Latest Breaking News

Well, most of them anyway. By diluting Blue votes, they're making once safe red districts less safe. Sometimes a lot less safe. Not terribly smart in a potential wave election.

It's relatively simple math. A function of divvying up potential red and blue votes AND how many normally red votes vs. blue votes a state has to divvy up. This only works in states that are highly red and not already gerrymandered to the hilt, which there aren't any. Tennessee, an extraordinarily red state that's already highly gerrymandered, could in theory redistrict Steve Cohen, their only Dem congress person, out of TN-9 and create a completely red delegation. But that's only one seat. So what?

In states that are red but more competitive, say Texas and Indiana, this could spell disaster. In those states, that same math makes once safe red districts much less safe compared to Tennessee. From R+ teens and twenties to perhaps R+ single digits and low teens. There's just too many blue votes to attempt to dilute. And the blue areas of Texas, the big cities, are the only places that grow election cycle to election cycle. It sure as shit ain't pan handle or the hill country.

Factor in the soft middle breaking blue in a wave election and Republicans could still end up with what they spent all this time and effort to avoid. Perhaps not getting walloped but still getting beat soundly. In California, the opposite of Tennessee in % of blue vs. red votes but vastly bigger, same math. There's fewer red votes percentage wise to dilute than Texas blue votes, making the task easier for CA Dems. California could pull it off with far less risk than Texas.