Nope, because the trends are clear on every level in Indianapolis. They just have to look at Ohio who tried this in 2000 and got burned, and that was before Colombia became a Sapphire. Like I said above, Pence gave Trump his VP bounce here, which masks a slightly more Dem baseline in regards to PVI, which 538 used exclusively.
True, but an 8-1 map is quite feasible. Like I drew.
The most common response (is it on this thread too?) is that Republican congressmen would prefer not to have to deal with Lake County or Gary and leave them their own district.
If Indiana had to lose a district, they might feel differently.
Well I packed the most dem portions of lake, but it's true that concerns are more than just about the partisan makeup of the delegation, also wishes of congress members. But on my map, Lake is only split 2 ways, between IN-1 (now r+11) and IN-7 (now D+25). No incumbent R would be forced to run in Lake County. Just a new R candidate for a newly republican seat. https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff97355d-01d9-4dc1-8f18-f9ace6dcf929
I think this map might be vulnerable to challenge on VRA grounds for over-packing black voters.
My Dem pack is only 40% black tho. R's would just have to be clear it was done for partisan reasons, not racial. Also, while the federal courts won't throw out all the requirements for vra districts, more conservative courts will be more likely to uphold districts like these which don't eliminate black districts. Packing is easier to justify than cracking. R's won't get away with destroying AL-7 or TX-34, but conservative judges might allow them to get away with higher minority percentages.
The thing is, it's likely some parties will prefer to play it safer for fear of getting their map stuck down and have a court draw a map that's quite unfavourable to them.