Wisconsin Megathread v3: GOP in MASSIVE DISARRAY

[ProgressiveModerate]

Looking at results from last night it strikes me what a Democratic monster Dane county has become.

-Turnout in Dane was 80% of Nov 22. Statewide was 69% of Nov 22. Waukesha was 73% of Nov 22.
-Janet P got 82% of the vote in Dane. Obama only got 71% in Dane in 2012.

But even with all that Janet P would still have won if you exclude Dane's results.

And IIRC from reading this somewhere last night turnout was under 50% in Milwaukee? If true, dems still have a sizable # of voters left to turn out in future elections.

It was at 45.3%, which is still a modern record for spring elections.

Looking at results from last night it strikes me what a Democratic monster Dane county has become.

-Turnout in Dane was 80% of Nov 22. Statewide was 69% of Nov 22. Waukesha was 73% of Nov 22.
-Janet P got 82% of the vote in Dane. Obama only got 71% in Dane in 2012.

But even with all that Janet P would still have won if you exclude Dane's results.

And IIRC from reading this somewhere last night turnout was under 50% in Milwaukee? If true, dems still have a sizable # of voters left to turn out in future elections.

I hate to say thats normal, but for off-cycle elections it is but not so extreme divergence as yesterday. We all knew and discussed pre-election that urban diverse Milwaukee turnout is low during these primaries/non-federal elections, and Dane seemingly always punches above its weight as if to counteract it.

Oh I for sure get that it's great turnout for an off-cycle spring election, what with urban minorities being less likely to vote when it's not a prez election and all. I'm just saying that in a presidential year, dems still have room to grow b/c of this. Replicate this turnout elsewhere in the state and get Milwaukee up to 60/65 and dems would absolutely romp. If we're fortunate enough to get new state legislature maps in time for '24, with trump as the repub nominee, I can see dems with a very, very good shot at getting the trifecta. Then Walker's legacy can truly be ripped out root and branch.

Dem voters are more packed in, would likely require them to get a reverse gerrymander to get them the trifecta.

Tbf that's kinda what happened in MI this cycle; the commission purposely unpacked Dems in the name of partisan fairness, and Ds won a trifecta by the skin of their teeth. I think the MI maps are egregious and wrong though if your party has a self-packing problem, it forces you to diversify and grow your coalition, the same way in a place like NV the GOP is penalized for having support that's almost exclusively rural.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think the MI maps are egregious and wrong though if your party has a self-packing problem, it forces you to diversify and grow your coalition, the same way in a place like NV the GOP is penalized for having support that's almost exclusively rural.

The location of the fields and rivers around people's home should not determine how important their vote is. Michigan did exactly the right thing, focusing on what matters in a functioning democracy.

Exactly, so just draw a partisan blind map that respects COIs. For instance, I live in NYC; no matter what I am going to be in an extreme lopsided D district where my vote is "wasted", but that isn't inherently unfair, at least compared to the alternative of Bacon-Stripping a Brooklyn Assembly District out to Staten Island or Long Island.

The other problem with drawing with the aim of overcoming geographic biases is that geography biases can flip on their head pretty fast (within a cycle of two), so that map could end up actually becoming a gerrymander.

If you really want, you can do what the PA special master did for the PA House of Representatives; he still appealed to neutral redistricting principles but would tend to ere towards choices that favor Dems. The issue with Michigan is that they did not follow good redistricting principles at all, and anyone looking at individual districts can tell there was clear intention to aggressively unpack Ds out of places like Ann Arbor and Lancing. Sure the topline partisanship results on 2020 Pres numbers may appear fair, but the actual map is terrible.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Looking at Wisconsin statewide races in the Trump era:
2018 WISC: D+10
2018 Gov: D+1
2018 Senate: D+11
2019 WISC: R+0
2020 WISC: D+11
2020 Pres: D+1
2022 Gov: D+4
2022 Senate: R+1
2023 WISC: D+11

If representation actually means fair representation again at the WISC, it looks easy to argue that a 6-2 congressional map fails to represent the electorate, and thus should be struck down.

For instance, I live in NYC; no matter what I am going to be in an extreme lopsided D district where my vote is "wasted", but that isn't inherently unfair, at least compared to the alternative of Bacon-Stripping a Brooklyn Assembly District out to Staten Island or Long Island.

Bad analogy. There is a difference in kind: the dominant party is already in power in NYC; your vote would only pad their margin and bring little change to policies enacted. This is worlds apart from a situation where the NY leg would be controlled by the GOP because your vote was wasted.

Firstly in most of those D+10 races, the breakdown was 4-4. Imo, the main issue with the current map is there should be a swingy R-leaning seat that keeps the Fox Valley together that would allow a 5D-3R outcome in Baldwin or Protacewitz style wins. WI only produces a 6-2 outcome when Republicans are viable statewide.

Also it doesn't matter if there's a dominant party or not. Intentionally trying to unpack specific communities over others is wrong; reverse-gerrymandering is still wrong, even if it achieves an outcome that may be fair when it comes to partisanship. Any map that violates neutral principles to achieve *any* partisan target is not good.

With that being said, if there are 2 equally good maps of Wisconsin, the only difference being one has more equitable partisanship, I'd choose the one with more equitable partisanship.

Under your logic we should try and draw that absurd Trump Congressional District in Massachusetts, or bacop-strip the Nevada General Assembly out to rural Nevada in the name of partisan fairness for the minority party.