2020 Oregon Redistricting

[lfromnj]

District 4 in phe state house plan has an interesting and slightly ugly compromise in rather than taking the outlying extremely polarized outskirts of Jackson(Rurals vs Ashland) it takes in the bellwether town of Medford. Putting Ashland makes it a bare Clinton district ala 2016 while rurals makes it Trump +7. This choice made it Trump +3-4.

[Gass3268]

Which version is most likely? Election Twitter assumes Map A, everyone here is saying essentially Map B.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Ran the 2016 presidential numbers for Plan A

OR-01: Clinton+35.1
OR-02: Trump+28.3
OR-03: Clinton+29.8
OR-04: Clinton+7.9
OR-05: Clinton+12.4
OR-06: Clinton+8.8


DO IT FUTURE GOVERNOR KOTEK

FWIW Plan B is:
OR-01: Clinton+33.5
OR-02: Trump+18.3
OR-03: Clinton+54.7
OR-04: Trump+4.0
OR-05: Trump+3.3
OR-06: Clinton+3.3 (!)

My thoughts are that Plan B is meant to be so disproportionately bad for Dems that it forces shakier members of the caucus over to Plan A. Sure, 2016 numbers aren't super useful in Oregon but a map that could be plausibly 4R-2D is just laughable. Not happening.

[Nyvin]

Why the heck would OR Dems agree to Plan B?   They're guaranteed three safe D districts in the Portland metro in any map that's made.   What do they get out of Plan B?

Plan B almost looks like the perfect map for Republicans,  it's a complete loss for OR Dems.

"Compromise" needs to include both parties,  it's not just one side getting everything they want.

[Mr.Phips]

Why the heck would OR Dems agree to Plan B?   They're guaranteed three safe D districts in the Portland metro in any map that's made.   What do they get out of Plan B?

Plan B almost looks like the perfect map for Republicans,  it's a complete loss for OR Dems.

"Compromise" needs to include both parties,  it's not just one side getting everything they want.

They’d be morons to agree to that map.  The worse they should agree to is a 4-2 map where the four Dem seats are waveproof.

[BoiseBoy]

Ran the 2016 presidential numbers for Plan A

OR-01: Clinton+35.1
OR-02: Trump+28.3
OR-03: Clinton+29.8
OR-04: Clinton+7.9
OR-05: Clinton+12.4
OR-06: Clinton+8.8


DO IT FUTURE GOVERNOR KOTEK

What are Plan B's numbers?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Ran the 2016 presidential numbers for Plan A

OR-01: Clinton+35.1
OR-02: Trump+28.3
OR-03: Clinton+29.8
OR-04: Clinton+7.9
OR-05: Clinton+12.4
OR-06: Clinton+8.8


DO IT FUTURE GOVERNOR KOTEK

What are Plan B's numbers?

Edited

[Gass3268]

Yeah, Plan B is trash, make a better compromised map or just go with A.

[Gracile]

Plan B should be a non-starter for OR Dems. There's little justification for a state as Democratic as Oregon to have a 3-2-1 map (or possibly 2-3-1 given how thin the margin that OR-06 is - even if 2016 margins were deceptive because of the third party vote share, it's still dicey).

[lfromnj]

I am confused is Plan B the Republican plan or the bipartisan? If it was a Republican plan then why even offer the Medford compromise. when it just looks ugly?

[BoiseBoy]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

[OBD]

Not loving the Washington split but Plan A remains far superior.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

[patzer]

Alek Skarlatos will be unhappy about Peter DeFazio being shored up a bit in plan A- he was probably expecting/hoping for a competitive race. There'd still be a chance of him winning the 4th even under the new borders, but it'd be much harder.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/Audentes4/status/1433826548432490502

Just like I thought, they D vote sunk 1 and 3, made 6 as competitive as possible, and made the two southwest districts R Leaning.

It's a Republican gerrymander (Plan B).

[Mr. Illini]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

[Canis]

Yeah, Plan B is trash, make a better compromised map or just go with A.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I think a compromise of the 2 would be a fair map actually lol. A is a D-leaning Gerrymander and B is an R Gerrymander. A fair compromise would be 3 safe D district 1 likely d district 1 tossup (a Trump-Biden district if possible) and 1 safe R district.

[ProgressiveModerate]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

That is correct, which is controlled by D appointees.

[GALeftist]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout.  

What would happen if the ORGOP does quorum bust? Ballotpedia seems to think it falls to the Secretary of State and the ORSC; obviously the SoS is a Democrat, and all the justices on the court were appointed by Democratic governors. Do Democrats have any incentive to compromise if the ORGOP is proposing stuff like Plan B and they likely have a favorable court anyway?

[ProgressiveModerate]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

That is correct, which is controlled by D appointees.

Then wouldn't it be better for Dems to ask the favorable SC to draw the maps rather than make a 3-3 map in a Biden + 16 state?

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

That is correct, which is controlled by D appointees.

Then wouldn't it be better for Dems to ask the favorable SC to draw the maps rather than make a 3-3 map in a Biden + 16 state?

The map obviously won’t be 3-3.  If anything it will end up a strong 4-2.

[lfromnj]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout.  

What would happen if the ORGOP does quorum bust? Ballotpedia seems to think it falls to the Secretary of State and the ORSC; obviously the SoS is a Democrat, and all the justices on the court were appointed by Democratic governors. Do Democrats have any incentive to compromise if the ORGOP is proposing stuff like Plan B and they likely have a favorable court anyway?

Basically same process as TX, Legislative goes to a statewide official while congressional goes to courts. Unlike the Texas Democrats the Oregon GOP actually knows that a quorum bust isn't a vacation time. Not sure how far said court goes. For example people can mention the PA court but they also didn't do stuff like split Bucks county. If you are restricted to a PA court style map you can keep Defazio about mostly the same at Clinton +0. and shore up Schrader to a Safe D district while leaving a new middle district at Trump +1 to 3. The best strategy for OR democrats is to offer a legislative compromise map that keeps the GOP at above 1/3 in exchange for a congressional gerrymander. Other than that they could push for a mid decade redistricting after accepting said court map/compromise map.

[ProgressiveModerate]

According to my calculations (based on 2016 Pres), the new GOP proposed map would be a 3.39D-2.61R map on average, with a competitiveness score of 38.14 (would be considered one of the highest in the nation), with a bias of R + 16.03 (one of the most offensive in the nation). For reference states like GA and SC have bias scores of about R + 16 currently.