2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Missouri

[BoiseBoy]

And so we see that the Dem's are fine voting for these 6-2/5-2-1 maps, they just won't say so publicly and will let the GOP waste ink and time.

So why not just support the original 5-2-1 map?

Yeah. This map is more of a 6-2 and less of a 5-2-1 than the previous.

Well unless it gets proposed again the Browden map is tabled.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And so we see that the Dem's are fine voting for these 6-2/5-2-1 maps, they just won't say so publicly and will let the GOP waste ink and time.

So why not just support the original 5-2-1 map?

Yeah. This map is more of a 6-2 and less of a 5-2-1 than the previous.

Well unless it gets proposed again the Browden map is tabled.

Because Democrats were useless morons, yes.

[Tekken_Guy]

And so we see that the Dem's are fine voting for these 6-2/5-2-1 maps, they just won't say so publicly and will let the GOP waste ink and time.

So why not just support the original 5-2-1 map?

Yeah. This map is more of a 6-2 and less of a 5-2-1 than the previous.

Well unless it gets proposed again the Browden map is tabled.

Because Democrats were useless morons, yes.

Wait, why are Democrats voting to shore up MO-02?

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1491239026850144258

3 shouldn’t be a problem unless a disaster happens for the GOP, but why not try to make it a point or 2 safer just in case?

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/JeanneKuang/status/1491259383992696832

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/JeanneKuang/status/1491259383992696832

7-1 is never happening. These people are embarrassing themselves and the state of Missouri. How long before this actually backfires on them? Zero accountability or consequences. Disgusting.

[MillennialModerate]

Can someone fill me in - in a nut shell?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Can someone fill me in - in a nut shell?

From what I understand the initial map was a sort of least change, but a lot of suburban republicans threw a fit that MO-2 and MO-5 (Kansas City) wasn’t made republican strongholds so as a compromise they shored up MO-2 (St. Louis Suburbs) which arguably didn’t change too much? There were also some rallies trying to get the legislator to gerrymander MO-5 to be a republican seat

[GALeftist]

So I'm loathe to ask at this point but any updates?

[lfromnj]

GOP Sen. Sandy Crawford, who represents SD 28, said she’s received threatening emails and phone calls from people urging her to support a map with at least seven districts favoring Republicans. One email, she said, suggested she would “go to hell” if she didn’t support such a map.

Dear lord

[ProgressiveModerate]

The degree to which these "pro-gerrymander" folks are going to is kind of laughable. I know a lot of folks on Atlas often get excited over Hochulmander or whatever, but this is just another level, especially since a lot of these people seem like pretty "ordinary citizens", not special interest groups of experts.

[GALeftist]

I feel like this is probably not the best strategy if leadership already doesn't like you

[ElectionsGuy]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Uhh… Texas?

[ElectionsGuy]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Uhh… Texas?

There's a lawsuit pending there, isn't there? Although I'm not sure how that would work at this point because their primary is next month.

Maybe Republicans get away with some gerrymandering, but this happened last decade too. FL, NC, VA, and PA all got struck down. By 2020, R's were down to TX (which had some dummymanders) and OH that actually served as effective gerrymanders for them. That's why the 2020 House Results matched so closely with actual vote share. And this decade, Dems may actually have an advantage (meaning, R's may need to win by 1-2 points to win the House).

[GALeftist]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Uhh… Texas?

There's a lawsuit pending there, isn't there? Although I'm not sure how that would work at this point because their primary is next month.

Maybe Republicans get away with some gerrymandering, but this happened last decade too. FL, NC, VA, and PA all got struck down. By 2020, R's were down to TX (which had some dummymanders) and OH that actually served as effective gerrymanders for them. That's why the 2020 House Results matched so closely with actual vote share. And this decade, Dems may actually have an advantage (meaning, R's may need to win by 1-2 points to win the House).

Last decade, Democrats were able to gerrymander

- (Edit, forgot about this one): Maryland, which has been a gerrymandered hellscape since time immemorial
- Illinois, where they overextended in the south and ended up making a fair map
- Arkansas, which immediately backfired
- Massachusetts, which lol
- West Virginia, which even bigger lol

What are you mad about, exactly? Was the horrible unfairness of West Virginian congressional districts just too bitter a pill to swallow last decade? Does the partisan hackery of West Virginian courts in allowing them to stand inspire a rage which can only be quenched by a 7:1 MO map? The reason why court action was asymmetric last decade was because the landscape was asymmetric. Obviously.

Additionally, the preferred solution of people like you is that gerrymandering does not violate federal law and ought to be left to the states. The inescapable logical conclusion of this is that redistricting will be governed solely by state law, including state executive, legislative, and judicial branches. By its very nature, state law is inconsistent from state to state, as are the philosophies of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Therefore, any situation where redistricting is governed by state rather than federal law will have asymmetric outcomes, both because there are different laws and different entities enforcing them. This is the whole point of having it be governed by state law. Anyone who argues against a federal solution to gerrymandering is arguing for this outcome.

This really gets at a tendency I find extremely annoying with Republican hackery with respect to redistricting specifically. Usually, it's very easy for me to understand conservative perspectives, no matter how much I disagree. For example, it makes sense to me that, if someone axiomatically believes that the Bible is the inerrant divine revelation of God's will, they'd try to bring state policy in line with whatever policy they believe the Bible advocates. That's perfectly consistent. What is not consistent is fighting tooth and nail for states to decide on redistricting, then turning around and crying when Democratic states decide on redistricting. What it is is an artifact of the true motivator for these individuals, which is partisan Republican advantage and nothing else, clashing with a (conscious or subconscious) desire to at least maintain the veneer of consistency. Obviously, a hypothetical actor concerned about Republican advantage exclusively would push for the most favorable maps possible in every state. (In practice, this usually means Republican gerrymanders in most states and fair maps in Democratic states – sound like anyone we know?) In the real world, though, if one was to advocate for this unabashedly, it opens you up to the obvious retort, "well, your preferred outcome is no more objectively ethical than anyone else's, plus it's transparently unequal, so I'd argue mine is better." Therefore, these actors create a bunch of absurd justifications to make their preferences appear less subjective. They insist that any possible reforms are rigged since they know fair maps nationwide would be worse on net for Republicans than the status quo; they take very broad readings of Maryland's redistricting law while completely ignoring Florida's; they say in one breath that states ought to control redistricting even if that benefits one party or the other and how dare the states control redistricting in a way that disadvantages the Republicans!

So, to wrap up this already excessively long spiel, ElectionsGuy and others like you, everyone can see what your true priorities are here. I'd encourage you to be honest with us and with yourselves by simply saying that you prefer Republican-favoring maps. No one will think less of you for doing so; I personally would appreciate the transparency.

[lfromnj]

You also had Maryland and AZ in 2011 which you didn't mention . Just 17 more but still worth mentioning for the facts.

[Oryxslayer]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness.

L O L. Imagine thinking this fight is about fairness. It's not whatsoever about fairness, cause then there would be a even more marginal MO-02. No, this is about the balance between drawing a horrendous 7-1 Gerrymander that would involve doing things to KC that would result in timely and costly lawsuits, or not and end up with a 6-2 map. It would be the leadership who would have to go to court under such a suit. Everywhere that has gerrymandered on both sides of the isle is in court right now, and even if you expect victory, that is a process some who are not familiar with it prefer not to engage with. Or there's Florida, where the Senate leadership would prefer to not repeat last decades trials.

Reminder that redistricting is not a game of maximum laser-eyed potential, it a juggling contest where you are trying to balance expansion of power with every other interest and actor.

[GALeftist]

You also had Maryland and AZ in 2011 which you didn't mention . Just 17 more but still worth mentioning for the facts.

Knew I was forgetting some. Yes, MD was a gerrymander and AZ was undeniably D tilted, but still, the point stands. Even including those there were what, maybe 3 consequential gerrymanders, generously? It seems altogether unsurprising that Republican maps were struck down more frequently.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1491239026850144258

3 shouldn’t be a problem unless a disaster happens for the GOP, but why not try to make it a point or 2 safer just in case?

23.6% is pretty solid and I highly doubt it could flip, not even in a blue wave year. This map is actually a good strategy - leave KCMO alone so Democrats don't complain, but shore up MO-02 to make sure 6-2 doesn't become 5-3 mid-decade.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Frankly, for someone styling themselves as an elections guy, you don't know very much about redistricting if this (the bolded) is what you believe.


KS's gerrymander is tame - all it does is maybe flip KS-03 to the GOP in 2022, and that's 50-50. The seat voted for Biden, and is trending leftwards fast, so the GOP is just buying very little time.

Other GOP gerrymanders exist as well, which you'd know if you weren't in a bubble - GA, NC, OH (OH's more of a dummymander but still), TX (though it's mainly incumbent protection, it reddens up a ton of GOP districts that would very possibly have flipped this decade, especially those in and around Austin, as well as the disgusting configuration of the DFW districts), and LA (4-2, or at least 4-1-1, is fair - not 5-1 where the one Democratic district is a Democratic pack that takes in the blue parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans instead of creating one blue district for each of the cities). And there are enough states where the GOP shored up competitive seats - TX really falls mainly into this category, as well as AR (completely cracking Little Rock / Pulaski County), KY (moving Frankfort out of the borderline competitive KY-06 to save Barr), OK (completely cracking OKC to save Bice), UT (completely cracking SLC to save Owens), IN (moving bluer areas from Spartz's seat into Carson's, and replacing it with rural, ruby red areas to shore up Spartz), and SC (moving parts of Charleston into SC-06 to shore up Mace and keep SC-01 red).

This is pretty much common sense, and if you're counting all the Democratic gerrymanders but only about a seventh of the GOP gerrymanders, it makes sense that the Democratic gerrymanders will outnumber the GOP ones (and even then, you named 2 Republican gerrymanders and 2 Democratic ones, so really there was an equal number of Democratic and Republican gerrymanders).


EDIT: Cope and seethe as much as you want, but do not have the audacity to victimize the GOP as those being punished by gerrymandering. The Democrats have taken blow after blow without punching back till now, and whenever they've offered a universal end to gerrymandering, the GOP has said no. Now that they're finally fighting back, every single blue avatar (and Republican-leaning independents such as yourself) is whimpering about Democratic gerrymanders and how vicious they are, and how the GOP are the ones being victimized here. I don't buy that nonsense.

[Smash255]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

The GOP literally gerrymandered just about as many districts in Texas as the Democrats did in NY, Illinois and Maryland combined.

Also, lets not pretend the Missouri GOP gives a crap about fairness.   They are still looking to gerrymander MO-02 and make it safer for the GOP.  While some might give somewhat of a carp, those who are opposed to the 7-1 map generally fit into two camps.  Those that have some concerns that going for a 7-1 map could wind up being a dummymander in a Democratic year.  Those that feel torching Kansas City would be less likely to make it through a court challenge.  An overturned map is likely to result in a less GOP friendly MO-02.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Frankly, for someone styling themselves as an elections guy, you don't know very much about redistricting if this (the bolded) is what you believe.


KS's gerrymander is tame - all it does is maybe flip KS-03 to the GOP in 2022, and that's 50-50. The seat voted for Biden, and is trending leftwards fast, so the GOP is just buying very little time.

Other GOP gerrymanders exist as well, which you'd know if you weren't in a bubble - GA, NC, OH (OH's more of a dummymander but still), TX (though it's mainly incumbent protection, it reddens up a ton of GOP districts that would very possibly have flipped this decade, especially those in and around Austin, as well as the disgusting configuration of the DFW districts), and LA (4-2, or at least 4-1-1, is fair - not 5-1 where the one Democratic district is a Democratic pack that takes in the blue parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans instead of creating one blue district for each of the cities). And there are enough states where the GOP shored up competitive seats - TX really falls mainly into this category, as well as AR (completely cracking Little Rock / Pulaski County), KY (moving Frankfort out of the borderline competitive KY-06 to save Barr), NE (reddening up the Omaha district a bit to give Bacon another two years), OK (completely cracking OKC to save Bice), UT (completely cracking SLC to save Owens), IN (moving bluer areas from Spartz's seat into Carson's, and replacing it with rural, ruby red areas to shore up Spartz), and SC (moving parts of Charleston into SC-06 to shore up Mace and keep SC-01 red).

This is pretty much common sense, and if you're counting all the Democratic gerrymanders but only about a seventh of the GOP gerrymanders, it makes sense that the Democratic gerrymanders will outnumber the GOP ones (and even then, you named 2 Republican gerrymanders and 2 Democratic ones, so really there was an equal number of Democratic and Republican gerrymanders).


EDIT: Cope and seethe as much as you want, but do not have the audacity to victimize the GOP as those being punished by gerrymandering. The Democrats have taken blow after blow without punching back till now, and whenever they've offered a universal end to gerrymandering, the GOP has said no. Now that they're finally fighting back, every single blue avatar (and Republican-leaning independents such as yourself) is whimpering about Democratic gerrymanders and how vicious they are, and how the GOP are the ones being victimized here. I don't buy that nonsense.

Also a lot of these "shoring ups" were very mild. The boost Andy Barr got was minimal. French Hill is safe, but he was already pretty safe to begin with.  And Nancy Mace is still in a left-trending Trump+9 seat that is not guaranteed to stay Republican all decade.

 And Don Bacon was not shored up at all.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Frankly, for someone styling themselves as an elections guy, you don't know very much about redistricting if this (the bolded) is what you believe.


KS's gerrymander is tame - all it does is maybe flip KS-03 to the GOP in 2022, and that's 50-50. The seat voted for Biden, and is trending leftwards fast, so the GOP is just buying very little time.

Other GOP gerrymanders exist as well, which you'd know if you weren't in a bubble - GA, NC, OH (OH's more of a dummymander but still), TX (though it's mainly incumbent protection, it reddens up a ton of GOP districts that would very possibly have flipped this decade, especially those in and around Austin, as well as the disgusting configuration of the DFW districts), and LA (4-2, or at least 4-1-1, is fair - not 5-1 where the one Democratic district is a Democratic pack that takes in the blue parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans instead of creating one blue district for each of the cities). And there are enough states where the GOP shored up competitive seats - TX really falls mainly into this category, as well as AR (completely cracking Little Rock / Pulaski County), KY (moving Frankfort out of the borderline competitive KY-06 to save Barr), NE (reddening up the Omaha district a bit to give Bacon another two years), OK (completely cracking OKC to save Bice), UT (completely cracking SLC to save Owens), IN (moving bluer areas from Spartz's seat into Carson's, and replacing it with rural, ruby red areas to shore up Spartz), and SC (moving parts of Charleston into SC-06 to shore up Mace and keep SC-01 red).

This is pretty much common sense, and if you're counting all the Democratic gerrymanders but only about a seventh of the GOP gerrymanders, it makes sense that the Democratic gerrymanders will outnumber the GOP ones (and even then, you named 2 Republican gerrymanders and 2 Democratic ones, so really there was an equal number of Democratic and Republican gerrymanders).


EDIT: Cope and seethe as much as you want, but do not have the audacity to victimize the GOP as those being punished by gerrymandering. The Democrats have taken blow after blow without punching back till now, and whenever they've offered a universal end to gerrymandering, the GOP has said no. Now that they're finally fighting back, every single blue avatar (and Republican-leaning independents such as yourself) is whimpering about Democratic gerrymanders and how vicious they are, and how the GOP are the ones being victimized here. I don't buy that nonsense.

Also a lot of these "shoring ups" were very mild. The boost Andy Barr got was minimal. French Hill is safe, but he was already pretty safe to begin with.  And Nancy Mace is still in a left-trending Trump+9 seat that is not guaranteed to stay Republican all decade.

 And Don Bacon was not shored up at all.

Just because they could've been even more effective doesn't mean they weren't effective/gerrymanders to begin with.

You are right on Bacon though - at a glance NE02 looks like it was at least made more Republican than it was earlier, but yeah, they changed the margin by just 0.3%, and it's still a Biden+6 seat. So yeah, my mistake, thanks for pointing that out; I'll remove it from my post.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article258220283.html

Republican Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate's redistricting committee, said passing a 7-1 GOP map wouldn't reflect the political makeup of the state. He equated it to cheating in baseball, adding: “We're not beating the Democrats with our best pitch, we're taking the bat away from them.”

Lol, as if this is going to convince the Conservative Caucus to stop filibustering.

Republican leadership in MO is so adorable. They're concerned about fairness. Democrats took the bat away in Illinois and New York, gaining at least 5 seats in the process, with no regard for reflecting the political makeup of the state. And no court will strike them down for "partisan fairness" reasons. It seems only Kansas and Tennessee GOPs have the absolute depravity Dem redistricters have. And we'll see if those even survive. So far, the courts have sent a pretty clear message: one party is allowed to gerrymander without consequences, and one isn't.

Frankly, for someone styling themselves as an elections guy, you don't know very much about redistricting if this (the bolded) is what you believe.


KS's gerrymander is tame - all it does is maybe flip KS-03 to the GOP in 2022, and that's 50-50. The seat voted for Biden, and is trending leftwards fast, so the GOP is just buying very little time.

Other GOP gerrymanders exist as well, which you'd know if you weren't in a bubble - GA, NC, OH (OH's more of a dummymander but still), TX (though it's mainly incumbent protection, it reddens up a ton of GOP districts that would very possibly have flipped this decade, especially those in and around Austin, as well as the disgusting configuration of the DFW districts), and LA (4-2, or at least 4-1-1, is fair - not 5-1 where the one Democratic district is a Democratic pack that takes in the blue parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans instead of creating one blue district for each of the cities). And there are enough states where the GOP shored up competitive seats - TX really falls mainly into this category, as well as AR (completely cracking Little Rock / Pulaski County), KY (moving Frankfort out of the borderline competitive KY-06 to save Barr), NE (reddening up the Omaha district a bit to give Bacon another two years), OK (completely cracking OKC to save Bice), UT (completely cracking SLC to save Owens), IN (moving bluer areas from Spartz's seat into Carson's, and replacing it with rural, ruby red areas to shore up Spartz), and SC (moving parts of Charleston into SC-06 to shore up Mace and keep SC-01 red).

This is pretty much common sense, and if you're counting all the Democratic gerrymanders but only about a seventh of the GOP gerrymanders, it makes sense that the Democratic gerrymanders will outnumber the GOP ones (and even then, you named 2 Republican gerrymanders and 2 Democratic ones, so really there was an equal number of Democratic and Republican gerrymanders).


EDIT: Cope and seethe as much as you want, but do not have the audacity to victimize the GOP as those being punished by gerrymandering. The Democrats have taken blow after blow without punching back till now, and whenever they've offered a universal end to gerrymandering, the GOP has said no. Now that they're finally fighting back, every single blue avatar (and Republican-leaning independents such as yourself) is whimpering about Democratic gerrymanders and how vicious they are, and how the GOP are the ones being victimized here. I don't buy that nonsense.

Also a lot of these "shoring ups" were very mild. The boost Andy Barr got was minimal. French Hill is safe, but he was already pretty safe to begin with.  And Nancy Mace is still in a left-trending Trump+9 seat that is not guaranteed to stay Republican all decade.

 And Don Bacon was not shored up at all.

Just because they could've been even more effective doesn't mean they weren't effective/gerrymanders to begin with.

You are right on Bacon though - at a glance NE02 looks like it was at least made more Republican than it was earlier, but yeah, they changed the margin by just 0.3%, and it's still a Biden+6 seat. So yeah, my mistake, thanks for pointing that out; I'll remove it from my post.

Also Nebraska’s control was technically split as Dems had the filibuster pen