Massachusetts Compromise Map

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. D+18 (Springfield, Amherst)
2. D+2 (Worcester, Fitchburg)
3. D+8 (Lowell, Lawrence)
4. D+8 (Framingham, Marlborough)
5. D+28 (Cambridge, Newton)
6. D+8 (Revere, Lynn)
7. D+28 (Boston, Quincy)
8. D+8 (Brockton, New Bedford)
9. D+2 (Plymouth, Weymouth)

[Brittain33]

Baker may be boxed out of redistricting by veto-proof Dem majorities.

[Oryxslayer]

Baker may will be boxed out of redistricting by veto-proof Dem majorities.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Why would the Dems compromise with Baker? They have a Veto-proof majority, they can do whatever they like.

[MarkD]

1. D+18 (Springfield, Amherst)
2. D+2 (Worcester, Fitchburg)
3. D+8 (Lowell, Lawrence)
4. D+8 (Framingham, Marlborough)
5. D+28 (Cambridge, Newton)
6. D+8 (Revere, Lynn)
7. D+28 (Boston, Quincy)
8. D+8 (Brockton, New Bedford)
9. D+2 (Plymouth, Weymouth)

Yes!
I like the look of that map!

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yes

[politicallefty]

I'll echo the majority here. This won't happen so long as Democrats keep their supermajority.

[CatoMinor]

I'll echo the majority here. This won't happen so long as Democrats keep their supermajority.

We can dream.

[Figueira]

There is no need for a compromise, but I do actually like this map, particularly the boundary between districts 1 and 2.

Edit: the downside of course is that Jim McGovern is now vulnerable. I think he can easily hold on though, even in a bad year.

[smoltchanov]

There is no need for a compromise, but I do actually like this map, particularly the boundary between districts 1 and 2.

Edit: the downside of course is that Jim McGovern is now vulnerable. I think he can easily hold on though, even in a bad year.

Republicans have abysmal bench in Massachusetts (in fact - they don't have anyone on par with  Charlie Baker), so McGovern will, probably, win. But a little bit of competition is always useful....

[Figueira]

I do approve of this map. Like the PA map, it preserves regional political communities.

But like others have said, it's unlikely that Baker gets the votes necessary to sustain a veto. Republicans would need to pick up an additional 7 Senate seats or 13 House seats (12 if Whipps Lee votes with Republicans).

I don't see either happening. Maybe there's a world where Republicans gain seats in either chamber and then peel off enough Democratic votes to sustain.

Democrats in Massachusetts have a hard time keeping the caucus united (Baker is actually to the left of some state legislative Democrats) but this is the one area where I would expect Democrats to be a unified front. I can't say I'm an expert on the inner workings of state government though.

Also I'm pretty sure her name is now just Susannah Whipps, no Lee.

[DPKdebator]

It's a lot better than the current map.