One potential miscalibration in the conventional wisdom on redistricting is not accounting for the partisanship of states that have/not passed maps. In 2020, the median partisan lean of districts in states which HAVE passed new boundaries was D+1. Was R+14 in states that haven't.
This just mean that we should expect the seats that haven't been redrawn to be muuuuch redder than the seats that have -- and the plans there maybe more biased toward Republicans. Court cases in OH, NC make this a little tricky, but if you look at the most likely maps...
... then you get the following changes v 2020:
In states that *HAVE* passed new maps: Democrats have gained 12 seats that lean toward them (counting competitive seats).
After adding likely maps is the remaining states: Dems will gain around 8 versus their 2020 map.
In states that *HAVE* passed new maps: Democrats have gained 12 seats that lean toward them (counting competitive seats).
After adding likely maps is the remaining states: Dems will gain around 8 versus their 2020 map.
That puts the number of seats Democrats would win the presidential popular vote in in a completely tied election at 213, up from 205. So, big Dem against — the fairest map in decades, probably — but still biased towards Rs.*
*Depending mainly on new maps in NC, OH, and FL.
*Depending mainly on new maps in NC, OH, and FL.
Yes, “gains, sorry I have bad eyes and fat fingers — a bad combo for tweeting on my phone
https://twitter.com/jaegerbru/status/1491909969775521792
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
