Monday, November 15, 2010

All Wrapped Up About The Map

Since the Republican wave that overcome the nation seemed to hop-skip-jump over Illinois in various ways (we won lots of Congressional seats but won few General Assembly seats), we are now facing the dubious proposition of being more or less shut out of the re-map process. The Chicago Tribune looks at the issue in depth today, complete with an above-the-fold photo of State Senator Terry Link (yuck) who will no doubt be inserting himself into the process, in order to cram as many GOP votes into as few districts as possible, to give the Dems an advantage for the next 10 years. I like to call that process "Terrymandering" (TM).

Before the election, even 'policy-over-politics' Ellen of the Tenth was unbashed about how important controlling the remap process was going to be.

Now we're a bit stuck with it. Any guesses on how this may change life here in Lake County? Which Congressional District is going to disappear, and who will be left to duke it out? What are our state rep/senate districts going to look like?

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congressman Charlie Rangel begins his ethics trial today before the House Ethics Panel. I guess that means he won't be sending any more money to three-time loser Dan Seals.

Oh- if you want to know what the funny map picture is
all about, click here.


A. Bees said...

Honestly, I think that Lake County might be at the forefront of the changes. In 2001 teh 10th was strengthened for Kirk when he gained parts of Palatine and gave up Zion. Keep in mind that Kirk almost always lost Lake County and won Cook. I wouldn't be surprised to see them strengthen the Lake County advantage with a deeper dive into the more liberal parts of Cook, i.e. Evanston. Then they might just solidify the 8th with a loaded R base. That would be the easiest way to pick up seats for the Dems. With the Pres being on the 2012 ballot, it would be much easier for the Dems to take the 10th.

Anonymous said...

I think there are two legitimate options on the table for redistricting:

1. The 10th is divided, giving Walsh/Bean much of the liberal parts of Lake County, more conservative/rural areas going to solidify Roskam as an appeasement and the remainder of Cook county being placed in the 9th. This plan seems the most likely to me, as the GOP will get to trade losing 1/2 seats for keeping the 6th red for the foreseeable future.

2. Rumor has it that Judy Biggert may be retiring after the 112th. Her district may be carved up to give some republicans to Roskam and try to cut some of the more Democratic areas into the 11th and the 14th.

I think scenario 1 is more likely because the odds of a Dem gain are better. Plus, it would erase the bad memories of the Dan Seals era and allow Dem leadership to try a new approach that would carve up a more favorable map.

Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial

Anonymous said...

Walsh v. Dold in a GOP primary. Let's hope.

Anonymous said...

Walsh v. Dold in a GOP primary. Let's hope.

A. Bees said...

CC -
Because of the opportunity for fund raising on the liberal northshore, I really think they are going to try and pull that into a solid D district. I could even see Schakowsky's district reaching northward and scooping up most of the northshore. Then pull together the old 10th and 8th and you have one solid R district instead of 2.

Anonymous said...

1. Democrats are going to get destroyed in redistricting nationally. This is the only fat cow they have to slay in terms of an obama state where they have multiple republicans they can try to get rid of.

there are too many scenarios and I am not enlightened enough, but my guess is democrats want 4-6 seat gain coming out of springfield redistricting with some form of softening up the suburban districts and pushing conservatives into a few enclaves.

Obama took peter roskam with him to the g-20 in south east asia so watch for him to be spared.

2. I have serious doubts about comrade jan bringing her sickle and hammer north up sheridan road. She struggled against pollack-an underfunded goof who ran a right wing campaign in a moderate district. Had she faced a more moderate kirk/coulson/chris shays type I think she would have lost her seat. She has a safe district, she's nearing 70-the early winter of her life-even old gizzards go away, she has a national fundraising network (she already pillages the north shore for dough) and she's got nowhere to moveup in politics aside from a job in the obama administration. She wants to spend the next 2 years serving as some dignitary on the final obama campaign not grinding it out in winnetka with team america all over her ellen. I think she'll stay put and the springfield democrats will try to get one of their people who they want rid of down there the 10th.

3. I don't know if dold wants a primary with walsh.


A. Bees said...

I'm sure he doesn't want a primary with Walsh, but to eliminate an R district, he may not have a choice.

Anonymous said...

Folklaes -

Joel Pollak is NOT a "goof!" He is an intelligent, articulate young man, who happens to have an undergraduate and a law degree from Harvard.

I agree that he was underfunded at least until 3rd quarter when he beat Jan 2:! on fundraising. Which unfortunately was too little too late.

However, he forced the jackasses to play defense in the 9th which likely helped out Elephants in the 10th and other races.

Pollak did not run a particularly "right wing" campaign but rather ran on common sense principles and values, something that Jan sadly lacks!

Trebor of Libertyville

Anonymous said...

dold has no say in the matter. the question is if he gets a nekritz springfield type to take him on or some footlik obama person parachuted in.

pollack said he was a tea party member, not me. mark never went within 10 feet of those politics in a district that's far more republican than schakowsky's. apparently pollack knows more about local politics than kirk-at least according to pollack.


Anonymous said...

I think we should let Dold & Walsh enjoy the spoils of their labors for a bit. Just note, Dold & Walsh will not primary. Dold lives in Kenilworth...a stone's throw from Jan's district. Assuming the lines move just a bit...Kenilworth and much of the immediate areas absorb into the 9th. Dold will not then run in the new 8th, a district he does not live in -- although legal -- exactly the thing he surfaced against Dan. He has to hope & have some 'behind the curtain' support in Springfield to protect much of the 10th as we know it today.

A. Bees said...

Since when has where a candidate lives meant anything? Bean never lived in the 8th. Seals never lived in the 10th, etc.

Anonymous said...

Dold will have a shield against the residency issue if he is redistricted out of the tenth as it exists now. Seals had no such luxury as he moved in after redistricting.

Very difficult, IMHO, to play with the lines in the northern part of the state. The D's will of course, but much of of the hard carving and loss will have to be done in the southern and middle parts of the state. What little growth has happened in residency has happened in the collar and northern burbs.

I would not be shocked to see comrade Jan's district skinnier and moved to the Lake/Cook line. Same with 8th/10th (Lake Road north). Possible to see parts of Roskam's and Dold's Cook County divided into 2 solid R seats. That's where Dold may have to play. Not against Roskam though.

Will be interesting to see how the $$ plays on the North Shore. They have a lot of influence and may push for some semblance of normalcy in the CD's.

I don't see it really affecting the next race though. They need to start running again in 10 months. Not a whole lot of time to get the mapping process finalized and the inevitable legal challenges to D gerrymandering will hold up final ratification.

Does anyone really believe the Feds will get the counts done in that time? I sure don't.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats will probably try to eliminate the district of the most conservative congressman, Don Manzullo. They can do that by giving parts of his district to Joe Walsh, Randy Hultgren, and Bobby Schilling. The western edge of the 10th District would move to the west, and the northern edge of the 9th District would move to the north.

Conservative Veteran

Anonymous said...

the reality is that none of us have met herr madigan and none of us can name the room or building where this will happen so anything we say is coming out our ellen's. that said some of you probably do know what will happen.

I really don't see the idea of comrade jan moving up the north shore. Are parts of the north shore wealthier than her district and thus requiring less staff work on certain areas? Yes. But comrade struggled in her own liberal frontyard last time and I don't really see a 70 year old woman wanting to put her career in jeopardy and having to grind out a campaign just so she can represent glencoe. Jan has never had to face any sort of tough general election campaign like pup had to and she carries more baggage this point than an airport lost and found.

Remember she didn't have the stomach to take on senator mark kirk (R-IL), I don't think she wants to have to fight to keep her seat.

I said earlier Obama took roskam with him to south east asia-a very very rare thing for a democrat president to do to a republican congressman and I can't see him getting screwed. My guess is biggert retires, schilling gets whacked, kinzinger, dold and walsh get softened up and roskam and hultgren get strengthened giving democrats 1 guaranteed seat back downstate plus 3 juicy targets in the suburbs and retiring biggert.


A. Bees said...


Actually I have met Madigan a few times.

Conservative Veteran -

Manzullo is safe. The strategy is to group as many R voters together as possible. Who cares if you have 8 safe R districts, as long as you create 3 swing districts where D's can steal the seats. So to explain, D's will group as many R's together in safe R districts, then create as many left leaning moderate to liberal districts as possible. That way they have the best opportunity to pick off seats when the President is on the ballot in 2012.

Blue Wind said...

I can not stand Bean, as she is in reality a right-wing republican. She is very right wing, like all blue dogs. So in a way, I am glad she lost. Of course, Walsh is a tea-partier which means that insanity won in IL8. He is worse than her, but marginally so.

I think the best analysis of the 2010 elections were from Bill Maher and Michael Moore. Here it is:

A. Bees said...

Blue -

That whole argument is ridiculous at this point.

Yes, when there is not a record to vote on, people vote emotionally. And the approval ratings for the president show that America as a general majority was supportive right after he took office. However, two years later the voting public is rejecting policies.

Certainly politicians use inflammatory language to get the attention of the public. One example would be the "death panels" issue. As that issue is debated, the public pays attention. Polling has shown that the voting public is opposed to Obama's health care reform. But what's the most common reason? "We can't afford it." This is a simple, pragmatic statement. Not inflammatory or extreme, not emotional, a very simple reason that people reject it. When you look at many of the other issues, they have similar feelings and it isn't based on the fear driven rhetoric, but rather simple pragmatic reasons.

Now that being said, those two bozos, aka Moore and Maher, live on the extreme and inflammatory rhetoric. They write it, they read it, they spew it and they repeat it. (and yes the right has their Ann Coulters aka bozos to counter those guys) Ultimately they are the ones who make a living based on being extremists.

It is those extremists who create the boundaries of the debate. Then our politicians (at least the ones who know what they are doing) come in and find the middle ground. They build themselves as the reasonable ones who are working to find the right answer for the country. Ultimately it comes down to a vote and the hope is that each elected official has defined themselves closely to how their constituents view the situation.

So Blue I ask you, do you consider yourself a far left end extremist or one who strives to look at the issues pragmatically?