The Green[e]house Effect: a Weblog

The hullaballoo surrounding the map centers on how the court plan gives Democrats 'only' 88 safe seats. The term 'safe seat' describes districts that for whatever reason — large black voting age populations, high concentrations of singles or people with advanced degrees, traditional loyalty to Democrats — have populations that tilt so hard to the left that no right-minded Republican [pardon the pun] would compete there.

So that adds up to 88 seats that Democrats can pocket with barely an effort. Before we hit the panic button, though, we need another stat: how many districts does a party have to hold in order to control a majority?

Did I hear a 91? Ding ding ding! Gold star for that answer.

So, to recap: if Democrats hold their safe seats and win three swing seats, the gavel remains in the party's hands. That prospect should have progressives frozen in the headlights? Please.

The map presents some challenges — especially on the Senate side, where a quick count shows that Republicans have more safe seats than Democrats. Looking back to the House, the court lumps a few inside-the-Perimeter progressives into districts together, and leaves a some others facing tough demographics.

That said, though the Democratic Party has cause to worry, the worst hazards face bourbon conservative legislators from south of the fall line — that is, career legislators known for conservative stances on social issues and a business-friendly outlook on economic policy. To some extent, progressives never had those votes. With some of those districts shifting to the Atlanta suburbs, it bears mentioning that Republicans from the metro region often have better environmental voting records — by far — than rural south Georgia Democrats.

So keep your chins up, and put away the funeral music. We ain't dead yet — and what with new swing districts to contest, progressives can forgive themselves for feeling tempted to look at the new maps as a hidden opportunity.