That's the narrative, yes, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
On a precinct by precinct level, if the 2002 congressional elections had been held with the district assignments of the 1990 census, Bush would have lost Congress.
The war high had nothing to do it with, the entire victory was through the redistricting of the 2000 census.
Whether or not that is true, what certainly is not true is that Bush was unpopular in 2002. Quite the opposite was true. So that claim was definitely false.
That said, I think you were right in your broader argument about redistricting.
Wut? Bush was on a post-9/11 high in 2002. That is why the GOP gained seats, which is very unusual in a midterm.
That's the narrative, yes, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
On a precinct by precinct level, if the 2002 congressional elections had been held with the district assignments of the 1990 census, Bush would have lost Congress.
The war high had nothing to do it with, the entire victory was through the redistricting of the 2000 census.
Whether or not that is true, what certainly is not true is that Bush was unpopular in 2002. Quite the opposite was true. So that claim was definitely false.
That said, I think you were right in your broader argument about redistricting.