DeLay's net gain

Long as I'm in a quibbling mood, I need to point out an error in this Hotline post about CD23.

[Congressional guru Rich] Cohen also makes one other point. This is now the second seat in TX this cycle that has switched hands from the GOP to the Dems as a result of Tom DeLay's re-redistricting efforts. The other seat, of course, was DeLay's. So the net result for the GOP based on DeLay's re-redistricting was all of 2 seats. Was that really worth all the hassle and the subpoenas and courtroom dramas? Many a Republican is probably wondering that same thing tonight, in particular, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Henry Bonilla.

Far be it from me to offer any balm to Tom DeLay, but Cohen's math is funny, to say the least. I left the following comment on the post, which apparently hasn't been approved yet:

Two?

The Dems lost TX-01 (Sandlin), TX-02 (Turner), TX-04 (Hall, who switched parties), TX-09 (Lampson, who ran in the new TX-02), TX-19 (Stenholm), and TX-32 (Frost). They went from 17 members to 11. Now that Lampson is in TX-22 and Rodriguez has ousted Bonilla in TX-23, they have 13 members. That looks a lot like a net four seat loss. Even if you discount Hall, who was a true DINO that should have switched along with Phil Gramm in the 80s, that's three seats down. Cohen's math makes no sense.

Maybe a four seat gain isn't worth it, either - ideally, for DeLay, the GOP would have netted seven seats, but Chet Edwards spoiled that plan in 2004. And I, at least, believe that some other districts might be susceptible to a better-funded Democratic attack in 2008, which would render DeLay's scheme even less meaningful. But let's not overdo it just yet. His scheme was very costly to the Democrats, both in terms of caucus size and seniority. Some of that has now been regained, but there's still a long way to go.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 14, 2006 to Election 2006 | TrackBack