MT Congressional Redistricting

[BoiseBoy]

Another proposal from the GOP side:



MT-01: R+6.9
MT-02: R+26.9

From the DEM side:



MT-01: R+3.6
MT-02: R+31.3

[politicallefty]

Another proposal from the GOP side:



MT-01: R+6.9
MT-02: R+26.9

I'm pretty sure that's my map from page 9. I was only envisioning it as a possible compromise between the two sides at the time.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

hmm, the only difference is part of one precinct.

[politicallefty]

I hope they choose the Democratic map, but if they choose the Republican map, can I get some sort of prize for possibly coming up with one of the most accurate maps that becomes law? 

[S019]

It seems they just agreed to advance two maps?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I hope they choose the Democratic map, but if they choose the Republican map, can I get some sort of prize for possibly coming up with one of the most accurate maps that becomes law? 

You'd deserve one. I could make a map at your request as means of providing an award.

[BoiseBoy]

It seems they just agreed to advance two maps?

They have. Public comment will be allowed during the 10/30 meeting. If after that point another map cannot be drawn based on feedback, the chair will pick either of the two proposed maps.

[S019]

It seems they just agreed to advance two maps?

They have. Public comment will be allowed during the 10/30 meeting. If after that point another map cannot be drawn based on feedback, the chair will pick either of the two proposed maps.

Do we know which two maps these were?

Well I now have an answer to my own question: https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1451310677918892038?s=20

[S019]

seems to be this one:

Another proposal:

and this one:

From the DEM side:



MT-01: R+3.6
MT-02: R+31.3

[lfromnj]

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/deadline-looming-for-decision-on-montanas-new-congressional-map/article_4177c88d-b55b-5368-a99b-293aaa22b179.html






Rs are  mostly  sticking with their initial compromise offer. They just removed Jefferson and placed the rest of Bozeman. Dems finally realized that Kalispell should obviously be in the Western district(It is west of the divide after all unlike Helena/Bozeman) But still are sticking with a Trump +2.5 district by forcing both Bozeman and Helena to be in the district.

I mean it is pretty obvious that the chair will just pick the Dem proposal so I have no idea why she wants to keep pushing this decision along.

[TML]

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/deadline-looming-for-decision-on-montanas-new-congressional-map/article_4177c88d-b55b-5368-a99b-293aaa22b179.html






Rs are  mostly  sticking with their initial compromise offer. They just removed Jefferson and placed the rest of Bozeman. Dems finally realized that Kalispell should obviously be in the Western district(It is west of the divide after all unlike Helena/Bozeman) But still are sticking with a Trump +2.5 district by forcing both Bozeman and Helena to be in the district.

I mean it is pretty obvious that the chair will just pick the Dem proposal so I have no idea why she wants to keep pushing this decision along.

At this point, is it definitely true that one of these two maps will be the final map, or is it still possible that the final map could be something different from these two? (For the purposes of this question, even one precinct being shifted from one side to the other would count as something different.)

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1456402294082318336
Turns out Torie was right
The GOP made good faith efforts to compromise so I am guessing she decided to side with them for now. Dems were sticking on a Trump 2 to 3 district for the entire time.

Trump +7

https://twitter.com/EmmaNBCMT/status/1456400962663239682

[lfromnj]

Surprised we didn't see at least one true "north versus south" map from GOP opportunists here. It'd basically guarantee each district roughly mimicked the state as a whole electorally (In the last 4 top-ticket contests, the southern CD was a tight 1.1 to 1.8 points more Democratic than the northern CD), with there being virtually 0% chance a House Democrat could ever win either of them.

(splits L&C's population roughly in half; no other splits)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b6022655-ba3f-468c-be5a-01575b1b73b6

Honestly I think the MT even without a commission would just draw East to West. It seems like too important of a cultural divide to break up to get 3 extra points.

[Minnesota Mike]

I watched a good portion of the hearing, Democrats definitely overplayed their hand. Republicans made a small move toward the center while Democrats refused to budge. Still MT-01 should at least be on the table for Democrats and western MT is trending left. Tester won MT-01 by 10 and Bullock only lost by 1.

[lfromnj]

I watched a good portion of the hearing, Democrats definitely overplayed their hand. Republicans made a small move toward the center while Democrats refused to budge. Still MT-01 should at least be on the table for Democrats and western MT is trending left. Tester won MT-01 by 10 and Bullock only lost by 1.

I mean they moved from Trump +13 to Trump +7. Democrats never moved from their number and demanded absurd districts which either split the Continental divide or both Helena/Bozeman areas. Republicans offered the compromise the entire time.

I don't think it is particularly trending left.

We now likely have assuming NC map stands 3 very similar districts

NC14, MT01,CO03. Mountanious regions that still have strong Democratic bases but remain R leaning.
Generally Trump +7 to 8 and Romney had similar numbers but Clinton absolutely failed in.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Inb4 forumlurker rant about how dems are spineless

[Nyvin]

It's pretty good, it's a map I'd expect a commission to draw.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the Republican map was genuinely better for COI purposes in representing the East-West divide. If so credit to them, though it's a shame that we don't get a competitive Montana seat.

[Sestak]

This is essentially about as blue a district you can draw while keeping COI - pretty happy with that from principles perspective tbh.

[lfromnj]

Inb4 forumlurker rant about how dems are spineless

Jdb as well.

[Minnesota Mike]

So the Republican map was genuinely better for COI purposes in representing the East-West divide. If so credit to them, though it's a shame that we don't get a competitive Montana seat.

This seat should be competitive, leaning right but competitive.  Tester won it by 10 and Bullock only lost by 1. Would take a good candidate in a good year but it is winnable for a Democrat.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This western district is barely Lean R in a neutral year open seat with equal quality candidates. It should be proper Tossup if we can get a good one in a favorable environment.
I'm fine with this map. Not as good as the D proposal but good enough.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Inb4 forumlurker rant about how dems are spineless

Jdb as well.

Why would I do that?

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Inb4 forumlurker rant about how dems are spineless

Jdb as well.

Why would I do that?

B/c the dem tiebreaker picked the GOP proposal

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

How did Obama do in the western District?