2020 New York Redistricting

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

Democrats want to ban gerrymandering, but oppose unilateral disarmament.  Republicans oppose banning gerrymandering.  It’s not the same.

That isn't really true as the Democratic definition of "gerrymandering" is outcome rather than process based. The Wi Supreme Court ruling basically obligates partisan gerrymandering to ensure "geography is not destiny".

So I doubt Democrats would back a legal ban on the consideration of partisan outcomes in redistricting.

They would insist on some sort of efficiency gap/proportionality requirement

That’s not partisan gerrymandering

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

Democrats want to ban gerrymandering, but oppose unilateral disarmament.  Republicans oppose banning gerrymandering.  It’s not the same.

I think it’s equally accurate to say that the DNC wants to ban gerrymandering, meanwhile the local state parties who would actually be losing the power to draw the lines are rather more sceptical.
Whether congressional democrats support or oppose universal disarmament is ultimately irrelevant, the state legislative caucuses can and will do whatever they please as it is within their power alone.
And ultimately there isn’t a shared interest here. Banning gerrymandering would be extremely beneficial to the DCCC, but it would also destroy state legislative supermajorities. The most obvious example, MD Democrats would’ve been in deep trouble with 8 years of Larry Hogan if it weren’t for their gerrymandered veto-proof majorities.

[Devils30]

Why would the Dems not gerrymander? The court would not have reopened this case if they intended to stop the legislature from drawing its own maps.

[Smash255]

Why would the Dems not gerrymander? The court would not have reopened this case if they intended to stop the legislature from drawing its own maps.

From a technical perspective the court did not rule that the maps should be up to the Legislature, but rather that the maps drawn for 2022 were temporary since it did not go through the process of the Commission

[Oryxslayer]

Given the reactions, I think the exact point was to have a map very close to the 2022 lines. And then justify their disapproval by noting how similar it is to the map just rejected and doesn't solve any "issues."

There's also a few changes to 6, 14, and 7 I believe.


Anyway,  the chambers aren't in session until the end of February right now on their calendars, so plenty of time for maneuvers.

Here's Senator Liz Krueger (chair of powerful Finance committee) basically saying what I suspected yesterday.  If the Dems did try to game the commission,  it was to pass a map very close to the last one. So now she and probably the legislature can reject it on the grounds that the commission solved nothing and kept what a she calls a GOP judge ordered for 2022. And therefore the commission can do what the Supreme Court ordered.

https://twitter.com/sarbetter/status/1758562843295711244?t=f-DnlwPqw4Jqi-6NEYLmv...

[Gass3268]

Leader Jeffries is strongly against the map:

https://twitter.com/jccoltin/status/1758578232306159784?s=46

[Oryxslayer]

Leader Jeffries is strongly against the map:

SNIP

Back to waiting to see what new map is deemed sufficient.

[Dan the Roman]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

Democrats want to ban gerrymandering, but oppose unilateral disarmament.  Republicans oppose banning gerrymandering.  It’s not the same.

That isn't really true as the Democratic definition of "gerrymandering" is outcome rather than process based. The Wi Supreme Court ruling basically obligates partisan gerrymandering to ensure "geography is not destiny".

So I doubt Democrats would back a legal ban on the consideration of partisan outcomes in redistricting.

They would insist on some sort of efficiency gap/proportionality requirement

That’s not partisan gerrymandering

It is the opposite of banning partisan motivations. It makes partisanship the only or the overriding criteria. Which is clear if you read the report in Wisconsin which I did. They explicitly say partisanship is the most important criteria.

Democrats want to mandate partisan gerrymandering in some weird version of that Australian state which redraws boundaries after every election to try and retroactively produce a proportional result.

I say this as someone who intensely dislikes the dystopian rule the NC and WI GOPs imposed through their own maps, but Democrats have entirely dropped support for nonpartisan redistricting in favor of partisan balanced.

[Spectator]

Are we expecting a slightly less aggressive version of the 22-4? I still imagine Malliotakis will be targeted since it’s really not hard to pair her with the white liberal areas of Brooklyn and make it Biden +15ish. You can nuke Lawler completely pretty easily by giving him a Biden seat in the 60s while still moving Molinaro’s, Williams’s, and Ryan’s about 3 points left each. Dunno if Dems will get more aggressive on those seats. Long Island isn’t hard to vote sink Garbarino’s district.

[politicallefty]

I think it’s equally accurate to say that the DNC wants to ban gerrymandering, meanwhile the local state parties who would actually be losing the power to draw the lines are rather more sceptical.
Whether congressional democrats support or oppose universal disarmament is ultimately irrelevant, the state legislative caucuses can and will do whatever they please as it is within their power alone.
And ultimately there isn’t a shared interest here. Banning gerrymandering would be extremely beneficial to the DCCC, but it would also destroy state legislative supermajorities. The most obvious example, MD Democrats would’ve been in deep trouble with 8 years of Larry Hogan if it weren’t for their gerrymandered veto-proof majorities.

Congress has no authority to ban partisan gerrymandering at the state legislative level (and current Supreme Court precedent is that partisan gerrymandering cannot be remedied in the federal courts under the US Constitution).

The main thing that state parties wouldn't like is that certain state legislators wouldn't be able to draw their own districts to get a ride to Congress. If anything, you'd think there'd be more apprehension among Members of Congress. While I do agree that the Democratic Party would be the net beneficiary of a ban on partisan gerrymandering, there would be a number of Democratic Congressmen that would essentially be voting themselves out of the House. The only reason the Freedom to Vote Act isn't law is because Manchin and Sinema thought preserving the filibuster was more important than anything else.

As for the Maryland example, the Legislature only needs a 3/5 supermajority to override a veto. Democrats haven't been below that level in Maryland since the 1960s. If anything, gerrymandering can backfire when the electorate really turns against you. Even then, you don't need to gerrymander the MD Legislature to get Democratic supermajorities.

[politicallefty]

Are we expecting a slightly less aggressive version of the 22-4? I still imagine Malliotakis will be targeted since it’s really not hard to pair her with the white liberal areas of Brooklyn and make it Biden +15ish. You can nuke Lawler completely pretty easily by giving him a Biden seat in the 60s while still moving Molinaro’s, Williams’s, and Ryan’s about 3 points left each. Dunno if Dems will get more aggressive on those seats. Long Island isn’t hard to vote sink Garbarino’s district.

I don't think anyone knows what to expect yet. I don't think the aggression is necessarily the issue. They can probably get away with that so long as they do it in a clean way. The issue that ends up blowing up some of these maps is incumbent demands. That's what leaves me feeling uneasy.

I wonder if NY Dems might join Staten Island with Lower Manhattan. There is historical precedent for such a district (I think as recently as the 1980s). That would easily take care of that district. I think I also read that doing so could more easily allow for the creation of a new Asian plurality district. Upstate NY is fairly easy to tinker with so long as things are kept reasonably compact and counties and municipalities are kept mostly intact. The commission map actually gives the NY Legislature the opportunity to clean things up.

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

[Oryxslayer]

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.



Now why do I personally think something like this is coming? Cause it is totally in favor of the the two people various legislators favor right now - Jones and Latimer - and harms the chances of both Bowman and Lawler. Latimer gets a seat all to himself with Rye and covering his base in the White Liberal side of Westchester. The other 3 are in the Yonkers seat: Bowman in Yonkers, Jones in Sleepy Hollow with ties to Rockland, and Lawler in Rockland's Pearl River. The elimination of the ideological divide between the primary combatants with the sole focus on competency will make Bowman's situation that much more challenging, but for other legislators it will just be a chance to hurt progressives. Lawler meanwhile can't win versus a D+30 almost-majority-minority electorate.


The districts getting "partially" renumbered follows from this. There is continuity
with Rockland in 17 and southern Westchester in 16, but 16 is now facing outwards whereas 17 is now facing inwards and Yonkers. This is of course cause of whose running where right now, and where their residencies are.

[patzer]

Downside of that map is Jones didn't want to be forced into a primary with Bowman in 2022 so may feel the same now.

Lawler would probably try his luck in Pat Ryan's seat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Downside of that map is Jones didn't want to be forced into a primary with Bowman in 2022 so may feel the same now.

Lawler would probably try his luck in Pat Ryan's seat.

I doubt it.  Back then Jones did polling and found Bowman easily beating him.  That is not going to be the case this time around.  And Ryan would wipe the floor with Lawler

[Zaybay]

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.



Now why do I personally think something like this is coming? Cause it is totally in favor of the the two people various legislators favor right now - Jones and Latimer - and harms the chances of both Bowman and Lawler. Latimer gets a seat all to himself with Rye and covering his base in the White Liberal side of Westchester. The other 3 are in the Yonkers seat: Bowman in Yonkers, Jones in Sleepy Hollow with ties to Rockland, and Lawler in Rockland's Pearl River. The elimination of the ideological divide between the primary combatants with the sole focus on competency will make Bowman's situation that much more challenging, but for other legislators it will just be a chance to hurt progressives. Lawler meanwhile can't win versus a D+30 almost-majority-minority electorate.


The districts getting "partially" renumbered follows from this. There is continuity
with Rockland in 17 and southern Westchester in 16, but 16 is now facing outwards whereas 17 is now facing inwards and Yonkers. This is of course cause of whose running where right now, and where their residencies are.

While I agree with most of what you've said about NY redistricting, I have to disagree that Jones is the primary beneficiary of this sort of split while Bowman is the loser. If anything, its the complete opposite.

Lets look at what the current map means for both Jones and Bowman first. For the former, he's got a solid opportunity to take the D primary easily for NY-17, a Biden +10 seat that, while occupied by a GOP incumbent, represents a pretty favorable general election scenario assuming the seat remains politically similar. For the latter, we've got an incumbent that, while in a safe seat, is in a precarious position. On the one hand, his primary voting base in The Bronx and Southern Westchester has been shrunk via redistricting, while the rest of Westchester county views him with suspicion. Add onto this the fact that the entrenched and popular County Executive has chosen to fight him, and it looks like a tough battle.

Now lets take a look at these same two incumbents with the new map you've proposed. For Bowman, his seat has largely lost the parts of Westchester that weren't fans of him (including his dangerous challenger), and has instead seen a consolidation of his base. The area he's gained, Rockland county, is way more Republican than his old district's land, and therefore represents a much smaller portion of the D base in the seat; the portion that he lost had 100K Dem voters vs the 70K Dem voters in Rockland he gains. Just for comparison, the Bronx portion + Yonkers + Mount Vernon, areas that he did very well in when he fought Engel, have about 90K Dem voters by themselves. And this assumes other areas like New Rochelle aren't also thrown in, which would further entrench Bowman.

Meanwhile Jones has basically been screwed over. His easy primary to face off against Lawler has now been thrown completely off course, as he now has to reorient to battle Bowman. His base in Rockland, which used to dominate the district and allowed for his initial victory in the old NY-17 in the first place, has now been eclipsed by Bowman's base. He now has to fight an uphill battle to get the vote of places like Mount Vernon and the Bronx, regions in which Bowman has fairly strong ties to.

Fundamentally, the new district's political geography would shift from a place where Bowman's base could be overwhelmed by high-income, highly educated white voters north of the city, to a seat where Bowman has sway over way more D primary voters, further entrenching him. Hell, its this kind of seat combination that Bowman wanted all along, as the Hochulmander demonstrates (though his followed the eastern border rather than the western one).
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f53f766e-f701-4501-a282-4cac74036408
Though Jones could still win such a hypothetical primary, it'd be quite the uphill battle by geography alone.

[Tekken_Guy]

Downside of that map is Jones didn't want to be forced into a primary with Bowman in 2022 so may feel the same now.

Lawler would probably try his luck in Pat Ryan's seat.

I doubt it.  Back then Jones did polling and found Bowman easily beating him.  That is not going to be the case this time around.  And Ryan would wipe the floor with Lawler

Who challenges Bowman from the mainstream wing of the party then?

Andrea Stewart-Cousins will be almost 75 so I doubt she runs.

[Oryxslayer]

Downside of that map is Jones didn't want to be forced into a primary with Bowman in 2022 so may feel the same now.

Lawler would probably try his luck in Pat Ryan's seat.

I doubt it.  Back then Jones did polling and found Bowman easily beating him.  That is not going to be the case this time around.  And Ryan would wipe the floor with Lawler

Who challenges Bowman from the mainstream wing of the party then?

Andrea Stewart-Cousins will be almost 75 so I doubt she runs.

Nobody, and I think this gets at a larger point of the redistricting process right now. Unless someone is retiring, the process going so late is going to slam a filing deadline very quickly on those waiting to see the new maps. Both Dems and Reps have challengers in the competitive seats, but I don't think there is any serious primary challengers anywhere right now besides Westchester.

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.



Now why do I personally think something like this is coming? Cause it is totally in favor of the the two people various legislators favor right now - Jones and Latimer - and harms the chances of both Bowman and Lawler. Latimer gets a seat all to himself with Rye and covering his base in the White Liberal side of Westchester. The other 3 are in the Yonkers seat: Bowman in Yonkers, Jones in Sleepy Hollow with ties to Rockland, and Lawler in Rockland's Pearl River. The elimination of the ideological divide between the primary combatants with the sole focus on competency will make Bowman's situation that much more challenging, but for other legislators it will just be a chance to hurt progressives. Lawler meanwhile can't win versus a D+30 almost-majority-minority electorate.


The districts getting "partially" renumbered follows from this. There is continuity
with Rockland in 17 and southern Westchester in 16, but 16 is now facing outwards whereas 17 is now facing inwards and Yonkers. This is of course cause of whose running where right now, and where their residencies are.

While I agree with most of what you've said about NY redistricting, I have to disagree that Jones is the primary beneficiary of this sort of split while Bowman is the loser. If anything, its the complete opposite.

SNIP

Good, in fact great analysis. If circumstances were normal, I would agree with everything you said and more. Except, things are not normal. I think our point of divergence comes from me thinking Bowman is tarnished goods and anyone can defeat him right now given the electorates of the region.  I think it's important to remember in this regard that Bowman didn't come to congress by being a Progressive - that was Jones - he came in by being a fresh alternative to the self-tarnished Engel. IMO its not hard to see things repeating here, even if some of his issues only matter to Reps. Electability-focused and mainstream not-rock-the-boat voters are going to congregate to the alternative, especially in the NYT weighs in like they usually do. But nobody really knows for sure besides his campaign.

So if Latimer can get his ideal district like this - again my opinion - his friends really don't care what happens to the rest. In fact some may just be doing it cause they are anti-progressive, something seemingly common in NY Dem politics these days. But if Latimer is going to bulldoze through, then Jones friends are going to ensure he still has options.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The map has been released!




(just kidding, I wish this were the map )

Map details

[patzer]

Good, in fact great analysis. If circumstances were normal, I would agree with everything you said and more. Except, things are not normal. I think our point of divergence comes from me thinking Bowman is tarnished goods and anyone can defeat him right now given the electorates of the region.  I think it's important to remember in this regard that Bowman didn't come to congress by being a Progressive - that was Jones - he came in by being a fresh alternative to the self-tarnished Engel. IMO its not hard to see things repeating here, even if some of his issues only matter to Reps. Electability-focused and mainstream not-rock-the-boat voters are going to congregate to the alternative, especially in the NYT weighs in like they usually do. But nobody really knows for sure besides his campaign.

So if Latimer can get his ideal district like this - again my opinion - his friends really don't care what happens to the rest. In fact some may just be doing it cause they are anti-progressive, something seemingly common in NY Dem politics these days. But if Latimer is going to bulldoze through, then Jones friends are going to ensure he still has options.

There are options to help everyone- they're just less tidy. For example this would leave Bowman in the 16th, Jones in the 17th, Latimer in the 18th, Ryan in the 19th, and Tonko in the 20th- each with territory they would probably be happy enough with- thereby avoiding all unwanted primaries.




16th = Biden+21
17th = Biden+13
18th = Biden+17
19th = Biden+13
20th = Biden+14
22nd = Biden+12
24th = Biden+10
25th = Biden+17
26th = Biden+20

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1760338496835801349

Old DRA map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::8917cd49-860d-4755-ad21-48c65f36d5b0

[Oryxslayer]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of present actors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level. And of course half of the new ones are Republicans, making things easier when it comes to Dems pleasing all their own while also playing as partisans.

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion instead in there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

[Tekken_Guy]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of presentactors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level.  

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion as well there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

Also there is zero chance they are screwing over Pat Ryan.

[Devils30]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of presentactors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level.  

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion as well there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

Also there is zero chance they are screwing over Pat Ryan.

This won't happen but you wonder if Molinaro would run in NY-18 with Dutchess and Ryan in NY-19 with Ulster instead of the other way around.

Map is not completely horrible with a few minor changes. Williams and Lawler would be finished and 11 probably leans D. Giving Ryan a slightly bluer district might be enough with his incumbency edge and putting Ithaca in 19 can sink Molinaro. Dems in an average year open seat would have a shot at 2 and a 2018 wave is likely 23-3.

[Tekken_Guy]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of presentactors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level.  

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion as well there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

Also there is zero chance they are screwing over Pat Ryan.

This won't happen but you wonder if Molinaro would run in NY-18 with Dutchess and Ryan in NY-19 with Ulster instead of the other way around.

Map is not completely horrible with a few minor changes. Williams and Lawler would be finished and 11 probably leans D. Giving Ryan a slightly bluer district might be enough with his incumbency edge and putting Ithaca in 19 can sink Molinaro. Dems in an average year open seat would have a shot at 2 and a 2018 wave is likely 23-3.

Also having the one Suffolk based Biden seat being a WWC South Shore seat is a bad idea for Dems IMO.

[Devils30]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of presentactors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level.  

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion as well there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

Also there is zero chance they are screwing over Pat Ryan.

This won't happen but you wonder if Molinaro would run in NY-18 with Dutchess and Ryan in NY-19 with Ulster instead of the other way around.

Map is not completely horrible with a few minor changes. Williams and Lawler would be finished and 11 probably leans D. Giving Ryan a slightly bluer district might be enough with his incumbency edge and putting Ithaca in 19 can sink Molinaro. Dems in an average year open seat would have a shot at 2 and a 2018 wave is likely 23-3.

Also having the one Suffolk based Biden seat being a WWC South Shore seat is a bad idea for Dems IMO.

This map would kill the Dems if they went the squad/anti-Israel future route. Would lose 1,2,3,4,11 in this scenario.