John smith

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@bdquinn I mean we already have polling on this, regardless of what people think voters want democrats to move to the center or stay the same

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@ettingermentum Her campaign has flopped but there is zero percent chance she’s in the single digits

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@tetrarosie He’s not trying anymore he doesn’t give a fuck

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@chrisbrunet @SocialistShinji @B80748543 @souljagoyteller I do not think Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be happy if they saw someone as stupid as you lived in their country

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HamptonPrezcott Are you under the impression that republicans raise all their money in state? Are you retarded?

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@BeshearStan Win or lose Fitzpatrick is going to be in the race of his life this year Dems need to seriously contest him

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@PollTracker2024 Bro has no sauce anymore, it’s just retarded boomerslop like “Dumocrat”

Sad!

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@electionsjoe Broke: polling
Woke: 13 keys
Bespoke: the gas price multiplier

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@lxeagle17 @TheArgumentMag Very Nitpicky but “extremely strongly so” is kind of redundant

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@NateBlanchett Feenstra, Cuomo, Steyer, Miyares, etc etc

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@smomwetgobam @MaxMaaxMaaax Bodnar hadn’t entered yet I don’t think so it was a 2 way in an open trump +20 seat. The possibility of a blue tsunami and a good candidate is very low but not 1%

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @leedrutman Yes some areas are naturally packed but we aren’t talking about not gerrymandering, we are talking about actively gerrymandering

Smaller districts mean you can pack more precisely as I laid out in this theoretical example

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @Ed_of_O @leedrutman One conceptual way to think about it: say you’re a Republican trying to gerrymander. You need 700k for a district. There is a 500k city that votes 100% dem. All areas outside vote 100% R. You would waste 200k R voters. Say instead 50k for a district. You waste 0 R votes.

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @leedrutman 70% of the vote in Illinois is +23 improvement from 2024 which makes the 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, and 17th districts flip plus the three they already have which is 60%

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @leedrutman Is what the natural outcome? I don’t follow. And no this shows that smaller districts just allow more packing efficiency.

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @leedrutman No. If republicans got 70% of the vote in Illinois they would get 60% of the seats.

Again, smaller districts make it easier to gerrymander

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @leedrutman Find me a congressional map by any state where Republicans or Democrats would need to win 70% of the vote to get 50% of the seats.

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@HunterWillis @Ed_of_O @leedrutman The case being Dems won by eight points and got 33% of seats?

And you’re linking the 2024 maps. Quite famously Wisconsin had their 2010-2020 maps tossed out. It was literally the poster child for gerrymandering in this country for the better part of a decade

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@Ed_of_O @HunterWillis @leedrutman So in this one you waste about 20k R votes in the same land area, in the old one you waste 200k

[John smith @Johnsmithlymb]

@Ed_of_O @HunterWillis @leedrutman In my example you will have 1 700k safe 70-30 dem seat (100% D 0% R share). If you adjust to 100k you could have 3 60-40 R seats and 7 nearly 100% D seats. (30% R, 70% D share). Ds lose 30% of their seat share for the same land area because of precise packing.