Mathematically in order to make a gerrymandered district you have to dilute strong districts with weak districts. In practice that means when you have Large shift elections like you typically have in midterms or like what happened in 2024 with Trump's election you have more variability. Paradoxically Texas and Florida may create more democrat districts in their state this election, and California in Virginia will have significantly fewer democrat districts in 2028 if there is a shift right.

One of the more intriguing aspects of that map is that, if you just looked at it in black and white, almost every single one of those districts looks "reasonable."

No more of the obscenely stretched and twisted districts that inspired the gerrymander name to begin with.

Truthfully, they look very similar to the previous lines. Just tweaked a little bit.

Malibu said:

---

Mathematically in order to make a gerrymandered district you have to dilute strong districts with weak districts. In practice that means when you have Large shift elections like you typically have in midterms or like what happened in 2024 with Trump's election you have more variability. Paradoxically Texas and Florida may create more democrat districts in their state this election, and California in Virginia will have significantly fewer democrat districts in 2028 if there is a shift right.

---

I thought the same thing when I looked at
It.

But keep in mind that this is just temporary. Probably add a couple more districts when the 2030 census is done.

Malibu said:

---

Mathematically in order to make a gerrymandered district you have to dilute strong districts with weak districts. In practice that means when you have Large shift elections like you typically have in midterms or like what happened in 2024 with Trump's election you have more variability. Paradoxically Texas and Florida may create more democrat districts in their state this election, and California in Virginia will have significantly fewer democrat districts in 2028 if there is a shift right.

---

Absolutely. Will be interesting be see if this comes back to bite the GOP in the ass in November.

If illegals aren't counted for apportionment, and they should not be, it will get even worse for dims. They have stolen representation from Texas.

The Kraken said:

---

Malibu said:

---

Mathematically in order to make a gerrymandered district you have to dilute strong districts with weak districts. In practice that means when you have Large shift elections like you typically have in midterms or like what happened in 2024 with Trump's election you have more variability. Paradoxically Texas and Florida may create more democrat districts in their state this election, and California in Virginia will have significantly fewer democrat districts in 2028 if there is a shift right.

---

Absolutely. Will be interesting be see if this comes back to bite the GOP in the ass in November.

---

The Kraken said:

---

Malibu said:

---

Mathematically in order to make a gerrymandered district you have to dilute strong districts with weak districts. In practice that means when you have Large shift elections like you typically have in midterms or like what happened in 2024 with Trump's election you have more variability. Paradoxically Texas and Florida may create more democrat districts in their state this election, and California in Virginia will have significantly fewer democrat districts in 2028 if there is a shift right.

---

Absolutely. Will be interesting be see if this comes back to bite the GOP in the ass in November.

---

Well, you'd love nothing better but it ain't gonna happen.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If illegals aren't counted for apportionment, and they should not be, it will get even worse for dims. They have stolen representation from Texas.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Could hurt either party in diluting partisan strength in individual districts. Will be interesting to see the results either way.

The Kraken said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If illegals aren't counted for apportionment, and they should not be, it will get even worse for dims. They have stolen representation from Texas.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Could hurt either party in diluting partisan strength in individual districts. Will be interesting to see the results either way.

---

With the gutting of the VRA this isn't as dangerous as it used to be. Protecting majority minority districts in the past always made it tough to truly draw maps the way you wanted in southern red states. With that gone now you can chop, cut, divide and do whatever you want, wherever you want.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Any red state that has a majority in both the legislative and executive branches should be working a plan to redistrict asap. Time to fight fire with fire.

---

It's honestly the best weapon the red states have now. No more Mr Nice Guy, take our country back.

Teslag said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If illegals aren't counted for apportionment, and they should not be, it will get even worse for dims. They have stolen representation from Texas.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Could hurt either party in diluting partisan strength in individual districts. Will be interesting to see the results either way.

---

With the gutting of the VRA this isn't as dangerous as it used to be. Protecting majority minority districts in the past always made it tough to truly draw maps the way you wanted in southern red states. With that gone now you can chop, cut, divide and do whatever you want, wherever you want.

---

No you guys are still ignoring math. As a basic example, 3 districts with 1,000,000 people. District 1 is 75% R, 2 is 45%, 3 is 45%. You decide to redraw the districts so that each of them are 55% R and 45% D to pick up a net of 2 seats. It's the midterms and people are unhappy resulting in 6% shift more D. Gerrymandering resulted in losing 1 safe seat instead of gaining the 2 that the math said you would get.

But it's not just 3 districts with those break downs. You created a scenario that doesn't exist.

Malibu said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If illegals aren't counted for apportionment, and they should not be, it will get even worse for dims. They have stolen representation from Texas.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Could hurt either party in diluting partisan strength in individual districts. Will be interesting to see the results either way.

---

With the gutting of the VRA this isn't as dangerous as it used to be. Protecting majority minority districts in the past always made it tough to truly draw maps the way you wanted in southern red states. With that gone now you can chop, cut, divide and do whatever you want, wherever you want.

---

No you guys are still ignoring math. As a basic example, 3 districts with 1,000,000 people. District 1 is 75% R, 2 is 45%, 3 is 45%. You decide to redraw the districts so that each of them are 55% R and 45% D to pick up a net of 2 seats. It's the midterms and people are unhappy resulting in 6% shift more D. Gerrymandering resulted in losing 1 safe seat instead of gaining the 2 that the math said you would get.

---

I'd add the other 45% to district 2 and have 2 permanent R seats. The goal is not to have 100% red seats in each state. It's to have a significant enough solid majority to rarely, if ever, lose the House.

Teslag said:

---

But it's not just 3 districts with those break downs. You created a scenario that doesn't exist.

---

Okay let me try to get puppets to try to explain math to you guys. In order to shift districts from 1 party to another party with the same number of total voters you mathematically must make your stronger districts weaker So that you can flip your opponent's districts. There's literally no other way to do this. And if nothing changes in the electorate and everybody votes the same way they did last time yes you get more seats. If that doesn't happen the fact that you diluted yourself means that you potentially lose more than you gain.

Malibu said:

---

Teslag said:

---

But it's not just 3 districts with those break downs. You created a scenario that doesn't exist.

---

Okay let me try to get puppets to try to explain math to you guys. In order to shift districts from 1 party to another party with the same number of total voters you mathematically must make your stronger districts weaker So that you can flip your opponent's districts. There's literally no other way to do this. And if nothing changes in the electorate and everybody votes the same way they did last time yes you get more seats. If that doesn't happen the fact that you diluted yourself means that you potentially lose more than you gain.

---

We get the math. You don't get the actual breakdown of the existing districts and their total numbers.

Libs don't want this decision to hurt them so badly they're in the wish casting phase today. It's hilarious to hear them play out unlikely scenarios where the redistricting might not work as intended. Pure hopium.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I hope the Florida Senate will pass Governor Ron DeSantis' new Congressional map to add up to 4 new Republican US House seats to counter California, Virginia and other blue states adding new Democratic US House seats.

---

… to counter Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Ohio adding new Republican US House seats.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

---

Fetterman.

Not that many years ago, (8-10?), Florida was a purple state, with a Democrat governor and a Democrat senator. Trump broke them over the top, and DeSantis has consolidated control very nicely.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I hope the Florida Senate will pass Governor Ron DeSantis' new Congressional map to add up to 4 new Republican US House seats to counter California, Virginia and other blue states adding new Democratic US House seats.

---

Oh, ok.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Libs don't want this decision to hurt them so badly they're in the wish casting phase today. It's hilarious to hear them play out unlikely scenarios where the redistricting might not work as intended. Pure hopium.

---

Exactly. The most likely way it backfires is if you take a state that's already heavily gerrymandered and you try to slice it even further. That's not the case for Florida.

The reason gerrymandering is even a term is because it works almost all of the time.

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

---

Fetterman.

---

Ellis doesn't trust him either.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

---

Fetterman.

---

Ellis doesn't trust him either.

---

I didn't say I trust him. But he's not a radical leftist. Probably farther right than many with (R) by their name. Cornyn, Collin's for example.

Quote:

---

But he's not a radical leftist. Probably farther right than many with (R) by their name. Cornyn, Collin's for example.

---

If you ignore their voting record, this is spot on!



Fetterman 4% from Heritage. Average Dem is 7%

No. The moderate leftists are republicans. The Texas House is full of them.

Anyone willing to identify with the band of freaks that is the democrat party in 2026 is a radical leftist. Ask Alan Dershowitz.

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

---

Fetterman.

---

Ellis doesn't trust him either.

---

I didn't say I trust him. But he's not a radical leftist. Probably farther right than many with (R) by their name. Cornyn, Collin's for example.

---

I was specifically asking the poster Ellis Wyatt.

Fetterman speaks like a moderate. He doesn't vote like one.

I recognize how far left the Democrat party has moved. They advocate for things that would have gotten them expelled from
society by our forefathers.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No. The moderate leftists are republicans. The Texas House is full of them.

Anyone willing to identify with the band of freaks that is the democrat party in 2026 is a radical leftist. Ask Alan Dershowitz.

---

Ellis, I appreciate your passion. You definitely display the courage of your convictions. But to actually believe that every Democrat is evil is just silly. That's like saying that every MAGA conservative is a fascist. C'mon.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

But he's not a radical leftist. Probably farther right than many with (R) by their name. Cornyn, Collin's for example.

---

If you ignore their voting record, this is spot on!



Fetterman 4% from Heritage. Average Dem is 7%

---

Dude didn't vote for the big spending bill. Voted against limiting Trump's war powers, where he was the only dem.

That makes him non/radical. I DGAF what some org "rates him" as.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

2026NCAggies said:

---

captkirk said:

---

We need to play hardball with our caucus like the libs. Vote for the Save Act or be drummed out of the Senate. There is dirt on everybody.

---

Tillis is not running for reelection, Mitch is on his last term and is brain dead. Collins is from a blue state, you do not run off a senator that is in a blue state, you basically have no shot at getting another R in that state. Trump tried VERY HARD to get Murkowski out and she still cruised to a victory, Alaska loves her for some odd reason

---

Y'all say this and then in the next breath say we should vote for Cornyn in a deep red state because Talarico, radical leftist, might otherwise win in a red state.

---

Is there anyone with a D by their name that you don't consider a radical leftist?

---

Fetterman.

---

Ellis doesn't trust him either.

---

I didn't say I trust him. But he's not a radical leftist. Probably farther right than many with (R) by their name. Cornyn, Collin's for example.

---

I was specifically asking the poster Ellis Wyatt.

---

Yea, I got that. But I chimed in anyway.

The fascists are on the left, so your statement would be ridiculous. Theres only one side attacking those they disagree with.