must be gettin' a good education up yonder, above penn-alabama-sylvania

Just out of curiosity: what are the equivalent numbers for the Southeast/Old Confederacy? Regional polarization has been going both ways, at least in the East, and if it's a bad sign for Republicans (I think it is), what does it mean for Democrats in the Northeast?

PQuincy, I don't know the numbers for Southern Democrats offhand, but I do know the number of Democrat Representatives from Alabama is two: Artur Davis (AL-7) and Parker Griffith (AL-5). So the situations aren't really mirror images.

You should add a color-coded map of the region. Would be nice to see all that blue and two little bits of red.

I love your observation!

Equal Opportunity Cynic:

You forgot DINO Blue Dog Bobby Bright (AL-3).

Davis is leaving his seat to run for Gov, so we may be back to our usual 2 soon.

This represents a HUGE victory for conservatives!
You betcha!

I suggest that we refer to anything below Pennsylvania "Medieval Times" from now on.

Martin,

Thanks for pointing that out. Griffith is also a DINO in some ways (the successor to Bud Cramer), in that you win North AL by delivering the defense pork.

That really makes the point -- Alabama has more Democratic reps than the US north of PA has Republicans. Wow.

So those seven states north of PA also have 14 Senators, and three of those are Republican. One of whom is retiring next year. So for a total of 65 national legislative members from the region a grand toral of five are in Republican hands. And it may be fewer after 2010 if NH replaces Gregg with a Dem. It must be damned lonely being a Northeastern Republican.
And I know there are at least 2 Dem congresscritters from TN, with the 3 from Ala and a few from MS the south already has more Dem representatives than the Northeast has Reps. Maybe if you only went old Confederacy would you find the equivelent dearth, but I doubt it. I'm trying to say, though rather poorly, the Republican hold in the South isn't as absolute.

@Dee Loralei:
Old South? Well, the capital of the Confederacy was Richmond...and Virginia currently has 11 Representatives and 2 Senators. Six of the 11 Representatives are Dems, as are both Senators, for a total of 8 out of 13 Dems.

I'd say the Dems are a lot more relevant in the South than the Reps are in the NE.

And this explains why you will have to put up with Democratic congressmen that are pro-life and fiscal hawks... because there are still people in these districts that care about these issues. That they may not be opposed to gay marriage or "Big Government" and can argue their points without calling their opponents "traitors" or "fascists" is probably the only difference between them and what used to be called a mainstream Republican.

Don't forget the Republicans only have 2 of the 14 Senators. Those are probably the 2 most liberal Republican Senators in the country.

Sometimes it is important to have moderates represent your party in Congress because if we only want liberals or only want conservatives then the party that forces the litmus test will get smaller.

Having Bayh and Nelson with us for 80% of the votes, and over 90% of the critical votes, beats the alternative of a conservative Republican voting against us 90% of the time and 100% of the time when it counts.

So, north of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 congressional districts representing 34 million people. Republicans have a whopping two seats.

Michael Steele is right--the GOP is obviously on the march back to majority status!

Er, Tennessee has five Democrats and four Republicans; SC has two Dems out of six. NC has eight Dems out of thirteen. KY has two out of six. MS [!] has three out of four, as does AR. GA has six out of thirteen. TX has twelve of thirty-two. FL has ten of twenty-five. VA has six of eleven. That's a total for the Old CSA plus KY of 57 out of 123. Guys, this stuff is available right on the same computer you're using to comment.

This is the inevitable result of 40 years of the "Southern Strategy." The Republican Party has no "Northern Strategy" except to try and Southernize the North. Sending boobs like bad country singer John Rich up there to peddle his brand of Southern-fried belligerence and smarmy condescension is simply not going to work on skeptical, independent-minded Yankees. Rural New York is never going to be Alabama. These are not easily manipulable people and they resent outsiders who blithely assume that they are.

The Republicans remind me of the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, who loses both arms, both legs, and still insists that he is winning the battle. . .

So, how long will it take before FOX News begins to blame Hoffman's loss on massive voter fraud orchestrated by ACORN!?

The Dems have more seats in the South than the Rethugs in the North because Dems tolerate DINOs while Rethugs are no longer tolerating RINOs. Northeast Republicans were always more liberal than the party as a whole just as Southern Democrats are usually more conservative than the Democratic Party as a whole. Given the weird system we have, it is better to be in the Dem situation for winning elections, but it's hard to govern with members of the party like Landrieu and Lincoln that can't be relied on. I wish we could switch to a Parliamentary system, but alas!

Since the 19th century? It is my understanding that this district elected a Democrat in 1993- anyone???

David in Nashville. The numbers are great, and sometimes one blogs in haste...sorry for my laziness.

But this makes me wonder about the "Repubs are becoming a Southern party" meme. It never seemed quite right because of the West, where there are plenty of Repubs who don't act that differently from southern ones, for all the rhetoric about the 'libertarian West.' But now it seems it isn't even that true in the South.

OK, back to my real questio: so, is a monolithically blue Northeast a risky thing for the Democrats? At least part of Corzine's defeat, in addition to his own ineffectiveness as a candidate, was the fact that the Dems have run NJ for 15 years, but property taxes are still exorbitant, local governments innumerable and corrupt, and problems persistent in a few problem areas (Newark, Camden, Trenton), though most of the state is doing pretty well. In a time of general anxiety, it's hard for Dems in NJ to avoid blame when 'nothing's improved' after a decade's lock on the state government. (Whether that's a fair judgment, or not).

New York keeps switching its district numbering around. This particular part of the world has had, I think, three different numbers in the past twenty years.

Mid-19th century, really? First since 1850 or so?

EdtheRed said:
Well, the capital of the Confederacy was Richmond

The second capitol of the Confederacy. ;>

The original was Montgomery, AL. Admittedly, only for a few months, but they do have a cottage industry based on it here.

Up next: Mike Denklau vs. Steve King http://www.denklauforcongress.com/vision.html