Just read an article at Cleveland.com (sorry I'm not good at linking) that noted the hyper gerrymandered districts in Ohio resulted in huge Dem margins of victory - on the order of 3:1 in their 4 districts. The GOP district Mathis weren't as lopsided.
Sadly unless a lawsuit is successful Ohio has at least one more election year of this pattern.
Yes - the 4 blue seats were all 70% winners and the red seats were, for the most part 53-58% winners (except Jordan in OH-4 which was, IIRC, 70+%).
At the same time, when you look at the county map for senator or governor, it's rural red vs. urban blue. doesn't matter what kind of districts you draw in the middle of the state, it's going to be red.
Maybe we move from 4 to 5 or 6 dems in congress but getting the map right in 2020 isn't really going to change a lot. That's why republicans grudgingly accepted the anti-gerrymandering vote from earlier this year. It's going to change a little bit not a lot for us.
IMHO, of course.
upon digging through the data more...
Dems state wide got 55% for Senator and 45% for Governor so call it about 50% average. Downticket Dems got between 30-45% of the vote.
Dems won 25% ( 4 of 16) of the seats.
Net - they "should" have won 5-8 seats. At 8 seats, that pick up of 4 would have been about 15-20% of what we needed to take the house so you're right...the gerrymandering is more of an impact that I initially thought.
I haven't studied the overall population. I know a seat was lost after the 2010 census. That's where Jordan got his district. Population decline might have shifted the politics too. Congressional seats counts. Even if Dems pick up one, maybe Jordan could become vulnerable
I believe the gerrymandering issue in Ohio was overwhelmingly important. The GOP gave in because the voters forced it