Replies

“The way Redistricting is playing out the last 2 years(2027 and 2028 of Trump will be like the LAST 2 years(2019 and 2020) of Trump. “

I agree. The communists are well funded with dark money and are likely to take the House. Then, it will be a daily impeachment.

Where is the Department of Justice in tracking down the dark money? Even if DOGE was able to shut down some of the funding, are we sure taxpayer funds are not still being laundered to provide funding to the Left? I think about the Obama Library, which cost over $800 million to build an eyesore in Chicago. You have to wonder if this isn't a slush fund in the real Chicago tradition but instead of The Outfit the funds are going to left wing foundations and NGOs. Then there is the question of Chinese and drug cartel money.

I asked Chat GPT this:

Use average results (democrat v republican) for last 4 years per district. Then model scenario where states redistrict on a partisan basis. Stipulate that SCOTUS allows southern states to redistrict. Account for any states that have rules making redistricting unlikely.

Scenario results — national seat-shift estimates

1) Conservative scenario (low impact)
• Assumption: Mapmakers are partisan but limited by courts/VRA; commission states hold; southern gains are modest.
• Estimated net seat change: GOP +3 to +6 seats nationally (i.e., Republicans pick up 3–6 seats relative to baseline).
• Why: Empirical studies often find limited national impact after constraints; even when one big state flips several seats, cancellations elsewhere reduce net effect. (Supported by Kenny et al. findings that statewide partisan effects are often modest when averaged nationally.)

2) Likely / central scenario (my best single estimate)
• Assumption: SCOTUS clearances (as in the Texas decision) let several southern GOP-controlled states redraw aggressively, while commission states remain fixed. Aggressive southern redraws flip multiple marginal seats; elsewhere GOP picks up a smaller number.
• Estimated net seat change: GOP +10 to +15 seats nationally.
• State drivers (example breakdown, illustrative):
• Texas: +4 to +6 seats (news reports place Texas at ~+5 under new map).
• Florida: +1 to +2 seats (GOP-controlled redistricting can consolidate advantage).
• North Carolina / Georgia: combined +2 to +4 seats (targeting suburban marginals).
• Alabama / Louisiana / Mississippi / South Carolina / Tennessee / Arkansas: together +1 to +3 seats (smaller states, but cumulative).
• Other GOP states (e.g., Indiana, Missouri, Ohio if controls allow): +0 to +3 seats.
• Why this is ‘likely’: The Texas court example shows how 1 state can swing multiple seats; these gains add up across the South where Republicans control legislatures. At the national level, a +10–15 range is plausible given geography and prior research’s upper bounds.

3) Aggressive / upper-bound scenario (strong partisan engineering allowed)
• Assumption: Very aggressive packing/cracking permitted widely, weak judicial pushback, and mapmakers exploit every marginal district across many states. Voting Rights Act litigation either fails or arrives too late to block many districts.
• Estimated net seat change: GOP +16 to +25 seats (this is an upper bound; in practice legal/geographic limits usually prevent this full swing).
• Why: If several large states (Texas, Florida, North Carolina) each flip 4–6 seats and smaller states add a few, totals can reach ~20; but such an outcome requires both legal permissiveness and extraordinary mapmaking, which is less likely everywhere simultaneously. Academic modeling shows such extreme outcomes are technically possible but constrained by geography and minority-rights rules.