) of district 40 and Cynthia Ball (D) of district 49 do not live here (John lives in a Republican district and Ball lives in district 34 which has another D incumbent) but might be advised to move here if they wish to have the best chance of staying in the legislature.

Cumberland County:

42. Lucas (D-Spring Lake) D+13 47W/36B/11H Safe D

This seat previously had a lot of wild tentacles to be a second black-majority seat, but now it takes in Fort Bragg. As a big chunk of the white population is active-duty Fort Bragg soldiers this seat should still reliably return a black Dem in the primary and general.

43. Floyd (D-Fayetteville) D+23 33W/52B Safe D

The black population from the old district 42 and 43 are combined into this black-majority seat.

44. W. Richardson (D-Fayetteville) R+3 58W/27B Tossup

This seat gets cleaned up slightly but is still a pure Tossup district. Incumbent William Richardson (D) held on narrowly in 2016, beating Fayetteville councilman Jim Arp (R) by 2 points. Arp could have a better chance in this district if he tried again with lower turnout, but Richardson, an appointee when he first won in 2016, would have another year of incumbency under his belt.

45. Szoka (R-Fayetteville) R+10 Safe R

This seat loses its arm into Fort Bragg and gets some rural areas east of Fayettevile, along with downtown. The southern part of this district is basically unchanged and incumbent John Szoka (R) should still be fully safe.

Guilford County:

57. Harrison (D-Greensboro) D+29 37W/52B Safe D

This seat is little-changed and still black majority, though incumbent Pricey Harrison (D) is white.

58. Quick (D-Greensboro) D+26 35W/51B Safe D

This seat doesn’t change very much; it moves slightly west to accommodate cleaning up district 60. It is still black-majority.

59. Hardister (R-Greensboro) R+10 Safe R

The three GOP districts in Guilford need to shift around slightly, but don’t change much in partisanship. The seat shifts clockwise a little bit but is similar partisanship-wise.

60. Brockman (D-High Point) D+18 42W/41B Safe D

This seat was the main focus of the court ruling in Guilford, as the prior district was a narrow snake from High Point to Greensboro. This seat keeps the same basic architecture and should still elect a black Dem, but gets a little thicker and cleaner and now follows the county line in the High Point area.

61. Faircloth (R-High Point) R+9 Safe R

This district can no longer wrap around the southwest corner of the county because of the way district 60 cleans up and extends to the county’s southwest tip, so it shifts north, but it doesn’t trade much population and its partisanship is similar.

62. Blust (R-Greensboro) R+10 Safe R

The seat moves slightly east to accommodate adjacent districts but doesn’t change partisanship much and should still be Safe.

So the net shift for this map would most likely be a net GOP gain of a few seats. In order to net the two seats Dems would need to break the supermajority, they would need to win all the Tossup and Lean R seats or flip a Likely R seat to compensate for any they lost, which seems like a very tall order.

Any thoughts?

The Torymander, Part 5: East Anglia and Southeast England

And now, dear readers, we come to beating heart of the Conservative Party. These counties aren’t completely Tory (with a few exceptions), but their massive margins in this region allow them to essentially not care who wins in Scotland. Labour has some residual strength in a few of these counties, but even that has been diminished or co-opted by UKIP in recent years. They’ve mostly been reduced to a few city centers and university towns. Consequently, the Tories do take some losses here due to seat reductions. However, many of the counties have good growth numbers which limit the losses. If you thought that Labour’s margins in Northern England were impressive, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The current running totals are as follows: 150 Safe Labour, 119 Safe Conservative, 1 Safe Liberal Democrat, 15 Likely Labour, 15 Likely Conservative, 2 Likely Plaid Cymru, 5 Lean Labour, 10 Lean Conservative, 1 Lean Liberal Democrat, 1 Lean Plaid Cymru, 15 Tossup.

 

Old

New

 

Norfolk and Suffolk:

Old

New

The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk can best be described as old school. It’s actually these areas, not Cumbria, that have the highest rates of gun ownership in England. The Labour Party never had much strength here outside of Norwich and Ipswich. In both local and national elections, the Liberal Democrats are typically the second party, though UKIP has made large gains here in recent years.

Due to solid growth numbers, both counties stay at the same number of seats (Norfolk has nine and Suffolk has seven). There are only four seats of interest. The Norwich seats trade some territory around, with Norwich North gaining the city center, moving it from Safe Conservative to Likely Conservative. On the flip side, this causes Norwich South to move from Safe Labour to Likely Labour. This is a long shot gerrymander on the part of the Tories, but Norwich South is on the lower end of Likely Labour. With the Tories’ current poll numbers, this would be one of the easiest Likely Labour seats for them to flip. The lone LibDem seat in the area, North Norfolk, moves a few points rightward but remains Lean LibDem. Norman Lamb is a survivor. He won’t be easy to beat, but I’m sure that Team Blue will make a go of it. The only other notable seat is Ipswich in Suffolk. It expands and moves from Likely Conservative to Safe Conservative. This is a good example of why the Tories want a seat reduction; it doesn’t take much to move some of these market town seats from swingy to firmly Conservative.

 

Essex:

Old

New

In the past, Essex has been a major battleground. It was critical to John Major’s shock victory in 1992. Today, it’s a Conservative stronghold. The county’s growth numbers are decent, but not stellar, so it goes from eighteen seats to seventeen seats. The seat that gets eliminated is Witham, currently occupied by International Development Secretary Priti Patel. Not to worry, though; she’s a minister and a rising star, so a seat will be found for her. There are really only three competitive seats in the county: Thurrock, Colchester, and Harwich and Clacton. Thurrock barely changes and remains a Tossup. Colchester is in theory Safe Conservative, but the Tories only captured it in 2015 due to the LibDem collapse. They’ll probably keep it, but it’s worth mentioning. Harwich and Clacton is UKIP’s only seat. Douglas Carswell is locally popular in Clacton, which is why the Tories removed territory near there and added areas to the north of the old boundaries, where he’s weaker. Under these new lines, he wins by only two points instead of almost eight points, so this is a Tossup

 

Cambridgeshire:

Old

New

This one kind of typifies the counties in Southern England. The market town is competitive, the rural areas are Tory blowouts, and the university town is very, very leftist. True to form, Cambridge is a Labour-LibDem marginal. It flipped to Labour by about a point in 2015, and the LibDems are pretty confident about getting it back (though their fall here was much smaller than their diminishments in most of the rest of the country). Cambridge actually gets a few hundred votes more LibDem and stays a Tossup. Peterborough has long been an important Tory-Labour marginal in close elections. The new version moves slightly to the right, but stays Lean Conservative. All six other seats in the county are Safe Conservative strongholds.

 

Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire:

Old

New

Hertfordshire is mostly a suburb of London at this point. All eleven of its constituencies are Safe Conservative at present. Labour always has a long shot chance at Stevenage when they’re competing for the majority, but they’re miles away from that right now.

Bedfordshire is another matter. Bedford itself is a Tory-held Tossup seat, and remains so in this new iteration. Both Luton seats are Labour-held, and are in fact Safe Labour. At first I couldn’t figure out why the commission didn’t attempt to pack one of these and make the other competitive. Once I dug down into the wards, I realized that Labour’s strength is too evenly spread throughout the city for that to work. All three rural seats are Safe Conservative.

 

Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire:

Old

New

Buckinghamshire has seven seats, and they’re all Safe Conservative. It should be noted, though, that the Buckingham constituency is the seat of Speaker John Bercow, who is technically nonpartisan. For our purposes, though, we’re counting him as a Tory.

Oxfordshire is one of the few hotbeds of Tory Remainers outside of London. The Conservatives here tend to be very well-to-do; it’s where a lot of the country’s elite live if they don’t live in London. Oxford East is Safe Labour. The other five seats are technically Safe Conservative. However, Oxford West and Abingdon used to be a LibDem seat and could theoretically be again if enough Tory Remainers bolt. I don’t think that it’s likely to happen, but keep your eye on the seat if the LibDems look like they’re surging.

Berkshire is pretty boring. Slough, which is a major corporate and industrial center with a large immigrant population, is Safe Labour. The other seven seats in the county are Safe Conservative.

 

Kent and East Sussex:

Old

New

These two counties currently have twenty-five seats between them. They lose one seat collectively, so under this map they have 24 seats with High Weald being shared between them. Technically, I guess that Kent loses the seat, so it goes from seventeen seats to sixteen seats. As I said earlier, there are a few counties where the Tories completely dominate, and this is one of them. Consequently, the lost seat is a Tory one. South Thanet should technically be competitive because Nigel Farage didn’t get completely clobbered there in 2015, but I’m counting it as Safe Conservative due to how unusual that race was.

East Sussex is mostly Tory strongholds, but it does feature what is in my opinion the most brilliant move of this map. The Tories are really playing some four-dimensional chess here. They lost Hove in 2015 to Labour, so they solved that problem by cracking Brighton Pavilion. That seat is the only one that the Green Party has in Parliament. The newly-constituted Brighton Central and Hove is theoretically a Lean Labour seat with the Tories as the second party. However, Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, could choose to run there. If she does, the seat almost certainly goes blue. Lucas may instead choose to run in Brighton North. That new seat would have barely voted Tory with Labour as the second party. If she runs there, she starts out with a theoretically bigger base. However, she could definitely lose their too. And just like that, Team Blue probably gets the Greens out of Parliament and could pick up either one seat or two. Brighton Kempton also goes from a Tossup seat to Safe Conservative, bringing the tally for that category in the county to six.

 

Surrey and West Sussex:

Old

New

Surrey keeps all eleven of its constituencies. All eleven remain Tory blowouts. There’s a good reason that J.K. Rowling chose Surrey as the setting for Harry Potter’s hellish childhood. The Dursleys represent exactly what she thinks of your typical Tory family.

West Sussex is a similar story; the county is home to eight Tory stronghold constituencies and nothing else.

 

Hampshire and The Isle of Wight:

Old

New

The Isle of Wight is currently coextensive with the most overpopulated constituency in Britain. This new map adds a new seat to fix that. Both seats are Safe Conservative.

Hampshire is another solidly Tory county, but not uniformly so. Both seats in Southampton are fairly swingy. Team Blue managed to capture Southampton Itchen in 2015 (along with blowout flips of Eastleigh and Portsmouth South against the LibDems). Team Red still holds Southampton Test. The new arrangement in Southampton does what we’ve seen in several multi-seat small cities in these maps – it moves the city center from the redder seat to the bluer seat to make the former one more competitive. Southampton Test is now the one that voted Tory, and in fact by the numbers is on the Likely/Lean Conservative line. We’ll go with the latter out of an abundance of caution. Southampton Itchen, on the other hand, was now barely won by Labour and is a Tossup. Now of course the LibDems could make a comeback in Eastleigh or Portsmouth South (or both), but they lost those pretty badly last time. Even a ten precent improvement wouldn’t get them those seats back.

 

All of this leads us to the new running totals. Notice that the Tories more than doubled their safe seat count in this one region. Without further ado, the current totals are: 245 Safe Conservative, 154 Safe Labour, 1 Safe Liberal Democrat, 16 Likely Labour, 16 Likely Conservative, 2 Likely Liberal Democrat, 2 Likely Plaid Cymru, 12 Lean Conservative, 6 Lean Labour, 1 Lean Liberal Democrat, 1 Lean Plaid Cymru, 21 Tossup.

Check back next week for the final English part in the series, the West Country!

2016 Election Results in Kalamazoo County

The trends that led to Donald Trump’s statewide victory in Michigan also affected Kalamazoo County.  Trump did well in rural areas.  He also did much better in downscale areas of Comstock and Galesburg.  He did badly in Kalamazoo and underperformed in upscale areas of Portage and Oshtemo.

Compare Romney (2012) and Trump (2016):
Trump got the same two-party percentage (43.2%) as Romney in Kalamazoo County.  The following map compares Trump and Romney.  More green is better for Trump, more yellow/orange is worse for Trump (better for Romney).
Trump did best relative to Romney in Galesburg, Comstock 1-3, and K Township 1, all downscale areas.  Trump did worst relative to Romney in Portage 18 (Moorsbridge), Oshtemo 3, suburban Texas, and Bronson Boulevard, all wealthy upscale areas.
The State Board of Education can be used as a measure of generic R and D vote since almost nobody is familiar with the candidates.  The two-party percentages are Trump 43.2%, SBOE 48.1%.

 

Trump underperformed Republicn SBOE candidates everywhere except Comstock and Lakewood.  He did especially poorly in Western Portage, southern Kalamazoo, Texas, Oshtemo, and Gull Lake (all wealthy upscale areas).
The following maps show how local Republicans did in Kalamazoo County.  Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema led Republicans in Kalamazoo County with 54.7%.
The GOP average (President/Congress/Clerk/ Prosecutor/Sheriff/Treasurer) was 45.6%.
The Republican party continues to lose ground in the City of Kalamazoo.  The results in the city are
34.0% Balkema
31.7% Upton
32.1% Snow
27.4% SBOE
23.1% Trump
22.4% Smith
22.2% Heppler
The most R precinct was #4 (Knollwood).  I suspect this was due to Fraternity Village supporting Trump.
The City of Portage saw many voters split tickets.
59.4% Balkema
57.6% Upton
56.2% Snow
52.4% SBOE
45.9% Trump
40.9% Smith
39.1% Heppler
Oshtemo Township has moved left in recent years.  The top of the ticket was too much for local candidates to overcome.
52.1% Balkema
50.2% Upton
48.9% Snow
46.8% SBOE
40.0% Trump
35.9% Smith
35.7% Heppler
Oshtemo Township official candidates:
42% Nieuwenhuis
43% Solarek
40% Zondervan
49.3% Carr
44% Corakis
42% Lefler
42% Clem
Federal Judge Gershwin Drain extended straight ticket voting in Michigan after the legislature passed a law to eliminate it.  After the election, some observers claimed that straight ticket voting benefited Republicans since in some counties (e.g. Macomb) more Republicans voted straight ticket.
However, we don’t know what people would have done in its absence.  In Kalamazoo, more democrats voted straight ticket (33218) than Republicans (25159).  The following map shows which party had more straight ticket voters in each precinct.

How Trump Won Michigan (with maps!)

Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the 2016 presidential election was capped off by winning Michigan. The vote total was
Trump 2279543 (47.50%)
Clinton 2268893 (47.27%)
The margin was only 10704 votes. Michigan had the closest percentage margin of any state in the nation.

Analyzing the election results nationwide leads to four basic observations:

1. Trump won huge margins in rural areas.
2. Trump improved significantly in downscale (white working class) areas.
3. Trump did poorly in upscale (wealthy, highly educated) areas.
4. Clinton won blacks by large margins, but turnout was significantly down.
The following maps show Trump/Clinton and Romney/Obama by county.
Trump did significantly better than Romney in the rural Northeast and Midwest.  This allowed him to pick up five states (and Maine 2) in this region.  Trump did worse than Romney in many suburban counties.  The following map compares Trump and Romney’s performance by county.  More red means Trump performed better.
Zooming in to Michigan, we compare Romney 2012 and Trump 2016.
Trump overperformed in most rural counties, particularly in northern Michigan and the Thumb.  He underperformed in Kent, Ottawa, and Washtenaw counties.
To better understand Trump’s performance, consider the following map of southern Michigan.  More red indicates a higher Trump percentage, and more blue/black indicates a higher Clinton percentage.  The key is
DarkRed >65%
Red 60-65
Salmon 55-60
Pink 50-55
LightBlue 45-50
DeepSkyBlue 40-45
CornflowerBlue 35-40
SlateBlue 30-35
Blue 25-30
DarkBlue 20-25
MidnightBlue 15-20
Black 0-15
Results are broken down to the precinct level, except in Wayne, Macomb, Ingham, Livingston, and Montcalm Counties, where they are broken down to the municipality.  All maps use 2-party totals.  Some results are approximate due to changes in precinct lines.
Rural areas are overwhelmingly red; cities are blue to black.
Let’s take a closer look at some key areas of the state, starting with Detroit.
Year – GOP (2-party %) and Dem (2-party %):
2000 – 15688 (5.22%), 282111 (93.88%)
2004 – 19343 (5.93%), 305258 (93.65%)
2008 –   8888 (2.65%), 325534 (96.99%)
2012 –   6018 (2.09%), 281743 (97.63%)
2016 –   7682 (3.11%), 234871 (94.95%)
The percentages are about the same, but D turnout was down 46872 votes in 2016.
Here is Wayne county, broken down by municipality.
Here are the numbers for Wayne outside Detroit.
Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2000 – 207333 (45.5%), 248303 (54.5%)
2004 – 238407 (44.7%), 294789 (55.3%)
2008 – 210694 (38.6%), 334551 (61.4%)
2012 – 207796 (39.8%), 314103 (60.2%)
2016 – 221311 (43.7%), 284573 (56.3%)
Trump improved by 43045 votes in Wayne outside Detroit.  Trump gained in Downriver, a downscale union area.  Trump declined in upscale areas – the Grosse Pointes, and Plymouth/Northville.
Macomb County, by municipality:
   Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2004 – 202166 (50.2%), 196160 (48.7%)
2008 – 187663 (44.8%), 223784 (53.4%)
2012 – 191913 (47.5%), 208016 (51.5%)
2016 – 224665 (53.6%), 176317 (42.1%)
Trump gained 64451 votes over 2012.  He improved substantially in the downscale union areas of the county.
Oakland County by precinct:
   Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2004 – 316633 (49.3%), 319387 (49.8%)
2008 – 276956 (42.0%), 372566 (56.5%)
2012 – 296514 (45.4%), 349002 (53.4%)
2016 – 289203 (43.2%), 343070 (51.3%)
Trump lost upscale areas, including Bloomfield, West Bloomfield, Troy and Novi, where Republicans usually win.  He gained in Waterford.  The following compares Romney (2012) and Trump (2016).
Genesee County:
Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2004 – 83870 (39.2%), 128334 (60.0%)
2008 – 72451 (32.9%), 143927 (65.5%)
2012 – 71808 (35.4%), 128978 (63.6%)
2016 – 84175 (42.9%), 102751 (52.4%)
Trump improved by 38594 votes over 2012.  Trump gained significantly in the downscale union-heavy suburbs of Flint.  He won Burton and the entire outer ring (except Grand Blanc).  Republicans came within 4% of picking up state house district 50 in the suburbs, which was completely unexpected.  Here is a closer look at Flint.
St. Clair:
Trump even won Port Huron.
Saginaw:
Trump won everything except the minority areas.
Bay:
 Midland:
In past elections, the city of Midland has been more Republican than the surrounding areas.  Not this time.
Tri-cities:
Isabella:

Schiawasee:

Clinton:
Eaton:
Ingham by municipality:
Washtenaw:
Monroe:
Lenawee:
Jackson:
Southwest Michigan:
Calhoun:
Kalamazoo:
St. Joseph:
Cass:

Berrien:

Van Buren:
Allegan:
Kent:
Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2004 – 171201 (59.1%), 116909 (40.4%)
2008 – 148336 (48.9%), 149909 (49.4%)
2012 – 155925 (53.2%), 133408 (45.5%)
2016 – 148180 (48.3%), 138683 (45.2%)
Trump declined by 13020 votes in Kent County.  He lost Kentwood and did poorly in Wyoming.

Muskegon:

Ottawa:
 Year – GOP (%) and Dem (%):
2004 – 92048 (71.6%), 35552 (27.6%)
2008 – 83330 (61.2%), 50828 (37.3%)
2012 – 88166 (66.6%), 42737 (32.3%)
2016 – 88467 (62.3%), 44973 (31.7%)
Ottawa County is usually the most Republican in Michigan.  Why did Trump decline in Kent and Ottawa?  Ottawa, Kent, Allegan, and Missaukee are the only Dutch majority counties.  Dutch Americans tend to be Calvinists (Reformed/CRC) and solid Republicans.
Consider this list of Trump’s best counties in 2016.
73.8% Missaukee
70.9% Hillsdale
70.0% Oscoda
69.9% Sanilac
69.8% Montmorency
69.3% Kalkaska
69.2% Osceola
68.2% Luce
68.0% Alcona
67.2% Huron
67.1% Newaygo
66.8% Branch
66.6% Lapeer
66.4% Tuscola
66.0% Otsego
65.7% Ogemaw
65.4% Wexford
65.3% Dickinson
65.1% Gladwin
64.3% Arenac
Ottawa County dropped to number 32!  Livingston dropped to 34 and Allegan to 48!
Twelve of Trump’s 20 best counties are in the northern lower peninsula.  Four of the top 14 are in the Thumb.  Two (Luce, Dickinson) are in the UP.  Two (Hillsdale, Branch) are on the IN border.  Trump got 60-70% in 43 of 83 Michigan counties.  He got 50-60% in 23 counties.  These are almost all rural areas.
I have explained where Trump got his votes, but not how he got them.  Trump appealed to rural and working class voters with immigration restriction, opposition to free trade agreements, and concern for manufacturing jobs.  These voters were alienated from the democrats due to social justice warriors and environmentalism.
Bernie Sanders’ primary win in Michigan foreshadowed trouble for Hillary.  Rural democrats are not primarily socialists.  Many were clearly disenchanted with Hillary.
Why did Trump do better than Romney, who had a somewhat similar profile (rich businessman, Washington outsider)?  Rick Snyder won Michigan in 2010 on a similar platform.  Republican Michigander writes:

“The other thing that helped Snyder is that while he was a businessman, he ran as a CEO of Gateway. People remember Gateway Computers. That’s a difference with your venture capitalist types who are widely distrusted (with Dan Gilbert a major exception due to his Detroit investments and building). The Midwest respects builders. You’ll hear a different opinion of George Romney than Mitt. Builders built America and builders built Michigan. This is the land of Henry Ford, Roger Penske, Ransom Olds, Mike Illitch, Louis Chevrolet, Pete Karmanos, Fred Meijer, Tom Monaghan, and the Dodge brothers. It’s the cornerstone of this state and one of the rare things that can take root in the very different political factions in this state that are extremely tough to unite. It’s something our pols should remember in 2020 before either putting a bunch of money here, or before writing off altogether. The most important thing here is the job itself and the ability to do it.”

This obviously applies to Trump as well.
Trump’s winning coalition was laid out by several commentators.  Steve Sailer wrote after the 2000 election,

“The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College … is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No, it`s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote. …
What if Bush II had won 57% of the white vote? … he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. …
So where could Bush have picked up an additional 3 percent of the white vote? The most obvious source: white union families. …
Immigration should be the perfect issue for the GOP to use to split the rank and file from their Democratic bosses.  Since union efforts cost Bush Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (at a minimum), you`d think that the GOP would be hot to win back the Reagan Democrats.”

After the 2012 election, he wrote

“Romney could have won the Electoral College in what can be called the Big Ten states … He did win Indiana, and he lost Obama’s home state of Illinois badly. The other six states in this region, however, all slipped through his fingers: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
In each of these Slippery Six states, Romney won at least 45 percent of the vote. … If Romney, rather than Obama, had won all six, he’d be President. …
According to Reuters, Romney lost the Slippery Six states because … he did badly there among white voters—winning only 52 percent, six points worse than nationally. …
But, how much did Romney offer working class whites in this swing region? Did they have much cause for hope that he’d take a strong stand against legal and illegal immigration?”

“These voters were largely downscale, Northern, rural whites. In other words, H. Ross Perot voters.”

“One option is to go after these downscale whites. … It means abandoning some of its more pro-corporate stances. This GOP would have to be more “America first” on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics.”

Demographics are the biggest factor affecting election results.  For example, some areas have voted for the same party since the Civil War, until very recently.  Dutch Americans have voted conservatively since immigrating here.  Often, changes in election results are the results of demographic changes rather than ideological changes.
Demographic groups can change voting patterns (e.g. downscale whites going for Trump), but such changes are neither easy nor inevitable.  Democrats have been using immigration from left-leaning groups to bring about electoral victories they could not win by persuasion.  Trump and his supporters need to stop this for conservatism to remain viable in America.
Donald Trump is now the face of the Republican party.  His supporters should do what they can to encourage him to adopt sound conservative policies.  There are no permanent majorities.  Republicans should be careful not to overreach (as Obama did with Obamacare).  Conversely, Republicans should accomplish what they can while the opportunity exists, as democrats will come back sooner or later.
Republicans should welcome Trump’s downscale supporters into the party and try to address their concerns on trade and immigration while upholding conservative values.  Upscale voters were likely alienated by Trump’s rhetoric and character.  If Trump is successful, many will come back.  We should run candidates who emphasize competence to appeal to this demographic.