Gerrymandering for Dummies

Yesterday, a friend sent me an op-ed in the Washington Post written by David Daley about the reports that Trump is pushing Texas to re-gerrymander its already heavily gerrymandered state before the Mid-Terms, a highly uncommon action in the middle of the normal redistricting cycle.  The intent is to take Blue districts and change their boundaries so that they become Red.

Left unmentioned in the article is that not all members of the heavily-MAGOP Texas legislature are on board with the idea, even though they represent safe Red districts.  The hurdle for the tactic is that the only two ways for the process to work is that you either have to move Blue voters into Red districts, or take Red voters out and move them into Blue districts.  The result of that, of course, means that safe Red districts become only "leaning" Red.  (When this happens, and the gerrymandering backfires, it's referred to as having been "dummymandered".)

However, if successful, it seriously undermines Texas Democrats from returning to the House of Representatives.  The op-ed is titled "How Texas could help ensure a GOP House majority in 2026" with the sub-head -- "Trump wants state lawmakers to redraw maps to create more Republican seats. It could work."

I know I'm not anything close to an expert, and anything I write is just personal opinion, though based on a lot that I read and hear from actual experts, and have observed from experience.  But it's just un-professional option.  I also know that everything he writes could happen.  But --

I thought the article was ridiculous.  For a lot of very specific reasons.  

First, when discussing the most "at-risk" seats, Mr. Daley minimizes what he says Democrats have to gain as things stand now, writing, "But just 37 of 435 races were decided by five points in 2024 -- and Democrats already hold 22 of them. Only three Republicans represent districts carried by Kamala Harris in 2024."  Significant as this sounds on the surface, it's only pointing out numbers and ignores what they mean.  After all, we've seen -- in actual reality -- that Democrats picked up about 15-20 points in every Special Election that's been held so far.  Even in several Deep Red districts.  Democrats even flipped a Deep Red statehouse election in Iowa.  And so, rather than having little to gain, I would suggest recent factual history show that 1) Democrats will hold all 22 seats they won by under five points.  2) I would suggest, as well, that Democrats will win those three districts currently held by Republicans but that Kamala Harris won.  And, most importantly, 3) of the remaining 12 seats won by under five points that are now held by Republicans which Trump won -- I think that not only will Democrats not even remotely lose all those, but (given what we've seen in all Special Elections thus far) they should flip at least six of those MAGOP seats.  In fact, it seems more likely that Democrats could flip all 12 than only flip a handful.  Meaning that would be between nine and 15 flipped seats for Democrats.  

On another point Mr. Daley addresses, he also said that no re-gerrymandered election has backfired and been "dummymandered," losing a seat, since 2010, suggesting that therefore there is no reason to think Texas would lose any Red seats if they took such an action.  Again, this is a valid sounding point on the surface.  However, 1) as distant as he wants that to sound, I don't think 2010 is far away in the slightest.  Most especially when you realize that over half of those races since 2010 were during presidential elections, which aren't an applicable comparison -- meaning the correct sample size to compare to this year's Mid-Term is just three elections!, 2) In those three elections (let alone all seven), we haven't faced one where the leader of the party in power is pushing policies that polls show the public hates all of them including his signature issues, sent the armed National Guard and U.S. Marines in to patrol a U.S. city, 3) is seen as a fascist trying to end democracy, and 4) in none of those previous re-gerrymandered years had we seen the other party consistently pick up 15-20 points in every Special Election leading up to the Mid-Term, meaning that next year "leaning Red" seats where the incumbent is up by 6-10 points are now at serious risk -- and even safe seats aren't all necessarily safe.  So, it's certainly possible that Texas might indeed "dummymander" itself somewhat and lose a few previously-Red districts.  While not even necessarily flipping all the Blue districts they hope to get.

Moreover, Mr. Daley only lists one other state, Ohio, as being another state he says that could re-gerrymander its election -- and says "two" seats could be lost there.  So, let's look at a worst case:  that what he suggests could happen does occur, and Ohio flips its two districts, and Texas flips all 12 of its re-gerrymandered seats (something that is improbable -- since he conveniently leaves out how many of the Blue districts are currently safe Democratic seats, and omits the reality that to re-gerrymander this extensively would mean taking away a huge amount of Red voters in other districts which could result in losing a few currently Red seats. But still, for the sake of argument, let's just say he's right).  That would mean in this improbable Worst Case Scenario a flip of 14 seats for Republicans in Texas and Ohio, increasing their current razor-thin margin of three in House up to 17.  BUT -- many experts say that the Mid-Terms could be Blue Waves tsunami for Democrats who could pick up 30-40 seats.  Which on my abacus is more than 17.

But also…there are two big things he totally ignores:

First, if Republicans re-gerrymander Texas (and let's say Ohio, and even perhaps some other states, as yet unmentioned), he ignores that Democrats could do exactly the same in half a dozen Blue states.  And offset, or even exceed, any loses.  (Yes, that's just guessing "if," but his argument is all just guessing "if," as well.  And we do know that Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that he'd consider pushing California to do so if Texas goes ahead.

And second, what the author ignores is that historically -- and historically by a massive amount, as I wrote in great detail here -- the party out of the White House picks up a great many seats in a Mid-Term election.  Indeed, in the past 84 years, that has not happened only twice -- and those two times were for deeply uncommon, unique reasons:  Bill Clinton was about to be impeached, which the public abhorred, and 9/11 had just occurred.

Could what he writes happen?  Absolutely, and Democrats should be wary about every potential problem and work to offset them all.  But the operative term in his headline is the word "could."  That's a no-lose word for anyone to use, since almost anything "could" happen.  Democrats "could" pick up 150 seats.  Republicans "could", as well.  But what is most likely?  What is probable?  

Given that Democrats have picked up 15-20 points in every Special Election so far (including in a couple Deep Red districts), and that Trump's approval is only around 38-40%, and all important issues for Republicans are polling under 50%, and Trump is in the midst of a major scandal about Jeffrey Epstein that is outraging his base and unraveling by the day, and that in the Mid-Terms Trump won't be on the ballot which is what draws to the polls much of his base that doesn't usually vote, and that things will get worse for MAGOPs because they don't have anyone qualified and competent to help with their problems (and indeed causes many of them), and tariffs and prices increases are only just starting to kick in and are expected to get much worse, and…Trump has dementia which is degenerative and will only get worse - I would suggest that all these reasons is why I think the guy's op-ed (made up of general, unsupported opinions) was ridiculous and why Democrats gaining control of the House is likely, probable.

I "could" be wrong.  But I think it's far more likely that his "fear-mongering" will be wrong.  And the difference is that I just gave a lot of reasons why I think I'm right, while Mr. Daley only said what he thought "could" happen without really ever explaining why.  

That said, again, I think it's important that Democrats be wary of all contingencies, so that they can work to fend them off.

And equally important that they don't terrify themselves with so much fear that they're frozen into inaction.