If we got the votes, do it.

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean? https://t.co/S18KeKHfVG

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) June 13, 2025

Abbott isn't saying anything yet.

Abbott team said the press conference was over.@RenzoDowney just tried to ask about congressional redistricting, after @nytimes reporting of pressure from the Trump Administration to do so.

Abbott declined to comment. He ended the press conference with a “thank you very much.” https://t.co/Nap6402SAP

— Michael Adkison (@madkisonews) June 11, 2025

Anything to keep crazy leftists out of power is a good thing.

And the Democrats will sue and the courts will block it because of "muh racism."

Unless the screw job of the 2020 census is corrected, this would be an exercise in futility.

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

I'm not sure how much more gerrymandered it can get. The tradeoffs in redistricting can backfire, and it's all based on assumptions that don't always hold. Seems like a desperation play.

Yeah, I figured it was already heavily gerry mandered.

Everyone does it...Conservative and Liberal states.

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

esteban said:

---

I'm not sure how much more gerrymandered it can get. The tradeoffs in redistricting can backfire, and it's all based on assumptions that don't always hold. Seems like a desperation play.

---

Most of the gerrymandering in Texas has been to create 65/35 and 70/30 districts in urban areas. Potential legal challenges aside, moving a bunch of boundaries to create more R-leaning districts has the risk of putting some of those districts in play for Dems in 2028. R voters have to come from somewhere and D voters have to go somewhere.

55/45 isn't particularly safe, especially considering trends in electorate shifts in urban areas. Instead of losing maybe 1 or 2 seats to Ds in 2028, Rs could end up losing 10-15. This could then start the ball rolling in a direction that would put Ds in charge of redistricting in 2033.

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

You know she's dead, right?

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

Don't count her out just yet. Say what you want, she was always a wily politician among her constituents.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

You know she's dead, right?

---

To be fair, so are many democrats who got re-elected in 2024.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

They do it….. they take full advantage of it…. You can't sit back and let them do it and not do the same.

Democrats not only gerrymander the **** out of their strongholds already, but they also import mass migrants by the millions on phony asylum claims as they talk about a "path to amnesty" for all to create future government-dependent socialist voters, fight tooth and nail against antifraud controls in our election systems and processes to make them easier to rig and nefarious activity impossible to detect, control the brainwashing Pravda msm to feed on the easily influenced low IQ useful idiots, control public education and higher academia indoctrination systems to brainwash the youth and place their indoctrinated where they want them, and suckle on the tiny wangs of the ccp to whom they are beholden.

So if gop has a chance for a little gerrymandering, I think I'd be ok with it.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

They did. And when they win the Lege again in 2246, they can again.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

You know she's dead, right?

---

gerrymandering was first started by democrats

Hilarious that Dems claim this is a Republican-originated practice.
It was started more than 200 yrs ago in Mass. by party of Jefferson, Democratic-Republicans, which became parent to the modern Dem Party when it fractured in 1820s. https://t.co/EVXp3knV1q

— J.E. Dyer ☘️ (@OptimisticCon) October 15, 2021

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

You know she's dead, right?

---

It didnt stop Biden.

A party does not intentionally increase the strength of the their strongholds. "Stronghold"becoming more D is the result of the Republican Party wanting to win a near by district
Remember district need to have the same number of people. IIRC Crenshaw's district and the West U district were redrawn to make them slightly more R leaning and to do that the D voters had to moved somewhere so they got put out into already heavily democratic districts

A little math a congressional district has 750,000 people a state with 7.5 millions would have 10 districts

Now imagine this is a 50-50 state like WI or PA

if a legislature could draw 2,districts that were 80-20 which is 600,000 -150,000 actual people

The other 8 districts on average would be 57.5-42.5 giving the side that draws the map in a 50-50 state 8 safe seats and 2 unwinnable seats and 80% of the congressional delegation

Gerrymandering in favor of Republicans in 2025 Texas is almost an exercise in futility. . .that is until we have more actual Conservative candidates making it to the general election instead of a buncha Rinos.

For reference take a look at the current goings on in the Texas House now.

The dems would do it and have done it. We need to take every advantage we can to stop the enemy.

Here's what the Dems did to New Mexico to make sure that no Republican can get elected to Congress. At first glance, it may not look too bad until one examines the details:

Old map and districts:



District 1 was essentially northern New Mexico, District 2 was essentially Albuquerque, and District 3 was southern New Mexico. Republicans almost always won District 3 because of what is called "Little Texas", the oil and gas sector in SE New Mexico. District 1 was always Democrat, and Albuquerque was purple, going back and forth between the parties.

Here's the new map adopted in 2020 (I think):



Af first glance, it doesn't look all that bad. But a careful look will show how absurd it is and that it's designed solely to help Dems and hurt Reps. Notice the new District 1. It carves SE New Mexico in half, and puts Republican centers such as Roswell, Clovis and Portales in the same district as Santa Fe and the Indian reservations up north.

Similarly, it takes the furthest SE part of NM and puts it in the same district as Las Cruces (which, like most university towns, is solidly Dem.) as well as the western half of Albuquerque. It further changed what was left of the old District 2, the Albuquerque district, by expanding it further south along the Rio Grande to pick up heavily Hispanic and Native American communities in order to add a lot more Democratic voters to that District to move it solidly from purple to blue.

So Democrats have absolutely no basis for complaining when Republicans redistrict to help themselves.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

They'd do it in two seconds if they were in power. And they did in past.......so your comment is nonsensical.

And they do it all over the country.

So Yeah, I want the R's to gerrymander the state, fight fire with fire.

OP got ratio'ed....LOL.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

As long as SJL is out of office I'm good.

---

You know she's dead, right?

---

Yes!!!!!!!!!

Gerrymandering has to just stop.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

esteban said:

---

I'm not sure how much more gerrymandered it can get. The tradeoffs in redistricting can backfire, and it's all based on assumptions that don't always hold. Seems like a desperation play.

---

Most of the gerrymandering in Texas has been to create 65/35 and 70/30 districts in urban areas. Potential legal challenges aside, moving a bunch of boundaries to create more R-leaning districts has the risk of putting some of those districts in play for Dems in 2028. R voters have to come from somewhere and D voters have to go somewhere.

55/45 isn't particularly safe, especially considering trends in electorate shifts in urban areas. Instead of losing maybe 1 or 2 seats to Ds in 2028, Rs could end up losing 10-15. This could then start the ball rolling in a direction that would put Ds in charge of redistricting in 2033.

---

Tend to agree. This is incredibly risky. We would need to see the plans to understand the impact here. Depending on what we are talking about, you could simply be dropping grains of sand on the beach.

I have to assume they are talking about some of these suburban rings that have gone blue in the last few cycles which I'm not sure gains you much long-term. Urban areas go blue and the more population you add the bluer it gets. This is almost an inevitable fact of life.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

Gerrymandering is legal as long as it is done in a systemic racist way that benefits a population with higher levels of melanin.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

The Democrats invented gerrymandering.

Vepp said:

---

Y'all good with the democrats gerrymandering?

---

The Democrats invented the concept. Some of us remember Martin Frost.

dmart90 said:

---

Gerrymandering has to just stop.

---

States are legally required to gerrymander.