100% on this. I took the position that California should not respond with even more partisan cheating, which I think hurts more than helps. That view has not been very popular so far with the people I know. Glad to see support for the very basic point that gerrymandering is cheating. Here's my opposition to gerrymandering California ->
Good analysis. If the SCOTUS does say that you can’t create majority minority districts, would that be good or bad for Democrats? My first thought would that it would be bad for dems because politicians in the South could dilute majority black districts.
Very interesting analysis. And the midterms will have lower turnout and a different set of voters, which may favor Democrats.
From another perspective, Trump's popularity is likely to be even lower, given that economic conditions probably will be worse. If that unpopularity still transfers to loss of House seats, Dems may survive the extreme gerrymandering. Gallup's average (as of 2018) was a loss of 37 seats for unpopular Presidents. In 2018, Republicans lost 40 House seats with Trump's popularity at 44% (UCSB).
Republican state Rep. Todd Hunter, who drafted the new map, said, “The underlying goal of this plan is straightforward: improve Republican political performance."-----Cheating is cheating! Karma will come for you Todd Hunter....and your R colleagues too! Thanks Elliott for the new phrase..." I have little patience for partisan fuckery." Partisan fuckery should be added to Webster!
I live in gerrymandered Indiana. Too many Democrats here have given up and will not run, so often candidates are last minute additions. We need people who will run effective campaigns even though the odds are long and then run again if they lose, since it is hard for Democrats to get known in Indiana. Here in the 2nd Congressional district, if we had had an effective candidate in 2022, when the Republican incumbent died in a car accident, that candidate would have had a fighting chance. While some people wanted to jump into the race at that point, there had already been a primary with an unopposed but not effective candidate, so there was no changing of horses in mid-stream in the months before the election.
I agree that we need a method of representation that more fairly represents our population. Ending gerrymandering through constitutional amendment is what is needed. Also, there is a cap on how many representatives can be in the House. That means that the ratio of representative to constituents is increasing every year, which means that it is harder and harder to get one's voice heard.
How many potential Democratic pickups would be possible from gerrymandering in Illinois and New York under plausible response maps? Unilateral disarmament has been explicitly argued against by Pritzker and Hochul recently.
Democratic states may face more state court pushback on such moves than Republicans led states but I’m curious nonetheless. And because such gerrymandering is obviously cheating there may be no limiting principle in how far additional gerrymandering will go in response to cheating by the other party. That is, this could escalate to near complete state gerrymanders, where some states effectively create shutouts of the opposing party if it’s mathematically possible with any possible map. (Even without reaching that point this could also lead to a legitimacy crisis where Congress doesn’t recognize certain state delegations).
In NY, I think the issue for 2026 is that changing the maps & drawing partisan maps would require a change to the state constitution and the process for that is voting for the change in two consecutive years.
In IL, the map is already heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats, 14-3.
IL-13 connects SL suburbs, Springfield, and Champaign (home to U of IL) with Republican district 15 wrapping almost completely around it. IL - 17 connects Bloomington-Normal (home to IL State) with Rock Island and Moline and Rockford. It’s completely surrounded by Republican districts 16 & 15. The three Republican districts are more Republican than the Democratic districts around them. As you can see it’s a creatively drawn map.
I suppose it might be possible to take away IL-16 if they were willing to draw a sun burst map radiating out of Chicago, but that might destroy Latino and African American districts protected by the voting rights act and thus get thrown out.
I would say that IL did in 2021, what TX is passing this week.
This ignores the fact that based on Trump Popular Vote, he won 230 House seats. But due to poor GOP candidates in swing seats, they only won 220 seats. So if you base your model on House seats rather than Trump Popular Vote, it makes the map look better for Dems than actually is. If Republicans just stop nominating bad candidates in swing seats it would take an even greater Popular Vote percentage for Democrats to win the House.
Repigs will of course do anything (and by that I mean Stalin- or Hitler- grade anything, including political violence by cronies and maga-adjacents / sturmabteilungen and weaponizing government institutions) to stay in power. This is no longer about winning elections, it's an existential struggle. While it was obvious in 2024, voters did not see this coming.
I have wondered if in a down year for Republicans whether gerrymandered suburban districts that cut out portions of big cities could actually be winnable by moderate democrats.
Or these districts will generate competitive primaries, where non-cultist Republicans may have a shot.
100% on this. I took the position that California should not respond with even more partisan cheating, which I think hurts more than helps. That view has not been very popular so far with the people I know. Glad to see support for the very basic point that gerrymandering is cheating. Here's my opposition to gerrymandering California ->
https://www.activevoice.us/p/gerrymandering-california-is-not
Why aren’t you counting redistricting in blue states other than California?
Good analysis. If the SCOTUS does say that you can’t create majority minority districts, would that be good or bad for Democrats? My first thought would that it would be bad for dems because politicians in the South could dilute majority black districts.
Very interesting analysis. And the midterms will have lower turnout and a different set of voters, which may favor Democrats.
From another perspective, Trump's popularity is likely to be even lower, given that economic conditions probably will be worse. If that unpopularity still transfers to loss of House seats, Dems may survive the extreme gerrymandering. Gallup's average (as of 2018) was a loss of 37 seats for unpopular Presidents. In 2018, Republicans lost 40 House seats with Trump's popularity at 44% (UCSB).
Republican state Rep. Todd Hunter, who drafted the new map, said, “The underlying goal of this plan is straightforward: improve Republican political performance."-----Cheating is cheating! Karma will come for you Todd Hunter....and your R colleagues too! Thanks Elliott for the new phrase..." I have little patience for partisan fuckery." Partisan fuckery should be added to Webster!
I live in gerrymandered Indiana. Too many Democrats here have given up and will not run, so often candidates are last minute additions. We need people who will run effective campaigns even though the odds are long and then run again if they lose, since it is hard for Democrats to get known in Indiana. Here in the 2nd Congressional district, if we had had an effective candidate in 2022, when the Republican incumbent died in a car accident, that candidate would have had a fighting chance. While some people wanted to jump into the race at that point, there had already been a primary with an unopposed but not effective candidate, so there was no changing of horses in mid-stream in the months before the election.
I agree that we need a method of representation that more fairly represents our population. Ending gerrymandering through constitutional amendment is what is needed. Also, there is a cap on how many representatives can be in the House. That means that the ratio of representative to constituents is increasing every year, which means that it is harder and harder to get one's voice heard.
How many potential Democratic pickups would be possible from gerrymandering in Illinois and New York under plausible response maps? Unilateral disarmament has been explicitly argued against by Pritzker and Hochul recently.
Democratic states may face more state court pushback on such moves than Republicans led states but I’m curious nonetheless. And because such gerrymandering is obviously cheating there may be no limiting principle in how far additional gerrymandering will go in response to cheating by the other party. That is, this could escalate to near complete state gerrymanders, where some states effectively create shutouts of the opposing party if it’s mathematically possible with any possible map. (Even without reaching that point this could also lead to a legitimacy crisis where Congress doesn’t recognize certain state delegations).
In NY, I think the issue for 2026 is that changing the maps & drawing partisan maps would require a change to the state constitution and the process for that is voting for the change in two consecutive years.
In IL, the map is already heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats, 14-3.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_districts
IL-13 connects SL suburbs, Springfield, and Champaign (home to U of IL) with Republican district 15 wrapping almost completely around it. IL - 17 connects Bloomington-Normal (home to IL State) with Rock Island and Moline and Rockford. It’s completely surrounded by Republican districts 16 & 15. The three Republican districts are more Republican than the Democratic districts around them. As you can see it’s a creatively drawn map.
I suppose it might be possible to take away IL-16 if they were willing to draw a sun burst map radiating out of Chicago, but that might destroy Latino and African American districts protected by the voting rights act and thus get thrown out.
I would say that IL did in 2021, what TX is passing this week.
This ignores the fact that based on Trump Popular Vote, he won 230 House seats. But due to poor GOP candidates in swing seats, they only won 220 seats. So if you base your model on House seats rather than Trump Popular Vote, it makes the map look better for Dems than actually is. If Republicans just stop nominating bad candidates in swing seats it would take an even greater Popular Vote percentage for Democrats to win the House.
If Republicans nominated better candidates those candidates who win more votes and that would shift the total House vote towards Republicans, no?
But certainly candidate quality matters.
Repigs will of course do anything (and by that I mean Stalin- or Hitler- grade anything, including political violence by cronies and maga-adjacents / sturmabteilungen and weaponizing government institutions) to stay in power. This is no longer about winning elections, it's an existential struggle. While it was obvious in 2024, voters did not see this coming.
If course it's cheating. That is what Rs do in most arenas and in none other as consistently as voting.
I have wondered if in a down year for Republicans whether gerrymandered suburban districts that cut out portions of big cities could actually be winnable by moderate democrats.
Or these districts will generate competitive primaries, where non-cultist Republicans may have a shot.
This is what happened in 2018!