2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Wisconsin

[lfromnj]

If they didn't want to live near Oklahoma county they should have moved.

The point is you only make these weird decisions to bring suburbs to urban when it helps Democrats. I keep it consistent.

[lfromnj]

More #fair maps

You would never do a split like this where the urban area is only medium blue or even swing but the outer burbs are deep red.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

You've made your damn point. The fact remains that there's no on-the-ground difference between some neighborhoods Milwaukee and its adjacent suburbs, particularly when municipal lines wind all over the place. West Allis and Wauwatosa are obviously more "core Milwaukee" than parts of the city south of Layton Avenue, for example.

[lfromnj]

There is on the ground difference, those suburban voters wanted to live in the suburban towns instead of Milwauke be it for some reason or another. Perhaps they wanted to live in affordable large houses, perhaps a district that was more school oriented etc. The point is that you will always splitting a metro into a way thats favorable towards Democrats but you won't do the other ways I showed that are effectively GOP gerrymanders. If NJ and NYC was one state no I wouldn't want to be combined with the upper east side, stop having extreme contempt for suburban people just because they want to have a different lifestyle.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

There is on the ground difference, those suburban voters wanted to live in the suburban towns instead of Milwauke be it for some reason or another. Perhaps they wanted to live in affordable large houses, perhaps a district that was more school oriented etc. The point is that you will always splitting a metro into a way thats favorable towards Democrats but you won't do the other ways I showed that are effectively GOP gerrymanders.

No, I don't. And if you bothered to look at demographic indicators or an actual satellite map, you'd see that in the case of these specific neighborhoods, the municipal line is arbitrary and irrelevant. I highly doubt people were thinking too strongly about which specific city council was in charge of their property when moving to the area. It's pretty clear that the urban core of Milwaukee should be seen as the area bounded by the 894 freeway, not defined by random and incoherent municipal annexations.

Anyway, I drew a second map that should make you happier and guess what, the partisanship is the exact same.

[SevenEleven]

People who choose to live somewhere because of school districts are irrelevant when it comes to 700-800k population districts, lmao. This whole argument is "muy estupido".

[lfromnj]

People who choose to live somewhere because of school districts are irrelevant when it comes to 700-800k population districts, lmao. This whole argument is "muy estupido".

So I take it you are fine with the split of Cincinatti, Kansas city , OKC, and Nashville( 3 of which are probably happening in 2022)?

[SevenEleven]

People who choose to live somewhere because of school districts are irrelevant when it comes to 700-800k population districts, lmao. This whole argument is "muy estupido".

So I take it you are fine with the split of Cincinatti, Kansas city , and Nashville?

It depends on the split, obviously.

[lfromnj]

People who choose to live somewhere because of school districts are irrelevant when it comes to 700-800k population districts, lmao. This whole argument is "muy estupido".

You literally argued for some connections based on where people go shopping lmao.

[Former President tack50]

The thing about Wisconsin is that its geography is absolutely miserable for the Democrats. Like this would 100% be a map that you could argue is fair, yet it is a 6R-2D map (although 2 R districts are winnable by Dems)



The swingy districts are all Trump by decent sized margins and all but the 7th also went for Walker by decent margins (and you can make the 7th go Walker by a decent amount easily, though that is more arguably a gerrymander)

WI-01: Trump+7, Walker+7, R+4
WI-03: Trump+14, Walker+10, R+5
WI-06: Trump+10, Walker+8, R+4
WI-07: Trump+9, Walker+2, R+2

It will not happen because the Dem governor would veto it, but Dems are incredibly packed into just 2 counties

[Sol]

The thing about Wisconsin is that its geography is absolutely miserable for the Democrats. Like this would 100% be a map that you could argue is fair, yet it is a 6R-2D map (although 2 R districts are winnable by Dems)

Agreed, though I don't love the 3rd's salient over to Lake Michigan, which is a little sus.

The thing about Wisconsin Democrats and self-packing though is that a fair map probably has 5-6 Obama districts. Wisconsin has a lot of swing voters, and a slight swing in the political coalitions can change things.

[Torie]

[Mr.Phips]

Looks like a fair map to me.

[Sol]

IMO Columbia County probably belongs with Sauk and Iowa.

[lfromnj]

COI wise the worst thing about Wisconsin is always the Fox River Valley, The main counties in the FRV actually do form a decent district size but the problem is its super ugly and you have create a wrap around district if you want to keep the region whole.

[Idaho Conservative]

An incumbent protection map.  Steil gets a Trump+12 seat and I draw Kind the bluest seat I could realistically draw without cracking Dane County.  It is now only Trump+2 and votes Dem in all the other elections there is data for on DRA.  D+2 CPVI (2012/2016).  While trends will probably eventually flip this seat, at least it gives Dems a fighting chance.  A fair map would move WI-1 left and WI-3 right but to protect incumbents I did the opposite. 

[Nyvin]

Regarding the State Assembly and whether or not the GOP can get a supermajority, it doesn't seem realistic to me (State Senate is unfortunately).  

This is the bare minimum seats that I see the Democrats getting after redistricting if municipal and county lines are respected at all by the court map -

1 Iron Range area
1 Eau Claire
1 Portage County
1 La Crosse
1 Appleton
1 Oshkosh
1 Green Bay
1 Green County
2 Rock County
8 Dane County
14 Milwaukee County
1 Racine
1 Kenosha
1 Ozaukee County

That totals 35 seats and 33 or lower would mean the GOP has the supermajority.   Again this is pretty much "bare minimum" seats that can be drawn assuming a bad court map is made.  I'm figuring Ozaukee's trend will continue in 2022 and the suburn seat that flipped there last year will stay Dem in the end.

The Democrats currently only hold two seats that I'd see as vulnerable - a second seat in the Iron Range (74) and a second seat in La Crosse (94).   Everything else they hold is either solid or in an area that should be trending their way going forward (mostly the southeast).

There's a couple seats in the Green Bay area and the southeast that will be swingy going forward in pretty much any map that's drawn (4th district in Green Bay would be borderline Lean D by 2022 with no remap).

[lfromnj]

Regarding the State Assembly and whether or not the GOP can get a supermajority, it doesn't seem realistic to me (State Senate is unfortunately).  

This is the bare minimum seats that I see the Democrats getting after redistricting if municipal and county lines are respected at all by the court map -

1 Iron Range area
1 Eau Claire
1 Portage County
1 La Crosse
1 Appleton
1 Oshkosh
1 Green Bay
1 Green County
2 Rock County
8 Dane County
14 Milwaukee County
1 Racine
1 Kenosha
1 Ozaukee County

That totals 35 seats and 33 or lower would mean the GOP has the supermajority.   Again this is pretty much "bare minimum" seats that can be drawn assuming a bad court map is made.  I'm figuring Ozaukee's trend will continue in 2022 and the suburn seat that flipped there last year will stay Dem in the end.

The Democrats currently only hold two seats that I'd see as vulnerable - a second seat in the Iron Range (74) and a second seat in La Crosse (94).   Everything else they hold is either solid or in an area that should be trending their way going forward (mostly the southeast).

There's a couple seats in the Green Bay area and the southeast that will be swingy going forward in pretty much any map that's drawn (4th district in Green Bay would be borderline Lean D by 2022 with no remap).

No they would not be winning an Ozaukee County seat that doesn't dip into Milwaukee County. It wouldn't even have voted for Biden and local trends will lag presidential there quite heavily. Do probably agree on the rest though.

[Nyvin]

Regarding the State Assembly and whether or not the GOP can get a supermajority, it doesn't seem realistic to me (State Senate is unfortunately).  

This is the bare minimum seats that I see the Democrats getting after redistricting if municipal and county lines are respected at all by the court map -

1 Iron Range area
1 Eau Claire
1 Portage County
1 La Crosse
1 Appleton
1 Oshkosh
1 Green Bay
1 Green County
2 Rock County
8 Dane County
14 Milwaukee County
1 Racine
1 Kenosha
1 Ozaukee County

That totals 35 seats and 33 or lower would mean the GOP has the supermajority.   Again this is pretty much "bare minimum" seats that can be drawn assuming a bad court map is made.  I'm figuring Ozaukee's trend will continue in 2022 and the suburn seat that flipped there last year will stay Dem in the end.

The Democrats currently only hold two seats that I'd see as vulnerable - a second seat in the Iron Range (74) and a second seat in La Crosse (94).   Everything else they hold is either solid or in an area that should be trending their way going forward (mostly the southeast).

There's a couple seats in the Green Bay area and the southeast that will be swingy going forward in pretty much any map that's drawn (4th district in Green Bay would be borderline Lean D by 2022 with no remap).

No they would not be winning an Ozaukee County seat that doesn't dip into Milwaukee County. It wouldn't even have voted for Biden and local trends will lag presidential there quite heavily. Do probably agree on the rest though.

If they push out the Milwaukee county portion then that's about 25k people left in Milwaukee.  25k more people to distribute in Milwaukee probably means they concede 15 districts in Milwaukee,  they already lost districts 13 and 14 which span the Waukesha and Milwaukee border.

[walleye26]

I would agree with your bare minimum map ideas, but I think there will likely be a few Dem leaning seats drawn by a court that would connect areas bordering Dane County exurbs. For example, a seat in western Jefferson County connecting Waterloo, Lake Mills, Jefferson, and Fort Atkinson would be about a D+3, and if you make Columbia County it’s own assembly district you would do that too. You could try to draw a competitive (R+5ish) Assembly district if you connect Fox Lake, Beaver Dam, and the townships along western Dodge County and include the city of Columbus. It’s fairly easy to draw some Dem leaning seats that border Dane County without actually sneaking into it.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My attempt. Geography in WI is absolutely terrible for Ds; you need some very creative lines to avoid getting 4 likely/safe R districts. I tried to give Kind as blue of a district as I could (Clinton + 4) but ultimately it's unlikely to go very far in the decade. WI-1 I also tried to make competative and could definately become blue leaning by the end of the decade depending upon how the coalitions of the parties continue to change.

[Gass3268]

My attempt. Geography in WI is absolutely terrible for Ds; you need some very creative lines to avoid getting 4 likely/safe R districts. I tried to give Kind as blue of a district as I could (Clinton + 4) but ultimately it's unlikely to go very far in the decade. WI-1 I also tried to make competative and could definately become blue leaning by the end of the decade depending upon how the coalitions of the parties continue to change.

This would be my map.

[walleye26]

My attempt. Geography in WI is absolutely terrible for Ds; you need some very creative lines to avoid getting 4 likely/safe R districts. I tried to give Kind as blue of a district as I could (Clinton + 4) but ultimately it's unlikely to go very far in the decade. WI-1 I also tried to make competative and could definately become blue leaning by the end of the decade depending upon how the coalitions of the parties continue to change.

This would be my map.

Would a court redraw respect where incumbents live? This would pit Fitz against Pocan, Steil against Kind, and then leave nobody in 8 or 1.

[Alcibiades]

My attempt. Geography in WI is absolutely terrible for Ds; you need some very creative lines to avoid getting 4 likely/safe R districts. I tried to give Kind as blue of a district as I could (Clinton + 4) but ultimately it's unlikely to go very far in the decade. WI-1 I also tried to make competative and could definately become blue leaning by the end of the decade depending upon how the coalitions of the parties continue to change.

This would be my map.

Would a court redraw respect where incumbents live? This would pit Fitz against Pocan, Steil against Kind, and then leave nobody in 8 or 1.

Court maps tend to show very little consideration for incumbent residences.

[Former President tack50]

Not going to happen, but if instead of fighting each other, Republicans and Democrats decided to cooperate and do an "incumbent protection" map, here is how it would look like:



WI-01: Trump+13, Walker+12, R+7
WI-02: Clinton+17, Evers+22, D+9
WI-03: Clinton+15, Evers+21, D+8
WI-04: Clinton+52, Evers+50, D+25 (43% white, 36% black)
WI-05: Trump+12, Walker+16, R+8
WI-06: Trump+22, Walker+24, R+11
WI-07: Trump+18, Walker+12, R+6
WI-08: Trump+18, Walker+14, R+7

Really, splitting Madison makes "incumbent protection" extremely easy.