Wow. Our experiment is off to a great start—let's see if we can finish it off sooner than expected.
After rounding up a few comments from GOP members of Congress who are back in their districts this week talking about the sequester, Dave Weigel suggests that they're more likely to be realistic about things if they represent a swing district. Then this:
I enjoy the new, #slatepitchy argument that gerrymandering is overrated as an issue, and that it doesn't influence whether members moderate their votes or not, but sequestration's putting that to a test.
Hold on a second. Who's saying that? The argument I've heard making the rounds lately is that gerrymandering is probably responsible for a fairly modest change in the number of House seats Republicans won last year. The best guess seems to be around six or seven seats, which is nothing to sneeze at, but also a far cry from being solely responsible for the GOP's current majority. But who's been saying that gerrymandering has no effect on whether members feel any need to moderate their votes or their rhetoric? What have I missed?
UPDATE: Steve Randy Waldman suggests Weigel may have been referring to this post a few weeks ago from John Sides.