Quantcast
Home / Election 2012 / Projected legislative district advantages held up — mostly

Projected legislative district advantages held up — mostly

Projected legislative district advantages held up — mostlyWith the 2012 election now in the rearview mirror, the results show that the number-crunching done last year by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was nearly spot on.

Most legislative races turned out within a few points of the commission’s predictions, though their figures slightly underestimated Democratic performance this year.

The estimated partisan advantage most used by political consultants was the state redistricting commission’s “competitiveness index 8,” which used data from past elections, weighting recent elections more and excluding blow-out races.

Among the Senate’s 16 contested races, only two contests deviated significantly from the Index 8 projections.

In Legislative District 5, Republican Kelli Ward not only handily beat her Democratic opponent by 42.4 percentage points, she outperformed the projected 29-point Republican advantage calculated for the district.

Central Phoenix’s Legislative District 24 also saw Sen.-elect Katie Hobbs outpace her district’s calculated 21.6-point Democratic edge, beating newcomer Republican Augustine Bartning by 32.7 points.

One perhaps surprising result, if only for how close the final vote came to the projected partisan advantage, was the fight over the Tempe- Mesa LD26 Senate seat. There Democratic Rep. Ed Ableser beat Republican Sen. Jerry Lewis by 13.7 points — only one-tenth of 1 percent away from the 13.6-point projected Democratic edge.

Though Lewis had been redistricted into a much more Democratic district than his old Mesa district, many had predicted a strong cross- over vote for the man who beat the iconic former Sen. Russell Pearce in the 2011 recall campaign.

Taking all contested Senate races into account, Democrats outperformed the redistricting commission’s projections more frequently than Republicans, at 10 of 16 races, but the average shows only two-tenths of a percentage point Democratic overperformance.

On the House side, a similar trend emerged, with 10 of the contested 17 districts showing a Democratic overperformance that averaged 1.2 percentage points.

Three House races showed significantly different results from the projected partisan advantage.

Republican Rep.-elect Ethan Orr from Tucson’s LD9 came in second in his race, but nonetheless won a House seat and turned a 7.2-point projected Democratic edge into a practical draw.

Democrat Dave Joseph who ran for the House in the Pinal-centric LD11 against Reps.-elect Steve Smith and Adam Kwasman, narrowed the projected 16.6-point projected Republican advantage by seven points.

And in northeast Phoenix, in LD28, Eric Meyer beat the projected 9.6- point Republican advantage by 8.9 points.

 

LD Index 8 Projected Republican Perfromance Index 8 Projected Democratic Performance 2012 General Election Republican Performance – Senate 2012 General Election Democratic Performance – Senate Difference – Senate
1 65.8% 34.2% uncontested uncontested uncontested
2 43.2% 56.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
3 31.3% 68.7% uncontested uncontested uncontested
4 45.8% 54.2% uncontested uncontested uncontested
5 64.5% 35.5% 71.10% 28.70% 13.40% GOP overperformance
6 53.8% 46.2% 53% 46.90% 1.50% DEM overperformance
7 36.5% 63.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
8 51.1% 48.9% 46% 48.90% 5.10% DEM overperformance
9 46.4% 53.6% 44.20% 55.70% 4.30% DEM overperformance
10 47.8% 52.2% 45.30% 54.60% 4.90% DEM overperformance
11 58.3% 41.7% 56.30% 43.60% 3.90% DEM overperformance
12 66.2% 33.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
13 64.5% 35.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
14 60.3% 39.7% 58.40% 38.20% 0.40% DEM overperformance
15 61.5% 38.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
16 61.1% 38.9% 64.00% 35.90% 5.90% GOP overperformance
17 58.2% 41.8% 57.10% 42.70% 2.00% DEM overperformance
18 51.7% 48.3% 53.00% 46.80% 2.80% GOP overperformance
19 39.6% 60.4% uncontested uncontested uncontested
20 56.9% 43.1% 50.10% 36.80% 0.50% DEM overperformance
21 57.9% 42.1% 59.50% 40.30% 3.40% GOP overperformance
22 63.2% 36.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
23 61.6% 38.4% uncontested uncontested uncontested
24 39.2% 60.8% 33.50% 66.20% 11.10% DEM overperformance
25 64.6% 35.4% 66.50% 33.30% 4.00% GOP overperformance
26 43.2% 56.8% 40.20% 53.90% 0.10% DEM overperformance
27 28.5% 71.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
28 54.8% 45.2% 55.50% 44.30% 1.60% GOP overperformance
29 41.5% 58.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
30 43.9% 56.1% uncontested uncontested uncontested

 

 

LD Index 8 Projected Republican Perfromance Index 8 Projected Democratic Performance 2012 General Election Republican Performance – House 2012 General Election Democratic Performance – House Difference – House
1 65.8% 34.2% uncontested uncontested uncontested
2 43.2% 56.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
3 31.3% 68.7% uncontested uncontested uncontested
4 45.8% 54.2% uncontested uncontested uncontested
5 64.5% 35.5% 64.60% 34.90% 0.70% GOP overperformance
6 53.8% 46.2% 54.20% 45.60% 1.00% GOP overperformance
7 36.5% 63.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
8 51.1% 48.9% 52.70% 47.10% 3.40% GOP overperformance
9 46.4% 53.6% 50% 49.60% 7.60% GOP overperformance
10 47.8% 52.2% 46.60% 53.20% 2.20% DEM overperformance
11 58.3% 41.7% 54.70% 45.10% 7.00% DEM overperformance
12 66.2% 33.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
13 64.5% 35.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
14 60.3% 39.7% 61.10% 38.70% 1.80% GOP overperformance
15 61.5% 38.5% 60.30% 39.40% 2.10% DEM overperformance
16 61.1% 38.9% 54.30% 33.10% 1.00% DEM overperformance
17 58.2% 41.8% 54.40% 45.20% 7.20% DEM overperformance
18 51.7% 48.3% 48.90% 42.10% 3.40% GOP overperformance
19 39.6% 60.4% uncontested uncontested uncontested
20 56.9% 43.1% 54.10% 45.10% 4.80% DEM overperformance
21 57.9% 42.1% 59.20% 40.70% 2.70% GOP overperformance
22 63.2% 36.8% uncontested uncontested uncontested
23 61.6% 38.4% uncontested uncontested uncontested
24 39.2% 60.8% 33.00% 56.70% 2.10% DEM overperformance
25 64.6% 35.4% 62.50% 37.10% 3.80% DEM overperformance
26 43.2% 56.8% 36% 52.10% 2.50% DEM overperformance
27 28.5% 71.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
28 54.8% 45.2% 44.80% 44.10% 8.90% DEM overperformance
29 41.5% 58.5% uncontested uncontested uncontested
30 43.9% 56.1% uncontested uncontested uncontested

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top