Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2025, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I listened to about a minute of this thing, and it seems like this guy spends 13 minutes talking about 5 districts. Well, OK, but that doesn't deserve 13 minutes. And it ignores a fundamental axiom of gerrymandering.

Repeat after me:

This is because Gerrymandering means trying to squeeze more of the opponents' votes into a smaller number of sacrificial districts. When districts are already gerrymandered, it is quite difficult to squeeze them tighter, and by trying to create more districts for yourself, you are lowering your margin of error. In the ideal world, you would like to create a minimum number of 90% Dem districts and a maximum number of 60% GOP districts.

90% districts almost never happen, so they might have to target 55% districts for GOP candidates. In a normal election, that might work. But this could be a reactionary election that is hard on GOP incumbents, especially if inflation continues at its current level and we head into stagflation. In that case, with good candidates in "GOP districts" it might be possible to win some of those "safe" GOP districts, in addition to the 5 this video talks about. I hope people aren't looking only at those 5.

Thanks.

in a bit more depth. In his case, he seems to be writing off the 5 targeted districts (which I don't think we should), but says there are 10 other districts that now would be in play if we can run good candidates with good campaigns.

pecking at my phone because someone is too lazy to watch a few minutes of a video.

and your phone should allow you to dictate a few sentences without having to type anything.