The dem gerrymandered districts are much more visually gerrymandered, they look like Ink Blot tests or the blood spatter pattern on a wall after, presumably, one of the redistrict committee blew their own brains out in frustration. The caveat on that, to be fair, is that Blue territory is very compact, much less than 1% of the land area, so when they're gerrymandering its much more visually obscene then the GOP's large rural versions. The GOP can add a pretty red chunk by just grafting on an entire rural county of 50k people that's bigger then NYC, the Dems usually need to slice down an urban road half a mile wide to get to a spot a mile in diameter that's got a demographical tilt to them and 100k people.

In any event both sides do it as much as they can whenever they can, and the population is so mobile in address and outlook over a decade between census and redistricting that planning for 'tomorrow' is an exercise in futility. People often talk about changing up districing so it was more objective and computer-controlled but that's not the answer. The better answer is to draw up visually appropriate districts all about 50-200% of the ideal size and just give reps a vote that isn't 1. Then you just divide an area into 2 if it jumps above twice the ideal and otherwise my congressmen has 1.22 votes, or 122 votes or whatever an our neighboring district has .965 or 97 or whatever and the next census the districts don't change, just the voting power does. So long as all the districts are close enough in size that you don't have some congressmen with 10 times as many people getting his speaking time on the floor curtailed for some minor district it works out just fine and its not like having a congressmen have 1,235,768 votes while the guy next to him has 789,123 votes would be a huge calculation issue. Not only could the simplest computer keep a running tab of their total votes faster then they could raise their hand or push a button but even a single clerk having to do sums out of a table with pencil and paper could do the bloody math in minutes on the off chance the capital needed to vote after a massive EMP strike blew out even hand calculators.

Well we have actually defaulted before, back in spring of 1979 between two of the shutdowns. Something of an 'oops' moment more than brinksmanship but there is precedent. As to now, well I've no Crystal Ball. People are currently blaming the GOP more than the president as an average thing but they're both taking hits from the indies, obviously most GOP and Dem blame it entirely on the other side and they can bank on that support no matter how the wind blows. The indies though see this as a shads of gray argument with POTUS defending his unpopular bill and the GOP just being obstinate. In large measure the GOP's faring slightly worse in the public eye because Obama is seen as such a weak-kneed negotiator, especially post Syria/Russia that its assumed they are the ones not compromising since they think he rolls in a stiff breeze. As it drags on, I'd guess the GOP will be publicly saying what it wants and Obama will have to explain why he is standing his ground. If the GOP says "We want, in exchange for funding Obamacare, a removal of all the Exec Branch waivers granted from it" odds are good POTUS is screwed. The public is inclined to view those waivers as unfair and if he doesn't roll on them, in part, it makes Obamacare look even worse along with his position and makes it more like him desperately defending bad policy that has his name literally on it.

That's what I'd do anyway, demand all current and future waivers be subject to congressional approval within 90 days of it being granted by the exec and that congress can waiver anyone it wants by majority in both houses. It might not work and they might not do it. The government might shut down in 10 days, ask me in 11 and I'll tell you