Rick Hansen at Election Law Blog observed a New York
Times article proclaiming more House seats being in play this November. Rick asks:
How is this possible, given what we’ve heard about how effective partisan gerrymanders have been in the states? Is it
that redistricters got too greedy, drawing lines with not enough margin for a shift in the national mood from one party to
another?
I have two thoughts — my opinions as a wannabe armchair pundit, mind you, not anything based on hard evidence — on those
questions:
- How much of this additional perceived vulnerability of GOP candidates is real, I wonder. Yes the public’s approval of the
current administration and the GOP in general is lower than it’s been in quite a while. And yes, incumbents are perhaps more
vulnerable than they have been in other recent elections. However, if the CQ poll-mapper is to be believed, we still aren’t
necessarily talking about a widespread throw-the-bums out movement here. I suspect there’s still quite a bit of thinking along the
lines of “while I don’t like the party, I do like my representative”.
- Along those same lines, one could argue that the “I like my representative” mentality is bolstered by gerrymandered districts.
In other words, if the House doesn’t fall to the Democrats this year, will blame/credit be placed on incumbents having been able to
create fortress districts for themselves, and/or will the result be dismissed as overhyping on the part of the media and the left
side of the blogosphere?