KY-03: Yarmuth retiring

[MT Treasurer]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

[politicallefty]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

[Horus]

Damn. He's one of the best in congress. Attica Scott will make a worthy successor, if the district isn't cracked.

[Schiff for Senate]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too). The GOP is doing the best they can to avoid losing more seats and to hold the ones they have, while taking a few new ones where possible (see Gonzalez's in TX). However, I absolutely agree with you that the GOP won't be gaining many seats with these maps - they will be solidifying the seats they have, but I can see redistricting helping Democrats on the whole for a change.

[Vosem]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

...the draft maps which have been released by the commission, which usually have no more than 4 Safe D seats and which occasionally have no more than 5 Biden seats?

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too).

FL doesn't have new maps released, but it has a state Supreme Court that has basically explicitly disavowed the logic of the 2016 ruling that led to not-as-intense gerrymanders; what's probably coming is a least-change map relative to 2011-2016. I don't know where you're getting the IN and TX stuff from either -- IN didn't go for maximalist 8-1 but still moved Spartz into a Safe R seat and unpacked the northwestern seat some, while TX came out to +2 R? FL/NC by themselves are likelier than not to cancel out IL/NY, and FL/NC/TX virtually certainly. This is before getting to the likelihood of NC drawing 11-3 or GA drawing 9R-4D-1swing-trending-right, both of which have been pretty clearly telegraphed.

(Or even things like PA, which is cutting a Republican seat but consequently seeing at least Lamb and Cartwright's seats moving significantly right, and probably Wild's and Houlahan's to some degree. Or conservative state Supreme Courts in MD and VA.)

The 2020 elections repeated all over again are virtually certainly a Republican House majority to start with.

[Schiff for Senate]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

...the draft maps which have been released by the commission, which usually have no more than 4 Safe D seats and which occasionally have no more than 5 Biden seats?

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too).

FL doesn't have new maps released, but it has a state Supreme Court that has basically explicitly disavowed the logic of the 2016 ruling that led to not-as-intense gerrymanders; what's probably coming is a least-change map relative to 2011-2016. I don't know where you're getting the IN and TX stuff from either -- IN didn't go for maximalist 8-1 but still moved Spartz into a Safe R seat and unpacked the northwestern seat some, while TX came out to +2 R? FL/NC by themselves are likelier than not to cancel out IL/NY, and FL/NC/TX virtually certainly. This is before getting to the likelihood of NC drawing 11-3 or GA drawing 9R-4D-1swing-trending-right, both of which have been pretty clearly telegraphed.

(Or even things like PA, which is cutting a Republican seat but consequently seeing at least Lamb and Cartwright's seats moving significantly right, and probably Wild's and Houlahan's to some degree. Or conservative state Supreme Courts in MD and VA.)

The 2020 elections repeated all over again are virtually certainly a Republican House majority to start with.

I'm imagining a net gain of +3 in IL (2 less GOP seats and 1 more Democratic seat) and +3 at least in NY. On the other hand, the GOP has limited gerrymandering potential in NC. I know they have a history of gerrymandering but maybe they're turned over a new leaf and will not deviate from the 8-6 map now that the Supreme Court forced it onto them. In FL I honestly can't see more than a few (say, +4 net gain for the GOP) gains for the Republicans. I think IL + NY vs. FL + NC helps the Democrats with a few seats. Anyway, the Democrats will still probably lose the House in 2022 given conventional midterm wisdom and their razor-thin majority.

[Vosem]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

...the draft maps which have been released by the commission, which usually have no more than 4 Safe D seats and which occasionally have no more than 5 Biden seats?

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too).

FL doesn't have new maps released, but it has a state Supreme Court that has basically explicitly disavowed the logic of the 2016 ruling that led to not-as-intense gerrymanders; what's probably coming is a least-change map relative to 2011-2016. I don't know where you're getting the IN and TX stuff from either -- IN didn't go for maximalist 8-1 but still moved Spartz into a Safe R seat and unpacked the northwestern seat some, while TX came out to +2 R? FL/NC by themselves are likelier than not to cancel out IL/NY, and FL/NC/TX virtually certainly. This is before getting to the likelihood of NC drawing 11-3 or GA drawing 9R-4D-1swing-trending-right, both of which have been pretty clearly telegraphed.

(Or even things like PA, which is cutting a Republican seat but consequently seeing at least Lamb and Cartwright's seats moving significantly right, and probably Wild's and Houlahan's to some degree. Or conservative state Supreme Courts in MD and VA.)

The 2020 elections repeated all over again are virtually certainly a Republican House majority to start with.

I'm imagining a net gain of +3 in IL (2 less GOP seats and 1 more Democratic seat) and +3 at least in NY. On the other hand, the GOP has limited gerrymandering potential in NC. I know they have a history of gerrymandering but maybe they're turned over a new leaf and will not deviate from the 8-6 map now that the Supreme Court forced it onto them. In FL I honestly can't see more than a few (say, +4 net gain for the GOP) gains for the Republicans. I think IL + NY vs. FL + NC helps the Democrats with a few seats. Anyway, the Democrats will still probably lose the House in 2022 given conventional midterm wisdom and their razor-thin majority.

The NC Republicans have publicly announced they're going for 10-4, but some of the drafts they've released to the public are 11-3. They've also taken control of the NCSC Chief Justice, so they'll be able to control most of the process by which the maps are sued, which makes it really unlikely the court will hear any case for several years, until 2023-2024.

IL is probably +2D, -1R, but FL is likeliest to be +2R, -1D. Even if we assume NC Republicans and GA Republicans don't go very hard, but NY Democrats do, it looks like NC Republicans aren't going for anything less than +2R, -2D; GA for anything less than +1R, -1D; and TX has already gone for +2R while NY Democrats need two Western NY sinks, Stefanik, and a Long Island sink, so the most they can go for is +3D, -4R -- just not as much.

...and this ignores likely Republican improvements in PA and VA and WI and TN and MT and AZ and given how that commission has been going so far, MI...

[lfromnj]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

...the draft maps which have been released by the commission, which usually have no more than 4 Safe D seats and which occasionally have no more than 5 Biden seats?

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too).

FL doesn't have new maps released, but it has a state Supreme Court that has basically explicitly disavowed the logic of the 2016 ruling that led to not-as-intense gerrymanders; what's probably coming is a least-change map relative to 2011-2016. I don't know where you're getting the IN and TX stuff from either -- IN didn't go for maximalist 8-1 but still moved Spartz into a Safe R seat and unpacked the northwestern seat some, while TX came out to +2 R? FL/NC by themselves are likelier than not to cancel out IL/NY, and FL/NC/TX virtually certainly. This is before getting to the likelihood of NC drawing 11-3 or GA drawing 9R-4D-1swing-trending-right, both of which have been pretty clearly telegraphed.

(Or even things like PA, which is cutting a Republican seat but consequently seeing at least Lamb and Cartwright's seats moving significantly right, and probably Wild's and Houlahan's to some degree. Or conservative state Supreme Courts in MD and VA.)

The 2020 elections repeated all over again are virtually certainly a Republican House majority to start with.

No they didn't touch it all besides the minor population loss it had. Moved from Biden +9 to Biden +8.7 because it had to expand slightly.

[Vosem]

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

Where are you getting that from? Michigan will have some competitive seats, but the new map is going to effectively merge MI-02 and MI-04 into one seat. That's a net loss for Republicans on the notional. Pennsylvania is problematic for Democrats, but mostly in the margins. No one has any idea what California will look like. Texas Republicans appear to mostly be going for an incumbent protection plan. NC Republicans will overreach and get struck down. We have to wait to see Georgia and Florida for Republicans and also Illinois and NY for Democrats. A lot will depend on what Florida Republicans can get away with. On the other hand, Ohio Republicans may not be able to get away with much. It's a serious wrinkle for Republicans if the OH Supreme Court forces a fair map that results in upwards of 6-7 Democratic seats.

...the draft maps which have been released by the commission, which usually have no more than 4 Safe D seats and which occasionally have no more than 5 Biden seats?

MI looks overwhelmingly likely to be a fresh Republican set of maps and it's really difficult to imagine  a new PA map that's not more favorable to Republicans. CA should be mostly status quo, and the seat getting cut is almost certainly Lowenthal's. (Garcia could be screwed by redistricting, but then again so could Levin). NY and IL will see harder gerrymanders but that adds up to way fewer seats than FL/GA/TX/NC and the like: the new maps are more Republican-favorable than the 2020 cycle's were.

"Mathematically impossible" is a strong phrase, but the House is probably already notionally Republican on the 2022 maps, so the scenario where Democrats keep the House is probably one where there's a swing to them and they perform better than they did in 2020. That's not very likely.

This is an extremely rosy outlook for the GOP. My biggest disagreement with this is that all indications so far are that Republicans are aiming for "least change" maps in their states (e.g. IN/TX/FL), and that won’t amount to "way more" seats than Democrats will pick up in NY/IL. It’s very easy to go nuclear on Republicans in CA (where you obviously don’t have a non-partisan/independent commission) and NY (Hochul has already promised to sign any aggressive gerrymander), and those two states alone would more than compensate for minor D losses in TX/FL (GOP potential here & in OH has always been overblown).

States like NJ/PA/MI (especially the first two) aren’t so much about being less favorable to Republicans than the current maps but about being less favorable to them than they should be based on pure geographic distribution of the vote (which is considerably more favorable to the GOP now than it was in 2010, especially in the Upper Midwest).

Realistically, the absolute best-case scenario for the GOP in this redistricting cycle is a wash with more "least change" maps than expected (I’m just not sure that Democrats will play along). I really don’t see much of a net gain for the GOP and never really bought those predictions.

The GOP is being a bit more tempered for incumbent protection, but believe me, they aren't done gerrymandering. If you can't see the difference between the old IN05 (which was R+8 according to 538) and the new one (R+22), then you're not using your eyes. Similarly in TX the GOP is trying to redden up the scores of suburban-ish districts that voted for Trump by less than 5 points and might be competitive in the next 2018. In GA they actually plan on getting rid of McBath. Their potential is more limited now that they have to be careful to avoid more losses in suburban seats, but they are still drawing unfair maps. The only real differences now are that a.) their maps are more incumbent-protection (NOT to be confused with 'least change' - the maps are vastly different) centred to avoid more suburban bleeding and b.) the Democrats are finally fighting fire with some fire in places like NY, OR and IL (though OR's hardly a gerrymander, and the Democrats are still weak - look at the pathetic map in CO; it's basically a map favourable to the GOP, and in CA there's an independent commission too).

FL doesn't have new maps released, but it has a state Supreme Court that has basically explicitly disavowed the logic of the 2016 ruling that led to not-as-intense gerrymanders; what's probably coming is a least-change map relative to 2011-2016. I don't know where you're getting the IN and TX stuff from either -- IN didn't go for maximalist 8-1 but still moved Spartz into a Safe R seat and unpacked the northwestern seat some, while TX came out to +2 R? FL/NC by themselves are likelier than not to cancel out IL/NY, and FL/NC/TX virtually certainly. This is before getting to the likelihood of NC drawing 11-3 or GA drawing 9R-4D-1swing-trending-right, both of which have been pretty clearly telegraphed.

(Or even things like PA, which is cutting a Republican seat but consequently seeing at least Lamb and Cartwright's seats moving significantly right, and probably Wild's and Houlahan's to some degree. Or conservative state Supreme Courts in MD and VA.)

The 2020 elections repeated all over again are virtually certainly a Republican House majority to start with.

No they didn't touch it all besides the minor population loss it had. Moved from Biden +9 to Biden +8.7 because it had to expand slightly.

Moved like a point on the calculations I saw. Regardless, it's about 3-4 points left of the United States and so would probably fall if we return to a 2014 paradigm of R+5 nationally, to say nothing of 2010 or reverse-2018.

[beesley]

A great shame but it was coming sooner rather than later I suspect. He won't be the last Senior Dem I'm sure, but he will be one of the best.

[free my dawg]

I don't know much about McGarvey but the neo-Prohibitionists seem to love him and that's cringe. Hopefully Scott can pull it out.

[Figueira]

Perhaps Yarmuth knows his district is getting cracked.

Why wouldn't he wait until the new map came out, then? I think it's more likely that he's just retiring because he's old.

[GALeftist]

I don't know much about McGarvey but the neo-Prohibitionists seem to love him and that's cringe. Hopefully Scott can pull it out.

Honestly, I don't know much about either candidate. Why had Scott been trying to primary Yarmuth to begin with? What are their policy differences?

[Leroy McPherson fan]

Booker is NOT running for the house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Booker4KY/status/1448036477301047296?ref_src=twsrc%5E...

[Progressive Pessimist]

Louisville will not get cracked and Democrats will hold this seat.

It is either safe Dem (not cracked) or safe R (cracked).  No in between here.

Schrodinger's crack.

[Alben Barkley]

Sucks, one of my favorite Congressmen. Will be really pissed if they gerrymander his district away entirely, but sadly unsurprised. Would that be the first time in history (or well, since the Democratic Party existed at least) KY has had no Democrat representing it???

[Alben Barkley]

Yeah this probably means Louisville's getting cracked. I wish Charles Booker was running for this seat instead. KY-Sen is Safe R.

I hope he doesn’t get any ideas to switch. We don’t need another socialist squad member.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Booker4KY/status/1447978372836077575

You know, the whole Great Value Tom schtick is getting old.

[lfromnj]

Sucks, one of my favorite Congressmen. Will be really pissed if they gerrymander his district away entirely, but sadly unsurprised. Would that be the first time in history (or well, since the Democratic Party existed at least) KY has had no Democrat representing it???

Pretty much everyone here would be surprised. Thank your senator Mitch for it as well

Anyway the last time I see 0 Democrats is 9 "Unionists" during the Civil war.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sucks, one of my favorite Congressmen. Will be really pissed if they gerrymander his district away entirely, but sadly unsurprised. Would that be the first time in history (or well, since the Democratic Party existed at least) KY has had no Democrat representing it???

Pretty much everyone here would be surprised. Thank your senator Mitch for it as well

Anyway the last time I see 0 Democrats is 9 "Unionists" during the Civil war.

Republicans could have done it before 2006 with Anne Northup in KY-03, but they kept losing either the 6th or 4th.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also as to the point about NC Republicans "Turning over a new leaf" you must be absolutely joking.
NC Republicans aren't "paid" to turn over a new leaf, they are paid to put their backers interests in as good a condition politically as possible. That means they will go for broke, use CJ Newby to stonewall the lawsuits and in 2022 they have two Democratic Justices up for retention, if just one is flipped the GOP takes the court.

[Alben Barkley]

Sucks, one of my favorite Congressmen. Will be really pissed if they gerrymander his district away entirely, but sadly unsurprised. Would that be the first time in history (or well, since the Democratic Party existed at least) KY has had no Democrat representing it???

Pretty much everyone here would be surprised. Thank your senator Mitch for it as well

Anyway the last time I see 0 Democrats is 9 "Unionists" during the Civil war.

Well that doesn't even count because War Democrats ran as "Unionists" at that time along with the Republicans (hence how Andrew Johnson of Tennessee managed to end up on Lincoln's "National Unity" ticket).

[NewYorkExpress]

Yeah, unless Republicans want to violate Kentucky law and crack the seat, Democrats should hold this.

In addition, while the seat as is is vulnerable in a Republican wave, Morgan McGarvey is a very strong candidate and should have no problems here, barring perfect recruiting by Republicans (which I doubt they can achieve).

[Mr.Phips]

Yeah, unless Republicans want to violate Kentucky law and crack the seat, Democrats should hold this.

In addition, while the seat as is is vulnerable in a Republican wave, Morgan McGarvey is a very strong candidate and should have no problems here, barring perfect recruiting by Republicans (which I doubt they can achieve).

This seat gave Biden 60% of the vote.  It’s not even vulnerable in a wave year as currently drawn.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Charles Booker is an absolute idiot if he doesn't drop out of the Senate race and switch to this.

[Skunk]

Charles Booker is an absolute idiot if he doesn't drop out of the Senate race and switch to this.

He's not an idiot, he just knows that there's money to be made with raking in donations from resistance liberals while he doesn't have to worry about actually having to pass legislation. Grifting, yes, but not stupid.