NEW FROM ME: I went district by district, and I agree with @databyler: Redistricting probably didn't cost Democrats the House. fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
There were 11 districts that Republicans flipped thanks to redistricting alone (including #FL04, #TN05, etc.), vs. 5 that Democrats did. (Chart by @elena___mejia!) That's a net gain of +6 for the GOP. BUT… fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis… 
…there were 9 districts Democrats *kept* only because of redistricting, vs. only 3 for Republicans. So it was a wash! fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
Plus, Democrats actually gained 3 seats from reapportionment. fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
Now, yes, if courts had overturned GOP gerrymanders and implemented fair maps, Democrats would have gained at least 5 seats—enough for a 218–217 majority. fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
But why should that have happened without courts also overturning Dem gerrymanders in states like NV and NM? And it's too hypothetical/subjective to tell who would have won under a gerrymander-less map. fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
The bottom line, though, is that, while the congressional map may not be fair, the outcome we got was. Republicans won the most votes (narrowly), and they got the most seats (narrowly). fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
(And yes, there a lots of "buts" and asterisks to this analysis. Before you @ me, read the piece!) fivethirtyeight.com/features/redis…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
