Mediaboss Marketing

As the May 17 primary draws near, Oregon Democrats and Republicans are making sure voters understand the differences between the two parties. A big one: educational attainment.

This week, Portland pollster John Horvick of DHM Research drew on 2020 census data to illustrate the wide variance in college graduates among Oregons 60 House districts. As of 2018, the year about which census takers asked, the median level of college graduates across all districts was 34%. But every district above that level belonged to a Democrat.

Its part of the education polarization thats happening in Oregon and across the country, Horvick says. I think its worth pointing out that the Democratic Party in some districts is really pulling away from the median voter.

In addition to the differences between parties, the numbers show big spreads among Democrats. House District 22 (Woodburn) had the lowest college graduation level (14%) but is solidly Democratic.

Here are the five districts with the highest percentage of college graduates:

1. House District 33 (Northwest Portland, Northeast Washington County)

Rep. Maxine Dexter

72%

2. House District 38 (Lake Oswego, Dunthorpe)

Rep. Andrea Salinas

71%

3. House District 36 (Southwest Portland)

Rep. Lisa Reynolds

66%

4. House District 43 (Northeast and North Portland)

Rep. Tawna Sanchez

61%

5. House District 42 (inner Southeast Portland)

Rep. Rob Nosse

59%

Sources: DHM Research, U.S. Census Bureau, Oregon Legislature

Read the original here:
New Census Data Shows the Most Educated Districts in Oregon Elect Democrats in and Around Portland - Willamette Week

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, said Sunday that he believed Republicans would flip the Democrat-controlled House in the fall midterm elections, but the party may experience"troubled waters" if themajority it gains is a slim one.

Upton, Michigan's most senior lawmaker in Congress, spoke during an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' weeks after he announced his plans to retire at the end of his current terminstead of running in the newly redrawn 4th District against U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga of Hollandwho was endorsed by former President Donald Trump. Upton was first elected to office in 1986.

A Republican majority after the November elections may be slightly higher than the Democratic Party's current margin in the House, Upton said, but it likely would not be a "wild swing" in the GOP's favor.

Bipartisan cooperation, such as in the House's Problem Solvers Caucus of which Upton is a vicechair, will thenbe "so important" as the next Congress deals with issues such as immigration, energy, inflation and the debt ceiling.

"It's going to be an early, early test in the next Congress," said Upton.

There are currently 221 Democratic and 209 Republican representatives in the House. If Republicans win back a majority butsit on fewer than 230 seats, the moderate conservativesaid, "it will be very hard to govern, for Republicans," especially with the far-right elementof his party with members like Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, that he said is "really not a part of a governing majority."

Upton was one of 10 Republican representatives who voted to impeachTrump followingthe Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, a move which resulted in death threats against him. He said threats of that nature would deter potential candidates, "good people,"from running to replace him and in other districts.

"It puts you at risk, particularly when they threaten not only you, ... but when they threaten your spouse or your kids. ... That's what really makes it frightening,"said Upton.

Upton also addressed Russia's ongoing warwith Ukraine, stressing the need for theUnited States tohelpUkraine and referencing a European trip he and representatives went onto meet with U.S. allies and Ukrainian refugees.

"Let me just tell you, the Ukraine folks (are) so brave, they are fighting for us. ... We have to make sure that they have every tool to make sure that they can survive," he said.

Chuck Todd, host of "Meet the Press,"then said it sounded like Upton thought "we can do a little bit more," to which Upton responded: "We can."

halbarghouthi@detroitnews.com

@HaniBarghouthi

See more here:
Upton on 'Meet the Press': House will flip, but 'troubled waters' may be ahead for GOP - Detroit News

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WASHINGTON Fending off the Republican advance in South Texas this fall was already going to be a taller-than-usual order for Democrats. But few Democrats anticipated it would be this hard.

Thanks to a succession of self-inflicted choices, fallout from redistricting and some flat-out bizarre circumstances, Democrats are confronting a mind-numbing set of complications in their fight to hold on to three seats in South Texas. And national polling indicates Democrats have no room for error if they want to hold off a Republican challenge in a region that was once a historical Democratic stronghold.

The seats in question are held by U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar of Laredo and Vicente Gonzalez of McAllen. A third vacant seat recently belonged to Filemon Vela of Brownsville, who stepped down to take a private sector lobbying job.

For Democrats, there may simply be too many fires to put out at once, national political analyst David Wasserman, of the Cook Political Report, said to The Texas Tribune.

Democrats have been united and energized in recent days in their opposition to Gov. Greg Abbott ordering security checks of trucks crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a move that has ground trade in the region to a halt.

But they have multiple other vulnerabilities to contend with: In the 28th Congressional District, the FBI raided Cuellars home and campaign just ahead of his primary campaign. (His attorney has since said that Cuellar is not the target of the investigation.) In the neighboring 15th Congressional District, Gonzalez is vacating his once-safe, now-ripped-apart-by-Republicans district for safer ground, making it even harder for Democrats to hold on to his old seat. And in the 34th Congressional District, Vela abruptly resigned late last month, setting off a summer special election that could put a Republican incumbent on the ballot for that seat in the fall.

Going back to the 1980s, these three neighboring districts have traditionally made up South Texas, a region of the state with a high proportion of Hispanic voters that has leaned left politically. Emerging from the Rio Grande, each district stretches from border town population centers north through ranchland.

Each of the South Texas districts has some unique circumstances, but they could all add up to a big headache for Democrats and make it more difficult to retain control of the House, said Nathan Gonzales, a political analyst and publisher for Inside Elections.

Nationally, Democrats have a slim margin of control in the House, and even losing one South Texas seat could jeopardize Democrats hold on the gavel. Currently, there are 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Texas U.S. House delegation.

Per Wasserman, who rates the competitiveness of U.S. House races for a living, Democratic circumstances are becoming dire.

President Biden's anemic approval ratings with Hispanic voters and on the immigration issue could already be putting TX-15 out of reach (now that it's a Trump seat), and the FBI raid and a Vela-triggered special election are massive distractions for Democrats in TX-28 and TX-34, respectively, he wrote in an email to the Tribune.

House Democratic operatives say theyre ready for the fight.

Monica Robinson, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said there are challenges and opportunities in South Texas and Democrats are not taking anything for granted.

Were confident in our Democrats in South Texas and our ability to run smart, nimble campaigns that will win in November, she added.

Vela came to office in 2012 after a fresh round of reapportionment created the new 34th District.

He announced in March 2021 that he wouldnt seek reelection in his district. But he upgraded his retirement announcement to a full-blown resignation on March 31, vacating his office nine months earlier than expected.

That move set off what will be a confusing special election in which the winner will hold the seat for only a matter of months, while creating an opportunity for Republicans to gain an advantage for the main event in November where they will face a more difficult district.

District 34 was redrawn by the Legislature last year to be a more safe seat for a Democrat, making it the Republicans hardest South Texas target in November. If the new map had been in place in 2020, President Joe Biden would have carried the district by 16 points.

But Velas exit means there will now be a June 14 special election that still adheres to the old district map, where Biden won by only 4 points, which could make it easier for a Republican to win. If a Republican wins the special election, it could boost their name recognition when they compete again in November.

Democrats are now dealing with a resulting scramble in South Texas.

Gonzalez is running for Velas open seat in November after switching districts because redistricting tilted his district boundaries toward Republicans. Gonzalez already declined to run in the special election, given that he is still a sitting member of Congress.

Theres also little incentive for other Democrats to run for the special election. At best a candidate would be able to hold the office for a few months while not being allowed to run for reelection for the full term in November, since that primary has already been settled. Gonzalez won the Democratic primary for Velas seat in March.

I wish we had a member till the end of the year, Gonzalez said in an interview. But it is what it is, and under the circumstances we gotta deal with what we have.

Republicans, meanwhile, are giddy about the special election contest. The GOP nominee for the two-year term, Mayra Flores, is in the race.

We see an opportunity to try and pick off this seat in the special, said Dan Conston, the president of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Republican super PAC that controls much of the partys House campaign general election spending.

And if Mayra Flores wins, it gives her a significant jump-start of a fall campaign against a weak candidate in Vicente Gonzalez, he added.

For Republicans, the stakes are historic: Should Flores win the special election, she will become the first Republican Latina elected to Congress from Texas. If thats the case, her fall campaign against Gonzalez would mark the first member-versus-member federal race in Texas since 2004, when Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Martin Frost for a newly drawn Dallas seat after a mid-decade round of redistricting.

It is unclear how much Democrats will spend on a special election.

Why would we want to spend a boatload of money for an election that is meaningless? Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said of the special election in an interview. Theres not a doubt anywhere that Vicente Gonzalez is going to be sworn in in January of 2023.

The most formidable Democrat running in the special election is former Cameron County justice of the peace and commissioner Dan Sanchez, who announced his own campaign last week.

Gonzalez, who will face Flores in November for the two-year term no matter what comes to pass over the summer, predicted a Democratic victory in the special election that will take the wind out of the sail of most of the Republicans in South Texas, after we win that special.

Itll be a preview of whats coming in November, he added.

For his part, Vela said hes not worried that his exit will hurt Democrats chances for retaining the seat.

Vicente is going to slaughter Mayra Flores in the November election, Vela said in an interview on his last day in Congress. I dont think its going to be even near close.

Flores responded in kind via text: Congressmen Vela and Gonzalez will find out the hard way that South Texas Hispanics know the national Democratic Party has abandoned us in favor of radical policies that harm our communities.

First elected in 2016, Gonzalez ran for Congress when the 15th District was once a safe Democratic seat.

This past fall, Republican state lawmakers gutted that original 15th District in redistricting, turning it from a seat Biden narrowly carried in 2020 to one that Trump would have won by almost 3 points. Gonzalez secured the 34th District nomination on March 1.

The destabilization of the 15th District is a direct result of Republican redistricting. Gonzalez did not flee his old seat for a friendlier one. Republicans did it for him, drawing a conspicuous peninsula out of the 34th District to bring in the Gonzalez residence, separating him from nearly all of his old constituents.

Members of Congress dont have to live in their districts, and his move leaves behind an open-seat race for the 15th District, now the most endangered Democratic-held seat in Texas.

The Republican emphasis is on the 15th District, demonstrated by GOP nominee Monica de la Cruz Hernandezs designation as a House GOP Young Gun, or top-tier candidate. GOP activity could expand further, though, as campaign committees are known to add candidates to these lists over the course of the cycle.

Two Democrats are battling it out in the May runoff: attorney Ruben Ramirez and businesswoman Michelle Vallejo.

Vallejo has the backing of state and national groups and politicians, including EMILYs List, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, U.S. Rep. Sylvia R. Garcia of Houston and state Reps. Terry Canales of Edinburg and Mando Martinez of Weslaco. Ramirez has endorsements from Gonzalez, Vote Vets PAC and the Blue Dog Democrats, a group that pushes for moderates. Both candidates have union endorsements.

More broadly, Gonzalez told the Tribune that national Democratic groups were failing South Texas Democrats. He called the DCCC, a member-driven institution with which he has clashed in the past, asleep at the wheel when it comes to South Texas.

But there is an equitable amount of Democratic frustration on Capitol Hill for having to deal with the open-seat race and the Vela vacancy.

DCCC staffers say the committee has hired two staffers in the 15th District and the committee is in the process of expanding that staff and opening a headquarters there as well.

And then there is Laredo.

In January, the FBI raided Cuellar's home and campaign office. The FBI has yet to elaborate on why it conducted the raids so close to the election, a highly controversial move by the Department of Justice.

Cuellar has proclaimed his innocence. But six weeks later, he found himself in the first Democratic runoff of his congressional career.

Cuellars attorney Joshua Berman told the Tribune that a DOJ official told him that Cuellar was not the target of the investigation. The DOJ did not comment when asked to verify the claim.

But it was not merely the ugliness of an unexplained raid. For the last three years, liberals have been trying to chase Cuellar out of office and spending big against him. Their candidate is attorney Jessica Cisneros, who challenged Cuellar two years ago.

She is at the vanguard of the progressive left in Texas, but she is running in a district where many Catholic voters do not agree with her social positions particularly on abortion.

Its not so much a problem that there would be no incumbent running, its that Cuellars rival could be too far left for the general electorate, said Wasserman, the political analyst, reflecting a consensus that Republicans privately hold.

Cisneros campaign manager Regina Monge said pundits like Wasserman have it all wrong.

Voters like Jessica because shes independent, not accepting a dime of corporate money and represents change from the status quo. Shes focused on the issues that matter to South Texans: health care and good jobs, she said.

Republicans Cassy Garcia a former staffer to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and activist Sandra Whitten are currently in a runoff election for the GOP nod to take on whomever wins the Cuellar-Cisneros nomination fight. Garcia recently picked up an endorsement from U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

House Republicans argue Democrats South Texas problems are rooted in policy. Ever since Democrats underperformed in 2020, a widespread consensus settled on the notion that positions like defunding the police and the Green New Deal from out-of-state politicians did significant damage to the party in South Texas.

South Texas has become Democrats worst nightmare, wrote House GOP campaign spokesperson Torunn Sinclair, blaming Democratic policies on the border, energy and economy in an email to the Tribune. Trends show South Texas is already leaning Republican, and Democrats have done nothing to reverse the trend, and their policies are making it worse.

Moses Mercado, a Washington-based Democratic lobbyist who grew up in the Rio Grande Valley, blames Republican control of redistricting for much of the South Texas turbulence.

This is their dream, he said of Republican ambitions in South Texas. They created the mess.

What is clear: Both parties are organizing here in ways they have not before. National party staffers are on the ground, and the cheap television markets will likely feature political commercials on loop by September.

Were changing how we do business in South Texas this cycle, said Robinson, the House Democratic campaign spokesperson. The DCCC is reaching voters earlier than ever before, were being intentional about how we communicate with Hispanic voters in the Valley and were resuming in-person organizing after Democrats put public health over politics in 2020.

We cant wait to welcome you in person and online to the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol from Sept. 22-24. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

See more here:
Democrats are in danger of losing three congressional strongholds in South Texas - The Texas Tribune

In the middle of a primary election, establishment Democrats are endorsing Billings stock market advisor and asset manager Gary Buchanan for Montanas eastern Congressional District. Furthermore, many rank-and-file Democrats in the districts cities are helping to circulate a petition to put Buchanan on the November ballot as an Independent candidate.

Buchanan has carefully crafted his independent political brand for decades as a way to build his business, Buchanan Capital, Inc. It may be the main reason his business is so successful. But the other reason is that in his business relationships he only talks to (and more importantly only listens to) rich people, an exclusive constituency who already have money to invest.

Buchanans politics, as his business, actually have little to do with working-class Montanansthe vast majority of Montanans who dont have discretionary funding to invest in a stock portfolio. Except of course if he believes, as all Republicans still do, that trickle-down economics actually works for workers.

Moreover, these very same Democrats dont know with whom Buchanan will caucus if he is elected. If he does not caucus with one party or the other, hell be even less effective for Montana than Matt Rosendale is, a pretty low bar. Do they really think that Buchanan will caucus with the Democrats, who face a steep climb to hold onto their congressional majority this November? If so, why dont they say so?

The Democrats campaign for Buchanan reeks of neoliberal desperation especially when there are good candidates running in the Democratic primary in June. And you can understand why. The Democratic Party is completely frozen out of power at the state level. And Sen. Jon Tester continues to tack to the right to appeal to more conservative voters far ahead of his 2024 re-election campaign. Nancy Keenans decade-long stewardship, if you can call it that, of the state party finally caught up with corporate Democrats in 2020. Democratic desperation certainly is no guarantee that struggling rural voters will vote for Buchanan.

This desperation is especially rich since these very same Democrats castigated Bernie Sanders and his supporters during his runs for President (in which he handily won Montanas 2016 democratic primary) for not actually being a registered Democrat.

Instead of desperate acts, wouldnt it be better for the Montana Democratic Party (and their consultants) to examine why theyve failed to address their problems in these two areas?

Unlike in Buchanans private business, the role of democratic government is to increase public wealthas measured by public health, public infrastructure, public housing, public education, and other public goods required for every Montanan to lead the fullest life possiblenot privileging the private wealth of already or aspiring rich people. The Democratic Party would do themselves and Montanans the most good by taking a firm stand on the side of the working class, to once again become the party of the people.

Marshall Mayer, a founding and lifetime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a democrat living in Helena. The views expressed above are personal.

See the rest here:
Buchanan symbolizes the desperation of the Democrats Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan

The grinding battle over congressional redistricting is drawing to a close. And, contrary to expectations that the process would result in big Republican gains, the final House of Representatives map may well improve somewhat for Democrats.

The main reason is gerrymandering redrawing of district lines for partisan benefit. Republicans built on their existing gerrymanders to try to expand their House advantage, but Democrats fired back even more powerfully with gerrymanders of their own.

Basically, Democrats saved themselves by resorting to a tactic theyve previously denounced as not only unfair but downright unethical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called gerrymandering unjust and deeply dangerous in 2019. But in the absence of national reforms banning the practice, refusing to gerrymander would have meant effective unilateral disarmament, ceding the GOP a significant advantage in the battle for control over the House.

Redistricting has proceeded like a tug of war. As state legislatures, judges, and commissions have approved new maps, creating more safe or swing districts in various states, the underlying partisanship of the median House district has been pulled in one direction, and then the other. The most powerful pulls came from either state legislatures that gerrymandered, or state courts that struck down certain gerrymandered maps, as this graphic shows:

This cycles Republican gerrymanders pulled the median district (which already leaned 2 percentage points to the right) another point further right. But state court rulings striking down North Carolina and Ohio maps effectively wiped out most of that net gain.

Meanwhile, Democratic gerrymanders in states like New York and Illinois pulled the median district nearly 3 points leftward, so it was actually close to neutral. (Joe Bidens margin in the median district would have nearly matched his national popular vote margin in the 2020 presidential election.) But an aggressive gerrymander in GOP-controlled Florida could soon shift things right again, if approved. Other state court rulings could shift things further, particularly in New York, where Democrats gerrymander is under scrutiny.

Currently, it looks like there will be close to an equal number of districts leaning left and right of the national average, with a slight edge to Republicans in the median district.

Now, its entirely possible, perhaps likely, that Democrats will still lose badly in House elections this fall the party has a small majority, President Biden is unpopular, and the historical pattern is for the incumbents party to struggle in the midterms. But unlike much of the previous decade, the underlying map may be at least somewhat less biased in Republicans favor.

The last national redistricting happened after Republicans won sweeping victories in the 2010 midterms, giving them control over many state legislatures and governorships. They used that power to draw lines that gave them a big advantage in the House.

By 2012, when that last redistricting was finished, the median House district leaned nearly 6 percentage points further toward Republicans presidentially than that years national popular vote. The results were clear: Obama won nationally by about 4 points in 2012, but he lost the median district by about 2 points. Whats more, 55 percent of the overall House districts (240 out of 435) leaned Republican, per the New York Times. That sizable advantage helped Republicans hold the House in 2012 despite Obamas national win.

But over the course of the ensuing decade, that GOP advantage significantly eroded. Changes in demographic voting patterns made many suburban districts less safe for Republicans. Meanwhile, courts struck down Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. By the time the 2020 results were in, the median House district still leaned toward Republicans, but only by 2 points, rather than 6 points. And about 52 percent of districts (228 out of 435) had a Republican lean.

That was real progress for Democrats on reducing the bias of the House, but it was accompanied by disappointment. First, though Democrats performed well in the 2018 and 2020 elections, they fell short of retaking several key governorships and legislatures, meaning Republicans would have the power to gerrymander again in these states. Second, the party had hoped the Supreme Court would declare partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, banning it nationwide, but Trumps appointees moved to the court to the right and the conservative majority ruled otherwise. Third, efforts to pass a nationwide gerrymandering ban through the Democrat-controlled Congress under Biden were stymied by the Senate filibuster.

So as 2021 began, Republicans had the power of line-drawing in several swing states, as well as red states where they hadnt yet maxed out their advantage. The GOP still had an advantage in the House map, and now it seemed they could entrench and expand it.

There are varying ways to estimate the underlying partisanship of a district or an overall map, but for now, Ill focus mainly on a simple one: how the district voted in the most recent presidential race, compared to the national popular vote. (The New York Timess Nate Cohn used this metric in his own recent analysis.)

In 2020, Biden won the popular vote by a margin of 4.4 percentage points. If he won by more than that in a given district, Im calling that a Democratic-leaning district. If he won by less than that, or lost the district, Im calling it a Republican-leaning district. This metric lets us look at the partisan lean for the median House district (the one necessary to give a party a majority), and also measure how many districts lean toward Democrats or Republicans overall.

Focusing on the presidential numbers wont be a perfect guide to House results. House candidates run with their own strengths and weaknesses, and some manage to defy their districts underlying partisan lean. But there have been fewer such candidates lately in 2020, only 16 out of 435 House victors won a district where the opposite partys presidential candidate also won.

Other analysts may have slightly different specific calculations for the maps overall lean. For this cycle, Ive used the Cook Political Report (an invaluable resource for anyone closely following elections), which calculated the presidential results in each new district. As an alternative, Cook also uses a metric called the PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which incorporates the past two presidential elections. FiveThirtyEight has its own partisan lean score. The Economists G. Elliott Morris argues it can be most predictive to look at the presidential election prior to the most recent one. Still, these different estimates will probably be roughly similar overall.

Lets start by looking at how Republican gerrymandering attempts fared this cycle. The GOP did indeed try to expand their advantage in key states, but their overall impact was hampered by a few factors.

In the finalized maps so far, then, Republicans have ended up with just a handful of new districts leaning in their favor. But thats compared to a map that was already favorable to them, and they managed to preserve or strengthen preexisting pro-GOP maps in key states.

However, one other state may soon give them a big assist: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and GOP state legislative leaders have been at odds for months on just how much the House map should tilt in Republicans favor, with DeSantis pushing for a more extreme gerrymander. And just this week, DeSantis appeared to win: The legislature said it would approve whatever maps he wanted. Florida alone could move the median districts margin one percentage point to the right.

Democrats, meanwhile, really went to town with gerrymanders of their own in states they controlled:

That amounts to wiping out 12 Republican districts and creating 11 Democratic districts an enormous impact on the overall map.

One caveat is that some analysts think Democrats may have spread themselves a bit too thin in some of these maps by creating several districts that lean Democratic, but not strongly so, such that Republicans could very plausibly win in these areas in a strong GOP year. This is the case particularly in Illinois, Nevada, and New Mexico. Still, in a Republican wave year, the GOP is quite likely to win control of the House regardless of what happens in these states. But the lean-Democratic districts tip the balance when theres a close national contest.

There were also states in which redistricting was handled by commissions (rather than state legislatures), or where power was divided. For overall partisan balance, these proved to be close to a wash for instance, commissions eliminated a Republican-leaning district in both California and Michigan, but created a Republican-leaning district in both Arizona and Colorado. (Some Democrats are rueing the lost opportunities to gerrymander Colorado and Virginia, states where they had full control in 2021, because redistricting authority had been given to commissions there.)

Overall, then, the 2022 redistricting wars turned out to come down to a battle of the gerrymanders and Democrats ended up being more impactful.

Democrats have spent the past decade deriding gerrymandering as unethical and immoral, and trying to get it banned across the country.

Yet the plain reality is that, if they had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it.

Though some states havent finalized their maps yet and these numbers can change, its currently looking like around 218 districts will have voted more for Trump than the national average in 2020, and 217 districts will have voted more for Biden (per the Cook Political Reports numbers). Furthermore, Bidens margin of victory in the median district would be about 1 percentage point lower than his margin of victory nationally. Thats not perfectly balanced, but its pretty balanced meaning the map itself will likely only swing outcomes in the very closest of elections.

Contrast this to a scenario where Democrats agreed to unilaterally disarm and do no gerrymandering or where the blue states tied their own hands by adopting serious anti-gerrymandering reforms.

Assuming something close to the 2020 maps remained in these states, around 230 of the overall new districts would have voted more for Trump than the national average, and the median district would have leaned nearly 4 points to the right of the national presidential popular vote.

A similar dynamic has arisen with other good-government reform issues, like campaign finance. Democrats spent a decade condemning conservative big money and dark money, and trying without success to rein in their influence. But the party thought it would be foolish to take the high ground by forswearing those practices. And eventually, by 2020, they arguably ended up mastering them more expertly than Republicans.

Republicans believe Democrats appeals to ethics were always situational. They point out that Democrats only began to complain about gerrymandering so loudly once Republicans got the chance to do so much of it in 2010, and that Democratic state parties have often been eager to gerrymander when theyve had the power to do so.

Still, all this does get at the difficulty of making reforms stick without a national solution. Theres a prisoners dilemma aspect to gerrymandering, in which agreeing not to get your hands dirty may well just mean agreeing to lose.

For Democrats genuinely concerned about good-government reforms, that poses a challenge. Without a national solution, is it worth it to try to keep reforming gerrymandering in blue-leaning states?

Or, if you do so, are you just a sucker?

Read this article:
Democrats gerrymandered more effectively than Republicans this cycle - Vox.com