Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those over-represented tiny red states will oppose it by every means I'm not sure why they would oppose replacing one giant Democratic-majority state with 6 states that aren't mostly Democratic-majority -- it improves the Republican structural position in the Senate and Presidential elections.
There might be a temptation for tiny red states to support the move as a way to improve the Republican position, but... (a) Such an advantage might be transitory. Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that they never were when the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? Even those tiny-state folks can recognize a two edged sword…
Well, yeah. Some of us still remember that California was a Republican solid state in national politics not too long ago.
> Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness?
I can't understand what the "especially..." part of this is trying to communicate. It sounds like there is an interesting thought behind it, but I can't penetrate the way it is phrased to get to the meaning.
> There are small blue states too.
And big states, blue and red, that have powerful interests that like them being big (as well as powerful interests that don't, too be sure) which will seek to avoid balkanization getting established as a thing.
> Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
I think that claiming that this will be the dominant effect understates the degree to which national politics in the US is driven by tribal partisanship, but certainly partisanship wouldn't be the only factor influencing it.