2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Minnesota

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Figured it was time to create a thread for this, it is one of the last remaining states after all.
The impending loss of a CD is also a major point to consider.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/7c372419-5bba-49bd-99ad-ad4409cb653f
Thoughts:
2010 map was two urban (4, 5), two suburban (2, 3), three rural (1, 7, 8), and one which treads the line between suburban and rural (6). This map has two urban (4, 5), two suburban (2, 3), and three rural (1, 6, 7). Sluggish population trends meant that one of "sub-rural" seats will be gone and partitioned. 1, 7, and 6 are reconfigured along east-west lines. The urban St. Paul seat (MN-4) becomes more of a suburban-rural mix with its gaining the rest of Washington County. The Minneapolis seat (MN-5) also has to expand. It pulls out of Anoka and eats into a big chunk of MN-03, which in turn becomes exurban in character. However MN-03 was still within just 2 points in the 2018 governor race, which bodes well for Dems. MN-02, the southern suburban seat, shrinks and eats in Hennipen County, turning its PVI D+. MN-01 meanwhile takes from old MN-02 and MN-07. It stays at R+5.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

What do you propose? Splitting Mineapolis?

[Nyvin]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

What do you propose? Splitting Mineapolis?

Anoka + Hennepin is almost exactly two districts,  why not use that instead of all the other county splits?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

What do you propose? Splitting Mineapolis?

Anoka + Hennepin is almost exactly two districts,  why not use that instead of all the other county splits?

Anoka+Hennipen is a grouping I was not actually familiar with. I am not sure how that would impact the 1st however. I was to stay traditional to MN redistricting - MN has not had a real partisan gerrymander in its lines in at least four decades. It's driven mainly by communities of interest as defined by "urban" (The Twin Cities themselves), "suburban" (the suburbs and lesser extent exurbs around them), and "rural" (the rest of state), and within the Twin Cities the rule is to pair northern suburbs with northern suburbs etc, southern with southern, etc. Hence me giving Bloomington to MN-02, because with bigger seats it was either that or disturb the 1st. And the 3rd having all of Anoka and expanding in exurban areas to reach ideal.

[Sol]

Is Minnesota certain to lose a district? I thought that wasn't completely baked in.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is Minnesota certain to lose a district? I thought that wasn't completely baked in.

Your guess would be as good as mine.
I'm just assuming it's likelier than not and so I'm operating based off that assumption.

[I’m not Stu]

Minnesota and California are not guaranteed to lose a district.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Minnesota and California are not guaranteed to lose a district.

No, but they are likely to lose one.
It'd be interesting to see maps for eventualities where they both stand pat actually.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Here's a map with 4 safely Democratic Twin Cities districts:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/99a07e45-d71f-4c83-a802-dfa217975067

FWIW, Obama won this 7th by 10 points in 2008, but realistically it's unlikely to be any more than the most outside of outside shots in wave years.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....


Wut

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....



Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

I thought it was basically a lock to become one in 2020, or do I have that off?

[lfromnj]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....



Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

I thought it was basically a lock to become one in 2020, or do I have that off?

No its not a lock.
Ds are very heavily favored to pick up one district so its 33D 34 R but then after that theres a bunch of competitive districts including many D held seats in Trump areas including one double digit Trump exurban seat which is going to be a very tough hold. The median district is Trump +3.2 btw.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....



Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

I thought it was basically a lock to become one in 2020, or do I have that off?

Definitely off. Like lfromnj said, median is Trump +3.2 and the state is trending rightwards

[Nyvin]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

[/b]

.....



Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

I thought it was basically a lock to become one in 2020, or do I have that off?

Definitely off. Like lfromnj said, median is Trump +3.2 and the state is trending rightwards

I mean, sure on paper it looks really competitive, but if 2020 in the State Senate is anything like 2018 in the State House then it's not hard to see a Dem majority (MN has 2 house district per senate district).

There's only 3 D-Held seats in heavily Republican areas, and all three have dem incumbents running for re-election.   Democratic State House reps won in similar districts in 2018.

If the Generic Congressional Ballot (best we have to go on right now...) is any indicator I'd say chances are pretty good at a Dem majority.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

even a D trifecta would be unlikely to do that. Placing Minneapolis with non-neglible parts of Rice County,  or even all of Carver? Not gonna happen.
Seriously, a blatant gerrymander of any sort is 95% off the table.

[SevenEleven]

Minnesota. Hillary underperformed in 2016 and the reaction has been "white people,omg, trending R". The geography of the state will benefit House Republicans but the Twin Cities will have Minnesota as a Likely D state.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to vigorously dispute the categorization of any Trump district as invariably R. An MN-01 that is R+5 isn't really a firm R seat, if anything it is very swingy. It should be categorized as neither R nor D.
4 Trump districts is perfectly justifiable setup. Respecting communities of interest matters more than having an absolute majority of Clinton districts. An arrangement that has 4 completely safe Democratic districts in the Twin Cities is almost certainly overly messy, runs roughshod over communities of interest, and is a non-starter - and MN Ds know it.
The State Senate is much more attractive as a prospect. For instance you can pair State House seats in a way that creates urban-centric seats as opposed to "rurban" ones, which is something I expect MN Ds to do. This should help them tighten any grip they have on the upper house.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

even a D trifecta would be unlikely to do that. Placing Minneapolis with non-neglible parts of Rice County,  or even all of Carver? Not gonna happen.
Seriously, a blatant gerrymander of any sort is 95% off the table.

There's no need to bring in Rice, and I don't see 3R-4D as a blatant gerrymander. Basically, Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Chisago, Anoka, Wright, Carver, Scott, and Dakota add up to a perfect four districts which voted 59-41 Clinton-Trump. Not that hard to turn that area into 4 safe Dem districts. I get that DFL is all about good governance, but this really isn't that hard of a lift.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Minnesota. Hillary underperformed in 2016 and the reaction has been "white people,omg, trending R". The geography of the state will benefit House Republicans but the Twin Cities will have Minnesota as a Likely D state.

No, I’m pretty sure the state is trending right.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

even a D trifecta would be unlikely to do that. Placing Minneapolis with non-neglible parts of Rice County,  or even all of Carver? Not gonna happen.
Seriously, a blatant gerrymander of any sort is 95% off the table.

There's no need to bring in Rice, and I don't see 3R-4D as a blatant gerrymander. Basically, Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Chisago, Anoka, Wright, Carver, Scott, and Dakota add up to a perfect four districts which voted 59-41 Clinton-Trump. Not that hard to turn that area into 4 safe Dem districts. I get that DFL is all about good governance, but this really isn't that hard of a lift.

4 Clinton +10 districts in a state that was Clinton +2 is definitely a gerrymander. A fair map would probably be 3-1-3, with the 1 either taking up the territory of the current second or a more conservative third.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Your map has 3 Clinton districts and 4 Trump ones. That just isn't going to go ahead. I am confident that there will be 4 Twin Cities districts that are all Clinton+10 or better.

.....


Wut

You honestly think a Dem trifecta would draw anything but? The urban cores will be split four ways and the three rural districts will be packed. Any 4R-3D map is an obvious nonstarter.

It's not a D trifecta though

even a D trifecta would be unlikely to do that. Placing Minneapolis with non-neglible parts of Rice County,  or even all of Carver? Not gonna happen.
Seriously, a blatant gerrymander of any sort is 95% off the table.

There's no need to bring in Rice, and I don't see 3R-4D as a blatant gerrymander. Basically, Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Chisago, Anoka, Wright, Carver, Scott, and Dakota add up to a perfect four districts which voted 59-41 Clinton-Trump. Not that hard to turn that area into 4 safe Dem districts. I get that DFL is all about good governance, but this really isn't that hard of a lift.

4 Clinton +10 districts in a state that was Clinton +2 is definitely a gerrymander. A fair map would probably be 3-1-3, with the 1 either taking up the territory of the current second or a more conservative third.

While I agree about the 3-1-3 thing, I disagree about the location of the 1. Most viable and most logical location would be a simple 1st district covering the entire south of the state.

[SevenEleven]

Minnesota. Hillary underperformed in 2016 and the reaction has been "white people,omg, trending R". The geography of the state will benefit House Republicans but the Twin Cities will have Minnesota as a Likely D state.

No, I’m pretty sure the state is trending right.

Show some evidence.

You tend to be "pretty sure" of many things that a person a modicum of thought wouldn't dare think.