Redistricting 2020, doomed incumbents

[Oryxslayer]

I'm going to cover most of these when we hit their turn on the state  megathread but here  my hotlist. I'm not going to count anyone who is sitting in a opposing seat like Brindisi since getting redistricting from red to red or blue to blue doesn't count as getting drawn out. Right now those with near-guaranteed ticking timers are:

- Jim Cooper (TN05) is the most vulnerable incumbent in Congress to the pen. R's didn't crack him back in 2010 cause they feared a dixiecrat revival...which never came. I did the  math on a personal map and even with Bresden's numbers there are ways that a Quad-cut gets all seats to Blackburn+10. A 5-way cut is also possible if nobody want too much of Nashville, while not compromising the protection for the Knoxville seats. Something similar would be happening in KY03 if Beshear didn't get elected last week, and can court-block the most outrageous proposals.

- Someones going down in VA, likely Rob Whitman (VA01) if dems have the cahones.

- One of the Dem's from the north jersey suburbs. There needs to be a second R seat up there to make everyone else safe, if NJ-07 flips in 2020 then the decision process gets easier. If some gets the ax congressionally they get a free ticket statewide.

- John Katko (NY24) if he survives 2020. He's facing Brindisi if Brindisi survives because NY22 is a guaranteed reapportionment, and Syracuse likely gets custody of Ithaca.

- IN01 (Open) if the GOP is feeling cocky. Similarly, MO05 (Emmanuel Cleaver). Both might survive because their remote location on the  map demands a major reshuffling of district lines. If/When MO05 gets cut it probably triggers ballot petitions for fair districts, and starts a process similar to what we saw in FL in 2016.

-IL12/13 are getting merged and one redistributed, but the reps may survive by getting stuck in other seats and having to primary other GOP'ers.

-Alex Mooney (WV02) is dead weight, always underpreforming his baseline massively. He's the easy GOP cut, especially now that WV03 seems a lock for the future.

- Someone loses the DvD primary in RI, unless they get to go statewide.

-AL02 (Open).

- Sanford Bishop (GA02) if the GOP increases AA power overall using ATL, even while making the 2nd red. They also need cleaver lawyers, because its the VRA.

-Inside California, someone from LA is losing their seat to redistribution to the OC/SD region. The new seat still will be blue though because of which areas are growing.

Someones losing their seat in MN, MI, PA, Long Island, and OH because reapportionment. But which seat is cut is a open question. Ohio is general is a black box this cycle.

[Oryxslayer]

Don't underestimate parochial concerns by individual members. That's traditionally been one of the biggest restraints on the most extreme gerrymandering.

Yes, the above list could be a bit longer if everyone was a lockstep partisan, but they won't so you have to factor that into the expected MOE of potential outcomes. The only map where either side really went the whole hog and ignored  incumbent demands was in NC 2010, which is why the state ends up with such contentious lines. The NC GOP had it easy though since they had a bunch of dems who were getting axed. Of the two midwestern city seats, IN01 and MO05, MO05 is the easier target. KC and her environs are bluer then IN01, the seat is only D+7 because the  mappers wanted to prevent a Skelton comeback. However, KC is more central whereas Gary is up in the corner. IN01 also has those parochial concerns going on, Gary is a toxic place that to republicans that nobody  ever wants to represent. Like I said, Missouri has the ballot initiative, and through legal challenges will probably revive the KC seat sometime in the decade even if it does get cut.

It's notable that this time around the list of 'doomed reps' is rather short because of how reps and state govts have more  or less sorted themselves partisan-wise. Most of the 2018 wave came from areas rapidly getting blue that will become new Dem packs or from areas where Dems/Commissions have the  Pen. The opposite  is true for the GOP gains from earlier in the decade. It's different from 2010 when states  like PA, MI, and VA only had republicans (or AR and KY with only Dems) mapping the lines. Just a step down we see NJ, MN, and NV had team red sitting in powerful seats at the table, further expanding their potential gains.

[Oryxslayer]

If a Dem is in a seriously red seat and going to become a seriously red seat (or GOP, blue to blue), like Horn or Cunningham, it isn't being drawn out. It's reclamation. There are not many of these this time, no more Dixiecrats or Rockefellers. They therefore do not count as doomed incumbents, since their occurrence originally was an abnormality, not when compared to TN05 and the long list of seats that suffered similar fates in 2010.

[Oryxslayer]

In Illinois whoever ends up in IL-3 after 2020 might be screwed in 2022 since it's almost certainly going to be made a hispanic majority seat.

I doubt so. IL lacks the pop for two reliably Hispanic seats - it couldn't work with 18 districts and it certainly can't with 17. Remember there is a large dropoff between Hispanic pop and Hispanic voters when compared to any other group. García's base is on the South side  of the earmuffs whereas Gutiérrez was from the north, so Garcia will naturally want more  of the southern Hispanics inside his bit. When you remember Madigan protects his Dems - especially since he personally is repp'ed by the 3rd...yeah nothing is going to happen to endanger whomever is there in 2021 be it Lipinski or another Dem.

[Oryxslayer]

Anyway here my 8-1 map that I have had laying about for a month or so. Like I said, it's both ugly, and compromises a bunch of other stuff across the map. The end result is ever seat but the Gary one being R+10 PVI or greater, with the new Gary 1st as R+9. I don't even know why the RRH map uses way-outdated Obama numbers. Cutting the first a move would be done from pure partisanship. When I drew this I also reinforced 9 and 5: Hollingsworth undepreforms every time (but not by as much as say Moody), and whatever happens in the 5th come 2020 will scream that the seat needs GOP reinforcements.



Now, there are a bunch of downsides to cutting Gary, and only one really good one. If they are going to cut, Gary is the choice; it's shrinking, the regions getting less blue, and the other option is growing AND flipping the surrounding region blue. If they don't move against Gary then I fail to see why a Snake like this isn't the ideal move. It frees up the GOP'ing parts of the present IN01 for other seats, which allows said seats to give IN05 reinforcements easier. It protects against the South Bend region which is actually getting bluer. A hidden side effect is it gives Buttegieg an outlet to run/primary in if he fails for the executive slot. Getting the Butte on your delegation is just naturally going to draw more media, bring in more resources for Indiana, and might put Indiana on track for a position in the Dem congressional leadership, not a bad haul if you have to concede a blue seat. It's a similar scenario to how House dems treated Kennedy.

[Oryxslayer]

AL: Someone who moves up to run statewide can give up their seat.
CA: If they lose a seat Nunes may be forced to run against Cox while McCarthy gets the rest of the seat.
IL: Districts 12 and 13 get merged into one Metro East district with the remnants being distributed amongst 15 and 18.
MI: Dingell retires.
MN: Michelle Fischbach if she wins will probably lose her seat to the other three GOP reps.
NJ: The 7th becomes an R vote sink while Malinowski is moved to the 12th.
NY: Katko probably gets screwed over by taking in Ithaca, while the 27th gets spliced up between Reed, Modell’s, and Higgins.
OH: Chabot and Wenstrup will get stuck with a Cincinnati district and Stivers will have to run in Columbus. Tim Ryan will also be in much redder territory. The 9th gets cut up IMO, the Toledo portions becoming part of the 5th and the Cleveland portions becoming the new 9th and merging with the old 16th.
PA: Glenn Thompson gets the 15th split between the 12th and 16th.
TN: Jim Cooper in a 4 way split.
VA: Denver Riggleman.

Your making a classic mistake in assuming that whenever a seat gets cut, the short straw is determined by partisan interests. Yes, partisanship impacts the process, but you cannot ignore which areas are growing and shrinking. For reference, here's my thoughts on who gets cut based on a combination of partisan and demographic data, some I have already mentioned:

AL: AL-02. Easy. Black portions into the VRA seat which is the real shrinker, rest gets divided up.

CA: IF CA loses a seat, it comes from the NE which is the only region shrinking in the  state. This likely means CA-03 or CA-04 in some fashion. The south valley is actually growing the fastest in the state via non-voting Hispanic farmworkers. Now, CA is probably not losing a seat, everything surrounding it seems like media hype. For example, CA is pouring a incomparable sum of money into assisting the census count "hard to count individuals" in the rural south valley that were likely missed by the last census. For comparisons sake, Texas has a bunch of these as well in the South and West, but is putting down 0$ to assist the census. Then there's the fact that CA's competition are MT-02, NY-26, and MN-08, all seats in states with far less cards in their hand than CA.

IL: IL-12/13 get sliced and diced, it's obvious from a mile away.

MI: No idea. The entire state is shrinking except the suburbs/Lansing/Grand Rapids (which is why your prediction is weird) and since the lines will be reshuffled a big way we don't know who will be left standing. Could be a northern seat, MI06/7 could get merged, could be a Detroit seat, who knows with the commission.

MN: MN-07 is the easy cut. There will be either a retiring Dem or a freshman Republican there in 2020. Thing is, if Dems have the pen, which is likely considering the State Senate map, than the GOP seats in the west will go through a shakeup as Dems gerry themselves 5 seats. So who is left standing is an open question.

NY: NY has to lose one seat, and that is fated to come from upstate. It's the region shrinking the most. That seat is essentially already decided to be the 22nd, it's a big shrinker, it's central location makes it easy to cut, and the rep going to be new. If Brindisi is still around he's in the  new 24th. Now, if NY loses a second it CANNOT come from upstate, since upstate under 26 seats is actually underrepresented. The next easiest place to cut a seat is a connector between Nassau and NYC, like NY04 or NY03. However, the  Long island seats are  likely to get reshuffled (similar to MN/MI), especially with King gone, so who knows who gets a seat next decade.

OH: Some idea. Ohio in general is a black box since they got a 'commision' but there are so many ways that body could decide to interpret the law and utilize the tools it offers. However, it's pretty much one of OH07/15/04 who are fated to get left stranding.

PA: Anything north/west of SEPA and the Lancaster/York/Dauphin region is up for grabs. My take is PA09, but could be 15, could be 12, who knows.

RI: DvD primary or someone runs statewide.

WV: WV-02. Moody underpreforms, and the present WV-03 is now a GOP lock without fear of it voting blue.

[Oryxslayer]

NY's commission is rather toothless when it comes to fair maps. The law was put into place seemingly with the expectation that the state senate and state house would continue to be divided via shenanigans.

The entire commission body is made up of people chosen by the legislature, or chosen by those chosen. This means that they know the partisanship of their state, and when commissions are set up like this they HEAVILY trend towards incumbent protection plans, in all but the most obvious COI situations. But you know, there are republicans at the table, so why not just ignore the commission. If the legislature rejects two commissions plans, they get their power back. Guess what, both chambers are now reliably blue.

It's a situation like Ohio where the maps trend towards fair, but can very easily be unfair if those holding the pen desire it, aka a black box.

[Oryxslayer]

I don't think Oregon has any commission, it's just a bunch of state laws the legislature has to follow.

Yeah  Oregon has normal legislative powers but some serious rules and restrictions regarding what can be drawn. What gerrys do occur are rather limited. I expect dems to try and push the envelope though since they now have supermajorities.

[Oryxslayer]

I don't think Oregon has any commission, it's just a bunch of state laws the legislature has to follow.

Yeah  Oregon has normal legislative powers but some serious rules and restrictions regarding what can be drawn. What gerrys do occur are rather limited. I expect dems to try and push the envelope though since they now have supermajorities.

Yes, OR on the first map was an error.  It is currently under legislative (Dem) control with the restrictions you mentioned, but there is a group pursuing a commission initiative for the 2020 ballot.

Which is good. If you don't have a commission, harsh and defined restrictions often work just as well, but only just. Which is why Ohio is so unpredictable this cycle, the finite number and restrictions on which counties can be cut are arguably more important than the commission itself which can be ignored if the legislature really wishes.

[Oryxslayer]

-MD: I'm surprised no one's mentioned Maryland as a possibility as I think Democrats could go for an 8-0 map. Hogan may be the governor, but Democrats far exceed the 3/5 supermajority necessary to override if necessary. The map is unnecessarily hideous in part because Dutch Ruppersberger wants two distant military installations in his district. I'm not sure why MD-03 is such a monstrosity. The balance between partisan allegiance and parochial interests will probably determine the fate of MD-01 (i.e. Andy Harris).

MD is one of the few states that I already have an individual thread going on, so you can check that out. The short answer though is that it feels like 7-1 is going to stay, but now feature 3 AA seats instead of 2.

[Oryxslayer]

-MD: I'm surprised no one's mentioned Maryland as a possibility as I think Democrats could go for an 8-0 map. Hogan may be the governor, but Democrats far exceed the 3/5 supermajority necessary to override if necessary. The map is unnecessarily hideous in part because Dutch Ruppersberger wants two distant military installations in his district. I'm not sure why MD-03 is such a monstrosity. The balance between partisan allegiance and parochial interests will probably determine the fate of MD-01 (i.e. Andy Harris).

MD is one of the few states that I already have an individual thread going on, so you can check that out. The short answer though is that it feels like 7-1 is going to stay, but now feature 3 AA seats instead of 2.

Couldn’t they just shift territory between MD-04 and MD-05 to make the latter black majority?

Yes, but who would Bus a potential house leader? He's either losing a primary or getting a weird seat in 2020. But PG is large enough for 2 AA seats to draw from it, even with Boyer kicking around. Far easier to Bus sarbanes who has first right of refusal on gov and Cardin replacement. Once again, this is all discussed in the MD thread here.

[Oryxslayer]

Georgia has it's own long 2020 thread if you wish to discuss/argue about  the potential GOP gerrymander.

[Oryxslayer]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

[Oryxslayer]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

I think you are way underestimating how aggressive things could get.  Expect a lot of test cases with states asking federal courts for more latitude.  For example, Alabama is expected to lose a CD.  I would not be surprised if it passed a map eliminating AL-07 and then asked SCOTUS to rule that VRA Section 2 does not apply to redistricting at all.   

If Breyer and/or RBG are replaced by new Justices with Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito views between now and 2022, I wonder if even Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims (CD and state senate district population equality within narrow limits) are safe?  I don't think Kemp would actually sign a map drawing one giant Dem CD covering all territory within 40 miles of Atlanta and/or one giant Fulton County state senate district, because he doesn't want the area voting 90%+ against him in 2022, but in a state where the statewide officials are completely safe in the GE, someone might try something similar?

Well, if there is a majority to remove all VRA restrictions, then things change. But right now, there is not. Instead, there is a trend towards creating compact packs for each party, as seen with the Ohio commissions county cut restrictions and the new NC map. Visible gerrymanders are targets for a informed and partisan electorate, on both sides as seen in MD and NC. Unless the mappers have no shame like Madigan, a hypothetical tentacled map that produces say a 8-3 is less attractive then a 7-4 where everyone is packed into seats with arguable COIs. 

[Oryxslayer]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



1: 60.8/3.7 Trump, R+12.9
2: 49.2/41.4 Clinton, D+2.6
3: 50.9/40 Clinton, D+2.3
4: 54.1/37 Clinton, D+8.4
5: 62.2/29.3 Clinton, D+16
6: 62.4/30.2 Trump R+13.1
7: 47/44.3 Clinton D+2.4

Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



1: 50.4/40.2 Clinton, D+3.7 CPVI
2: 55.2/36.7 Trump, R+7.7
3: 55/36.1 Clinton, D+5.9
4: 55.1/36 Clinton, D+8.7
5: 65.5/25.7 Clinton, D+18.9
6: 62.5/29.6 Trump, R+14.4
7: 61.3/31.8 Trump, R+12.8
8: 47.5/43.9 Clinton, D+3.1

The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

[Oryxslayer]

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.



1: 62.6/29/7 Trump, R+13.5 CPVI
2: 47.5/43.1 Clinton, D+2.2
3: 53.2/37.7 Clinton, D+4.2
4: 56.3/37.5 Clinton, D+9.9
5: 61.7/29.6 Clinton, D+15.3
6: 62.5/29.4 Trump, R+15.7
7: 46.6/44.8 Clinton, D+3.1

This isn't as aggressive as it could be. The D+15 and D+10 districts could be un-packed, allowing you to either leave the map as 5-2 and make it appear visually cleaner by chopping off/broadening the tentacles in certain places, or alternatively possibly by making it into a 5-1-1 map (which might also allow it to look visually cleaner, because you could have the swing district take in a decent # of the tentacle-ish areas and also some surrounding R areas to smooth out the lines a bit, particularly in the north where there is very low population.

In addition, these maps are all using 2016 estimates. It should be easier to draw favorable maps (with relatively clean looking lines, if desired) for the Dems with the 2020 data, because more of the population share will have shifted into the MSP metro area and out of the rural areas.

Yes, things could get more aggressive or partisan, especially if they break Minneapolis in two. But this is Minnesota, and they don't really like to cut towns or make things too weird. We tend to think if Minnesota of having 'good govt' democrats, but that is giving them a bit too much credit. Minnesota just has had a lot of divided government over the past 20 years, and parties have gotten used to compromising, especially on the districts. For a state with such a history of voting democratic, the only time the state has had any trifecta in the last 25 years was a democratic one between 2012 and 2014. Most, but not all of that will end up ignored if the trifecta comes into power in 2020. The town lines probably will be respected though, it is in most of the Midwest.

[Oryxslayer]

No way legislature would have the Twin Cities suburbs (Washington county) connected to the Iron Range. You have to at least try to keep COI together,

Washington county already borders the 8th, this isn't some huge gerrymander here. The north range didn't have enough pop on it's own, it had to reach into the exurbs in 2010. The other option was disrupting Peterson's base, which wasn't an really a option. If the north gets even more red in 2020, they will have no option but to pair the two: Dems won't sink Duluth into a red seat, bit there is nothing more favorable left in the north.

Also:

I personally think that the senate is going blue here (the map favors team Blue) but if it doesn't then we will cross the less likely bridge when we come to it. I got three Dem drawn styles of map here, and the overall result is 5 Clinton seats on both the 8 District and the 7 District map. It's really not hard, even if you avoid cutting towns like I did here since MN historically doesn't like cutting towns.

Here's a map whose theme is 'aggression.' The Northern tentacles really are not bad, they even maintain a COI; the native reservations. The southern tentacles are more notable. This map tries to get every blue bit inside a blue seat, and it shows. I don't think this map is very likely.

Here's a 7 district map that tries to better respect COI's in certain cases. It at least is less ugly in regards to MN02 and MN07. I find this map rather interesting because bit shows three different types of D+2 seats. A reservation tentacle remains for MN07.



Finally, here's a map where Minnesota keeps her 8th seat. Keeping the 8th seat allows the Blue seats to become safer. This map also sees a big reorientation of the three GOP seats to satisfy the democratic mappers. This map probably has 4 safe blue seats.



The theme of any MN Blue gerrymander is pairing each of the twin cities with as much exurbs as one can without making it vulnerable.

Huge dummymander risk, dems still over-perform in rural mn down-ballot, these maps evaporate that remaining support.  Dems would be wise to draw a 4d-3r map, with 2 of the r districts being rural districts that dems have been able to win in the past decade.  Dems would be smart to give Phillips some of Minneapolis and Craig some of Stp to shore them up, but a visually wird gerrymander into rural mn would garner huge backlash, and risks dummymander in a state which has trended r.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ee1bb222-5386-4292-97cd-f56cf4ece4c5
here's a more likely MN map.  I wouldn't support this, but all 4 dem seats have double digit Clinton margins and only 1 seat would've stayed red the entire last decade.  If dems run candidates more appealing to rural voters, they could win 6/7 of the seats.  

No, the rurals are turning red. Peterson is retiring in 2022 or losing in 2020, so he's gone. Klobuchar was the only one who could keep the old rurals, but even in 2018 her victory map was extremely urban. Dems don't hold any legislative seats outside the 5 blue seats under the aggressive plan, and the second plan only strands the Fargo legislators. The 'almost' victories in the 1st and 8th in 2018 were fought on urban-rural lines, and every plan takes the blue urban areas and ushers them away to safety. No district relies on any rural area going blue, every one has a majority of the voters being democrats in Suburbs or scattered cities like Duluth or Rochester.

I think I already explained why Dems won't be cutting towns, but if they do then tons of different options open up.