It has come down to those above listed area’s for Democrats as they move to cement in victories on November 6 to get a majority in the House….
The Democratic Party’s chances of recapturing the House of Representatives are increasingly centered on a relatively small number of states where an outsized number of battleground districts will decide who wields the speaker’s gavel for the next two years.
Three weeks before Election Day, both parties and their supportive outside groups are spending tens of millions of dollars on clusters of House districts in states like Pennsylvania, where eight districts are in play, and California, where at least seven districts are competitive.
Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Virginia have four competitive races each.
Democrats need to reclaim 23 seats to win control of the House of Representatives. Republican strategists concede that as many as a dozen seats they hold in states like Iowa, Arizona and Colorado are already likely to fall to Democrats.
That means Democrats would have to win fewer than half the 34 Republican-held swing seats in those seven cluster states in order to win back control of the House.
Most of the cluster states have so many competitive districts in part because of the types of voters who see their ballots as a chance to put a check on President Trump’s agenda.
That has been a common theme in recent midterm elections, strategists said.
“In 2018, people are showing up to vote against Trump and his brand. In 2006, they were showing up to vote against [George W.] Bush, and in 2010, they were voting against [Barack] Obama,” said Mark Nevins, a Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist.
“That’s the root of these wave elections, is something for people to be against.”….
If my mathematical reasoning is correct, I think there are some political and arithmetical reasons why you’d likely find more close or competitive districts in a larger state.
Not only are there more districts to begin with, but there’s more room for a gerrymandering legislative majority party to (1) spread a small majority over as many districts as possible (55-60% of two districts delivers twice the punch of 70% or 80% in only one) or conversely (2) to diffuse a large opposition majority into a couple of districts with huge opposition majorities (“packing”) and many where the opposition loses narrowly (40-45%).