I mean, this is my impression as well. The gerrymander could have helped flip seats in a blue wave, but it’s surprising (and alarming) that it not only doesn’t seem to have backfired, it prevented a historical blue wave from having a concordant historical numerical advantage in the House:

If every congressional map had been drawn fairly, with party-blind nonpartisan methods, Democrats might have come close to winning a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the House, with the party winning nearly 20 additional districts in Texas, Florida and Georgia alone.

Imagine… And Texas was a good example too, which turned blue in vote counts, but thanks to gerrymandering is the GOP minority ruling over the majority of voters.

If anything, the Republican gerrymander in Texas played an enormous role in the results. Democrats won the U.S. House vote in Texas by about six percentage points, 53 percent to 47 percent, but Republicans still won a lopsided 24-to-14 congressional majority.

That structural advantage is shown very well in the chart:

The point is: the structural advantages that the GOP have will not always play out like in 2026, but they matter over time. Like gambling at a casino with the odds slightly against you, the house eventually wins. That’s why 2026-2028 is so vital, because unless we have another blue wave in 2028, in a normal voting year the GOP likely will seize power again. And if we have traditional democrats calling the shots, pleasing donors over voters, another blue wave in 2028 will be nearly impossible.

I think this discounts the potential impacts partisan gerrymandering had on promoting the blue wave and potentially discouraging Republican voters.

Gerrymandering is incredibly unpopular, regardless of party. When Republican leaders shouted from the rooftops “We don’t think we can win a fair election, so we’re gonna cheat!” They helped fire up Democrats and turned off Republicans.

They also triggered counter-redistricting efforts in states like California with traditionally fair election maps.

Their new maps may have been effective in a vacuum, but realistically, I suspect that move did more harm than good.

Because they were already in gerrymandered seats. They diluted their gerrymander to get more seats. Sam Seder was calling it a very risky dummymander because.

For example a seat that was always +13% for republicans was changed to a +8% for republicans meaning that an election where democrats gained 8% more votes would have that seat switch.