Day 5 of Early Voting in North Carolina

Yesterday I noted that all three registered party groups--Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliated--saw their daily numbers exceed the first four days of 2008 in early voting here in North Carolina.  That trend, however, didn't last into the fifth day.

In terms of the total numbers, the fifth day of early voting continued the over-performance of votes cast in comparison to the same day in 2008.

Cumulative Totals of In-Person Absentee Ballots Cast in North Carolina

Comparison of 2008 to 2012

We now have over 500,000 votes banked, with two weeks to go before Election Day here in North Carolina.

For both registered Republicans and Unaffiliated voters, they continued to march past their respective 2008 numbers on the first Monday of early voting in the Tar Heel state.  But for registered Democrats casting ballots, they came up about 5,000 short of the number they saw in 2008's early voting.

Daily 2012 Compared to 2008 In-Person Absentee Ballots 

Cast in North Carolina by Registered Democrats

Daily 2012 Compared to 2008 In-Person Absentee Ballots

Cast in North Carolina by Registered Republicans

Daily 2012 Compared to 2008 In-Person Absentee Ballots

Cast in North Carolina by Registered Unaffiliated Voters

In terms of race, the ballots cast by white voters continued to be at 61% while black voters were at 35% and all other races were at 5% of the votes cast.  With the question of whether black voters will be either 22% of the total electorate (which they were in 2008) or a lower percentage, it appears that black voters are showing up at numbers that could influence the total pool of votes cast.

2012 Compared to 2008 In-Person Absentee Ballots Cast in North Carolina

by White and Black/African-American Voters 

One other interesting aspect of the early voter pool is the breakdown among women and men.  We are hearing about the increasing gender gap that is prevalent in this year's presidential election, but in terms of early voting, women are soundly showing up over men.  And there is a marked partisan slant to women voters.

Female vs. Male NC Early Voters (In-Person Absentee)

Among registered female voters casting early ballots, 60% of them are registered Democrats, while among registered male voters, it is a 49-30% split between Democrats and Republicans.

Female NC Early Voters by Party Registration (In-Person Absentee)

Male NC Early Voters by Party Registration (In-Person Absentee)

I'll try to post more in terms of age demographics of early voters later today.

The First Four Days of Early Voting (In-Person) in North Carolina

Now that North Carolina has a few days of In-Person Absentee ballot casting (otherwise commonly known as Early Voting), we can start to do some comparisons with the performance of different groups--registered Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliated voters, for example--to their performances in 2008's record-breaking early voting activity.

In the below graphic is the trend line for early voting as a whole, with all ballots cast as In-Person Absentee votes.  In comparison to 2008, the cumulative early votes cast are exceeding those posted four years ago.

On the first day of early voting, more than 49,000 more votes were cast this year than in 2008, and the three subsequent days also saw more votes cast than on the same days four years ago: by 40,000, 24,000, and 8,600 respectively.

In looking deeper into these ballots cast, though, we can also see some partisan patterns emerging that could give an indication that the Democratic ground-game is back in full operation this year.

In looking at the trend lines for registered Democrats, Republicans and Unaffiliated voters casting ballots, all of them are above their 2008 numbers--with Democrats making considerable totals added to their numbers from four years ago.

Party Numbers by Cumulative Daily Totals from 2012 Early Voting (In-Person) to 2008's Early Voting (In-Person)

The next three charts detail the three different groups and their progress so far in the first four days of 2012 early voting in comparison to 2008's trend lines.

Registered Unaffiliated Voters in Daily Totals Casting Early Votes (In-Person)

Registered Republican Voters in Daily Totals Casting Early Votes (In-Person)

Registered Democratic Voters in Daily Totals Casting Early Votes (In-Person)

While all three groups of voters are above their 2008 trend lines, Democrats had impressive numbers in the first four days of early voting.

With that being said, a major qualifier must be made at this point: not all North Carolina registered Democrats will vote Democratic.  Granted, we know from exit poll data going back several presidential elections that self-identified partisans will typically vote 90% of the time for their party's candidate, but in the Tar Heel state, it is likely that some registered Democrats--who are older, white, conservative, and rural--are actually Republican voters.

So, while the numbers look good for Democrats, a major caveat has to be warned in reading into how these voters may be selecting their presidential candidate.

One other facet of early voters could be the racial composition. In 2008, black registered voters made up 22% of the entire electorate, but that combines both early voting and Election Day voting. Among early voters, black voters were 29% of all the early votes cast, with white voters being 67% of all the ballots cast in early voting.

In the first four days of early voting, black voters are 35% of the early votes cast and are building on their numbers from four years ago; white voters are down to 60% of the votes cast.  All other races--Asian, Native American, and others--are 5% of the votes cast so far; in comparison, they were only 1% of the early votes cast in 2008.

Daily Numbers from 2012 Compared to 2008 In-Person Absentee Ballots Cast in North Carolina by White and Black/African-American Voters 

I'll be posting more about the early voters casting ballots over the next two weeks, and will be posting some summaries at the other blog I write for, WFAE's The Party Line.

Just a reminder: in 2008, we had 4.3 million votes cast in the North Carolina presidential election, with 58% of those votes coming before Election Day.  While I'm not sure we will see a repeat of that 4.3 million total votes cast, I may be rethinking that due to the numbers of early votes we are seeing in just the first four days.

Sorting Our Polarized Politics

Note: This post was originally on WFAE's The Party Line website until the site underwent a change and was deleted. I'm reposting it for folks who are interested as we get closer to the election (thanks to Rick Short who asked for a repost).  

We read all the time about how “polarized” our nation is, and we see it in the “red versus blue” categorization, the way that the U.S. Congress behaves, even the animosity that seems to be driving the two parties at the local level against each other.

Over sixty years ago, the American Political Science Association released a report that said that the two major parties needed to be more “responsible” in the governing process.  In fact, the report argued that an active opposition is “most conducive to responsible government” and that “when there are two parties identifiable by the kinds of action they propose, the voters have an actual choice” (page 19).

So now we have parties that are truly different, and is it any surprise that we have the polarization now?  But there has to be a starting point—a foundation—for where that polarization begins. 

Some scholars of our nation’s politics believe that it starts from the top down—that the elites within the parties have sorted themselves into ideologically coherent divisions, and that the masses have followed right along with them.

But what about at the grassroots level?  Can we see the impact of two very different political parties at the local level?

In running some analysis on the recent redistricting of Mecklenburg’s County Commission districts, I came across an interesting analysis of the various precincts in the Great State of Meck: out of the county’s 195 precincts, only thirteen could be considered “toss-up” precincts, ones that could potentially go either Democratic or Republican when voting for president.

For the vast majority—137 precincts in Mecklenburg—the analysis showed that the one political party tended to dominant in those precincts: 72 precincts were “likely Republican” in their presidential voting patterns, while another 65 were “likely Democratic.” 

The way that I arrived at this analysis was to take the past two presidential elections in the precincts and look at the differences between the two party’s votes, in comparison to the county average’s for both party’s presidential candidates.  So, in 2004, John Kerry won Mecklenburg with 52% of the vote, while four years, Obama won with 61% of the vote—there’s your baseline. 

Then, I took each precinct and compared the performance of the presidential candidates against the county baseline; for example, in Precinct 56, Kerry won with 97% of the vote, and Obama captured 99% of the vote.  

Taking the differences between the precinct’s performance compared to the county  (45 and 38) and then averaging the two years together, you come up with a Partisan Voting Index for that precinct: for Precinct 56, it was 41% for the Democrats, or D+41.

Using a classification of anything over +10 on either side as “likely” to vote for that party, those between +3 and +10 as “lean” and anything below +3 as “toss-up” precincts, you can assign each precinct into one of these categories to see the voting behavior of Mecklenburg County by its various precincts:

What stands out to me is the sheer number of “likely” precincts that are either heavily Democratic or heavily Republican, based on presidential voting patterns.  With so very few “toss-up” precincts, Mecklenburg voters seem to have sorted themselves into politically segregated areas.

So what does this tell us?  Several years ago, Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing wrote “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.” They argue that, even though the nation is becoming more diverse, where Americans live is becoming more homogenous: that we live in areas where our neighbors think, live, and vote like we do. 

By looking at this phenomenon from the ground up, Bishop contends that Americans have “sorted” themselves into like-minded communities, and that by doing so, we have found ourselves in our current polarized state: “mixed company moderates; like-minded company polarizes. Heterogeneous communities restrain group excesses; homogeneous communities march toward the extremes” (page 68).

As North Carolinians head into the primary electoral season on May 8^th, it would be worth remembering that when we have conversations with folks of the opposite party, ending with people shaking their heads and saying “why don’t those folks just understand where I’m coming from,” it could be because they don’t live in a like-minded precinct as we do.

And therefore, voters have no reason to understand where the other side is coming from—and that we are shocked when we complain that our politics is so polarized.

What Influenced North Carolina's Vote on the Amendment?

In looking at the amendment vote across the state, we see some things that really shouldn’t surprise a lot of folks regarding the results, but then there are some aspects that, when you dig deeper in, are surprising. 

First, we heard a lot about the controversy within the black community regarding the vote on the amendment defining marriage, in particular the split between social conservatism and civil rights. 

In the counties with a black population of over 50 percent, support for the amendment was an average of 68%.  In these eight counties (Hertford, Edgecombe, Bertie, Northampton, Warren, Halifax, Vance, and Washington), voter turnout was at 36%, above the statewide average of 34%.

But what about the larger, urban areas, with pockets of minority voters in them? Did they vote like their rural counterparts?

In Mecklenburg County, 41 precincts are “majority-minority” precincts, with black voter population of 50% or more. These precincts voted, on average, 46% for the constitutional amendment, with majority-minority precincts in Mecklenburg voting 56% against the amendment.

Another difference between urban and rural black areas was voter turnout. Compared to the countywide turnout of 28% in Mecklenburg, majority-minority precincts had an average of 19% voter turnout.

More analysis will be needed, but the suspicion of a rural-urban divide seems to be more prevalent than the factor of race regarding the voting pattern on the constitutional amendment. I’ll be exploring more about that in later posts.

For now, what other factors may have influenced the vote for the constitutional amendment? With the aid of a statistical software program, I took the 100 county results for the amendment and ran several different factors that one would think would have some kind of effect on support for the amendment.

For example, the more a county voted for John McCain in 2008 (a sign of how Republican a county would be), would there be increased support for the constitutional amendment on marriage?  As found in Figure 1, that was indeed the case: the more a county was a McCain supporter translated into more support for the constitutional amendment on marriage.

Figure 1: North Carolina County Vote for McCain in November 2008 and the County’s Vote for the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage in May 2008

So if McCain support might indicate the level of support for the amendment, would the amount of support for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary indicate amendment support as well?

Figure 2: North Carolina County Support for Mitt Romney in the May 2012 Republican Presidential Primary and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

Well, there’s something: the more the county voted for Mitt Romney, the less likely it was to vote for the constitutional amendment.  Granted (for the stats geeks out there), the predictive power (aka, adjusted r²) is less than 5%, but this seems weird.

How about looking at the votes against Mitt? Would a county that cast more votes for the other Republican candidates (remember, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and “no preference” were still listed on the GOP primary ballot) show an increased amount of votes for the amendment?

Figure 3: North Carolina County Support for “Anybody but Romney” in the May 2012 Republican Presidential Primary and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

It appears that perhaps Republican support for the party’s presumptive nominee hasn’t quite solidified around Romney, as indicated by the fact that, statewide, one-third of Republican primary voters voted for someone other than Romney.

In the 63 counties that cast more than 33% against Romney in the GOP presidential primary, the average level of support for the constitutional amendment was 72%, nearly 11 points higher than the statewide result of 61% support.  And these counties, on average, voted 55% for John McCain in 2008 and has (again on average) 33% registered Republican voters—a sign perhaps that, in some key counties, the base of the Republican Party hasn’t been sold on Romney’s candidacy quite yet.

So, would the percentage of registered Republicans in a county have any indication of the level of support for the constitutional amendment?

Figure 4: North Carolina County Percentage of GOP Registered Voters and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

It would appear that as a county’s percentage of registered GOP voters increased, so to did support for the constitutional amendment. No real surprise there. But what about a county’s Democratic and unaffiliated registered voters?

One thing we saw in public opinion was as the primary date drew closer, the level of opposition by Democrats and unaffiliated voters seemed to swing against the amendment.  Public Policy Polling saw a majority of Democrats (53%) express opposition to the amendment, while unaffiliated voters were nearly evenly split (47-46%). Only Republicans were overwhelmingly for the amendment (80%).

In counties where the percentage of registered Democrats increased, there seemed to be a slight decline in support for the amendment.

Figure 5: North Carolina County Percentage of Democratic Registered Voters and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

In areas that saw increased percentages of registered unaffiliated voters, the trend was also more pronounced in voting against the amendment.

Figure 6: North Carolina County Percentage of Unaffiliated Registered Voters and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

One final analysis that I ran was the most surprising of them all. Since President Obama did win the Democratic presidential primary, he did pull only 79% of the support of Democrats and Democratic-unaffiliated voters in the state, with nearly 21% of the ballots cast expressing “no preference.” If one was to read that as a vote against Obama, what might have been the trend when voting for the constitutional amendment in comparison?

Figure 7: North Carolina County Percentage of Democrats Voting “No Preference” in the Presidential Primary and the County’s Support for the May 2012 Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

With a whooping r² of 57% (meaning, that 57% of the vote for the constitutional amendment could be explained by the Democratic “no preference” vote), this is the most surprising of the county-level analysis that I’ve seen: as counties voted more “no preference” against their presidential nominee (the president), the support for the constitutional amendment rose.

What I take away from this is that there is still the conservative North Carolina Democrat present, especially in rural counties of the state (note the rural counties in the upper-right corner, in comparison to the predominance of urban counties in the lower left corner). 

I’ll be looking at more of the internal party races in the next few entries, but seeing how these results line up against the upcoming general election will be some more fascinating analysis to look at. 

Let's Go Vote 2011

Well, a little over an hour to go before the polls close in Charlotte and I'm here in the WSOC newsroom. Great group to work with, as usual, and a lot of fun. Stay tuned for some updates on the Charlotte election races coming up.

Charlotte's Upcoming 2011 Election

With the 2011 election season coming to a close in the Queen City, I thought I would post a map with the precincts in Mecklenburg County color-coded using the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) that I developed for analyzing the voting behavior of precincts. As just a reminder of what makes up the PVI:

• For each precincts, I used the 2004 and 2008 presidential election returns in that precinct for each presidential candidate and subtracted the Mecklenburg County average. So, if Kerry got a county-wide average of 51% and a precinct gave him 61%, he got a +10; same for Obama in 2008; and then I averaged the two numbers.

So, when I did this for each precinct, I classified them into the following categories:

• Greater than +10: Likely precinct for the party


• Between +3 and +10: Lean precinct for the party


• Less than +3: toss-up precinct (read battleground)

The map is located here.

Notice that out of the seven city council districts, Districts 1-5 are pretty much "blue" and should elect Democrats, while Districts 6 & 7 are pretty "red" and should elect Republicans out of them. If you take all of the outside boundaries of the districts and consider those the Charlotte city limits, you'll see a pretty significant "blue" tint to the city limits.

While this map is not necessarily intended to indicate who will win or loose the mayoral race or the at-large council races next week, it's pretty indicative of Charlotte matching the national norm that urban areas go Democratic, while suburban areas (read outside the city limits within Mecklenburg) go Republican.

What really surprises me is the sense of "sorting" by Charlotte residents into areas that are heavily one party or the other. The notable scant numbers of "toss-up" precincts is one that really surprised me, but only confirms the findings of folks like Bill Bishop in his wonderful book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.

PVI Analysis of Mecklenburg County Precincts

Following the controversy of the North Carolina General Assembly stepping in and finalizing the district boundaries for the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, I looked at the precincts and their voting behavior at the presidential level to see about developing a Partisan Voting Index analysis. Using the 2004 and 2008 presidential election results at the county-wide level, here are the results for the 195 precincts:

• Likely Republican precincts (those precincts which, on average, voted 10% or above the county average for Republican presidential candidates in '04 & '08): 72



• Lean Republican precincts (those precincts which, on average, voted anywhere from 3-10% above the county average for Republican presidential candidates in '04 & '08): 19



• Toss-up precincts (those precincts which, on average, voted anywhere from +2 Republican to +2 Democrat, compared to the county average for presidential candidates in '04 & '08): 13



• Lean Democratic precincts (those precincts which, on average, voted anywhere from 3-10% above the county average for Democratic presidential candidates in '04 & '08): 26



• Likely Democratic precincts (those precincts which, on aveage, voted 10% or above the county average for Democratic presidential candidates in '04 & '08): 65

Here's a map depicting the precincts with their PVI classifications.

What is striking to me is how much Mecklenburg County is fitting into a model described by Bill Bishop in his book "The Big Sort" and in Dante Chinni and James Gimpel's work "Our Patchwork Nation." Bishop, in particular, notes that communities are "becoming even more Democratic or Republican. As Americans have moved over the past three decades, they have clustered in communities of sameness, among people with similar ways of life, beliefs, and, in the end, politics" (5).

In comparing the recent Mecklenburg County Commission districts, known as Stetson 5 and LM Plan B, we find that the districts break down as follows in both plans:

Stetson 5 plan (you can access the data here):

• Proposed District 1: R+10.8%


• Proposed District 2: D+23.5%


• Proposed District 3: D+22.5%


• Proposed District 4: D+10.0%


• Proposed District 5: R+14.4%


• Proposed District 6: R+14.6%

LM Plan B (you can access the data here):

• Proposed District 1: R+11.4%


• Proposed District 2: D+20.4%


• Proposed District 3: D+21.9%


• Proposed District 4: D+13.2%


• Proposed District 5: R+11.5%


• Proposed District 6: R+16.9%

Both of these plans basically draw districts designed to elect one party over the other, as was the charge of the current county commission to the redistricting committee.

Updated PVIs for proposed NC House & Senate districts

Since we're now on the 4th version of a redistricting map for the N.C. House and a 2nd version for the N.C. Senate, I thought it might be helpful to update the Partisan Voting Indices for the new proposed districts.

• PVI's for NC House (Lewis-Dollar-Dockham 4) here. In a nutshell, potential Likely/Lean Republican districts at 75, Likely/Lean Democratic districts at 36, leaving a total of 9 districts as potential "toss-up" districts. Here's a map of the districts sorted by Likely/Lean/Toss-up categories (see the below blog entry for a description of this approach).
  



• PVI's for NC Senate (Rucho 2) here. In a nutshell, potential Likely/Lean Republican districts at 31, Likely/Lean Democratic districts at 16, leaving at total of 3 districts as potential "toss-up" districts. Here's a map of the districts sorted by Likely/Lean/Toss-up categories.

Cook PVI for pre-2010 NCGA Elections

A couple of "followers" on Twitter asked "how would the Cook PVI have predicted the 2010 legislative elections?" Here are the charts, similar to the ones I produced below (looking at possibly classifications of the proposed redistricting maps), using 2004 and 2008 presidential election returns in the House and Senate districts.

• NC Senate Districts Analysis using Partisan Voting Index prior to 2010 Elections



• NC House Districts Analysis using Partisan Voting Index prior to 2010 Elections

A couple of points about this analysis:

In the NC House:

• In the "Likely Republican" districts, there were 4 districts that were held by Democrats. All four of them changed political hands as a result of the 2010 elections (as noted by being bold and italics)


• In the "Lean Republican" districts (26), there were 6 districts that were held by Democrats and those seats were captured by the Republicans in the 2010 elections. One (District 61) was won by an unaffiliated candidate.


• In the "Toss Up" districts (20), there were 11 districts that were rated with Republican PVI but held by Democrats; of those districts, 4 of them changed parties in the 2010 election.


• In the "Lean Democratic" district (10), one Democratic incumbent was defeated by a Republican (District 41).

In the NC Senate:

• In the "Likely Republican" districts (15), one went from Democratic control to Republican control (District 45).


• In the "Lean Republican" districts (11), 5 districts were held by Democrats; only one survived the 2010 election.


• In the "Toss Up" districts (6), 4 of those districts went from Democratic to Republican control in the 2010 election.


• In the "Lean Democratic" districts (5), one was captured by a Republican in the 2010 election.

Please remember--these districts prior to the 2010 election are not the same as the proposed districts, so comparisons are not applicable (apples & oranges).

Redrawing the Rules of the Game in North Carolina

Well, it’s been a fascinating week in North Carolina politics, due mostly to the redrawing the rules of the game of politics. The proposed district maps for the NC General Assembly have generated a lot of commentary and perspectives, along with the pending revisions to the congressional districts. In looking primarily at the state house and senate legislative districts, it would be helpful to have a “reference” point for dissecting these maps and their political importance in next year’s election.

THE HIGHLIGHTS:

What I have done is provided color-associated maps of the 120 new districts in the NC House of Representatives and the 50 new districts in the NC Senate, based on the approach that Charlie Cook takes with his analysis of U.S. House districts, known as the Partisan Voting Index, or PVI. The PVI uses the 2004 & 2008 presidential elections as a basis (see below) for the districts, and then classify the districts into five categories: “Likely Republican,” “Lean Republican,” “Toss Up,” “Lean Democratic,” and “Likely Democratic.” Based on the PVI model and classifications (see below), we could expect the following:

• In the "new" NC House of Representatives, 62 districts appear to be “likely” to elect one party over the other; within these 62 “safe” districts, there is a 33-29 advantage to the Republican Party.


• In the "New" NC Senate, 27 districts appear to be “likely” to elect one party over the other; within these 27 districts, there is a nearly even split between Democrats (14) and Republicans (13).


• It is within the districts that appear to “lean” to one party or the other that the Republicans could truly make substantial inroads to majorities in both chambers. In the NC House, 39 districts appear to lean to the GOP, while only 7 appear to lean to the Democrats. In the NC Senate, 16 districts appear to lean to the Republicans, with only 2 leaning to the Democrats.


• In terms of those districts classified as potential "toss-up" districts, both chambers have only ten percent of their seats within this category: 5 out of 50 senate seats and 12 out of 120 house seats could be competitive, based on their PVI scores.


• To document the partisan leanings of these five categories, you may find these analyses showing the averages within the five categories for the NC Senate and NC House districts as to registered party affiliation and the 2004 and 2008 presidential and gubernatorial election results in these new districts.

THE FINEPRINT—OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DISCLAIMERS:

First, some notes regarding how to read the attached maps and the PVI scores (in other words, the “disclaimer” portion of this analysis):

• Much like Charlie Cook’s analysis, these are not predictions on who will win the districts, but rather an objective measure to compare districts to one another. Charlie Cook’s Partisan Voting Index (PVI) utilizes a district’s presidential voting patterns against an average (his being national, mine being state-level for NC) for the past two presidential elections: 2004 and 2008. Each party’s presidential election result in the district has the party’s statewide average subtracted from it, and then the two figures are averaged for the PVI. The PVI shows the district’s proclivity of voting for each party at the presidential level (D+5 means the district would have voted, on average, plus five points Democratic), which may (or may not) filter down to lower-ballot races (see below for more on this point).


• The PVI is based on the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in North Carolina, which has its own set of cautionary tales. The 2004 presidential election was the classic retelling of a ruby-red presidential state, with George W. Bush winning the state by 13 percent. But when Democrat Obama came to make North Carolina competitive, he turned that ruby-red into a deep purple, winning the state by just 0.32 percent. When you have two elections of such extreme ends, the measurement probably will reflect that shift as well. My “political gut” leads me to believe that 2012 will probably be more like 2008 than 2004 (see the DNC in Charlotte, the Obama campaign “hinting” of NC’s importance to their re-election), with both political parties utilizing a massive ground-game of voter mobilization (the GOP learned from the Democrats in 2008, and brought out their ground game in 2010, thus winning the North Carolina General Assembly).


• Other analyses of these maps will most certainly utilize a combination of other factors—such as voter registration, down-ballot elections (auditor, lieutenant governor, etc.)—beyond what this analysis does. I certainly do not discount these factors, particularly voter registration, in analyzing these districts and their potential. Again, these maps that I present are not predictions, but indications of where these districts may perform in future elections. A lot of other factors—mobilization, candidate qualities, the role of campaign finance—will certainly make the equation much more difficult, and I readily acknowledge those factors.


• As noted above, North Carolina voters have a tendency to split their tickets: meaning, voters are willing to vote for one party for president, the other party for governor, switch back to the first party for U.S. Senate, and then back to the second party for state house, etc.


• Conversely, the 2008 exit poll for the November General Election showed that 89.9% of self-identified Democrats voted for Obama, while self-identified Republicans voted 93.3% for McCain. For both parties’ candidates for U.S. Senate and NC governor in 2008, at least 85% of self-identified partisans voted for their party candidate.


• Finally, when incumbents run for re-election, they are often hard to beat. The power of incumbency most often is due to name recognition, which challengers often must spend a disproportionate amount of money on to achieve some level of parity with the current officerholder.

So, with those caveats in mind, let me discuss each set of maps and their overall patterns, along with some other observations.

THE N.C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

• Lewis-Dollar-Dockham 1 Map indicating the PVI categories for districts (here is the map posted on the NCGA website that only show the different districts)


• Listing of districts by the PVI categories: this one is sorted by district number within the category, while this one is sorted by the PVI from most Republican to most Democratic within the categories

The PVI analysis of the new legislative districts indicates that 33 districts will most likely go Republican, while another 29 districts will most likely go Democratic, providing a fairly equal base of support for each party to build upon. Within almost all of these districts, the margins of victories at the presidential level were translated to the parties’ gubernatorial candidates, and the winning party’s legislative candidates benefited as well (some more than their presidential & gubernatorial candidates). In addition, the percentages of registered voters appear to benefit the winning party as well. The one exception is the Democratically-held District 69, which has a VPI of +12 Republican. It is hard to imagine that Democratic incumbent Representative McGuirt would hold on in this plurality Republican-registered district, but again, incumbency may prove beneficial.

The most Republican districts in the House appears to be Districts 73 (Alexander-Wilkes-Yadkin) and 78 (Randolph & Moore), with R+20 PVI ratings. The most Democratic district appears to be District 29 (Durham), with a PVI rating of D+37.

So both parties start with solid bases, but it is in the “lean” categories where the apparent success of redrawing the lines has paid off for the Republicans: 39 districts are classified as "Lean Republican," with 9 of these districts currently being held by Democratic incumbents. Of these 9, four districts (35, 45, 55, and 59) that Democrats currently hold appear as “open” seats, presenting viable opportunities for the opposing party (Republicans) to pick these seats.

Conversely, only 7 districts "Lean Democratic," with two of them being open seats—another challenge for Democrats to hold on to these seats.

Within the twelve competitive “Toss Up” districts, most of the districts have slight Republican advantages, but some are truely battleground competitive: districts 66 (that includes Richmond, Scotland, Hoke, and Robeson counties) and 41 (Wake) will be the ones, most likely, by which to judge next year’s elections by, as their PVIs indicate an even split between the two parties.

A few more observations: in the districts that are held by Democrats but indicate a “lean Republican” status, half of them share a common characteristic: voters who like to split their tickets. In both 2004 and 2008, four proposed districts voted Republican at the presidential level and voted Democratic at the gubernatorial level. How this will translate even further down ballot is to gaze into the political crystal ball.

As noted above, one House District—69 (Union)—currently held by the Democrats will almost inevitably go Republican, due to the past voting history at the presidential and gubernatorial level (no less than 16% victories for Republicans) and registered Republicans making up 41% of the electorate, compared to 32% registered as Democrats.

Among the Democratic-held districts that are classified “Toss Ups,” they again share the characteristic as their “lean Republican” brethren—that of split ticket voting: Republican at the presidential level, Democratic for governor.

If it’s a consolation to the Democrats, two Republican-held districts (6 (Washington, Beaufort, and Craven) & 46 (Columbus & Robeson)) that are “lean Republican” show the split ticket phenomenon as well. But these two districts also have their Republican incumbent double-bunked with Democratic incumbents, so these should be ones to watch next year, if all four incumbents decide to run within these new districts.

In the Republican-held “Toss Up” category, these districts appear to be ones where the Obama grass-roots mobilization had a significant effect, going from an average 20% Republican advantage in 2004 to, in one case, 0.05% Democratic advantage.

The end result: it appears that the Republicans have truly made their base of winnable districts much stronger than the Democrats. If Republicans were to only take those districts in the “Likely” and “Lean” columns, they would have a safe majority in the NC House of Representatives, starting with 72 seats. The map detailing these seats and classifications are here (same as the above link; deep red is a district with a Republican PVI greater than 10, while districts in green are “toss-ups,” and dark blue are districts with Democratic PVIs greater than 10).


THE N.C. SENATE:

• Rucho 1 Map indicating the PVI categories for districts (here is the map posted on the NCGA website that only show the different districts)


• Listing of districts by the PVI categories: this one is sorted by district number within the category, while this one is sorted by the PVI from most Republican to most Democratic within the categories

Across the marble hall on Jones Street, the Senate shows some commonality with the House districts, but also some oddities as well. Both parties have a strong list of “likely” seats, with Republicans appearing to have 13 to the Democrats’ 14 districts. But again, like in the House, it is in the “Lean” columns where Republicans have made substantial inroads: 16 “lean” GOP districts (with four of those being held currently by Democrats) to only 2 “lean” Democratic districts (and no GOP districts are “lean Democratic”). Starting at a potential 29 seats, the GOP would, like in the House, already begin the 2012 contest with a significant majority in the 50-member upper chamber. The five districts that are truly “toss-ups” are just that—they could conceivably break either way.

The districts that appear the most Republican in the Senate are 29 (Moore & Randolph) and 30 (Stokes, Surry & Wilkes), both at R+15, while the district that appears to be the most Democratic is 28 (Guilford) with D+31 PVI.
There are some oddities, however, in the Senate. For example, Senate District 13 is held by a Democratic incumbent, but listed as “lean Democrat,” simply because it went only 2 and 6 points for the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 and 2008, respectively. More importantly, however, it went 38 and 39 points for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, so even though the PVI shows a limited average for Democrats, this should be a safe seat for the party.

The four other Democratic-held seats that “Lean Republican” (new districts 1, 18, 25, and 27) show strong Republican performances in 2004, with three of them again splitting in 2008 (voting for McCain while electing a Democratic state senator).

Five senate districts are classified as "toss-ups," with the potential to go to either party, based on 2008 election performances.

The end result in the Senate: like in the House, if Republicans only gain those seats listed in the "Likely Republican" and "Lean Republican" columns, they will have a majority of 29 and control the upper-chamber as well. The map detailing these seats and classifications are here (same as the above link; deep red is a district with a Republican PVI greater than 10, while districts in green are “toss-ups,” and dark blue are districts with Democratic PVIs greater than 10).


One last comment: for those seeking truly competitive elections, it may be disheartening to have only 5 out of 50 senate seats, and 12 out of 120 house seats, where either party could claim victory. So, for 89 out of 170 seats up for grabs in the North Carolina General Assembly next year (those "likely" seats), we may know in the primary election who will hold the seats come the general election. Welcome to the world of partisanship and gerrymandering.

I'd like to thank the NC Free Enterprise Foundation for their very useful comparison charts on the NC House & Senate districts.