Is it a coincidence that Dems are winning redistricting at all states for now?

[David Hume]

Dems avoided worse cases in all states that GOP control:

IN: R can draw out IN-1 easily, but they didn't.
NE: R can nuke the filibuster and draw a 3-0 safe map, if they want to, but they leave NE-2 at Biden +6.
AR: R can shore up the little rock seat to make it safe, but the didn't, and Reduce AR-2 from +8.8 to +7.7, which may flip in the middle of the decade.
TX: R can draw a more aggressive gerrymander up to 28-10, and redraw it a few years later to cure dummymander. Even if they want 25-13, they can draw a better map. But they didn't.

It seems D pretty much got the best they can hope for.

On the other side, in states where D control:
OR: Dems claimed to share power with GOP in exchange for waiving the reading of bills. But they broke the deal, defeated R's walk-out, and passed a 5-1 gerrymander.

Is there any reasons that R are far less aggressive than expected in all these states?

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's literally one single map that has actually been enacted, totaling 6 seats. I'd wait before declaring victory.

[Skill and Chance]

There's literally one single map that has actually been enacted, totaling 6 seats. I'd wait before declaring victory.

The NE map passed veto-proof with bipartisan support, so that one's also pretty much a done deal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's literally one single map that has actually been enacted, totaling 6 seats. I'd wait before declaring victory.

The NE map passed veto-proof with bipartisan support, so that one's also pretty much a done deal.

Ughh great. That map is awful, barely better than the one that got filibustered.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't know if I would say they are winning everywhere.  They are winning vs. expectations at the congressional level in most places.  I suspect there are important national voices telling Democrats to focus on congressional seats and Republicans to focus on state legislative seats behind the scenes.  So far, all of the dealmaking has involved relatively pro-R legislative maps and pro-D congressional maps, with CO being the one state where it might go the other way. 

[Minnesota Mike]

I think too many people spent the last 10 years drawing maps on DRA and thinking that is how the real world works. The idea NE would split Douglas county and bury Democrats in a districts stretching well into the rural areas was always fantasy. TX was always going to draw maps that made Republican incumbents absolutely safe even if it meant adding a Democratic vote sink. Same with Indiana. Redistricting does not happen in a vacuum and too many people here seem to think it does.

[GALeftist]

I suspect there are important national voices telling Democrats to focus on congressional seats and Republicans to focus on state legislative seats behind the scenes.

Think this might be more or less unique to Oregon; if it's not, Republicans are making a big strategic blunder. State legislatures are way less important than congressional maps in safe states like Oregon or Indiana, because realistically in most states there's little difference between 52% of the seats and 70% of the seats, but that's not the case for congressional maps, where every little bit helps. State legislature maps are quite important in swing states, but so far the only swingy state that has draft state legislative maps is Texas, and the TXGOP has no reason to compromise with Ds to begin with, they can draw whatever they want. I think it's more likely that redistricting has so far been driven quite a bit by incumbent concerns; maximal Republican gerrymanders were likely unpopular with incumbents in Indiana and Arkansas, for example, and Oregon legislators probably valued a map where they'd keep their jobs more than squeezing another congressional seat out of the state.

[Skill and Chance]

I suspect there are important national voices telling Democrats to focus on congressional seats and Republicans to focus on state legislative seats behind the scenes.

Think this might be more or less unique to Oregon; if it's not, Republicans are making a big strategic blunder. State legislatures are way less important than congressional maps in safe states like Oregon or Indiana, because realistically in most states there's little difference between 52% of the seats and 70% of the seats, but that's not the case for congressional maps, where every little bit helps. State legislature maps are quite important in swing states, but so far the only swingy state that has draft state legislative maps is Texas, and the TXGOP has no reason to compromise with Ds to begin with, they can draw whatever they want. I think it's more likely that redistricting has so far been driven quite a bit by incumbent concerns; maximal Republican gerrymanders were likely unpopular with incumbents in Indiana and Arkansas, for example, and Oregon legislators probably valued a map where they'd keep their jobs more than squeezing another congressional seat out of the state.

Counterargument: they have accepted there's no legal map that will hold the majority in a same party midterm.  Dems are playing to avoid another 2012 in a 2024 or 28 narrow presidential win.  Republicans tend to care more about state level issues and the current SCOTUS will tend to punt a lot of cultural issues to the states in a way that favors R's on net.  Also, amending state constitutions often requires a supermajority.     

[Nyvin]

I think Democrats feel bolder this cycle with the recent suburb swings toward the left.   In 2011 it was the rural areas that were swinging toward the GOP and that's now slowed down a lot.   This probably gives Republicans pause on stretching out their voters too far.   Democrats on the other hand feel like demographics are on their side and can push the envelope a bit further.

That and maybe Republicans feel confident on winning in 2022 without gerrymandered maps.

[MT Treasurer]

The actual answer isn’t nearly as interesting as you might think: Republicans are very, very incompetent.

I also still think they have zero idea of what actually awaits them in these blue states, so some naivete plays a role as well. They don’t feel the need to be aggressive in their states because they (foolishly) think Democrats won’t go nuclear on them in blue states or unironically believe that them not passing gerrymanders will persuade Democrats not to pass gerrymanders in their states.

Obviously GOP has bigger hurdles than Democrats when it comes to creating gerrymanders (VAR, unfavorable courts, etc.), but everything I’ve seen from them so far just reeks of embarrassing incompetence.

[Pollster]

OP is writing from a perspective of learned helplessness/status quo bias. Do remember that turning competitive seats into safe seats for your party is still very effective gerrymandering - it can ensure that your party is a larger minority (raises your floor), and can make it significantly more difficult for your opponent to increase their majority and/or reclaim it later in the decade if they lose it (lowers their ceiling).

And realistically, where were Republicans going to draw themselves new seats up the wazoo? Their 2010 gerrymanders were extremely effective and, despite some close calls and wave-accelerated upsets that were quickly reversed in places like Texas, OK-05, SC-01, etc., they largely held up throughout the decade. In many ways, what went up had to come down, and Democrats were naturally poised for far more offensive opportunities this time around as a result.

There's also the massive own-goal of Republicans coalescing around the electoral strategy of maximizing their strength in shrinking regions of the country while absolutely hemorrhaging support in the growing regions. At the rate trends are going, just imagine what Democrats might be able to do in Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina in 2030 in addition to the population behemoths they already control. Where can the GOP make up those losses that they haven't already maximally gerrymandered?

[David Hume]

OP is writing from a perspective of learned helplessness/status quo bias. Do remember that turning competitive seats into safe seats for your party is still very effective gerrymandering - it can ensure that your party is a larger minority (raises your floor), and can make it significantly more difficult for your opponent to increase their majority and/or reclaim it later in the decade if they lose it (lowers their ceiling).

And realistically, where were Republicans going to draw themselves new seats up the wazoo? Their 2010 gerrymanders were extremely effective and, despite some close calls and wave-accelerated upsets that were quickly reversed in places like Texas, OK-05, SC-01, etc., they largely held up throughout the decade. In many ways, what went up had to come down, and Democrats were naturally poised for far more offensive opportunities this time around as a result.

There's also the massive own-goal of Republicans coalescing around the electoral strategy of maximizing their strength in shrinking regions of the country while absolutely hemorrhaging support in the growing regions. At the rate trends are going, just imagine what Democrats might be able to do in Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina in 2030 in addition to the population behemoths they already control. Where can the GOP make up those losses that they haven't already maximally gerrymandered?

I fully agree that TX and IN are effective gerrymander. The point is, even for them just to shore up, they can do much better. They did not shore up AR 3 and NE 2. They can shore up IN-5 and some TX seats more effectively.

For all these states, they didn't do what can be done that's better for them, almost like a coincidence.

[David Hume]

I think too many people spent the last 10 years drawing maps on DRA and thinking that is how the real world works. The idea NE would split Douglas county and bury Democrats in a districts stretching well into the rural areas was always fantasy. TX was always going to draw maps that made Republican incumbents absolutely safe even if it meant adding a Democratic vote sink. Same with Indiana. Redistricting does not happen in a vacuum and too many people here seem to think it does.

I am very curious of how the dynamics of incumbenct protection works. If the national party want to have a larger majority, and the incumbents want to maximally protect themselves, there is a conflict of interest. How would state legislatures react?

I posted this analysis about incumbenct protection https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=458891.msg8214584#msg8214584