Official 2023-24 Redistricting Thread

[Millennial_Messiah]

To piggyback on Will Hunting 's https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297153 thread


Not as many states up this time, but it's still relevant that a handful of states are in court and under legislation and could still be overturned and we could get new maps in certain states for 2024 to 2030.

North Carolina is the most obvious one given the state supreme court flipped (and the Democrats have about half the seats at present and that can easily change due to redistricting) but on the flipside Ohio could still possibly change their maps depending on a final ruling that was never finalized; a state like Illinois and/or Florida could be ruled a partisan gerrymander by the SCOTUS; Michigan's map violated the VRA in and around Detroit, and there's a chance the SCOTUS could completely throw out the VRA pertaining to U.S. house maps at some point in 2023, likely netting the GOP possibility of drawing out Democrat seats in certain majority-black districts in the Deep South if the case is still in litigation.

We'll see.

[Winehole23]

The Ohio case was dirty as it gets, pure contumaciousness and foot dragging.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The Ohio case was dirty as it gets, pure contumaciousness and foot dragging.
Will Hunting

Is this what you meant by "drawing out Cincinnati"? It still leaves the seat vulnerable in a blue wave environment, but it's about Trump +7 nonetheless... (as is district 7 which includes all of Lake County and all the Cuyahoga suburbs around district 11 which is all of Cleveland and the innermost bluest suburbs)

Complies with all the following anti-gerrymandering Ohio constitution rules:

-Every district must be entirely contained within a county, or contain at least one whole county.
-The largest city in every county must not be cracked, with the exception of Columbus, due to its population being larger than a district.
-Each county may only be cracked into 2 districts maximum, with the exception of Franklin County which can be cracked no more than 3 ways.
-Each district cannot share counties with the same district more than 2 times (to prevent "snake" districts)
-Each district must be contiguous and as even as possible in population.

https://i.imgur.com/LqIhrBL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tWOdfn7.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/dXzi4AM.jpg

[Will Hunting]

Will Hunting (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17032)

Is this what you meant by "drawing out Cincinnati"? It still leaves the seat vulnerable in a blue wave environment, but it's about Trump +7 nonetheless... (as is district 7 which includes all of Lake County and all the Cuyahoga suburbs around district 11 which is all of Cleveland and the innermost bluest suburbs)

Complies with all the following anti-gerrymandering Ohio constitution rules:

-Every district must be entirely contained within a county, or contain at least one whole county.
-The largest city in every county must not be cracked, with the exception of Columbus, due to its population being larger than a district.
-Each county may only be cracked into 2 districts maximum, with the exception of Franklin County which can be cracked no more than 3 ways.
-Each district cannot share counties with the same district more than 2 times (to prevent "snake" districts)
-Each district must be contiguous and as even as possible in population.

https://i.imgur.com/LqIhrBL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tWOdfn7.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/dXzi4AM.jpg
No, there's a better way to draw it, and for the love of god turn off county lines and precinct lines when you're screenshotting a congressional map like that :lol

This is what the western half of the state looks like with a maxed out gerrymander. Don't feel like drawing the Eastern half but you get the point. The Cincinnati district is Trump +11, which is enough to make it pretty unwinnable outside of a 2008-level blue wave election.
https://i.ibb.co/gRTLbSr/Western-Ohio.png

[Millennial_Messiah]

This is what the western half of the state looks like with a maxed out gerrymander. Don't feel like drawing the Eastern half but you get the point. The Cincinnati district is Trump +11, which is enough to make it pretty unwinnable outside of a 2008-level blue wave election.
https://i.ibb.co/gRTLbSr/Western-Ohio.png

That's a good map and not actually ridiculous looking, though my main concern in that instance would be shoring up OH-10 as Dayton is sprawling and growing and there's a huge hipster, music, and gay scene there. That area is getting farther left than say the northern Columbus suburbs. The votes may not reflect that yet, but the experience and the people sure do.

Your OH-10 would be blue or close to it by 2026 imo or in a blue wave type of instance.

I suppose the way around it would be to figure out how to draw all of Dayton and the southern part of Montgomery county between Dayton and Warren county, probably into OH-15. Since OH-10 including all of Springfield (not a huge blue city or anything, but decent sized biggest city of its county and close to 50/50 partisan) helps make your OH-12 redder despite ingesting a large dose of Columbus proper.

[Millennial_Messiah]

SCOTUS should force redraw Illinois IMO. I mean, seriously, Pritzker/Duckworth won by 12.0% on the nose, 55-43%. And you're going to tell me that the congressional delegation in IL should be 14 out of 17 (83%) Democrat? What a scam...

The Ohio rules should be forcefully applied to Illinois and every other state, IMO.

Snake districts should be illegal.

Give DeSantis some credit in FL, at least he drew a clean map, even if he took out a VRA district but that was a snake district regardless. Pritzker's map is snakes and ladders while DeSantis's map is neat shapes and whole counties. There's a difference.

[Winehole23]

Pie in the sky atm

1621259249988018177

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pie in the sky atm

1621259249988018177

The population at the time of the founding was around 30M I think. We have over 10 times that much now.

[Winehole23]

The population at the time of the founding was around 30M I think. We have over 10 times that much now.~3.9 million in 1790

[Will Hunting]

SCOTUS should force redraw Illinois IMO. I mean, seriously, Pritzker/Duckworth won by 12.0% on the nose, 55-43%. And you're going to tell me that the congressional delegation in IL should be 14 out of 17 (83%) Democrat? What a scam...

The Ohio rules should be forcefully applied to Illinois and every other state, IMO.

Snake districts should be illegal.

Give DeSantis some credit in FL, at least he drew a clean map, even if he took out a VRA district but that was a snake district regardless. Pritzker's map is snakes and ladders while DeSantis's map is neat shapes and whole counties. There's a difference.
:lmao "neat shapes and whole counties" what a crock of shit

The DeSantis map violates the Ohio rules in countless way

Ohio rule - counties can't be split more than 3 ways
Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Orange, and Polk are all split 4 ways...Dade and Broward are excusable but there's absolutely no reason Orange or Polk need to be split 4 ways

Ohio rule - every district should be contained entirely within 1 county or contain an entire county
FL districts 5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 & 26 violate this rule. The idea that the Florida map does a good job at containing whole counties in districts is retarded, it splits counties left and right for completely partisan reasons

Ohio rule - If a city is big enough to contain more than one district, the redistricting body must attempt to include a significant portion of that city in one district
This rule applies to Jacksonville and the Florida map almost split Jacksonville's population exactly in half (Jacksonville has 950k people and 460k people were put in FL04 while 490k people were put in FL 05); there's an obvious way to draw a Jacksonville district contained entirely within Duval County and it obviously wasn't attempted

Ohio rule - if the biggest city in a county is smaller than one district but has more than 100,000 people, it may not be split
Florida map splits St. Petersburg, Tampa, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami & Lakeland

[Winehole23]

New York politics is gnarly

1679498680972242945

[Winehole23]

1680917842558869505

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJdTOwfXYAEb50b.jpg:large

[Winehole23]

1680997874434293764

[Winehole23]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Gesture_fist_with_thumb_through_fingers.jpg


A three-judge district court—which included two Trump appointees—found (https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AL-caster-20220124-order-granting-PI.pdf) that this map violated the Voting Rights Act by denying minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In June, the Supreme Court agreed, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices to uphold the district court’s ruling. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/alabama-republicans-supreme-court-voting-rights-dare.html

[Millennial_Messiah]

1680917842558869505

I believe it, and as an alumni I approve of it. Lot of dumb mindless hippies there. Especially those that choose to reside on campus past freshman year. All the conservative kids are moving out to apartments or greek life houses after freshman year.

The voting age should be raised to 25. That precinct is probably closer to 60-40 D if you do that. Virtually all of the older, conservative, non trad students live off campus.

People are too stupid to vote under that age, especially in today's modern era. In 1789, eighteen made sense, since college wasn't particularly a thing back then and people were grown-ups much younger and lived shorter lives. Today, absolutely not.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Gesture_fist_with_thumb_through_fingers.jpg

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/alabama-republicans-supreme-court-voting-rights-dare.html
They didn't rule on Section II specifically though of the VRA, which still has the potential to be thrown out. If it does, expect status quo at minimum and in a couple cases even further gerrymandering to the right, not the left.

[ElNono]

They didn't rule on Section II specifically though of the VRA, which still has the potential to be thrown out. If it does, expect status quo at minimum and in a couple cases even further gerrymandering to the right, not the left.

That's exactly what they ruled on.

The issue presented is whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.

Held: The Court affirms the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2.

SCOTUS opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf

[Millennial_Messiah]

That's exactly what they ruled on.

The issue presented is whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.

Held: The Court affirms the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2.

SCOTUS opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf

Yes, they ruled that Alabama's longstanding map violated section II which is stupid because that's the map that's been in place for over a decade and the incumbents have been in there a long time, but that's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a separate ongoing legal case with Louisiana being the plaintiff that is trying to throw out section II altogether claiming that it is both archaic and unconstitutional (14A I believe, could be slightly off with that one) to be forced to draw US congressional districts based on race/skin color. SCOTUS is hearing that case, and if they overturn THAT, then THAT supercedes the Alabama ruling from last month because, while it did violate a then-negated rule, since the rule is negated, then not just Louisiana but also Alabama and any map currently in litigation would be free to be re-drawn by the state legislature without consideration of the then-overturned Section II rule.

It's a coin flip chance that Louisiana wins the case, but if they do, considering the Democrats challenged it so hard, expect the GOP to go as radical as possible. While you probably can't draw out the Democrat district in Louisiana due to geography, you certainly can in Alabama. Georgia and SC are also in litigation and while you can easily draw out GA-02, though it's a fairly respected long time incumbent, drawing out the Democrat in SC probably wouldn't happen due to geography. NC gerrymander is going to happen and Dem incumbents are going down. However their early proposals don't draw out NC-01 Don Davis. I wonder if it's because this district is section II protected or simply because they are okay with the guy.

Florida drew out a section II district last year (albeit a snake district) and it mostly went under the radar. Based DeSantis actually drew the map himself.

On the bright side for Dems, a negation of section II of the VRA means the Dems don't have to redraw (or can even re-draw more favorable, to solidify their fragile incumbents' seats for example) the maps in Michigan and Pennsylvania, since both states have Democrat majorities in the state legislatures and Democrat governors to not veto. The VRA concern was especially an issue in Detroit metro and the nearby I-75 corridor up to Flint, where black communities were cracked in order to solidify Democrat seats in the area, and Pittsburgh, where two Democrat seats instead of the more natural one were created from cracking Pittsburgh and its black-majority eastern suburbs.

[ElNono]

Yes, they ruled that Alabama's longstanding map violated section II which is stupid because that's the map that's been in place for over a decade and the incumbents have been in there a long time, but that's not what I'm getting at.

They're not stupid, they simply can't rule on things that are not in front of them. Given that ruling, the notion that Section II is going anywhere is patently absurd.

And ultimately, what you arguing for is what's generally been the slow but steady downfall of the GOP, tbh. The need to grossly gerrymander is a tacit admission that your ideas can't get traction. THAT's the actual problem, not the temporary patchwork.

[Winehole23]

M_M gets the facts wrong again, all wishcasting.

[Millennial_Messiah]

They're not stupid, they simply can't rule on things that are not in front of them. Given that ruling, the notion that Section II is going anywhere is patently absurd.

And ultimately, what you arguing for is what's generally been the slow but steady downfall of the GOP, tbh. The need to grossly gerrymander is a tacit admission that your ideas can't get traction. THAT's the actual problem, not the temporary patchwork.
Drawing districts based on race IS gerrymandering and inherently racist. That's what the left fails to understand.

While I would argue that the original map is a bit of a gerrymander because you're cracking Montgomery, the new proposed map argues that it keeps communities of interest together by keeping all of Montgomery County (including all of Montgomery city itself) together in District 2. This results in a very purple District 2, because you have Montgomery County with about 40% of the population of the district that votes like Fulton County Georgia and is strong black-majority. . But it's drawn together with a bunch of rural counties which vote red by dictator margins and is 60% of the population of the district. The newly created district 2 overall is 43% black, 41% white non-hispanic, 16% other/mixed, and thus black-plurality and thus should be allowed to stand. The 50% threshold is racist and retarded.

So it's a toss up seat but the incumbent (R) should have an advantage in all but the bluest of blue wave years because they're an incumbent and well-funded and the Alabama GOP is well-funded and competent for the most part, outside of the Roy Moore fiasco they've been solid.

[Winehole23]

DeSantis seldom wins in court.


A state judge struck down North Florida’s congressional districts Saturday, rebuffing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ open defiance of anti-gerrymandering protections, finding the governor’s map illegally reduced Black voters’ electoral power.

DeSantis had wagered the state’s Fair Districts Amendment against the U.S. Constitution, arguing mandatory protections for Black voters violated the Equal Protection Clause; Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh flatly rejected that gamble, rendering a decision that could reverberate from the halls of Tallahassee to the streets of Jacksonville, paving the way for a new, Democratic district where Jacksonville’s Black voters have more influence.

Marsh refused to bite on DeSantis’ claim that the state’s Fair Districts Amendment violated the U.S. Constitution, saying DeSantis’ secretary of state and the Legislature didn’t even have standing to make such an argument.

“The Secretary can point to no case finding the non-diminishment language of the Fair Districts Amendment, nor the comparable Section 5 language of the Voting Rights Act, to violate the Equal Protection provision of the 14th Amendment,” Marsh wrote.

Later, he continued, “The judicial branch alone has the power to declare what the law is, including whether the Florida Constitution’s provisions are themselves unconstitutional.”

Marsh’s ruling was limited to North Florida after plaintiffs abandoned claims that other districts also violated the state constitution.https://jaxtrib.org/2023/09/02/florida-redistricting-lawsuit-overturns-desantis-map-empowers-black-voters/

[Winehole23]

Redistricting cases in Louisiana and Alabama coming soon, new maps likely to be drawn.

[Winehole23]

Alabama fucking around, ignoring (http://https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1701296964766408794?s=20) court orders.

1701296964766408794

[Winehole23]

Shelby County (Alabama) vs Holder, re the preclearance requirement: "There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.

[Winehole23]

Wishful thinking is the law of the land

[Winehole23]

Thomas Hofeller really screwed this country up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/07/once-secret-files-gerrymandering-strategist-show-gop-misled-court-watchdog-group-claims/

1704668896060444825

[Winehole23]

Wisconsin Republicans are desperate to preserve their extreme partisan gerrymandering. Justice Protasiewicz's description is factually correct.

1706171718677442678

[HemisfairArena]

Wine Ho,,,the cherry picker doing his thing as usual,,,,but democrat gerrymander just like republicans,,,,,lmao

Court rules N.Y. Democrats gerrymandered congressional map (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/court-rules-ny-democrats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549)


ALBANY, N.Y. — New York state Democrats engaged in gerrymandering (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/aggressive-gerrymandering-may-make-elections-far-less-competitive-experts-say-n1284179) when drawing new congressional district boundaries for the next decade, a panel of five mid-level appellate judges ruled Thursday.

what do you say now, Wine Ho?,,,you bitches trying to stack the deck also for the next decade,,,,,

[Winehole23]

Wine Ho,,,the cherry picker doing his thing as usual,,,,but democrat gerrymander just like republicans,,,,,lmao

Court rules N.Y. Democrats gerrymandered congressional map (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/court-rules-ny-democrats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549)


ALBANY, N.Y. — New York state Democrats engaged in gerrymandering (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/aggressive-gerrymandering-may-make-elections-far-less-competitive-experts-say-n1284179) when drawing new congressional district boundaries for the next decade, a panel of five mid-level appellate judges ruled Thursday.

what do you say now, Wine Ho?,,,you bitches trying to stack the deck also for the next decade,,,,,NY politics is bareknuckled and crooked in a number of ways, as I've pointed out many times here.

Their bad doesn't make yours right, nor is NY comparable to Wisconsin in the severity of the bias in appportionment.


Thirteen years ago, Wisconsin politicians drew new district lines behind closed doors and, in defiance of the state constitution, crafted maps that essentially guaranteed one-party control of the legislature.

This was borne out in 2018 when, despite winning 53% of state Assembly votes cast statewide, Democrats only ended up with 36% of the seats.https://campaignlegal.org/update/wisconsin-voters-should-choose-their-leaders-not-other-way-around

[Winehole23]

Aside, NY Dem governors tend to make common cause with Republicans on certain things, like judicial appointments. Cuomo was notorious for uniting with the right against the left wing of his own party, but Hochul does it too sometimes.

[Winehole23]

Wisconsin has a gerrymandered GOP Senate supermajority despite having a roughly the same amount of voters as the Dems statewide. There's not another US state that compares closely.

[Winehole23]

Ohio has ignored seven state Supreme Court orders to redraw their maps more fairly, the desperate contempt for voters and clinging to power is impressive there too.

[Will Hunting]

Wisconsin Republicans are desperate to preserve their extreme partisan gerrymandering. Justice Protasiewicz's description is factually correct.

1706171718677442678
They’re just pissing into the wind. If they impeach Janet Evers gets to pick her replacement, and unless the impeach and remove prior to 12/01 (unlikely), that replacement holds office until 2031.

The democrats (barely) control enough institutions in Wisconsin to prevent Robin Vos from being a totalitarian shadow governor.

[Will Hunting]

Ohio has ignored seven state Supreme Court orders to redraw their maps more fairly, the desperate contempt for voters and clinging to power is impressive there too.
They got a federal judge to issue an order last year that saved them.

The Republican justice in Ohio who hated gerrymander and just retired, Maureen OConnor, is leading the charge to gather signatures on an independent commission ballot amendment that mandates maps need to be drawn proportionally.

If it gets on the ballot in 2024 it’ll almost surely pass and Ohio would have new maps by 2026.

Meanwhile the Dems were smart to withdraw their pending lawsuit over the existing maps. if the Ohio GOP redrew those maps they’d likely make it even more one sided and put Kaptur + Landsman in jeopardy of losing.

[Thread]

Ohio has ignored seven state Supreme Court orders to redraw their maps more fairly, the desperate contempt for voters and clinging to power is impressive there too.

You too don't pay one bit of attention to the SC. So, it's only fair that we ignore them as well.

Let us proceed...

[Will Hunting]

Alabama’s SCOTUS petition was just rejected. They’ve exhausted all possible avenues now, a 2nd black district is happening.

[Will Hunting]

One of these three maps is getting selected, and all of them create two majority black voting age population district that are safe D the rest of the decade.

1706428711279472793

[Will Hunting]

This is where redistricting changes for 2024 stand, ranked in order of significance:

New York - the COA is set to hear the lawsuit in November. If the new liberal majority actually lets Dems gerrymander, they net 4-5 seats. This is a coin flip imo.
North Carolina - It's not a matter of if but when the maps get redrawn, which will net Republicans 3-4 house seats.
Ohio - Map is going to remain as is, and I think all 5 Dem incumbents hold their seat in 2024.
New Mexico - Even though it's a liberal state supreme court, it's not overly hackish and I think it forces a new map that nets the Rs a seat.
Utah - Similar to New Mexico, it's a supreme court that's conservative but not hackish at all. I think it forces a redraw w/ a blue Salt Lake City seat.
Georgia - pending VRA lawsuit in Federal court. I still think this one is a longshot but my understanding is that Georgia's lawyers have grossly mismanaged the trial so far.
Alabama - Dems are guaranteed to net a seat now.
Louisiana - Similar lawsuit as what Dems filed in AL that now has a real chance at success since SCOTUS is clearly upholding VRA Section 2, but I still think a 2nd black district in Louisiana isn't as clear as one in AL.
Florida - The Florida GOP has (strangely) already admitted that the current map violates state law, and it's banking on a ruling that said state law violates the (U.S.) constitution. Even though the FL Supreme Court is hackish, they don't have standing to rule something violates the US constitution, and idk how they get around Florida admitting that gutting Al Lawson's district violates state law.

[Millennial_Messiah]

This is where redistricting changes for 2024 stand, ranked in order of significance:

New York - the COA is set to hear the lawsuit in November. If the new liberal majority actually lets Dems gerrymander, they net 4-5 seats. This is a coin flip imo.
North Carolina - It's not a matter of if but when the maps get redrawn, which will net Republicans 3-4 house seats.
Ohio - Map is going to remain as is, and I think all 5 Dem incumbents hold their seat in 2024.
New Mexico - Even though it's a liberal state supreme court, it's not overly hackish and I think it forces a new map that nets the Rs a seat.
Utah - Similar to New Mexico, it's a supreme court that's conservative but not hackish at all. I think it forces a redraw w/ a blue Salt Lake City seat.
Georgia - pending VRA lawsuit in Federal court. I still think this one is a longshot but my understanding is that Georgia's lawyers have grossly mismanaged the trial so far.
Alabama - Dems are guaranteed to net a seat now.
Louisiana - Similar lawsuit as what Dems filed in AL that now has a real chance at success since SCOTUS is clearly upholding VRA Section 2, but I still think a 2nd black district in Louisiana isn't as clear as one in AL.
Florida - The Florida GOP has (strangely) already admitted that the current map violates state law, and it's banking on a ruling that said state law violates the (U.S.) constitution. Even though the FL Supreme Court is hackish, they don't have standing to rule something violates the US constitution, and idk how they get around Florida admitting that gutting Al Lawson's district violates state law.

so, basically, barring long shot cases in GA/LA/FL, the GOP likely maintains a narrow House majority in 2024, somewhere in the 220-225 ballpark,

assuming NY/NC cancel out (I believe the NY Dems gain at least a couple flips even with the current map, even if no Dem gerrymander), AL gains one Dem, Yvette Harrell wins back her seat. The one flip I can see in Ohio is the Amelia Sykes district based around Akron and Summit County. Trump will win that in 2024 and Sykes isn't exactly some juggernaut incumbent having narrowly defeated Madison Gilbert who was a piss poor candidate in an open purple seat. Additionally, Marcy Kaptur's seat will be much more difficult in 2024 than 2022 because (a) she won't be facing Majewski, and (b) she'll have to WAY overperform Biden to win because Trump is going to win that seat by near -or- double digits. I still think Kaptur gets it done because she's loaded, huge war chest etc, but it will be close.

I believe Trump on the ballot will cost Cartwright re-election in PA and possibly Susan Wild as well. Spanberger in central VA seems to be not running for re-election, so if that's the case that could be a flip, 50/50 chance. Similar goes for Michigan's 7th open seat with Slotkin not up for re-election in that seat, with Trump at the top of the ticket. I would wager that Kildee would hold MI-08, even if Trump narrowly wins that district.

Presidential election years generally favor incumbents. Zinke's seat could be close if Tester wins that western Montana district (even though he'll likely lose overall). I think Schweikert and Bacon hold on one more time in a general election year, narrowly, and probably go down in 2026, similar to Chabot in 2022. WA-03 will flip back red, and OR-05 has a better than even chance of flipping back blue IMO. Duarte and Valadao will have to overperform Trump in their districts but they are trending red so they have a fighting chance.

Another wild card is Nevada, which has 3 incumbent Dems in all districts that will be close at the presidential level, and if Trump does win Nevada which is about a 50/50 chance, they could get one or more flips there, but I'm assuming for this purpose that the 3 Dems all hold. It's going to be a dogfight.

Oh and one other thing I forgot - which may straight up cancel out the Alabama thing - Alaska possibly getting rid of RCV ahead of the '24 election, and/or not having 2 in-fighting GOP House candidates against Mary Peltola. Should be a flip on a Trump + double digit presidential election ticket if it's more of a one-on-one, especially without RCV.

Hence 220-225 R, 210-215 D. It will be close.

[Ef-man]

Southern MAGAs cucked again. :lol

Alabama gets new congressional map that could yield Democrats a second seat in the state


A federal court on Thursday approved a new congressional map in Alabama that significantly boosts the Black population of a second district and could represent a pickup opportunity for Democrats in next year’s elections.

The action by the three-judge panel – along with the outcomes of several other closely watched redistricting cases around the country – could help determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after 2024. Republicans currently have a narrow majority in the chamber.

https://www.cnn.com/alabama-congressional-map-ruling (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/alabama-congressional-map-ruling/index.html)

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Southern MAGAs cucked again. :lol

Alabama gets new congressional map that could yield Democrats a second seat in the state


A federal court on Thursday approved a new congressional map in Alabama that significantly boosts the Black population of a second district and could represent a pickup opportunity for Democrats in next year’s elections.

The action by the three-judge panel – along with the outcomes of several other closely watched redistricting cases around the country – could help determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after 2024. Republicans currently have a narrow majority in the chamber.

https://www.cnn.com/alabama-congressional-map-ruling

That was probably worst case scenario for Dems though. That new 2nd district includes the Black Belt counties and has a roughly 50% black population, but those are rural, low turnout counties. I'd say with funding advantages down there and slight but sure trends amongst rural blacks, the GOP probably still carries that seat by a slim margin.

Outside of Montgomery County that district is still going to be heavy red and the Dems will need abnormally high black turnout in their favor -- in a district that's only 50% black -- to actually flip that seat.

[Will Hunting]

This is where redistricting changes for 2024 stand, ranked in order of significance:

New York - the COA is set to hear the lawsuit in November. If the new liberal majority actually lets Dems gerrymander, they net 4-5 seats. This is a coin flip imo.
North Carolina - It's not a matter of if but when the maps get redrawn, which will net Republicans 3-4 house seats.
Ohio - Map is going to remain as is, and I think all 5 Dem incumbents hold their seat in 2024.
New Mexico - Even though it's a liberal state supreme court, it's not overly hackish and I think it forces a new map that nets the Rs a seat.
Utah - Similar to New Mexico, it's a supreme court that's conservative but not hackish at all. I think it forces a redraw w/ a blue Salt Lake City seat.
Georgia - pending VRA lawsuit in Federal court. I still think this one is a longshot but my understanding is that Georgia's lawyers have grossly mismanaged the trial so far.
Alabama - Dems are guaranteed to net a seat now.
Louisiana - Similar lawsuit as what Dems filed in AL that now has a real chance at success since SCOTUS is clearly upholding VRA Section 2, but I still think a 2nd black district in Louisiana isn't as clear as one in AL.
Florida - The Florida GOP has (strangely) already admitted that the current map violates state law, and it's banking on a ruling that said state law violates the (U.S.) constitution. Even though the FL Supreme Court is hackish, they don't have standing to rule something violates the US constitution, and idk how they get around Florida admitting that gutting Al Lawson's district violates state law.
Updates:
-Alabama is resolved
-I was wrong about New Mexico, Dems got a favorable district court ruling from an R judge
-5th circuit ruled against Dems in LA and I doubt SCOTUS intervenes to help Dems in LA like it did in AL

[Will Hunting]

That was probably worst case scenario for Dems though. That new 2nd district includes the Black Belt counties and has a roughly 50% black population, but those are rural, low turnout counties. I'd say with funding advantages down there and slight but sure trends amongst rural blacks, the GOP probably still carries that seat by a slim margin.

Outside of Montgomery County that district is still going to be heavy red and the Dems will need abnormally high black turnout in their favor -- in a district that's only 50% black -- to actually flip that seat.
:lol the district voted for Biden by 12% in 2020 and Hillary by 10% in 2016.

Even Katie Britt lost the district by 0.5% last year as probably the highest quality senate candidate Rs recruited against a no-name candidate who had no state or national support from Dems (Britt won by 36% statewide, overperforming Trump by 12%).

You're just completely makings stuff up with "heavy red outside of Montgomery County" :lmao...if you exclude Montgomery County, the district voted for Biden by 4% in 2020.

I don't really understand why the special master left some heavily black precincts in Mobile, Tuscaloosa & Birmingham outside of the two VRA seats, but this seat is still likely D in a presidential election and lean D in an adverse midterm environment for Dems.

Mississippi is the only state where the Dems would be at serious risk of losing a 49% black VAP seat...the old adage about how "there's the deep south and then there's Mississippi" is still true with white voter trends in the area. As red as Alabama's white voters are, they're not staunchly homogenously red the way MS's voters are.

[Will Hunting]

Anyway, the GOP's point about how Alabama is now gerrymandered to create two black districts isn't entirely without merit, but that's due to the federal laws the GOP refuses to change, so it's their own fault.

The obvious way to draw a fair map in Alabama be for the blue seats to be (1) a ~Biden +10 Birmingham area seat that includes all of Jefferson County, and (2) a ~Biden +15% blackbelt seat that includes Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, Selma, Tuskegee, but doesn't have the arm that stretches into Mobile the way the current district does, except the only way that's going to happen is if the GOP agreed to federal redistricting guidelines + a gerrymandering ban that replaces VRA section 2.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

:lol the district voted for Biden by 12% in 2020 and Hillary by 10% in 2016.

Even Katie Britt lost the district by 0.5% last year as probably the highest quality senate candidate Rs recruited against a no-name candidate who had no state or national support from Dems (Britt won by 36% statewide, overperforming Trump by 12%).

You're just completely makings stuff up with "heavy red outside of Montgomery County" :lmao...if you exclude Montgomery County, the district voted for Biden by 4% in 2020.

I don't really understand why the special master left some heavily black precincts in Mobile, Tuscaloosa & Birmingham outside of the two VRA seats, but this seat is still likely D in a presidential election and lean D in an adverse midterm environment for Dems.

Mississippi is the only state where the Dems would be at serious risk of losing a 49% black VAP seat...the old adage about how "there's the deep south and then there's Mississippi" is still true with white voter trends in the area. As red as Alabama's white voters are, they're not staunchly homogenously red the way MS's voters are.
yeah, in MS even the (white majority) college towns are quite red, while in AL they are at least purple with plenty of blue precincts.

I still think if the incumbent runs on incumbency alone they can survive in a presidential year, but won't survive say 2026 if Trump wins. AL is a state where the GOP generally way out-fund the Dems. If the incumbent in jeopardy just outright retires, like what Kinzinger and that other IL GOP guy did after the IL Dems gerrymandered that map to shit, it's going blue for sure in '24

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Anyway, the GOP's point about how Alabama is now gerrymandered to create two black districts isn't entirely without merit, but that's due to the federal laws the GOP refuses to change, so it's their own fault.

The obvious way to draw a fair map in Alabama be for the blue seats to be (1) a ~Biden +10 Birmingham area seat that includes all of Jefferson County, and (2) a ~Biden +15% blackbelt seat that includes Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, Selma, Tuskegee, but doesn't have the arm that stretches into Mobile the way the current district does, except the only way that's going to happen is if the GOP agreed to federal redistricting guidelines + a gerrymandering ban that replaces VRA section 2.
Honestly both the original map and the court ordered map are ugly gerrymanders. What does Mobile have to do with the black belt? Nothing. Why lump the blackest precincts only of both Birmingham and Montgomery together but none of the rest of the county? Not good, either.

The GOP's argument that makes the most sense is that due to geography they absolutely have zero shot at representation in the pasty-white but generally secular Northeast, despite having 30-40% of the population be conservatives up there... but yet in the south the roles are reversed but they're forced to draw blue districts over skin color, which is racist and ridiculous in 2023.

[Will Hunting]

I still think if the incumbent runs on incumbency alone they can survive in a presidential year, but won't survive say 2026 if Trump wins. AL is a state where the GOP generally way out-fund the Dems. If the incumbent in jeopardy just outright retires, like what Kinzinger and that other IL GOP guy did after the IL Dems gerrymandered that map to shit, it's going blue for sure in '24
:lmao what fucking incumbent are you even talking about? Moore and Carl got double bunked in the same Mobile - Enterprise seat. There is no incumbent in the new VRA seat. Moore is the closest thing there is to an incumbent and only 37% of the seat includes his old district. Are you seriously claiming the "incumbency advantage" he ostensibly has with 268k people in a 717k district is going to lead to him overperforming Katie Britt in a presidential year when black turnout is much higher?

Also this "funding" argument is retarded. No shit that historically the R was better funded than the Dem in a safe red Alabama seat. Are you seriously arguing that's not going to change at all when the seat becomes the easiest pickup opportunity? The Dems not funding Alabama isn't a law of physics, it's done intentionally since there's no reason to fund unwinnable races.

[Will Hunting]

The GOP's argument that makes the most sense is that due to geography they absolutely have zero shot at representation in the pasty-white but generally secular Northeast
They should stop being so toxic to educated people with an IQ above 85 then. It's their own fault that New Englanders think they're retarded and homogenously vote against them.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

They should stop being so toxic to educated people with an IQ above 85 then. It's their own fault that New Englanders think they're retarded and homogenously vote against them.
It's more about religion and culture wars. Very few evangelicals up there. Most people in the northeast who are not liberal are either libertarian or moderate. Many of which still vote Democrat because they associate Republicans with evangelism. They'll vote for a Sununu or Phil Scott or even a Susan Collins type occasionally, but anyone remotely associated with being too religious is a hard no for them.

[Will Hunting]

It's more about religion and culture wars. Very few evangelicals up there. Most people in the northeast who are not liberal are either libertarian or moderate. Many of which still vote Democrat because they associate Republicans with evangelism. They'll vote for a Sununu or Phil Scott or even a Susan Collins type occasionally, but anyone remotely associated with being too religious is a hard no for them.
Yeah like I said, New Englanders think they’re retarded (not wrong since evangelicals are incredibly braindead useless people).

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Yeah like I said, New Englanders think they’re retarded (not wrong since evangelicals are incredibly braindead useless people).

I agree with you on evangelicals, but they're also voting for the party that wants to pay minorities free taxpayer money just because their ancestors (not them) were enslaved and/or treated poorly by segregation laws a very very long time ago (triple digit years). They're voting for the party that literally hates and wishes to replace white people and infest the country (all fifty states not just the Southern border states) with more millions of immigrants with questionable pasts, many of whom are criminals, have no money and need welfare, and don't speak English. They're voting for the party that preaches thinly veiled population control, similar to Communist China but by trickery instead of by force.

I'm an atheist, was born an atheist and will always be an atheist, but I'm not down with voting with the party of the ultra woke, particularly normalizing counterculture such as convincing more and more people that they were born the wrong gender or sexuality and need to go trans or gay to be accepted. To get gender change operations and render themselves permanently infertile for life. Beyond that, AI and automation has been a net negative on life, not positive. Free trade, once a GOP-positive issue and something many Dems fought against, now is a mainstream Democrat position, and helps all other countries not America. Similar goes for foreign wars and foreign intervention... the Dems literally had a blue tsunami in 2006 (that's still helping you in 2023 and into 2024 btw, consider Jon Tester, the WV seat, Sherrod Brown are still incumbents for now, and others from the class of '06 like Bob Casey are likely to keep his seat another 6 years, etc) specifically over Bush's handling of the Iraq War and all of the violence overseas, and now it's the Dems who want to send troops and billions to Ukraine and Israel to police the world yet again just like they said they wouldn't in 2006 and other years because they wouldn't repeat Bush's mistakes.

[Thread]

I agree with you on evangelicals.

It's a great word to say though, ain't it? Makes ya hungry for like jelly beans---those black ones.

[boutons_deux]

State repugs Expected the supreme Court would okay their racial gerrymandering

What happened in Alabama is a warning to every other Confederate and Red State that it's going to happen to them

[Will Hunting]

State repugs Expected the supreme Court would okay their racial gerrymandering

What happened in Alabama is a warning to every other Confederate and Red State that it's going to happen to them
Not really.

Alabama's black population is compact enough to draw 2 black districts, and Alabama's lawyers were way too careless in how many facts they let the plaintiffs establish at the district court level.

There's almost no chance the pending VRA lawsuits are successful in LA, SC and GA.

Not because they don't have merit but because Kavanaugh would have never sided with the libs on this if Alabama's argument wasn't so terrible.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Not really.

Alabama's black population is compact enough to draw 2 black districts, and Alabama's lawyers were way too careless in how many facts they let the plaintiffs establish at the district court level.

There's almost no chance the pending VRA lawsuits are successful in LA, SC and GA.

Not because they don't have merit but because Kavanaugh would have never sided with the libs on this if Alabama's argument wasn't so terrible.

SCOTUS/7th Circuit Federal court should force redraw IL if for no other legal reason than diluting minority populations in metro Chicago for no other reason than partisan gerrymandering. While, in IL the metro area (i.e., the Dem base) is big and populated enough for the Dems to have a delegation majority, around 10-7, the geography is simply not there for a 14-3 delegation majority without a very ugly gerrymander cracking metro Chicago many many ways and bravo, it's currently the ugliest gerrymander standing in the entire USA at present. Also, as I've long withheld, 10-7 is representative of the state's current vote margin, similar to 5-2 in Alabama.

The rest of the maps I'm mostly okay with... in Ohio for example, you at least have Democrat representation in every major metro area. It remains to be seen if NY or NC will redraw and gain 2-4 seats in each direction, but I'm guessing if one will, the other will. Or NY can simply rely on the likelihood that 2022 was a fluke due to Lee Zeldin being top of the ticket.

[Will Hunting]

SCOTUS/7th Circuit Federal court should force redraw IL if for no other legal reason than diluting minority populations in metro Chicago for no other reason than partisan gerrymandering. While, in IL the metro area (i.e., the Dem base) is big and populated enough for the Dems to have a delegation majority, around 10-7, the geography is simply not there for a 14-3 delegation majority without a very ugly gerrymander cracking metro Chicago many many ways and bravo, it's currently the ugliest gerrymander standing in the entire USA at present. Also, as I've long withheld, 10-7 is representative of the state's current vote margin, similar to 5-2 in Alabama.

The rest of the maps I'm mostly okay with... in Ohio for example, you at least have Democrat representation in every major metro area. It remains to be seen if NY or NC will redraw and gain 2-4 seats in each direction, but I'm guessing if one will, the other will. Or NY can simply rely on the likelihood that 2022 was a fluke due to Lee Zeldin being top of the ticket.
1) your justification for redrawing Illinois is idiotic…there’s no VRA issues there to sue over.

2) your argument for why Ohio isn’t a gerrymander is just incoherent partisan hackery…”every major city has a Dem seat!” is just an arbitrary criteria you’re using to justify a gerrymander.

3) NC redrawing isn’t a mystery, it’s already said that it’s going to.

4) the NY redraw is a coin flip but it’s not going to have anything to do with NC

5) The Illinois gerrymander isn’t any worse than the Texas gerrymander.

[Winehole23]

MM spit roasted by Will. Again.

[Winehole23]

New proposed NC map. Dems currently hold 7 of 14 districts.

NC went for Trump 50-49 in 2020.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8v7WPCXgAEn03x?format=jpg&name=small

[Will Hunting]

New proposed NC map. Dems currently hold 7 of 14 districts.

NC went for Trump 50-49 in 2020.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8v7WPCXgAEn03x?format=jpg&name=small
Losing 3-4 seats was expected but my god, this is easily the most ruthless gerrymander I’ve ever seen.

They go above and beyond just drawing Republican seats, they crack liberal cities like Asheville even when they don’t need to just for the sake of saying fuck you libs.

[Thread]

Losing 3-4 seats was expected but my god, this is easily the most ruthless gerrymander I’ve ever seen.

They go above and beyond just drawing Republican seats, they crack liberal cities like Asheville even when they don’t need to just for the sake of saying fuck you libs.

...thank Christ.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Single member district is a blight.

[Winehole23]

Losing 3-4 seats was expected but my god, this is easily the most ruthless gerrymander I’ve ever seen.

They go above and beyond just drawing Republican seats, they crack liberal cities like Asheville even when they don’t need to just for the sake of saying fuck you libs.also, NC passed laws preventing a gubernatorial veto and shielded deliberations from public information requests. The certain VRA challenges will be a hard slog.

[Will Hunting]

also, NC passed laws preventing a gubernatorial veto and shielded deliberations from public information requests. The certain VRA challenges will be a hard slog.
I don’t see VRA challenges going anywhere. The way NC’s black population is distributed makes it hard to argue there’s a viable majority black VAP district.

Also NC never had a gubernatorial veto over redistricting. It’s always had an extremely weak executive office and a state legislature that’s been reluctant to give up power (be it a Dem controlled or Republican controlled state leg)…the grand bargain made back when the governor was given veto power several decades ago was that the veto power wouldn’t be over redistricting and it could be overridden by a 60% vote rather than the typical 2/3rds super majority most other states have.

[Cry Havoc]

...thank Christ.

and you whine about Democracy. Straight up pathetic, Thread.

[Thread]

and you whine about Democracy. Straight up pathetic, Thread.

Sure I do...American Democracy, my ass.

[Cry Havoc]

Sure I do...American Democracy, my ass.

:rolleyes

[Will Hunting]

New proposed NC map. Dems currently hold 7 of 14 districts.

NC went for Trump 50-49 in 2020.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8v7WPCXgAEn03x?format=jpg&name=small
Worth noting that I think NC ends up passing its 10-3-1 map that was proposed jointly with this one but that’s just a guess.

I think the point of this map was to basically tell potential VRA lawsuit plaintiffs that they can make the gerrymander even worse so don’t push their luck.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Losing 3-4 seats was expected but my god, this is easily the most ruthless gerrymander I’ve ever seen.

They go above and beyond just drawing Republican seats, they crack liberal cities like Asheville even when they don’t need to just for the sake of saying fuck you libs.
They actually do kind of need to to get a 11-3 map, I've played around with NC a lot over the last couple years in DRA and the best way to get a red district around Charlotte and maxing out the rest of the state, is, indeed, cracking Asheville, even though it's far to the west, cracking it has a lot of effects all the way eastward.

Realistically though it's not worse than Illinois. Maybe on par, but, Illinois is currently 14-3 D while this is only 11-3 R.

It's basically the "Fuck You JB Pritzker" map. I don't agree with either one, but if you have one, you kinda gotta have the other to achieve equilibrium.

This is also VERY similar to the 11-3 R NC map I drew in DRA last year, the main difference being the numbered districts are somewhat different but that's academic.


Worth noting that I think NC ends up passing its 10-3-1 map that was proposed jointly with this one but that’s just a guess.

I think the point of this map was to basically tell potential VRA lawsuit plaintiffs that they can make the gerrymander even worse so don’t push their luck.
I think they might pass the 11-3 map after seeing the second blue district forced on Alabama for now... their original plan was to go 10-4 (and avoid drawing out Don Davis at all costs) but given the narrow majority in the already volatile House they see national implications and they don't want a speaker Jeffries/Dem House majority any more than the next conservative.

Be curious to see if Don Davis is still considered the incumbent since they did call NC-01 that new very blue district with all the black belt areas.

The GOP state legislature said they would "save" Don Davis's seat, I wonder if they still consider this to be saving it because they figure the black plurality would overwhelmingly pick Davis in the primary over the other incumbent.

[Millennial_Messiah]

it's worth noting though, ideally you give the GOP 4 seats in Illinois and keep the current map in NC which is a fair map in a vacuum. That would be "fair" and proportional ...unfortunately that's not how politics works and Illinois and NC don't have anti gerrymandering laws.

[Will Hunting]

it's worth noting though, ideally you give the GOP 4 seats in Illinois and keep the current map in NC which is a fair map in a vacuum. That would be "fair" and proportional ...unfortunately that's not how politics works and Illinois and NC don't have anti gerrymandering laws.
:lol you conveniently bitch and moan about Illinois but pretend Texas, Utah, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma and South Carolina all have perfectly fair map.

[Will Hunting]

As I said they likely would, the NC general assembly is picking the less ruthless 10-3-1 map that largely leaves Don Davis’s district intact.

That being said, the one competitive district is a district Biden barely won and its rural black population is rapidly declining. The good news is that Sandy Smith was an awful candidate in 2022 and she’s running again, but I doubt the NCGOP supports her.

If it’s a Don Davis vs. Sandy Smith rematch I rate it as lean D. If the R candidate is someone more competent is rate it as tilt R. Sounds extreme for a Biden district with a D incumbent but that’s how quickly the black belt is losing population.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

As I said they likely would, the NC general assembly is picking the less ruthless 10-3-1 map that largely leaves Don Davis’s district intact.

That being said, the one competitive district is a district Biden barely won and its rural black population is rapidly declining. The good news is that Sandy Smith was an awful candidate in 2022 and she’s running again, but I doubt the NCGOP supports her.

If it’s a Don Davis vs. Sandy Smith rematch I rate it as lean D. If the R candidate is someone more competent is rate it as tilt R. Sounds extreme for a Biden district with a D incumbent but that’s how quickly the black belt is losing population.

Where do you have the link to this info? I can't find it anywhere on Google, and 538 stopped updating the map stuff last year.

I knew they wouldn't draw out Davis, he's the NCGOP's favorite Democrat for some reason. I was thinking they might pick that ultra aggressive version and just proclaim Davis to be the incumbent of that deep-blue larger district that sprawls northeast of the RTP NC-02 blue district, since it's already labeled as NC-01.

So if what you're saying is true, the current scorecard is

Democrat +1 Flip (AL)
GOP +3 Flip (NC) [-I don't think Don Davis loses re-election in any case in a general election year]

New York - ????


Seats likely to flip in any case:

OH-13: blue to red
NE-02: red to blue
WA-03: blue to red
OR-05: red to blue

I think with the current map in New York the GOP nets 2 losses, Lawler is a popular incumbent but Santos is toast and D'Esposito is somewhat moderate and popular but Biden is likely to win that seat fairly comfortably and probably carry the (D) challenger to a slim victory there.

California to me is one where I could see all the incumbents on both sides holding serve in 2024, barring a radical change in events between now and then. The Central Valley is trending right and the Orange County area (R)s are popular incumbents who toe the line well.

Nevada's 3 Democrat seats have the potential to flip (unlikely all 3, but we'll see) or not... really depends on how well Trump and the Senate candidate do there statewide IMO, which is a crapshoot. NM-02 might flip back if Harrell is running again; it's a coin flip there in a presidential election year.

Trump will carry Van Orden in WI-03; that's a district that's generally low turnout but turns out well for Trump. MI-07 is a toss up with Slotkin on the Senate ticket. Don't see Jared Golden losing even on the same ticket as Trump; college-educated white secular people are the most likely demographic to split-ticket. I see Schweikert in AZ holding on narrowly one more time, but if Trump wins the general next year then someone like Schweikert, and some of the CA and NY GOP delegation, and likely the House GOP majority itself will most likely be toast in 2026.

Another one to keep an eye on is MT-01. That area of the state has been trending blue while the other district has trended red. If Jon Tester comes close (he won't win, but let's just say he comes within 5%) I could very well see the (D) challenger upending Zinke.

[Will Hunting]

Where do you have the link to this info? I can't find it anywhere on Google, and 538 stopped updating the map stuff last year.

I knew they wouldn't draw out Davis, he's the NCGOP's favorite Democrat for some reason. I was thinking they might pick that ultra aggressive version and just proclaim Davis to be the incumbent of that deep-blue larger district that sprawls northeast of the RTP NC-02 blue district, since it's already labeled as NC-01.

So if what you're saying is true, the current scorecard is

Democrat +1 Flip (AL)
GOP +3 Flip (NC) [-I don't think Don Davis loses re-election in any case in a general election year]

New York - ????


Seats likely to flip in any case:

OH-13: blue to red
NE-02: red to blue
WA-03: blue to red
OR-05: red to blue

I think with the current map in New York the GOP nets 2 losses, Lawler is a popular incumbent but Santos is toast and D'Esposito is somewhat moderate and popular but Biden is likely to win that seat fairly comfortably and probably carry the (D) challenger to a slim victory there.

California to me is one where I could see all the incumbents on both sides holding serve in 2024, barring a radical change in events between now and then. The Central Valley is trending right and the Orange County area (R)s are popular incumbents who toe the line well.

Nevada's 3 Democrat seats have the potential to flip (unlikely all 3, but we'll see) or not... really depends on how well Trump and the Senate candidate do there statewide IMO, which is a crapshoot. NM-02 might flip back if Harrell is running again; it's a coin flip there in a presidential election year.

Trump will carry Van Orden in WI-03; that's a district that's generally low turnout but turns out well for Trump. MI-07 is a toss up with Slotkin on the Senate ticket. Don't see Jared Golden losing even on the same ticket as Trump; college-educated white secular people are the most likely demographic to split-ticket. I see Schweikert in AZ holding on narrowly one more time, but if Trump wins the general next year then someone like Schweikert, and some of the CA and NY GOP delegation, and likely the House GOP majority itself will most likely be toast in 2026.

Another one to keep an eye on is MT-01. That area of the state has been trending blue while the other district has trended red. If Jon Tester comes close (he won't win, but let's just say he comes withing 5%) I could very well see the (D) challenger upending Zinke.
I’m in a Twitter groupchat with Dan Bishop’s son that’s how I know

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I’m in a Twitter groupchat with Dan Bishop’s son that’s how I know

Jack Bishop, the kid that came on Fox in 2019 saying he was assaulted by antifa on the NC State campus? :lol That guy is pretty conservative; surprised you and him could be friends.

another wild card I left out was that there's been some rumor that Zeldin might run for Santos's seat, in which case it'd be a hold instead of a flip.

I didn't mention Alaska but I assume Peltola could lose if it's 1 vs 1 rather than 1 vs 2? Even with ranked choice voting, Sarah Palin and Trump really screwed Nick Begich last year imo

[clambake]

Lol

[Will Hunting]

another wild card I left out was that there's been some rumor that Zeldin might run for Santos's seat, in which case it'd be a hold instead of a flip.
Not against Suozzi when that wasn't Zeldin's old seat and Suozzi effectively has an incumbency advantage running in his old district. That rumor (wherever you heard it) is also bullshit, Zeldin already announced a PAC he's formed that he's focused on.


I didn't mention Alaska but I assume Peltola could lose if it's 1 vs 1 rather than 1 vs 2? Even with ranked choice voting, Sarah Palin and Trump really screwed Nick Begich last year imo
That doesn't make any sense. There was ranked choice voting; if all of Begich's voters ranked Palin 2nd (or visa versa), then Peltola would have lost. A large part of the GOP base in AK found either Palin and/or Begich to be repulsive human beings and ranked Peltola ahead of one or both of them. Don Young's entire family hates Begich because he tried to coup Young when he was a staffer for him and they all endorsed Peltola because of it.

Don Young was a legend in Alaska politics so Peltola having an endorsement from everyone close to Young as well as Murkowski was a huge deal. She even got close 50% in the first round of the run-off, and now she's an incumbent.

The bigger concern is whether Peltola runs again or retires, but she has the seat as long as she wants it. She was popular before and now her husband died in a plane crash, and that's not exactly something she'd lose votes over.

[MultiTroll]

Californians Moving to Arizona Could Upend 2024 Election (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/californians-moving-to-arizona-could-upend-2024-election/ar-AA1iIyZ6?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3378605bc3ad4b1ea5f13b9acdb5e227&ei=12)

Hi Dale and Ducks :rollin

[Thread]

Californians Moving to Arizona Could Upend 2024 Election (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/californians-moving-to-arizona-could-upend-2024-election/ar-AA1iIyZ6?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3378605bc3ad4b1ea5f13b9acdb5e227&ei=12)

Hi Dale and Ducks :rollin

That's how you got it turned last election, they came over because of the wild fires and never went back.

[MultiTroll]

That's how you got it turned last election, they came over because of the wild fires and never went back.
Bring hot chicks and lib voting to uptight corrupt GOP AZ.

Love it.

[HemisfairArena]

Bring hot chicks and lib voting to uptight corrupt GOP AZ.

Love it.

this gullible fuck thought Putin had a heart attack,,,,lmao

[MultiTroll]

this gullible fuck thought Putin had a heart attack,,,,lmao
Hey Parrott Team 4,,,,
Nope. Simply posted the article and raised the question.

Hasn't been proven nor unproven Numb Nutts.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

New NC and AL maps are official:

https://www.270towin.com/2024-house-election/consensus-2024-house-forecast

[Will Hunting]

This is where redistricting changes for 2024 stand, ranked in order of significance:

New York - the COA is set to hear the lawsuit in November. If the new liberal majority actually lets Dems gerrymander, they net 4-5 seats. This is a coin flip imo.
North Carolina - It's not a matter of if but when the maps get redrawn, which will net Republicans 3-4 house seats.
Ohio - Map is going to remain as is, and I think all 5 Dem incumbents hold their seat in 2024.
New Mexico - Even though it's a liberal state supreme court, it's not overly hackish and I think it forces a new map that nets the Rs a seat.
Utah - Similar to New Mexico, it's a supreme court that's conservative but not hackish at all. I think it forces a redraw w/ a blue Salt Lake City seat.
Georgia - pending VRA lawsuit in Federal court. I still think this one is a longshot but my understanding is that Georgia's lawyers have grossly mismanaged the trial so far.
Alabama - Dems are guaranteed to net a seat now.
Louisiana - Similar lawsuit as what Dems filed in AL that now has a real chance at success since SCOTUS is clearly upholding VRA Section 2, but I still think a 2nd black district in Louisiana isn't as clear as one in AL.
Florida - The Florida GOP has (strangely) already admitted that the current map violates state law, and it's banking on a ruling that said state law violates the (U.S.) constitution. Even though the FL Supreme Court is hackish, they don't have standing to rule something violates the US constitution, and idk how they get around Florida admitting that gutting Al Lawson's district violates state law.

UPDATE
New York - oral argument set for November 15th, but both sides seem convinced the court is going to let the NY Dems redraw, and the temporary justice sitting for the justice who recused is a partisan Dem.
North Carolina - New map final, Rs pick up 3.5 seats.
Ohio - Map stays as-is
New Mexico - Map stays as-is
Utah - It's been 3 months since oral argument took place. I think there's a good chance the state supreme court forces a new map, but idk if it happens before the 2024 election.
Georgia - The district court ruled that a 5th VRA district is required but I still don't expect anything - it was an Obama appointed judge and I don't see the 11th circuit upholding his ruling (I also think the ruling is wrong on the merits).
Alabama - The AL01 and AL02 incumbents are officially running against each other in AL01, the new VRA seat is open and it's a guaranteed Dem pickup.
Louisiana - I don't really understand what has/hasn't been established in this case, and it might result in a new Dem seat, but the 5th circuit is def. gonna let Louisiana drag it out past 2024.
Florida - No real update. The Florida Supreme Court is very hackish but the defendants have already admitted their map violates the state constitution and I think they were counting a lot on Kavanaugh having a change of heart re: VRA Section 2.

My probability-weighted redistricting gains from each state:
NY: D +3 seats
OH: D +0 seats
NM: R +0 seats
NC: R +3.5 seats
UT: D +0.25 seats
GA: D +0.1 seats
AL: D +1 seat
LA: D +0.1 seats
FL: D +0.75 seats

[Will Hunting]

My breakdown of how NY would be impacted by a Dem redraw:

NY-01 - IMO LaLota could still hold this seat even though it would definitely get bluer. Probably a toss-up race on a new map (right now it's safe R in 2024).
NY-03 - Guaranteed flip if Santos is the nominee and/or if Suozzi is the Dem nominee, so redistricting doesn't really change the outcome.
NY-04 - This seat was actually redder on the Dems' gerrymandered map than it was on the court-issued map. I doubt the partisanship changes much; it'll be a Biden +15%ish seat either way.
NY-11 - I think they'd make this Biden +9, but Malliotakis is a great incumbent who'd I'd almost say is still favored. I think she outran Trump by like 15-20% last year.
NY-17 - Autoflip if they redraw. The Dems would make this seat safe blue and Mike Lawler would be DOA.
NY-19 - Maybe not an autoflip but pretty close. Molinaro is mediocre electorally and he doesn't hide the fact he's a partisan hack the way Lawler/D'Esposito do. He doesn't have the appeal to win a Biden +10% seat.
NY-22 - Also an autoflip if it's redrawn. The Dems would put Ithaca and Syracuse in the same seat and the R incumbent doesn't have much in terms of cross party appeal.

[Will Hunting]

5th circuit upholds lower court ruling requiring a 2nd black district in Louisiana before the 2024 election.

Still not sure that this'll actually happen, but the ruling is a surprise.

1723082352505590013

[UNT Eagles 2016]

5th circuit upholds lower court ruling requiring a 2nd black district in Louisiana before the 2024 election.

Still not sure that this'll actually happen, but the ruling is a surprise.

1723082352505590013

Seems like the Dems best bet might be to go all in on the House for 2024 and punt away Biden/leave the White House to die for 2024. Flush out Trump's final term and bust their ass to get a House majority in 2024 and 2026 to essentially nerf his agenda (while spending like hell in swing senate races to minimize Senate losses outside of WV/Tester/Brown), blame whatever happens between 2025-2028 on Trump, and try to get an actual authentic trifecta by Jan. 20, 2029, led by someone like Newsom or Whitmer for President 2028. Flush the old Democrat guard out and get some real more competent Gen X moderate-progressives in charge. Also, if Trump wins in 2024, the Dems have to be favored to win the Presidency in 2028. Where are the MAGA people going to go once Trump is term limited?

[Will Hunting]

Seems like the Dems best bet might be to go all in on the House for 2024 and punt away Biden/leave the White House to die for 2024. Flush out Trump's final term and bust their ass to get a House majority in 2024 and 2026 to essentially nerf his agenda (while spending like hell in swing senate races to minimize Senate losses outside of WV/Tester/Brown), blame whatever happens between 2025-2028 on Trump, and try to get an actual authentic trifecta by Jan. 20, 2029, led by someone like Newsom or Whitmer for President 2028. Flush the old Democrat guard out and get some real more competent Gen X moderate-progressives in charge. Also, if Trump wins in 2024, the Dems have to be favored to win the Presidency in 2028. Where are the MAGA people going to go once Trump is term limited?
This strategy wouldn't actually be a terrible idea if not for judges. Giving Trump another 2-4 years to confirm judges with an R senate majority would mean 30+ years of extremely conservative courts.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

This strategy wouldn't actually be a terrible idea if not for judges. Giving Trump another 2-4 years to confirm judges with an R senate majority would mean 30+ years of extremely conservative courts.

1) The point is, you minimize Senate losses. With money spent properly in some states and incumbency advantages in others, even in an unfavorable map the Dems could very well retain 48 Senate seats in 2024, even if many of those states go red at the top of the ticket because Biden sucks.

2) The judge issue isn't as big of a deal now that Breyer is off the court and your 3 Democrat justices aren't retiring any time soon. Even if Trump gets Thomas and possibly even Alito to retire, there's no chance in hell their replacements will be as conservative as they are... chances are, they will fall more in line with Trump's first three who doesn't always see eye to eye with the conservative side. As for Roberts, even if he retires and is replaced by a more solidly conservative vote, that's pretty much it. The SCOTUS is something the Democrats will have to contend with long term in terms of checks and balances but with partisan hardliners being replaced by conservative Trump appointees that are more moderate on certain issues, like Kavanaugh's VRA decisions to this point, they will be able to iron out deals.

3) There's a solid probability the Democrats will be able to flip Susan Collins' seat in Maine in 2026 with an incumbent Trump, and who knows, maybe the incumbent GOP senator in Alaska retires in 2026 and Mary Peltola runs. Maybe Thom Tillis retires and makes that an interesting open race. Lots of moving parts, and the Democrats really aren't on defense much in 2026 outside of holding Ossoff's and Peters' seats, which shouldn't be too hard with an incumbent GOP president.

4) The Dems could make further Senate gains in 2028, particularly if Ron Johnson retires.

Either way, the Senate and the SCOTUS will be the Dems' long term disadvantages, while the House is looking more and more to be favorable to Democrats long term, unless SCOTUS somehow changes their mind on VRA Section 2 at some point but they have had multiple chances in the past year or two and haven't so I doubt they ever will.

[ElNono]

5th circuit upholds lower court ruling requiring a 2nd black district in Louisiana before the 2024 election.

Still not sure that this'll actually happen, but the ruling is a surprise.

1723082352505590013

It actually ties the district court hands until January 2024, basically allowing the Legislature to delay this until that time, despite that the Legislature made no such request.

It explicitly says the district court cannot proceed with anything until then (which means it can't do remedial maps either).

I think the gambit here seems to be to delay this long enough such that the maps can't be used in time for the 2024 election, but we'll see.

[Will Hunting]

It actually ties the district court hands until January 2024, basically allowing the Legislature to delay this until that time, despite that the Legislature made no such request.

It explicitly says the district court cannot proceed with anything until then (which means it can't do remedial maps either).

I think the gambit here seems to be to delay this long enough such that the maps can't be used in time for the 2024 election, but we'll see.
Yes but it could have gone further and completely overturned the district court saying that a new map isn’t needed prior to 2024 but it didn’t.

[ElNono]

Yes but it could have gone further and completely overturned the district court saying that a new map isn’t needed prior to 2024 but it didn’t.

But because of the SCOTUS Arizona ruling, the plaintiffs would've gone to the SCOTUS and had that likely overturned. While that appeals was in place, the district court could've started to create a remedial map in case the Legislature decided either not to change the maps or the changes were bad again.

I mean, I don't think the decision per-se is bad, and the writing is on the wall for Louisiana, but I don't like the fact that 1) it gives time to the Legislature that the Legislature itself didn't ask for, and 2) it completely freezes the district court.

Again, we'll see how this develops, but I have the suspicion that the Louisiana legislature is going to ask for an extension to the Fifth circuit to February or March, then put out no changed maps or bad maps again.

That'll free the district court at that point, which only then can start creating remedial maps, which will eventually be litigated and appealed to the Fifth again. Timing is everything here. IIRC, if new maps are not in place by May, then you gotta use the old maps.

[Will Hunting]

New York had oral argument on redistricting today.

The only opinions I’ve seen so far on how it went have been left leaning sources, would love to see a legal analysis that’s from a nonpartisan source.

[Winehole23]

under this ruling (https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1726648111525957732?s=20), Americans have only such rights as the Attorney-General will enforce.

it'll be appealed

1726648111525957732

[Will Hunting]

New York Court of Appeals just greenlit a new congressional map.

RIP Mike Lawler, you fake moderate sanctimonious jackass!

[Will Hunting]

The Wisconsin state legislature’s maps have been ruled unconstitutional by the new liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court majority. Both sides will submit maps and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide which one is implemented.

The conservative justice dissent was so fucking angry :lmao

[UNT Eagles 2016]

The Wisconsin state legislature’s maps have been ruled unconstitutional by the new liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court majority. Both sides will submit maps and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide which one is implemented.

The conservative justice dissent was so fucking angry :lmao
right. this was a long time coming. The state house and state senate maps are an ugly GOP gerrymander and there's no reason the GOP should have a supermajority in both chambers there.

This won't necessarily affect the federal level house map there as that map is already not only fair but fairly favorable to the Dems, as it's the map Evers himself drew in 2021 and it gives Dems an outside chance to win the driftless district if they perform well there at the presidential level, but that district is admittedly trending red. Geography stinks for Democrats in that state because Dems are so spread out fairly evenly across the state outside of the two big cities that aren't big enough to draw two districts for either without an ugly crackmander, and none of the populous suburban areas are blue enough to draw an extra blue district around the two medium sized blue cities.

For the federal map, Democrat Governor Evers drew it in 2021 and the court picked his map over the GOP proposal which pretty much was similar but tried to move Van Orden's district from R+4 to about R+8. The most likely outcome for the federal map is it's in place until 2030, and same for Ohio considering how the court elections went there last year.

But the state house and state senate maps are a different story, the GOP has been cracking small slivers of Milwaukee for years to guarantee extra seats and minimize Democrat seats and limit them to the very middle of the major urban centers. A fair redraw would probably still have the GOP in a slight majority in both chambers outside of a blue tsunami type environment, but definitely not the kind of majority and supermajority they currently have, which means they probably cave on certain issues. The population is generally pretty secular on issues like abortion there. I don't know why they haven't had an abortion ballot initiative there already like the other rust belt states.

[Winehole23]

right. this was a long time coming. The state house and state senate maps are an ugly GOP gerrymander and there's no reason the GOP should have a supermajority in both chambers there.

odd moment of clarity

[Will Hunting]

right. this was a long time coming. The state house and state senate maps are an ugly GOP gerrymander and there's no reason the GOP should have a supermajority in both chambers there.

This won't necessarily affect the federal level house map there as that map is already not only fair but fairly favorable to the Dems, as it's the map Evers himself drew in 2021 and it gives Dems an outside chance to win the driftless district if they perform well there at the presidential level, but that district is admittedly trending red. Geography stinks for Democrats in that state because Dems are so spread out fairly evenly across the state outside of the two big cities that aren't big enough to draw two districts for either without an ugly crackmander, and none of the populous suburban areas are blue enough to draw an extra blue district around the two medium sized blue cities.

For the federal map, Democrat Governor Evers drew it in 2021 and the court picked his map over the GOP proposal which pretty much was similar but tried to move Van Orden's district from R+4 to about R+8. The most likely outcome for the federal map is it's in place until 2030, and same for Ohio considering how the court elections went there last year.

But the state house and state senate maps are a different story, the GOP has been cracking small slivers of Milwaukee for years to guarantee extra seats and minimize Democrat seats and limit them to the very middle of the major urban centers. A fair redraw would probably still have the GOP in a slight majority in both chambers outside of a blue tsunami type environment, but definitely not the kind of majority and supermajority they currently have, which means they probably cave on certain issues. The population is generally pretty secular on issues like abortion there. I don't know why they haven't had an abortion ballot initiative there already like the other rust belt states.
I ain’t reading all that but regarding the federal map there isn’t even a lawsuit pending and the two issues that allowed the state leg maps to be decided on an expedited basis (contiguity and separation of powers) don’t apply to the federal map. A challenge to the federal map on partisan fairness would probably work given the makeup of the court but it would need to work its way through the lower courts first and wouldn’t be done on time for 2024.

Youre wrong however that it’s a map Evers drew tho. It was the map Evers proposed when the 2021 court mandated a least change criteria so he was anchored by the 2011 gerrymander and the current court made it clear in the new state leg ruling that it would completely ditch the least change criteria in the future.

[Will Hunting]

This is where redistricting changes for 2024 stand, ranked in order of significance:

New York - the COA is set to hear the lawsuit in November. If the new liberal majority actually lets Dems gerrymander, they net 4-5 seats. This is a coin flip imo.
North Carolina - It's not a matter of if but when the maps get redrawn, which will net Republicans 3-4 house seats.
Ohio - Map is going to remain as is, and I think all 5 Dem incumbents hold their seat in 2024.
New Mexico - Even though it's a liberal state supreme court, it's not overly hackish and I think it forces a new map that nets the Rs a seat.
Utah - Similar to New Mexico, it's a supreme court that's conservative but not hackish at all. I think it forces a redraw w/ a blue Salt Lake City seat.
Georgia - pending VRA lawsuit in Federal court. I still think this one is a longshot but my understanding is that Georgia's lawyers have grossly mismanaged the trial so far.
Alabama - Dems are guaranteed to net a seat now.
Louisiana - Similar lawsuit as what Dems filed in AL that now has a real chance at success since SCOTUS is clearly upholding VRA Section 2, but I still think a 2nd black district in Louisiana isn't as clear as one in AL.
Florida - The Florida GOP has (strangely) already admitted that the current map violates state law, and it's banking on a ruling that said state law violates the (U.S.) constitution. Even though the FL Supreme Court is hackish, they don't have standing to rule something violates the US constitution, and idk how they get around Florida admitting that gutting Al Lawson's district violates state law.

UPDATE (green means lawsuit is over, red means things are still pending)

New York - Dems probably pick up 3-4 seats
North Carolina - Rs pick up 3.5 seats
Ohio - No changes
New Mexico - No changes
Utah - ruling has been pending forever, I expect this to be a 3-2 decision whichever way it goes. The justices in Utah are all conservative but it's a very moderate court because of how judges are selected in Utah.
Georgia - Dems picked up no seats, they just ghettoized themselves with a new map that makes the red suburban Atlanta districts less likely to flip this decade. The whole lawsuit was dumb.
Alabama - Dems pick up 1 seat.
Louisiana - I'm really torn on how this one pans out. The 5th circuit has had opportunities to pillow smother this lawsuit so far but hasn't, at the same time it's allowed the defendants to stall.
Florida - Same thing as LA. No idea how this one shakes out. It's a very conservative state supreme court but the FL GOP is basically asking the FL Supreme Court to rule that the VRA is unconstitutional.

End result - New York and NC should roughly cancel each other out, the Dems picked up 1 seat in AL, and there's 3 additional Dem lawsuits left unresolved. My guess is that between LA, FL and UT, the Dems pick up 1 additional seat, so all of the lawsuits and map changes from 2022 to 2024 will result in a total of 2 net Dem pickups.

[Millennial_Messiah]

UPDATE (green means lawsuit is over, red means things are still pending)

New York - Dems probably pick up 3-4 seats
North Carolina - Rs pick up 3.5 seats
Ohio - No changes
New Mexico - No changes
Utah - ruling has been pending forever, I expect this to be a 3-2 decision whichever way it goes. The justices in Utah are all conservative but it's a very moderate court because of how judges are selected in Utah.
Georgia - Dems picked up no seats, they just ghettoized themselves with a new map that makes the red suburban Atlanta districts less likely to flip this decade. The whole lawsuit was dumb.
Alabama - Dems pick up 1 seat.
Louisiana - I'm really torn on how this one pans out. The 5th circuit has had opportunities to pillow smother this lawsuit so far but hasn't, at the same time it's allowed the defendants to stall.
Florida - Same thing as LA. No idea how this one shakes out. It's a very conservative state supreme court but the FL GOP is basically asking the FL Supreme Court to rule that the VRA is unconstitutional.

End result - New York and NC should roughly cancel each other out, the Dems picked up 1 seat in AL, and there's 3 additional Dem lawsuits left unresolved. My guess is that between LA, FL and UT, the Dems pick up 1 additional seat, so all of the lawsuits and map changes from 2022 to 2024 will result in a total of 2 net Dem pickups.

Are you including or excluding the Santos/Suozzi seat? Because even GOP pundits had the Dems netting 3-4 seats from 2022 to 2024 with or without a changed map. That's assuming they don't go extreme and try to draw out people like Malliotakis again.

I still see the Senate as Tilt to Lean R and the House control will be in the 220s either way, very narrow control on either side, and will depend on who wins the Presidency. Open seats like MI-07 and MI-08 can absolutely flip if Trump does better in MI than 2020. OH-09 for instance is flippable with a well funded, socially moderate candidate. If Trump flips Nevada (I'm still not sold, but the right wing and even centrist podcasts and polls seem to think it can happen) then 1, 2, or even all 3 of the Democrat House seats in Nevada are in jeopardy. If NE PA flips red and SE PA continues zooming blue, does Cartwright lose, probably, and does Fitzpatrick lose? Probably not because he's an ultra popular incumbent, but who knows. Out west, CO-03 was a major question mark and with Hoebert moving, it's not going to flip blue. I have OR-05 flipping back blue and WA-03 flipping back red. If Trump does at least as well as in 2020 or better in Arizona then Schweikert holds on one more cycle, even with legal abortion likely to pass on the same ticket. I'm not convinced that the Central Valley California GOP incumbents (Duarte/Valadao) are necessarily doomed; I think that area has authentically trended red as it's majority hispanic rural/exurban working class, not hispanic urbanites like the west coast of Cali.

As per current presidential polling data, factoring in the Dems probably gain 1-2 net seats in redistricting, but also factoring in the Democrat retirements in swing state swing districts and also factoring in that the GOP seriously underperformed in 2022 when abortion is a much hotter topic than 2024 (not saying it'll be a non-issue, but it'll be towards the bottom since most states have already decided by this point)... the house is Lean R. 224 R or so would be about my best guess. But in a Biden re-election victory scenario I wouldn't be surprised if Jeffries gets a slim majority.

[Will Hunting]

Are you including or excluding the Santos/Suozzi seat? Because even GOP pundits had the Dems netting 3-4 seats from 2022 to 2024 with or without a changed map. That's assuming they don't go extreme and try to draw out people like Malliotakis again.

I still see the Senate as Tilt to Lean R and the House control will be in the 220s either way, very narrow control on either side, and will depend on who wins the Presidency. Open seats like MI-07 and MI-08 can absolutely flip if Trump does better in MI than 2020. OH-09 for instance is flippable with a well funded, socially moderate candidate. If Trump flips Nevada (I'm still not sold, but the right wing and even centrist podcasts and polls seem to think it can happen) then 1, 2, or even all 3 of the Democrat House seats in Nevada are in jeopardy. If NE PA flips red and SE PA continues zooming blue, does Cartwright lose, probably, and does Fitzpatrick lose? Probably not because he's an ultra popular incumbent, but who knows. Out west, CO-03 was a major question mark and with Hoebert moving, it's not going to flip blue. I have OR-05 flipping back blue and WA-03 flipping back red. If Trump does at least as well as in 2020 or better in Arizona then Schweikert holds on one more cycle, even with legal abortion likely to pass on the same ticket. I'm not convinced that the Central Valley California GOP incumbents (Duarte/Valadao) are necessarily doomed; I think that area has authentically trended red as it's majority hispanic rural/exurban working class, not hispanic urbanites like the west coast of Cali.

As per current presidential polling data, factoring in the Dems probably gain 1-2 net seats in redistricting, but also factoring in the Democrat retirements in swing state swing districts and also factoring in that the GOP seriously underperformed in 2022 when abortion is a much hotter topic than 2024 (not saying it'll be a non-issue, but it'll be towards the bottom since most states have already decided by this point)... the house is Lean R. 224 R or so would be about my best guess. But in a Biden re-election victory scenario I wouldn't be surprised if Jeffries gets a slim majority.
I’m not reading that whole paragraph but agree that the senate is lean R :lol. As long as the Montana GOP nominates Sheehy over Rosendale that rating isn’t changing either since that’s literally the only race they need to flip the senate.

When I say gains 3-4 seats I mean that NY17, NY22, NY04 and potentially NY19 get redrawn in a way where partisanship can carry any Democrat regardless of candidate quality.

[Millennial_Messiah]

I’m not reading that whole paragraph but agree that the senate is lean R :lol. As long as the Montana GOP nominates Sheehy over Rosendale that rating isn’t changing either since that’s literally the only race they need to flip the senate.

When I say gains 3-4 seats I mean that NY17, NY22, NY04 and potentially NY19 get redrawn in a way where partisanship can carry any Democrat regardless of candidate quality.

So you're essentially saying 4 or 5 pickups from 2022 to 2024, counting NY-03. Answered my question.

I'm going to stick to my prediction of, 224R-211D in a Trump victory scenario, or 219D-216R in a Biden victory scenario.

House is still inherently tilt R because the GOP underperformed in districts they should have won especially in the rust belt, but never count out Ronna and the GOP to underperform again

I actually think Larose over Brown in Ohio, not a particularly split ticket state on the federal level when Trump's going to win there by double digits, is more of a sure thing than Sheehy over Tester, in a state that's been forever red on the presidential level but voted for Max Buchus by dictator margins for decades at the senate level. Granted, Tester isn't Buchus, but both Sheehy and Rosendale are carpetbaggers and Tester like Buchus is MT born and bred.

[Will Hunting]

Surprisingly, it looks like the Louisiana GOP is going to pass a new map with a 2nd majority black seat with no additional fighting or court battles.

Rumor is that Rep. Garrett Graves has pissed a lot of people in leadership off while there’s a black Dem who’s friendly with the new LA governor so they’re happy to use this as a way to give him a seat while drawing Graves out.

[Thread]

Surprisingly, it looks like the Louisiana GOP is going to pass a new map with a 2nd majority black seat with no additional fighting or court battles.

Rumor is that Rep. Garrett Graves has pissed a lot of people in leadership off while there’s a black Dem who’s friendly with the new LA governor so they’re happy to use this as a way to give him a seat while drawing Graves out.

It's American Democracy, Will, like permitting, thus encouraging assassination attempts upon the life of President Trump, his wife and their only child.

Why, though? Simple; he made President.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Surprisingly, it looks like the Louisiana GOP is going to pass a new map with a 2nd majority black seat with no additional fighting or court battles.

Rumor is that Rep. Garrett Graves has pissed a lot of people in leadership off while there’s a black Dem who’s friendly with the new LA governor so they’re happy to use this as a way to give him a seat while drawing Graves out.

TL;DR Landry if he supports Trump he's a dumbass to do that because not having a trifecta will seriously hamper Trump's "project 2025 / agenda 47". He'll be forced to nuke the all time record for most executive orders in a term, in his first year alone. SCOTUS may or may not uphold it.

I think the Dems are all in on that plan that I discussed with you months ago, absolutely barnstorm the House in 2024, punt away the presidency to Trump, flush out his last term, do enough damage control in the Senate to minimize the GOP to 52-53 senate seats, stonewall Trump's presidency with a slim House majority if they can, hope Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson all make it 4 more years (they should), ride Trump's unpopularity to a blue wave 2026 and then get an actual competent two-term Presidential candidate nominated in 2028, someone like Shapiro and Whitmer who stands for the working middle American man/woman and not just being the party of coastal elites, queers, and Free Palestine.

[Will Hunting]

TL;DR Landry if he supports Trump he's a dumbass to do that because not having a trifecta will seriously hamper Trump's "project 2025 / agenda 47". He'll be forced to nuke the all time record for most executive orders in a term, in his first year alone. SCOTUS may or may not uphold it.
Landry is the one pushing it because he's one of the people Graves doesn't get along with.

What makes no sense to me is that they could screw Graves but make it so the 2nd district more purple. This map gives the Dems two safe blue, majority black seats for no reason.

1747726923025789107

[Will Hunting]

Also there's now a lawsuit challenging the Wisconsin congressional map but I'd be very surprised if it does anything before 2024.

The new lib majority in Wisconsin is definitely hackish but they're not going to abandon any semblance of credibility which is what would be required to hear a case about a new congressional map on an expedited basis.

[Will Hunting]

:lmao who the hell did Graves piss off so much? They put him in the majority black seat and were blatant about it.

1747771492647973261

[Millennial_Messiah]

Also there's now a lawsuit challenging the Wisconsin congressional map but I'd be very surprised if it does anything before 2024.

The new lib majority in Wisconsin is definitely hackish but they're not going to abandon any semblance of credibility which is what would be required to hear a case about a new congressional map on an expedited basis.

It'd also require cracking Madison to make WI-03 anything bluer than purple.



Landry is the one pushing it because he's one of the people Graves doesn't get along with.

What makes no sense to me is that they could screw Graves but make it so the 2nd district more purple. This map gives the Dems two safe blue, majority black seats for no reason.

1747726923025789107

That's an ugly, Pritzkermander-esque map. It's also the first time I've seen one party intentionally draw a map that's in favor of the other party, not by court order but out of spite.

I can't even tell which two of those seats are going blue? Is is that ugly 6th district and the 1st or 2nd district? One of those is Scalise's seat which I'm sure they wouldn't touch. Also, Mike Johnson's seat is safe.

[Millennial_Messiah]

No significant redistricting expected in NY:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/14/house-redistricting-new-york-00141458

[Millennial_Messiah]

New York Court of Appeals just greenlit a new congressional map.

RIP Mike Lawler, you fake moderate sanctimonious jackass!

Didn't happen. If anything they solidified the GOP and Democrat incumbents (Molinaro, Ryan, Lawler) aside from Brandon Williams whose seat got 3-4 points bluer, and of course Tony Desposito who was DOA anyway because it's a D+14 seat.

Aside from the Suozzi seat you're getting 2 pick-ups (NY-04 and NY-22) and that's it.


UPDATE (green means lawsuit is over, red means things are still pending)

New York - Dems probably pick up 3-4 seats
North Carolina - Rs pick up 3.5 seats
Ohio - No changes
New Mexico - No changes
Utah - ruling has been pending forever, I expect this to be a 3-2 decision whichever way it goes. The justices in Utah are all conservative but it's a very moderate court because of how judges are selected in Utah.
Georgia - Dems picked up no seats, they just ghettoized themselves with a new map that makes the red suburban Atlanta districts less likely to flip this decade. The whole lawsuit was dumb.
Alabama - Dems pick up 1 seat.
Louisiana - I'm really torn on how this one pans out. The 5th circuit has had opportunities to pillow smother this lawsuit so far but hasn't, at the same time it's allowed the defendants to stall.
Florida - Same thing as LA. No idea how this one shakes out. It's a very conservative state supreme court but the FL GOP is basically asking the FL Supreme Court to rule that the VRA is unconstitutional.

End result - New York and NC should roughly cancel each other out, the Dems picked up 1 seat in AL, and there's 3 additional Dem lawsuits left unresolved. My guess is that between LA, FL and UT, the Dems pick up 1 additional seat, so all of the lawsuits and map changes from 2022 to 2024 will result in a total of 2 net Dem pickups.

Too late on Utah and WI/FL.

It's either a net pickup of 1 or a wash depending on what you think of Don Davis's seat.

[Winehole23]

When it's too hard to tell whether a gerrymander was racist or merely partisan, a presumption of bona fides applies to the legislature that drew the lines -- in this case, South Carolina, who cracked Charleston to create a safe R district.


As the Supreme Court held in Cooper, a lower court’s “findings of fact — most notably, as to whether racial considerations predominated in drawing district lines — are subject to review only for clear error (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf).”



Alito’s Alexander opinion pays lip service to this clear error standard, but it effectively eliminates it in redistricting cases. The new rule is that state lawmakers enjoy a “presumption of legislative good faith (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf)” when they are accused of racial gerrymandering.


Alito writes that “nothing rules out the possibility” that movement of Black voters out of the First District “was simply a side effect of the legislature’s partisan goal.” And given the presumption that legislatures can do what they want, “that possibility is dispositive.”



Later in his opinion, Alito goes even further. The lower court, he claims, “critically erred by failing to draw an adverse inference against the Challengers for not providing a substitute map that shows how the State ‘could have achieved its legitimate political objectives’ in District 1 while producing ‘significantly greater racial balance.’”



What Alito is saying here is that, when a state draws a partisan gerrymander, anyone who wants to challenge it as an illegal racial gerrymander should show that there is some way to draw more racially equitable maps that still achieve the same partisan goals. And if the challengers can’t do that, courts generally must rule against those challengers.


https://www.vox.com/scotus/351406/the-supreme-courts-new-voting-rights-decision-is-a-love-letter-to-gerrymandering

[Winehole23]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf