House Results without Gerrymandering

[Antonio the Sixth]

Seems like there's been a lot of talk recently about the impact of gerrymandering on the House's very close outcome, so I decided to take a stab at it. Let's do a roundup of all states to try to guesstimate what the result might have been without gerrymandering, if every state had nonpartisan maps based purely on CoIs. Obviously that's going to rely on a lot of subjective assumptions on my part, as well as value judgments for what constitutes a "fair map". If you don't like my assessments, you're free to do your own.

Maine: Pretty much any sensible map will look more or less like this one. No change

New Hampshire: This is a tricky one since NH's political geography has changed so much. A proper COI district for the Boston exurbs might still be significantly more Republican than the current NH-1, but given that Pappas won by 8 I think he'd probably still win. No change

Massachusetts: There's basically no way to make a R-leaning seat in this state, and no House race was even close this year, so. No change

Rhode Island: I think we have our first flip here. Fung almost won to begin with, so it seems pretty clear that a more reasonable configuration that doesn't crack Providence would allow him to pull ahead. R+1

Connecticut: The map isn't really a gerrymander by any means, but it does make Hayes' district a few points more Democratic than it would be under more sensible lines, and since she barely squeaked by, she's also destined to lose here. R+1

New York: This is a hard one. The court-mandated map isn't a gerrymander, exactly, but it does make a lot of decisions that are questionable from a CoI perspective and end up hurting Democrats. And given how many races Dems just barely lost, I'd expect them to retain at least one here. D+1

New Jersey: Democrats did a pretty effective gerrymander here, though they had to sacrifice Malinowski. A fair map would probably have netted the GOP at least one seat in South Jersey, and might also have made the margins closer in some of the North Jersey seats. Given the trends there, I'll stick to R+1.

Pennsylvania: The map is already rather fair. The only seat you can argue is a soft D gerrymander is Deluzio's, but he won it by enough that I don't think it made a difference. No change

Maryland: It's pretty clear a fair map would yield two Republican seats here. R+1

West Virginia: No change

Virginia: This is a hard one. The map is a bit R-favorable, albeit not massively so, and Luria lost by just enough where a better map might have saved her but it's hard to say for sure without playing around with DRA, and I'm not that committed. I'm gonna cheat and say No change/D+1 and see if there are other close calls later on to cancel it out.

North Carolina: Pretty balanced map overall. Some decisions are questionable, but not in a way that affects partisanship. No change

South Carolina: It's pretty clear that there should be at least one swing district here, and given the Mace underperformed partisanship, she'd have a good chance of losing there. Still, it's hard to predict, I'll cancel out Virginia and say No change/D+1.

Georgia: Republicans clearly shored themselves up in the Atlanta suburbs. One additional swing seat there with the current trends would most likely yield a Dem win (maybe after a runoff next week). D+1

Florida: Another complicated one. The hard R gerrymander definitely cost Democrats at least one seat in the Jacksonville area. Elsewhere though, it's pure guesswork. The Democrat did do well in the Pinellas-based seat, actually outperforming partisanship by 5 points, so my guess is that a fair seat there would have netted Democrats another seat. On the other hand, the swing seat in the Orlando area would probably have stayed Republican in a year like this. There's also the possibility of more bleeding in South Florida, but I don't think that's an immediate concern for Democrats. D+2

Alabama: Here it really depends on what you'd consider to be a "fair map", but Jefferson County is a natural COI and would give a Democratic seat, and I do believe there's enough in the rest of the Black Belt to make another D-leaning seat. It would be a very different world, of course. D+1

Mississippi: Geography is what it is here, not much to do about it. No change

Tennessee: Stolen seat sure was stolen. D+1

Kentucky: Ugly map, but fair in terms of partisanship. No change

Arkansas: There should be a competitive seat based in Little Rock, but it would still be Lean R, and this is the wrong year for Democrats to flip it. No change

Louisiana: The maps with two safe D seats were a bit of a stretch, but it seems clear there's enough for a NoLa-based safe D seat plus another competitive one around Baton Rouge. How would it vote this time? I'm not entirely sure, but I've been pretty nice to Democrats in the Deep South, so I'll be a bit more conservative here. No change

Texas: Another big mess of a state with lots of moving parts. Republicans mostly shored up their defenses rather than going on the offensive here, so they might not have stolen too many seats, but still, all those twisted lines should be cause for concern. The fajita strips in the RGV have at least facilitated the Republican pickup there, and there should be a few more D-leaning swing seats between Houston, Dallas and San Antonio (Democratic incumbents all outperformed the partisan lean there). I'm going to go with D+2 here.

Oklahoma: Same story as Arkansas. There should be room for a Democratic pickup, but not this year. No change

Ohio: The map is clearly a soft Republican gerrymander, but it just didn't work as intended due to a remarkable Democratic overperformance. Still, between Columbus suburbs and Northeastern Ohio, there should have been room for yet another pickup. D+1

Indiana: About as good a map as you can imagine coming from a R trifecta state. No change

Illinois: This was the Big One for Democrats. It's pretty clear that they would have been wiped out downstate under any fair map. As for the Chicago area, however, Democrats there seem to have generally overperformed partisanship, and it's hard to see where you could make a R-leaning seat at this point. In a R wave maybe it would have made the difference, but not this time. R+2

Michigan: I have nitpicks about this map, and there were configurations of MI-10 that would have kept it in Democratic hands, but they're compensated by a very favorable MI-3, so all in all I think it's fair. No change

Wisconsin: Geography is just unforgiving here, and even under a more favorable map it's hard to see where Democrats could gain in a year like this. No change

Minnesota: It seems like 4-4 is where it's gonna stay as long as geographic patterns are what they are. No change

Iowa: It's pretty clear that either a Des Moines area CoI or an Southeastern Iowa one would have given a seat to Democrats here, though definitely not more than one given the trends in the state. D+1

Missouri: A reasonable configuration of Wagner's seat should make it competitive in a better year for Democrats, but not this time. No change

Kansas: Sharice Davids should have won by more, but she's clearly entrenched regardless and the GOP's attempt to mess around with her seat was for naught. No change

Nebraska: Here, meanwhile, gerrymandering might have been just enough to push Bacon over the top. It's really hard to say, though, so I'm going to make a split call again. No change/D+1

Montana: This wasn't the most D-favoring configuration, but it's hard to criticize it on CoI grounds. No change

Idaho: A bad map, but not for partisan reasons. No change

Utah: This one's obvious. D+1

Colorado: No idea what happened there, but the commission sure made some... strange choices here. The main impact was making CO-8 way closer than it should have been - at this point in a neutral year, Democrats should have 5 seats pretty much locked down. Where does that leave CO-3, though? Obviously making it any more Democratic than it currently is would all but ensure a Frisch win, but I'm not sure if that would actually be the case. I guess it's time for another No change/D+1.

New Mexico: The Democrats' weird all-or-nothing gambit actually, shockingly worked here. It's obvious Herrell would have won a fairly drawn district. R+1

Arizona: Democrats clearly got cheated here. Given they still came close in two unfavorable seats, they should probably have carried at least one. D+1.

Nevada: Another high-risk high-reward gambit that paid off for Democrats. It's pretty clear a fair map here would have gone 2-2. R+1

California: Ooooh boy. There are definitely some... oddities to the map that might deserve scrutiny, but it's really not clear whether they favored Democrats or Republicans at the end of the day, especially given that the results turned out so different from on-paper partisanship. Given that Republicans already did quite well, I don't see where they'd gain another seat. No change

Oregon: The soft Democratic gerrymander wasn't strong enough to carry OR-5, but it probably saved OR-6. R+1

Washington: I have issues with the map, but none that would affect the outcome here. No change

Hawaii: No change


So, averaging it all out, my verdict is that Democrats would have held 5 more seats without gerrymandering, bringing them up to... exactly 218. That f**king hurts, not gonna lie. Of course there are a lot of things I can't account for, so this is by no means definitive. All we can really say is that it would have been a pure tossup and likely opened up a lot of weird possibilities. Oh well. On the plus side, this is a much lesser degree of gerrymandering than we've seen in the previous decade, so hopefully the playing field will continue to be leveled.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Well done, Antonio.  Very thoughtful post!

Hey, just a quick question: did you just go in random order for the states or was there a method to the madness?

[politicallefty]

I think your analysis is quite strong. There are some states where I could nitpick, but this is where I would focus the conversation:

Florida: Another complicated one. The hard R gerrymander definitely cost Democrats at least one seat in the Jacksonville area. Elsewhere though, it's pure guesswork. The Democrat did do well in the Pinellas-based seat, actually outperforming partisanship by 5 points, so my guess is that a fair seat there would have netted Democrats another seat. On the other hand, the swing seat in the Orlando area would probably have stayed Republican in a year like this. There's also the possibility of more bleeding in South Florida, but I don't think that's an immediate concern for Democrats. D+2

Texas: Another big mess of a state with lots of moving parts. Republicans mostly shored up their defenses rather than going on the offensive here, so they might not have stolen too many seats, but still, all those twisted lines should be cause for concern. The fajita strips in the RGV have at least facilitated the Republican pickup there, and there should be a few more D-leaning swing seats between Houston, Dallas and San Antonio (Democratic incumbents all outperformed the partisan lean there). I'm going to go with D+2 here.

Wisconsin: Geography is just unforgiving here, and even under a more favorable map it's hard to see where Democrats could gain in a year like this. No change

Oregon: The soft Democratic gerrymander wasn't strong enough to carry OR-5, but it probably saved OR-6. R+1

Washington: I have issues with the map, but none that would affect the outcome here. No change

Florida: This should've been no less than D+3. I agree with regards to the St. Pete and Orlando seats. The Tallahassee-Jacksonville seat was supposed to be a VRA seat. Either way, there should've been a seat in that part of the state. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the hideous performance in South Florida could've done with a fair map. Losing Miami-Dade was brutal, but DeSantis also won Palm Beach County.

Texas: This is where things would get very interesting with a fair map. Texas is actually a state where geography favours Democrats. I think Democrats are getting screwed out of two seats in the DFW area. Austin and Houston can both support a new Democratic seat each. The RGV is a gerrymandered mess as well, despite its recent swings. I'd say the state should be D+5, though a case could be made for a seat in either direction.

Wisconsin: A more reasonable map would have a highly competitive WI-01, though it probably wouldn't have flipped D this year.

Oregon: I think a fair map is 4D-2R. A 3D-3R map requires a light Republican gerrymander.

Washington: WA-08 should be a safer Democratic seat and it should not cross the Cascades. If you do that, WA-03 becomes a bit more Democratic. That doesn't changes things overall, but I wanted to mention once again my extreme dislike of the map.

[Mr.Phips]

I think your analysis is quite strong. There are some states where I could nitpick, but this is where I would focus the conversation:

Florida: Another complicated one. The hard R gerrymander definitely cost Democrats at least one seat in the Jacksonville area. Elsewhere though, it's pure guesswork. The Democrat did do well in the Pinellas-based seat, actually outperforming partisanship by 5 points, so my guess is that a fair seat there would have netted Democrats another seat. On the other hand, the swing seat in the Orlando area would probably have stayed Republican in a year like this. There's also the possibility of more bleeding in South Florida, but I don't think that's an immediate concern for Democrats. D+2

Texas: Another big mess of a state with lots of moving parts. Republicans mostly shored up their defenses rather than going on the offensive here, so they might not have stolen too many seats, but still, all those twisted lines should be cause for concern. The fajita strips in the RGV have at least facilitated the Republican pickup there, and there should be a few more D-leaning swing seats between Houston, Dallas and San Antonio (Democratic incumbents all outperformed the partisan lean there). I'm going to go with D+2 here.

Wisconsin: Geography is just unforgiving here, and even under a more favorable map it's hard to see where Democrats could gain in a year like this. No change

Oregon: The soft Democratic gerrymander wasn't strong enough to carry OR-5, but it probably saved OR-6. R+1

Washington: I have issues with the map, but none that would affect the outcome here. No change

Florida: This should've been no less than D+3. I agree with regards to the St. Pete and Orlando seats. The Tallahassee-Jacksonville seat was supposed to be a VRA seat. Either way, there should've been a seat in that part of the state. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the hideous performance in South Florida could've done with a fair map. Losing Miami-Dade was brutal, but DeSantis also won Palm Beach County.

Texas: This is where things would get very interesting with a fair map. Texas is actually a state where geography favours Democrats. I think Democrats are getting screwed out of two seats in the DFW area. Austin and Houston can both support a new Democratic seat each. The RGV is a gerrymandered mess as well, despite its recent swings. I'd say the state should be D+5, though a case could be made for a seat in either direction.

Wisconsin: A more reasonable map would have a highly competitive WI-01, though it probably wouldn't have flipped D this year.

Oregon: I think a fair map is 4D-2R. A 3D-3R map requires a light Republican gerrymander.

Washington: WA-08 should be a safer Democratic seat and it should not cross the Cascades. If you do that, WA-03 becomes a bit more Democratic. That doesn't changes things overall, but I wanted to mention once again my extreme dislike of the map.

Where would the third seat be in Florida?  I don’t think Dems would have won any Cuban seat this year or anything resembling a swing Palm Beach/Broward seat.  I’m still incensed that SCOTUS allowed FL-05 to be dismantled or didn’t at least force an all Jacksonville district.

[politicallefty]

Where would the third seat be in Florida?  I don’t think Dems would have won any Cuban seat this year or anything resembling a swing Palm Beach/Broward seat.  I’m still incensed that SCOTUS allowed FL-05 to be dismantled or didn’t at least force an all Jacksonville district.

That was the third. The other two would be St. Pete and in the Orlando area.

[Mr.Phips]

Where would the third seat be in Florida?  I don’t think Dems would have won any Cuban seat this year or anything resembling a swing Palm Beach/Broward seat.  I’m still incensed that SCOTUS allowed FL-05 to be dismantled or didn’t at least force an all Jacksonville district.

That was the third. The other two would be St. Pete and in the Orlando area.

A third Dem Orlando seat?  I don’t think the 2016-2020 FL-07 would have been held by a Dem as an open seat this year.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey, just a quick question: did you just go in random order for the states or was there a method to the madness?

There sure is. Look again and I'm sure you'll notice a clear geographic pattern. I like to group states by geographic proximity as the patterns make a lot more intuitive sense (like, you can see a lot more red when we get to the South).

Florida: This should've been no less than D+3. I agree with regards to the St. Pete and Orlando seats. The Tallahassee-Jacksonville seat was supposed to be a VRA seat. Either way, there should've been a seat in that part of the state. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the hideous performance in South Florida could've done with a fair map. Losing Miami-Dade was brutal, but DeSantis also won Palm Beach County.

I had Republicans keep the Orlando swing seat. Even under the most Dem-favorable maps it would have been a tossup at best, and Republicans overperformed significantly in the area. I'm pretty confident that it should stay D+2.

Texas: This is where things would get very interesting with a fair map. Texas is actually a state where geography favours Democrats. I think Democrats are getting screwed out of two seats in the DFW area. Austin and Houston can both support a new Democratic seat each. The RGV is a gerrymandered mess as well, despite its recent swings. I'd say the state should be D+5, though a case could be made for a seat in either direction.

Texas is really hard because we've never even seen what a fair map would look like, and the one we have now is so far from one that it would have entailed completely different candidate dynamics. But I do agree that Democrats have more upside here, I'm just not sure how to quantify it.

Oregon: I think a fair map is 4D-2R. A 3D-3R map requires a light Republican gerrymander.

A fair map would probably have 2 Safe D seats, one Lean/Likely D, two Tossup/Tilt D, and one Safe R. Republicans clearly overperformed their baseline in OR this year, though, and they almost won 3-3 in a light Democratic gerrymander, so I'm pretty confident in my call here.

[lfromnj]

NY:  Not sure what district you complain about? Overall the map was fairly decent for Democrats in a neutral year like this. Rs should have only won 6-7 seats this year if it went like the rest of the nation. Anyway R's could sweep LI but we could see Dems holding a seat under a different configuration. There could be other R seats though such as south Brooklyn. No change agreed IMO.
CT: Its a leftover incumbent mander from the 2000's that now functions as a D gerrymander. Same point overall R+1
NJ: Not sure. The rest of the North Jersey Dems did fine other than Pascrell so it all depends how Pallone does in the end. I have him under a light Biden seat and he did underperform Biden by a bit so not sure. His seat would be very similar to parts of Long Island as well. R+1
Maryland: Im fine with the map. Carrol is closer to Baltimore anyway.  Ruppersberger's seat does have a pretty blatant arm into super white D parts of Baltimore but I can't see it being anything but a Biden seat who he matched.
PA: he barely outperformed Biden in what should have been a pretty decent Trump seat. R+1. Houlahan's seat should have been more competitive as well but they drew Dean's seat out to tri split Berks. She still would easily win though. Cartwright's seat seems a bit dem friendly on the margins(aka cherry picking for less R precincts) but overall he still won by enough to survive even with a point reduced margin.)
VA: same as a tough call. However remember it could have been Wexton's seat that flipped as well under another NOVA configuration or you could only have 3 D leaning seats in NOVA to begin with.
Rhode Island:

 Providence is split but it doesn't really affect partisanship. My fair map has RI02 at Biden +13 but RI01 takes in Cranston so Fung doesn't even have a shot without it.


NC: Its probably R+1 due to the Charlotte area not being split in 2. Possible that the new Wake seat is more R as well although ill give it to the Dems. The tough call would be a narrow Trump seat in the Sandhills area with the Lumbee where the Dems did have a Lumbee candidate this year. However I think Bishop still wins this seat with his better connections than the new R  The rest of the seat also had pretty terrible black turnout. Could be anywhere from R+2 to D+1 so I just took it as R+1. Pretty clear this map was designed to minimize swing seats in an expected R wave year.

SC: This one is really tough to call. Mace probably survives, she outperformed Trump by like 7 points. A fair map gives her a Biden +3 seat. The more interesting question is how to draw the rest of low country.  The Columbia metro area of Lexington +Richland and a small rural of Fairfield county is 118 people off a district. Its Biden  +10. That still leaves the black belt area but that seat would be 47% black but only Biden +6. I think its possible this could have flipped this year especially as my guess is McMaster won it by like 4-5 points. Ill give it to the R's. The other option is to truly preserve a black seat one would draw the black belt into Columbia which gives the Columbia seat to the R's.

GA: A fair map would be 7-6-1 with 7 Trump seats, 7 biden seats but the 7th Biden seat going for Perdue and Loeffler in the runoff so Dems would easily have 6 seats and might have 7 but Loudermilk still probably hangs on due to coattails.

FL: Complicated.

South Florida should be interesting, A truly fair map likely doesn't have the Collier Hialeah district even if that isn't from DeSantis himself . Still Dems will lose all 3 Dade seats even if Diaz Balarts has to cross into Broward. The question is this northward shift cause one of the white Dem seats to flip?

I still stand by the Jacksonville only seat for North FL although DeSantis narrowly carried while Demings narrowly carried it as well as drawn by the state house(which I think was the ideal configuration) . I will give this to the Dems.

Yeah St.Pete could go D although its possible that all 3 Dem primary candidate wins and the progressive black D (Michelle Rayner) wins the primary due to a split white vote in the primary. IIRC Luna just fully slept for the general while Lynn ran a very solid campaign.  

So yeah we can go with D+2  but I see a path for R+1 as well. Tough to call this. Let's go with D+1?

Alabama: yeah the 2 Safe D seats was fantasy like Louisiana but unlike yeah the Black belt still has enough for like a Biden +11ish seat.  Ivey probably wins it by a decent margin, but Sewell is solid enough to hold it. D+1

Louisiana: The Baton Rouge seat would still lean R so that is an R hold so agreed no change.

TX:  Well if you remove the Fajitas then there would still be an R leaning seat.  However yeah this would  be baaaaaaaaad for the GOP overall. Im going with  to D+4. Atleast 1 more in Houston, 1 more Dallas, Toss in another In San Antonio /Austin corridor or 2 even.

Oklahoma: This is tough to say. Horn definitely goes for a rematch considering she did a sacrificial lamb senate run and Bice barely outperformed Trump. Horn won Oklahoma county by 4.5. A fair map would either just have the county whole with a decent bit of deviation or cut off around 5k people which would give Horn a 5 point win in the district for her senate run .Honestly I will give this one to the Dems.

Ohio: Yeah we can go with D+1 although the map could have been worse for Dems if say the Akron seat included all of Stark and only the southern portion of Summit. However a Columbus/Cleveland suburban seat could have gone bad for R's so yeah D+1.

Illinois:  Chicago Land required a lot of cracking to get 12 Dem leaning seats. With a cut R seat even if a lot of loss was downstate the seats had to expand . Reminder Robin Kelly's seat goes far south as Danville ! Pretty clearly R+3.

Michigan: Well the commission wanted to either place Macomb into the progressive corner of Oakland or make that super D western Michigan seat. A fair map would have neither.  However I think Gibbs pulls a *Kent and still loses a narrow Trump Grand Rapids seat.
edit :LOL, I meant to type Kent as in Joe Kent but I just made this edit incase if anyone is confused

Colorado: Nope Colorado 8th was almost exactly where it should have been in partisanship.  I don't see why Democrats should have  5 Safe D seats. The issue is that its located on the northside of the metro instead of the southside. Along with that Denver's 3 Collar counties + Douglas is exactly 3 seats. Still a Dem hold. Yeah I think Boebert loses in a better map without Hispanic Democrat whining. D+1
AZ: Yeah the Tucson seat should be a bit more D leaning.

NV: R+2 . Horsford still underperformed Biden by a decent margin.

CA:  Not sure which oddities favor Republicans in this map. Splitting Sacramento to keep Bera secure, there was a last-minute change by Sara Sadhwani to secure Levin by having CA 50 go inland in a pretty weird arm. Having CA 41 take in Palm Springs etc. In the end though I don't think any other Dem could lose other than maybe Levin

Oregon: pretty weak to call it a soft one even if it slightly failed. Don't forget about the Southern Oregon seat as well. Anyway a Salem based seat would obviously go R this year as a new open seat. A fair Oregon map probably has like a Biden +8-9 Clackamas seat along with Yamhill and Eastern Multnomah. However, on the other hand without drawing the 5th into Bend Schrader would still win his primary. Overall, I will have Schrader survive but the southern seat go R. R+1 but from a different perspective and could be R+2.

If I missed or didn't speak about a state its because I agree.(eg TN) at D+1)

[politicallefty]

I had Republicans keep the Orlando swing seat. Even under the most Dem-favorable maps it would have been a tossup at best, and Republicans overperformed significantly in the area. I'm pretty confident that it should stay D+2.

Okay, I may give you that one. Florida was just a bloodbath for Democrats. I'll err on the side of giving that one to Republicans.

Texas is really hard because we've never even seen what a fair map would look like, and the one we have now is so far from one that it would have entailed completely different candidate dynamics. But I do agree that Democrats have more upside here, I'm just not sure how to quantify it.

Texas would be a bloodbath for Republicans under a fair map. I might actually be understating what would happen. Abbott won by almost as must McCain did in 2008, but the geography is very different and DFW has shifted considerably:

Dallas County: Obama+15 - O'Rourke+27
Tarrant County: McCain+12 - Abbott+4
Collin County: McCain+26 - Abbott+10
Denton County: McCain+24 - Abbott+13

Biden actually won Tarrant County and held Collin and Denton within 5% and 9%, respectively. Trump won less than 1/3 of the vote in Dallas County.

Also, Beto almost held on to Williamson County. The suburbs in Texas are weakening for Republicans and fast. They're getting propped up by maxing out the rurals, which it looks like Abbott may have finally done. Those margins in the Panhandle and across West Texas are insane. East Texas is pretty close as well.

A fair map would probably have 2 Safe D seats, one Lean/Likely D, two Tossup/Tilt D, and one Safe R. Republicans clearly overperformed their baseline in OR this year, though, and they almost won 3-3 in a light Democratic gerrymander, so I'm pretty confident in my call here.

We may have to agree to disagree. OR-05 was weakened to protect OR-06. OR-02 being so Republican gives a lot of leeway for the other districts. I think the new R-leaning district (though still competitive) would include Marion, Linn, and Deschutes Counties.

[lfromnj]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If we count WA as "gerrymandered", is this an acceptable replacement?
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=28203

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

[politicallefty]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

I was considering geography. Eastern and Southern Oregon are very Republican and not very populated. I think it makes more sense to create a central Oregon district. There's also the option of a Lane-Deschutes district.

[lfromnj]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

Ah.
How did the OR-02 that Ds drew vote?

[lfromnj]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

Ah.
How did the OR-02 that Ds drew vote?

Like Trump+25 iirc

[lfromnj]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

I was considering geography. Eastern and Southern Oregon are very Republican and not very populated. I think it makes more sense to create a central Oregon district. There's also the option of a Lane-Deschutes district.

If you consider geography than maybe look at the mountain range dividing bend from Lane ? There isn't even a direct road IIRC.  A perfect central Oregon seat already can exist based around Marion/Polk/Benton/Linn .

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

Ah.
How did the OR-02 that Ds drew vote?

Like Trump+35 iirc

Really??? Wow.

[lfromnj]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

Ah.
How did the OR-02 that Ds drew vote?

Like Trump+35 iirc

Really??? Wow.

Mistyped, I meant to press a 2.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oregon 2 is only so Republican because they removed Bend from it. Its a clear R pack

Removing Bend made the seat perhaps 2-3% more Republican I guess?

A fair oregon 2nd could be as swingy as trump+12

Ah.
How did the OR-02 that Ds drew vote?

Like Trump+35 iirc

Really??? Wow.

Mistyped, I meant to press a 2.

That sounds more realistic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If we count WA as "gerrymandered", is this an acceptable replacement?
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=28203

This does look a lot better, yeah. I personally prefer the crossing of the Cascade Range to be down South (which come to think of it might cost MGP her seat), but at least there's only one crossing, and I like that there's a clear division between core Seattle area seats and the broader Puget Sound area.

[Tekken_Guy]

ME: A classic fair map with a Portland seat and a rural seat.
NH: Yeah Pappas probably still wins, but that's assuming he's still facing Leavitt. I imagine the dynamics of the GOP primary would have changed.
MA: It takes a gerrymander to even make a winnable GOP seat here.
RI: If Providence was kept entirely in the 1st, Fung wins.
CT: A fair map probably knocks out Hayes gives she barely won a Biden+11.
NY: I don't see what seats Dems could have gained. Any fair configuration that saves Maloney may also have sunk Ryan, and there's not a lot of places around Syracuse that would have altered the NY-22 outcome. I guess moving NY-04 into Queens makes it safe D.
NJ: Sherrill and Gottheimer are definitely re-elected in just about any Biden seat. Maybe not Kim though, who noticeably underperformed in Monmouth. Ocean might have been more friendly towards him though like in 2020.
PA: It's possible that if Cartwright's seat looked like its 2020 incarnation he might have gone down. Any map with PA-12 entirely in Allegheny makes 17 a Trump seat that would have been instantly triaged by Dems and Deluzio would have lost.
OH: OH-07 and OH-15 are probably Biden seats under a fair map. OH-07 narrowly yes, but given Max Miller's issues he probably loses.
IN: A fair map probably gives Spartz a competitive seat but she should be fine for 2022.
MI: The "Birch" map had MI-10 as a solid Biden seat, but it also had MI-03 as a narrow Trump seat, Gibbs might still have lost it though. However, unlike the actual 3rd, Tom Norton lived in that version, and had he stayed in the race, he would have siphoned enough votes from Gibbs to save Meijer, who easily is re-elected in that seat and the race is triaged quickly.
IL: I imagine both downstate D seats are R held, but Chicago is probably still 12-0, or at best 11-1.
WI: 6-2 probably holds. There's not enough blue areas around the 3rd to keep it Democratic without gerrymandering, and Steil is strong enough to hold seats several points to the left of his new one.
MN: This was a logical fair map.
IA: Linking Des Moines to Iowa City or Ames saves Axne for sure. Johnson and Linn in one district also is guaranteed to go Democratic.
MD: I imagine Trone's seat is Republican under a fair map.
WV: ....
VA: Luria lost by enough of a margin that even the best possible district for her may not be enough to save her. A worse map might have doomed Spanberger. though.
NC: This was a fair and partisan balanced map. Maybe the second Charlotte seat is a swing seat though.
SC: Mace could theoretically get a swing seat. She probably wins if she's still facing Andrews, but in a Cunningham rematch all bets are off.
GA: A fair map probably create another D seat in Atlanta, or at the minimum a swing seat that Biden won in 2020 but would probably elect a Republican in 2022.
FL: Republicans might have won the Jacksonville sink, but I'd still have Dems narrowly favored. Dems easily win the Jax-Tallahassee snake though. The Seminole seat probably goes Republican, while the Pinellas seat would have gone down to the wire due to Luna's weaknesses. Laurel Lee would have won any draw of her seat though. The Cuban seats probably go 3-0 Republican under all scenarios. However it's quite possible Reps snag another Broward/Palm Beach seat, especially a heavily coastal one.
KY: This is a fairly logical 5-1.
TN: Yeah Nashville still has a Dem under a fair map.
AL: A second black seat probably votes Dem unless it's a very narrow Biden seat that's all rural.
LA: Baton Rouge to the Mississippi Delta seat probably goes Dem. Baton Rouge and white exurbs rurals is still a GOP seat.
TX: Possible Dems snag some more seats in the metros, but it's also possible they're all swing seats that go Republicans' way.
AR: Little Rock/Pine Bluff and eastern rurals is possibly winnable for Democrats, or maybe they collapse like in other black belt seats. The classic Central AR seat probably is off the table for 2022.
OK: Maybe Bice loses a fair seat because of Stitt's pathetic performance, though she's probably still favored.
MO: Hard to see a seat blue enough for Wagner to actually lose in 2022.
KS: Yeah this gerrymander backfired.
NE: Bacon lost Douglas by less than a point, and pretty much everything surrounding it is probably red enough to push him over the top.
CO: This was reasonably fair, but more ski country and less Hispanic areas takes out Boebert.
MT: If Helena was in the 1st Zinke might have lost.
ID: ....
NM: Even a slightly more Republican 2nd than the one we got would save Herrell.
AZ: O'Halleran, Engel, and Hodge all drew the short end of the stick with the commission.
UT: Ben McAdams is likely punching his ticket back to Washington if the legislature didn't have veto power over the commission.
NV: Lee definitely goes down in any fair map, though Horsford likely holds on.
CA: Geography isn't great for Republicans in this very blue state.
OR: Republicans probably take OR-04 with a fair map.
WA: This map was fair.
HI: ....

[Person Man]

Hopefully the gerrymandering is small enough that with people moving and aging in and out of the population, it will wear off before reapportionment.

[lfromnj]

Wisconsin: A more reasonable map would have a highly competitive WI-01, though it probably wouldn't have flipped D this year.

Where do you get a more competive Wisconsin 1st? It literally already is highly competitive and Ever's only lost it by a few hundred votes after losing Waukesha. The only way to get it more D is to to either split Dane or push WI 4th outside of Milwaukee county. If anything I can see a more favorable Wisconsin 3rd if the 2nd took in Rock County although its probably still not enough even if Pfaff outperformed Biden by a hair.

[lfromnj]

My spreadsheet. Overall the house is close enough even slight map shifts can change it up.