Would the Democrats have regained control of the House...

[politicallefty]

In 2012, I think the answer is in the affirmative. The change alone from horrendous gerrymanders to nonpartisan maps would easily swing many seats towards the Democrats. I don't think that alone would make the difference. However, I think the difference would come from candidate recruitment. Undoing the Pennsylvania map may not swing PA-08 on its own, but perhaps running someone like Patrick Murphy would. The difference I see is that many of the defeated 2010 candidates may very well have reclaimed their seats in 2012 (although not including many rural Southern candidates and the like). In the end, I think there would have been enough Democratic victories to reclaim the House Majority.

[muon2]

In 2012, I think the answer is in the affirmative. The change alone from horrendous gerrymanders to nonpartisan maps would easily swing many seats towards the Democrats. I don't think that alone would make the difference. However, I think the difference would come from candidate recruitment. Undoing the Pennsylvania map may not swing PA-08 on its own, but perhaps running someone like Patrick Murphy would. The difference I see is that many of the defeated 2010 candidates may very well have reclaimed their seats in 2012 (although not including many rural Southern candidates and the like). In the end, I think there would have been enough Democratic victories to reclaim the House Majority.

I don't follow your answer. It looks like you start by answering no to the question in the poll. I agree based on the statistical analysis I posted earlier. But then you answer yes based on recruitment.

The reason I don't follow is that either you have added an extra part to the poll question beyond just the effect of partisan gerrymandering, or you are claiming that somehow if the map was less partisan the Dems would have recruited better. If this is the latter, then I would argue that the statistical analysis I quoted would still be relevant, since it assumes equally strong recruitment for both sides. I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

[minionofmidas]

I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

I would expect a neutral map to comparatively encourage the party currently disadvantaged to engage in stronger recruitment.

[muon2]

I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

I would expect a neutral map to comparatively encourage the party currently disadvantaged to engage in stronger recruitment.

And that was my point in linking to a statistical analysis that was based on generic candidates on both sides. However, despite the Dem gerry in IL, the 2012 GOP candidates for the 6 contested seats were pretty strong recruits - 4 incumbents, a former statewide candidate, and a congressional chief of staff (only the CoS won). I would think that the Dems could do as well in the seats they were mapped out of in other states.

[minionofmidas]

I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

I would expect a neutral map to comparatively encourage the party currently disadvantaged to engage in stronger recruitment.

And that was my point in linking to a statistical analysis that was based on generic candidates on both sides. However, despite the Dem gerry in IL, the 2012 GOP candidates for the 6 contested seats were pretty strong recruits - 4 incumbents, a former statewide candidate, and a congressional chief of staff (only the CoS won). I would think that the Dems could do as well in the seats they were mapped out of in other states.

But Republicans didn't map out Democratic incumbents except in North Carolina and the odd seat elsewhere (and there, the same thing held). They mostly fortified their marginal 2010 gains... which in PA, OH, MI were already based on a Republican gerrymandered map. That certainly lead to potentially vulnerable incumbents being given de facto free passes. (Though the most extreme case, Kevin Yoder who didn't have a Democratic opponent at all in a marginal seat, was not in fact a beneficiary of gerrymandering. Ah, those dodgy little details. )

[Mr.Phips]

I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

I would expect a neutral map to comparatively encourage the party currently disadvantaged to engage in stronger recruitment.

And that was my point in linking to a statistical analysis that was based on generic candidates on both sides. However, despite the Dem gerry in IL, the 2012 GOP candidates for the 6 contested seats were pretty strong recruits - 4 incumbents, a former statewide candidate, and a congressional chief of staff (only the CoS won). I would think that the Dems could do as well in the seats they were mapped out of in other states.

But Republicans didn't map out Democratic incumbents except in North Carolina and the odd seat elsewhere (and there, the same thing held). They mostly fortified their marginal 2010 gains... which in PA, OH, MI were already based on a Republican gerrymandered map. That certainly lead to potentially vulnerable incumbents being given de facto free passes. (Though the most extreme case, Kevin Yoder who didn't have a Democratic opponent at all in a marginal seat, was not in fact a beneficiary of gerrymandering. Ah, those dodgy little details. )

The problem was that Republicans didnt have that many Democrats left that they could possibly map out after 2010 anywhere but in North Carolina. 

[politicallefty]

I don't follow your answer. It looks like you start by answering no to the question in the poll. I agree based on the statistical analysis I posted earlier. But then you answer yes based on recruitment.

The reason I don't follow is that either you have added an extra part to the poll question beyond just the effect of partisan gerrymandering, or you are claiming that somehow if the map was less partisan the Dems would have recruited better. If this is the latter, then I would argue that the statistical analysis I quoted would still be relevant, since it assumes equally strong recruitment for both sides. I would hardly expect a neutral map to only encourage one party to engage in strong recruitment.

I think simply removing gerrymandering would have made the House a toss-up in 2012 when you don't consider other circumstances. When you don't look at anything else, it'd be hard to say which party would control the House. But ultimately, yes, I think the Democrats would have had significantly better candidate recruitment. The incumbent protection aspect of the current Republican gerrymanders cannot be discounted. The Republicans already had their strong candidates in the form of incumbents. You would have almost certainly seen a lot more rematches under pre-2012 lines (let alone actual nonpartisan maps). Based on candidate recruitment alone, the House could have flipped if we were still using the old maps.

Overall, the fact is that Democrats perform better in Republican districts than vice versa. As it stands right now, there are 16 Democrats in R+ Cook PVI districts, but only three Republicans in D+ PVI districts (including the odd CA-31 situation). As I understand it, the 2012 redistricting cycle moved the median district from R+2 to R+3 (compared to R+1 during the 90's). I cannot imagine nonpartisan redistricting making the median district any worse than R+1.