'Neither party was a clear winner in redistricting, but competition and people of color definitely lost.' via FiveThirtyEight
“Solid Democratic” seats have FiveThirtyEight partisan leans of D+15 or bluer; “competitive Democratic” seats have partisan leans between D+5 and D+15; “highly competitive” seats have partisan leans between D+5 and R+5; “competitive Republican” seats have partisan leans between R+5 and R+15; “solid Republican” seats have partisan leans of R+15 or redder.
Partisan lean is the average margin difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall. This version of partisan lean, meant to be used for congressional and gubernatorial elections, is calculated as 50 percent the state or district’s lean relative to the nation in the most recent presidential election, 25 percent its relative lean in the second-most-recent presidential election and 25 percent a custom state-legislative lean.
SOURCES: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, THE UPSHOT, VOTING ELECTION AND SCIENCE TEAM, RYNE ROHLA/DECISION DESK HQ This reflects the different goals the two parties had in redistricting this year, as can be seen plainly when we break down the seat change by which party enacted the new maps. Having, Republicans had little left on their redistricting to-do list other than to reinforce Republican-held seats that weren’t as red as they could be. As a result, they drew a whopping 18 fewer swing and light-red seats in exchange for 16 more dark-red ones.
On the other hand, the number of solidly blue seats decreased by three in states where Democrats unilaterally redistricted. But the number of light-blue seats grew by six. That’s because Democrats’ goal in redistricting wasn’t to draw safer seats for themselves; it was to draw more seats that leaned Democratic, whether by a lot or a little. The way they did this in states like