If a decade ago, you were shown the 2024 House map what would you assume about current politics?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I know I've made thread like this before, but now that we have a few changes in different states, would be curious. You know nothing about partisanship, who controlled the drawing of the maps, or who represents the districts, just the district boundaries.



I would assume generally Democrats ended up in a better place to control redistricting compared to last time, with Texas and North Carolina being the only 2 obvious extreme Republican gerrymanders. However, it's clear Democrats controlled states like IL, NM, NV, and OR. It's also clear states like MI, PA, and VA ended up with some sort of bipartisan/neutral map. Given how clean Michigan's map is I would assume it was some sort of commission.

I would wonder if something happened to the commission in Arizona because a decade ago that type of map would've been a pretty solid 7R-2D (to be fair even today it is a bit of an R-friendly map).

I would assume Florida finally got a truly fair map and that Dems held up well enough that seats like FL-02, FL-04, FL-15, FL-27, and FL-28 were swingy seats.

Louisiana and Alabama would also tell me the VRA was somehow strengthened or reinforced - by 2014 it was clear Democrats were not winning back control of those states anytime soon.

I think my general assumption would be Democrats improved a lot with non-white voters since 2014, hence why Republicans had to cede additional votes sinks in Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, why new VRA seats were called for in AL and LA, why the South Texas seats could afford to be weakened, why Dems could crack Clark County 3 ways to make 3 safe D Nevada seats, ect

I think the strange configurations for seats like KS-03 and NE-02 would make me think Dems improved a bit in the suburbs, but not a ton and those maps are designed to make those seats likely R. OH-01 also still works as an effective crack.

It would also be clear that Republicans generally gained in rural areas given on every R geerrymander, urban blue areas are combined with rurals that used to be swingier, and also things like Democrats only drawing 1 Dem seat in Southern Illinois.

What would you have thought?

[Steve from Lambeth]

I would look at it confused and then walk away. All I knew about American politics in 2014 was that Barack Obama was the President and there was a government shutdown the previous November.

[bagelman]

I certainly wouldn't think that Ohio has become a true red state. I would wrongfully believe it's purple as clearly there is enough Democratic pressure in the state congress to dismantle the hideous gerrymander in northeast Ohio. Look at that Akron-based district, probably blue while the neighboring Youngstown district may be more purple or blue if Lake County moves leftward. I couldn't imagine the Mahoning Valley shifting rightward enough to make that district right of center. 

The Toledo district includes some sharply conservative areas but should be blue as well (as long as the lakeside region east of Toledo doesn't suddenly lurch rightward for no reason), and I'd be surprised if the Cincinnati district retains their 20th century GOP loyalties. Overall this looks like a compromise or non-partisan map for my home state.

As for other parts of the country, notable states include Alabama (I see not one, but two potential black districts), Utah (obvious chopping of SLC which voted Romney, why? increasingly liberal SLC or just Republicans being dicks?), and Montana (a western district that could be winnable for Democrats, though I don't remember how much I knew about western Montana back in 2014).