Era of the New Majority

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is great.  I want more!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You know I don't expect that level of detail regarding my home state - this is pretty good anyways KingSweden.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Can't wait for updates. 2026 should be interesting.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wonderful timeline as usual KingSweden.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Era of a New Majority lives!
Nice new material, KingSweden. I'm on the edge of my seat.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The GOP probably lost its only good chance at keeping the White House.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Could you please do a snapshot of a DFW area CD?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Could you please do a snapshot of a DFW area CD?

Sure! Any in particular? (You may want to refer to the 2022 map)

The seat that has the Park Cities and Garland.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

KingSweden is MT trending Dem in this world?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Housekeeping - I am debating doing every entry as a high-level breakdown of world and US events in two year increments and then giving the people what they want, which I assume is a cavalcade of fictional people winning Congressional races. My goal is to thus wrap my TL up by taking us through the 2052 election, which is when the "New Majority" of diverse, borderline socialist Democratic dominance ends with a realignment favoring a VERY different GOP

Thoughts?

I would love that!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

An opportunity to help out the author of the TL that inspired me to use DRA for TLs and repay my gratitude? Sign me up!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would like to do CO, GA, NC, and AZ, please.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

KingSweden, are all states I have reserved Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

So CO, I have to assume it's a dem trifecta, they do a very minor Dem gerry/non-partisan-ish, nice-looking map that just happens to benefit Democrats (like putting the East Plains all in one seat, voila, instant GOP vote sink!)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Democrats are in charge. What you and (possibly) me see as making the most sense might not take effect in every state (particularly TX)
More specifically anyway, post-2010 and post-2020, Democrats were largely out of the 'drawing districts' card game. This time they have most of the cards. I don't see them giving up all their leverage.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'll try my hand at Delaware, Idaho, and maybe Oregon once I get my computer plugged in.

Please do!

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

So CO, I have to assume it's a dem trifecta, they do a very minor Dem gerry/non-partisan-ish, nice-looking map that just happens to benefit Democrats (like putting the East Plains all in one seat, voila, instant GOP vote sink!)

You can reference who does and does not have a trifecta on the previous page

Ok, so I'd like to relinquish my claim on FL for now if you think I am claiming too many states and/or if Heisenburg complains. Doing TX instead.
Also, is this confirmation that no legislatures and/or statehouses switch hands post-2028, pre-2031?
Lastly, am I posting too much in your thread?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

More questions (I hope I'm not needling you too much).
1) Just how quick is Travis County growing?
2) Do we see a coalition district in West Texas north of El Paso, given how Latino it's becoming?
3) How much is South Texas lagging? Is there massive migration from there to San Antonio?
4) I take it there's some immigration to places like Collin, Williamson, Waller, Denton and the other outskirts of metro Counties?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Personally I am a fan of California's system, but Iowa's is a good second.

Since IA's system would not really work in some places (like, say, you can't have all of Dallas County in one CD ) I'm assuming that you have some mix of the FL system for good measure.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

More questions (I hope I'm not needling you too much).
1) Just how quick is Travis County growing?
2) Do we see a coalition district in West Texas north of El Paso, given how Latino it's becoming?
3) How much is South Texas lagging? Is there massive migration from there to San Antonio?
4) I take it there's some immigration to places like Collin, Williamson, Waller, Denton and the other outskirts of metro Counties?

I'll answer your second note first. You would naturally need to come up with some kind of community of interest solution for larger counties, so you're right.

Texas as a whole grew at a slower pace between 2020-2030 than it did in the 2010s despite adding just shy of the same # of people. The urban areas I imagine are fastest booming. You know much more about Texas geography/politics than I do - I will trust your judgement in making sub-state projections

Another thing, in TX they have lots of really annoying tiny VTDs that you need more time to select. Could I please kind of ignore those if I can? They'd statistically insignificant I think.
Also, would McCain-voting seats of over 10 points be swing districts by 2030?