early look at gerrymanders in 2020

[This is Eharding, guys]

Any comments on this in regards to Ohio?
https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Congressional_Redistricting_Commission_Initiative_(2018)

[This is Eharding, guys]

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.

That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.

[This is Eharding, guys]

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.

That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.

RealClear Politics says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.

Due to their states swinging hard to Trump, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP machines in MI, OH, and PA to eliminate Dan Kildee's, Tim Ryan's, and Matthew Cartwright's districts in 2021. Sadly, a lot of those Obama-Trump voters aren't flipping back, ever. It would have been impossible for the GOP to have done this in 2011, though, as all of these states went for Obama easily.

Youngstown, Flint, Wilkes-Barre are sadly all fast-declining urban areas. That makes the positions of the Dems there even more precarious (except in Ohio, where it is likely nonpartisan redistricting will pass in 2018).

[This is Eharding, guys]

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.

That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.

RealClear Politics says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.

Due to their states swinging hard to Trump, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP machines in MI, OH, and PA to eliminate Dan Kildee's, Tim Ryan's, and Matthew Cartwright's districts in 2021. Sadly, a lot of those Obama-Trump voters aren't flipping back, ever. It would have been impossible for the GOP to have done this in 2011, though, as all of these states went for Obama easily.

Youngstown, Flint, Wilkes-Barre are sadly all fast-declining urban areas. That makes the positions of the Dems there even more precarious (except in Ohio, where it is likely nonpartisan redistricting will pass in 2018).

Trump voter=/=House R voter
It would be outrageously foolhardy to draw gerrymanders on that basis, generally. Also, it just screams 'dummymander' to me - Trump won many economically left-wing people in the Rust Belt and to assume they won't ever be won back on presidential level AND they would be reliable House Republican voters is just deeply unwise.

Tim, since when has a dummymander resulted from assuming the congressional vote will resemble the presidential vote, rather than from ignoring the presidential vote and assuming past congressional vote results will always remain? North Carolina has only three Dem districts, and it went for Trump by only four points. Ohio went for Trump by eight points. Surely Ohio can easily afford to lose OH-13 under a GOP gerrymander without it degenerating into a dummymander, and probably OH-09, as well. The majority of Obama-Trump voters were state legislative R voters if a seat was contested, and almost all Obama-Trump voters in GOP-held districts were House R voters.

I understand Romney vote is more strongly predictive of 2017 special election results than Trump vote. That's because presidential election results take time to fully percolate down to the local level. The Arkansas Democratic Party had plenty of fun during the 2000s winning Clinton 96/Bush 2000 voters. Then the 2010s came, and Bush 2000 results all of the sudden became far more predictive of congressional and state legislative vote than in 2006. Matt Cartwright, etc. will survive 2018 easily. But in the 2020s, the current PA-17 will very likely end up R on the House and state legislative level.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Hillary Clinton got just 418 more votes in OH-04 than Mitt Romney (who lost Ohio) got in OH-09 (and obviously fewer votes than Donald Trump or John McCain got in OH-09). If GOP machine is willing to risk it, and thinks Trump v. Clinton is the future, the current OH-09 and OH-04 can be transformed into two Obama-Trump districts.

Yes, Cincinnati is an obvious bright spot in the Ohio darkness.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Why not? It's urban and swung the most away from Trump of any Ohio county after Delaware.

[This is Eharding, guys]

The idea the California map is a "soft Dem" map is bizarre. Only two districts (Hunter's and McCarthy's) went for Romney with over 60% of the vote, and none went for Trump with over 60% of the vote. There was no packing of California GOP seats the way North Carolina Democrats were packed in 2016. Sure, the commission could have stretched the GOP more thinly, but that would just mean more Clinton-GOP seats would have been Clinton-Dem seats in 2016, and the vast majority of current GOP-held seats, even if won by Romney, would be Dem seats in 2018. California is just a very urban, very expensive, very Hispanic, very Democratic state.

[This is Eharding, guys]

The idea the California map is a "soft Dem" map is bizarre. Only two districts (Hunter's and McCarthy's) went for Romney with over 60% of the vote, and none went for Trump with over 60% of the vote. There was no packing of California GOP seats the way North Carolina Democrats were packed in 2016. Sure, the commission could have stretched the GOP more thinly, but that would just mean more Clinton-GOP seats would have been Clinton-Dem seats in 2016, and the vast majority of current GOP-held seats, even if won by Romney, would be Dem seats in 2018. California is just a very urban, very expensive, very Hispanic, very Democratic state.

You have zero clue how gerrymandering works.

Then please tell us the maximum number of House seats the California Republican Party can realistically sustain, that is, what an optimal gerrymander for the Republicans there would look like. Such a thing wouldn't even come close to doubling the current number of GOP representatives in California, and far more of them would be at risk of going down in a Democratic wave as a result.

As for breaking up MO-05, Heisenberg and Gass are far too pessimistic for the GOP here. Missouri went for Trump by double digits. There is zero risk for the GOP cracking it between three, and even between two districts. The Michigan GOP's hold over its R seats is far more tenuous than the Missouri GOP's if it cracked MO-05.