I totally understand why Mary Peltola would choose to run for governor. That’s a position in which she can make consequential decisions that will really make a difference to Alaskans. In the Senate, she would be just one of a hundred votes/voices – and it sounds like it would be an uphill climb for her to get there.
I think it'd still be an uphill climb. Maybe less of one than running for senate, but she's not the incumbent anymore and Alaska is still a state that undeniably leans red at the federal level.
How long ago was the last time that being a senator was a fulfilling job for politicians? Maybe the 90s? The job today boils down to approving or denying nominees chosen by someone else, and voting for or against must-pass legislation that someone else negotiated. Every few years one party or the other will hold a trifecta and then the job will also include passing legislation that will be the party's legacy for that entire generation, but the details of that will be negotiated with the most centrist members of the party instead of with every senator.
Not hard to see why people would prefer to be governor.
Not to mention all the credit that Governors get when things go well in ones state. As I tell people when they compare Governors to Senators, take the problems of governing in one state and multiply them by 50 (or 51). The one major issue is what happens - and this was very much the case with Jimmy Carter - when a Governor ascends to the Presidency and they think they can govern the same way in DC as they could in their state's capital city.
Do you also get the blame when things go to hell nationwide and you weren't able to do anything about it? This is likely to be a rocky term upcoming for any governor.
Alaska, like Utah and Idaho is one of those "reach states" where we are going to have to build up slowly over time in the urban areas. Ironically historically we've done better in the Last Frontier in rural areas than we have in urban areas. That needs to change for us to have ANY prayer there in the long run.
Utah is a state that could, maybe, theoretically, possibly, be competitive with some realignment due to education factors. Would also require republicans to alienate mormons by "othering" them within their religious identities. So, I agree it's not impossible at some point in the future.
That point isn't now though. Alaska is absolutely more winnable for us at present than Utah. Far more so. Utah is currently a stretch, even if that has a chance to change in the future.
That's true, but this imposes it's own political costs on her too.
Also I don't think it's actually satisfying on an individual level. While I'm sure Manchin and Sinema enjoyed the power that their position granted them, I don't think they enjoyed it in a literal sense of being fulfilled or happy as a result of the process. I think Peltola would be in that kind of position too.
As long as they then keep their lips sealed about abuses of executive power in the federal government that they failed to prioritize when they "preferred running for Governor".
Don't need to convince me. Unfortunately I don't see her biting for the senate even though it is far more important, especially at such a crucial juncture in our history.
That would have been a compelling argument for a gubernatorial run for most of my lifetime, but when an institutional check on federal power is as badly needed as it is right now, deferring to a gubernatorial run for the sake of "managing stuff" rather than leading one's party to a Senate majority feelings like whistling past graveyards. If the Democrats come up a whisker short from taking the Senate next year, and have untold reams of poisonous legislation, two more years of dissolving legislative branch power, and two new right-wing Supreme Court justices in 2027 and 2028 as consequences for lacking the confidence to take on Dan Sullivan, the victory will be just as hollow as the "big Democratic wins" of 2018.
I guess it's a matter of how much she, and those who would defend her prioritizing a gubernatorial run over a Senate run, fear Trump and the future of the republic.
I honestly think we might win the Senate without AK, anyway. With that being said, I think Sullivan is extremely vulnerable and could lose his seat - giving a pad.
Despite what Mike Braun claims, Indiana is not "more Republican." Indiana is a purple state but audacious gerrymandering at both the state and federal level keeps it red. 40% of voters in the 2024 election voted for the Democratic candidate, Jennifer McCormick.
I'm sorry, in what world is Indiana a "purple state"? They voted for Senator Obama from neighboring Illinois once and otherwise have voted Republican for president forever (since 1964, I'm guessing, or did they vote for Goldwater?). How many state-wide races have gone Democratic there in the last 20 years? Any governors?
At least half the population of Indiana does not even vote. If we had decent Democratic party leadership here, we would focus on those people and not exclusively on professed Democrats. The last two state chairs have been a disappointment. I'm waiting to see how this one does. She did show up for a second congressional district town hall, so I have hope.
Maybe, but one thing we've learned in the last 10 years is that "those who don't vote" are not who we always thought they were. They're disproportionately conservative populists. The available polling before the last election showed that Trump was poised to win by even more sweeping margins if "those who didn't vote" actually voted.
A propos small contributions being helpful, I'm thinking about contributing to a fund for the Texas Democratic lawmakers. Is anyone doing that, and what's the best way? I guess we have to use Act Blue?
I rarely give donations to the general Democratic party because it ignored Texas when I lived there and it is now ignoring Indiana. Instead, I choose candidates in Indiana and in other states who need support.
I have donated to One Texas Pac that Beta O'Rourke has started to support the Texas lawmakers. I regularly select states outside of Indiana where I live for donations, as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. However, I always support strong Indiana candidates, such as the candidate we ran for governor and the candidate we ran for Attorney General in the last election. I didn't support the Senate candidate, who was not strong. I did support the 2nd Congressional District Candidate. It is not a waste of money to support good candidates. Effective candidates need to run, and run again if they lose. Beta O'Rourke did not win either of his elections in Texas, but I would argue that he has lit a flame that will eventually help to break the stranglehold there.
I don’t think that non-voters actually have any firm ideological position: that’s why they don’t vote. They go with the political tide and pay even less attention than the already anemic level of thought the average voter has/does on politics.
In 2020 non-voters would’ve supported Biden. In 2024 it was Trump. In 2016 it was probably Trump. In 2012 and 2008 it was Obama. In 2004 and 2000 it was Bush etc.
It’s not that now all of a sudden non-voters are these MAGA Trump populist conservatives, just like it wasn’t that non-voters during Obama were suddenly progressive liberals.
They swing wildly between elections and have no firm policy position on anything because if they did, they’d actually vote.
Frey served 5 years in the Maine House of Representatives representing the Bangor area. Good to see a "name" as an alternative if Mills doesn't run. He might even be a better choice since he's younger and hasn't accumulated the bruises that come with serving a high-profile office like Governor.
Aaron Frey is "a better choice" only if he has more than a Maine snowball’s chance in hell of actually defeating Susan Collins. I’ll wait for the polls and for weightier arguments.
Janet Mills has been a terrific governor, especially as contrasted with Paul LePage, whom she defeated by 13 points or so when he tried to stop Mills’ re-election bid.
If Mills was even a handful of years younger I'd be 100% onboard with hoping she's our candidate. As is she's old enough that I fear her age hurting support somewhat, or her not being able to campaign aggressively enough, or having a health scare appear during the campaign.
Collins is a tough opponent but she's beatable and if we have a serious, credible candidate we can win. Absent further information I'd prefer the much younger credible candidate over the much older but more credible candidate.
True that she was so painted after living there for "only" 16 years, but she had been elected to local and then state office in Maine multiple times and was even the speaker by the state house. amazing to me that the "not from here" attack stuck.
I've never really read a convincing data-driven explanation of her unexpectedly significant loss, but the carpetbagger charges were definitely part of it. I just don’t think Mainers found her particularly energetic or engaging. That seems odd against Collins, but I guess it was enough.
Maine is idiosyncratic and insular. With Sara Gideon, it was as much "not one of us" as "not from here". Hugely disappointing I know.
Besides, 16 years is hardly enough. Many voters don’t consider you a Mainer unless your family has been here several generations!
One more thing, an indisputable fact: Senator Susan Collins does the work. She has over 9000 consecutive votes! I don’t think she has missed a single Senate vote since she was elected. That is something *all* Democrats should seek to emulate!
Really great news that Kentucky, New Hampshire and South Carolina leaders say they won’t redraw, that’s 3 less potential seats to overcome in 2026 for Democrats. Though, words mean little in this day and age: I’ll believe it only after the primaries are held.
I think Beshear with his veto capability is probably what blocked Kentucky GOP from joining the redistricting wars (even though they have the numbers to override it, they haven’t always succeeded and on such a ridiculously obvious power grab, I could easily see a handful of Republicans in office agreeing with him and saying no).
This is exactly why it was so important for California Democrats to respond. Yeah, Republicans have more seats available to them if every red state redraws (55 to 35 I think?), but we know based on history, not every state falls in line with a party’s goals on any issue, especially one as divisive like this.
So if every Democratic state that can, redraws and only a handful of Republican ones do, in this redistricting war for majority control in 2026, theoretically speaking, Democrats could even come out ahead in the fight they didn’t start (this is not at all what I’m expecting, but it’s a plausible, though very unlikely outcome).
SC redrawing is an almost certain dummymander and they know it. The way they are are able to pack the most Democratic parts of Charleston and Columbia (which on a fair map would anchor two Dem leaning districts) is perfect for them.
The current map packed D leaning but non Black majority areas around Charleston into the VRA seat
But Not sure about the part you can get two D leaning seats in SC without some creative line drawing.
You can count on one D leaning seat in the Midlands, but SC Lowcountry is at most in a tossup territory. Wouldn’t say you can definitely get the other D seat there.
Either way one seat would clearly still be D leaning. At the same time, you can’t really avoid having a competitive lowlands district if the most Dem parts of Charleston aren’t packed with the most Dem parts of Columbia.
The General Ass-embly can't call itself into session, and Beshear isn't going to call it into session for that, so they couldn't do anything before the 2026 session began - on the Monday before the filing deadline. (Filing opens the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November.)
To turn a 5-1 map into a 6-0 map, they'd have to split Louisville so that KY-03 extended into neighboring counties, because we're so close to the ideal district size according to the 2020 Census that Louisville and KY-03 are almost identical. That would be more trouble than it's worth, even if it would stand up in court. Some incumbents live close enough to an edge of their district that they could end up in a different district, which is something the legislative leadership really wants to avoid. Also, it's just easier for them to treat KY-03 as a district that pretty much draws itself.
All three states have obvious dummymander potential, and at least one of the three would have major legal issues that even the current SCOTUS might not sign off on:
- New Hampshire has two U.S. House seats and is more Democratic than the country as a whole, meaning that it's physically impossible to draw anything more of a Republican gerrymander than what would effectively be a bipartisan gerrymander (1D-1R) without bipartisan support.
- Eliminating Clyburn's district in South Carolina would fly in the face of court rulings that gave Louisiana and Alabama a second Black-majority district each, and SC's politics are very polarized along racial lines like politics in LA and AL. Clyburn's district would likely be considered VRA-protected, although I don't know if there would be a legal case for a second Black-majority district in SC like there is in LA and AL. It might be physically possible for Rs to go for a full 7-0 map in their favor, but that would face possible legal peril. The SC GOP could try a workaround of sorts by splitting Clyburn's district into two Black-opportunity swing districts, eliminating one of the GOP stronghold districts and forcing a sitting GOP House member to either retire or run in a competitive, but racially-polarized district. However, I don't think such a workaround would be upheld by the courts, even with SCOTUS as far-right as it is.
- Kentucky is one of the best GOP gerrymandering opportunities, even though there's only one Dem district they can eliminate (KY-3). However, it's important to note that, even if the KY GOP were to go for a full gerrymander, invariably at least one district will have voted for a Democrat in a non-federal statewide race (the Beshear/Coleman ticket) as recently as 2023. I don't know if Kentucky has any rules restricting the state legislature's ability to gerrymander, however.
If Petola runs for AK governor, I hope a strong candidate challenges Senator Dan Sullivan -- who voted for the Big Awful Bill. People like to slag on Murkowski for voting for it -- but Sullivan did too and he's up for re-election next year.
If a Peltola gubernatorial run generates coattails (e.g., through massive Native turnout), that could be great for Alaska Democrats across the board—including Sullivan's opponent.
The fact that she gets 45% in the senate race and Sullivan in this poll only gets up to a max of 50% more/less should be very encouraging. It's also not as if Alaska never elected a Democrat in recent history either, nor is it trending away from Democrats like West Virginia or Arkansas. With enough toxicity and unpopularity and enough name recognition, a reputable Democrat or Independent could and would conceivably win a senate election in Alaska.
SC-Sen: I'm not expecting it to happen, but wouldn't it be delicious if Lindsey Graham lost his primary?
(Yes, I know that his replacement would be just as awful if not worse, but at least that person wouldn't be held up—still!—by lazy, lunkheaded pundits as an example of a "moderate" Republican.)
As a SC resident, I sort of like the idea of Dans beating Graham and being the nominee. Let's put 2025 on trial. All the things that Trump has done according to 2025? You make ads that say: Dans did this. The PFAS is your water that is no longer regulated by EPA? Dans did that. The Sumter hospital closing down? Dans did that. Etc.
No party registration here, so I can vote in the GOP primary for a wacko candidate there knowing I'll vote against him in tha fall. If it worked, it would repay the favor of living thru John Engler in Michigan when the GOP votes for wacko suicide-doc lawyer Geoffrey Feiger.
I'm heading back home to DC after a weekend away and I'm frankly terrified. Trump's turning the city into a police state, and I'm sure this is a trial run for cities across the country. I encourage everyone in a major metro area to plan accordingly and find community. Just because he doesn't have jurisdiction over a Chicago or a Los Angeles doesn't mean he won't try; the rule of law doesn't matter to Trump. Be safe out there.
Does that matter, since it's overwhelmingly Democratic? Racism is a big part of the problem, but it's only part of it. White people who've been detained by ICE and CPB have been treated brutally, too.
Is this meant to be the biggest divergence between the 2006 house vote and 2024 presidential vote in a district?
I don't know the answer but I could see it being somewhere in Arkansas or West Virginia. We went from dominant to uncompetitive in those two states with a very short switch time. We won AR-04 75-25 in 2006, and Trump won it 70-26 in 2024.
I’m not sure if I understand what you are asking, but if you mean a 2006 surprise compared to the 2004 presidential results, I nominate Nancy Boyda’s win in KS-2.
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 20% in KS-2 and Boyda lost to Jim Ryun by 15%. In 2006, in a surprise, she beat Ryun 51%-47%.
The most surprising flips (other than KS-02) in 2006 were districts that were close Presidentially in 2004 (or outright Democratic based on the presidential numbers that year) but Republican incumbents were seen as entrenched and the Dem ones seen as “some dude”. IA-02, MN-01, NY-19, CA-11, and NH-01 all fit this description in 2006.
So there were a lot more crossover voters/districts back then, but this is actually not too difficult to answer on your own. If you open two Wikipedia articles, one on the 2006 House, and one on the 2004 presidential election and open the maps on both (the 2004 article does have a congressional district map, towards the bottom), I would look for the deepest red district that’s blue when comparing the two. As for actual numbers, this very publication should have those numbers somewhere in the data guide, while the House margins are in the 2006 house article.
Trump’s latest attempts to distract from Epstein will fall flat. Why? It’s very simple: The movement to get the files isn’t orchestrated by Democrats, it’s completely organic coming from the voters politicians are elected to serve. For a rare occasion in the modern age of Trump, Democrats are on the right side of a cultural/political issue causing anger and are amplifying the voices of the people instead of dismissing, downplaying or ignoring it.
They do that now both because they are on the side of the majority and because they’ve finally woken up to how powerful organic energy in politics that isn’t partisan, can be in the battle to win votes. Republicans have been extremely successful turning 1 isolated incident into a rallying cry to use against Democrats and to portray themselves as the real party of the people and us as out of touch.
We all know the trans women in sports argument based on the swimmer, we know about Laken Riley who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. There are countless examples of the GOP successfully making our party look like the ones unwilling to side with the American public on issues that generate genuine organic outrage.
Policy doesn’t matter in today’s age, but perception does. The more we take issues like Epstein where voters are rightfully angry about and side with them demanding answers and solutions from our government, the more our party will be viewed as fighting for the people.
I know many of you (including myself) view these as isolated incidents that don’t have any effect on the day to day lives of people, but they matter to voters far more than we’ve understood. They’re a moment where people who don’t pay attention and are tuned out of politics, tune in, if only for a moment to see what the politicians are saying or doing before going back to living their lives.
That is our chance and opportunity both now and in the future as a party, not any of the policy debates we’re having that has the average voters eyes glaze over. I don’t like that this is the reality, because we as educated Democrats care about policy, but I think it’s the truth. Hopefully we continue to see the party rally around “the distractions” and push them along with the people angered by it because I truly believe it’s our path back to power.
Are you referring to the DC crackdown? I’m far less optimistic that this could end well at all, and in fact I’m terrified of what’s coming.
How are we supposed to stop this? Trump has already threatened violence against any protestors, he has also threatened to send troops into other major cities, and I have no faith that the Dem leadership will respond.
I don't think Democratic leadership will have a choice. Based on polling and anecdotal evidence from protests and town halls, the American public is very much in "lead, follow, or get out of the way" mode.
Um, DC is already under control of the federal government -- Trump was way too chicken to go to a blue state with a Dem governor after Newsom called his bluff. All FDJT did was make some noise out of his face hole (aka lie a lot) and supported by Blondi, Crazy Eyes Patel and Box of Wine Pirro.
I think we all get it and understand, it’s ok, especially if it’s hitting somewhere you, your family or friends live, but even if it isn’t: you have every right to be upset because none of this is ok or normal in a just, fair world.
Do I think things can escalate out of control to where it dominates the news and buries Epstein coverage? Yes. Do I think that outcome is in anyway something better for Trump or the GOP politically? No. Do I think the most likely end result is much ado about nothing? Yes.
Where you’re rightly concerned is the actual impact of the people (most of our voters) who live there with this Trump invasion into the blue cities. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that and if there were an actual way to stop him from doing it, I’d be advocating to do exactly that.
However, the reality is: there is nothing that can be done. The GOP Congress won’t intervene. The Trump Supreme Court won’t stop him. The Democrats have 0 leverage to force him to withdraw the national guard/troops and even if they did try, it would be tied up in a legal battle so long they’d all have returned from the cities and midterms would have already taken place.
So for myself, I’m trying to be practical. I hate Trump, I hate everything he does and stands for, but I can’t constantly be in a state of outrage for every single abhorrent thing he does, there’s not enough energy for any one of us to do that and still be healthy as a human being. I will get angry if something bad actually comes of it, but not before.
Here’s what to do: Make as much noise politically as possible, protests, podcasts, news media, town halls, get out there to the people and hammer this authoritarian on his dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, but nothing we say or do will actually change the current situation.
Do I think that people are going to stop asking about Epstein even if the worst case scenario comes to fruition? No, no I do not. It struck a chord in the American public’s consciousness and it’s impossible to unstrike it once it happens: see trans women in sports with the 2024 election results.
I think it's very important for us to protest in the face of any kind of show of force. I realize whenever I demonstrate, the reaction from law enforcement is unpredictable. Fortunately, the NYPD has so far been excellent and very professional at the demonstrations I attended, from what I saw, but we cannot allow ourselves to be deterred by the fear which I share with you.
I deleted comments I made earlier today about Trump appearing to erroneously refer to Alaska as part of Russia (he claimed to be going to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin when he's scheduled to meet with Putin in Anchorage, Alaska later this week, not in Russia). I think that was a slip of the tongue by Trump, but I would never completely rule out Trump doing something as stupid as trying to unilaterally cede U.S. territory to Russia (which I seriously doubt he has the authority to do unilaterally).
However, in the hypothetical situation that Alaska were sold back to Russia or would otherwise cease being part of the Union, that would not benefit Republicans electorally, to say the least:
- Alaska's three electoral votes, in a state more Republican than the country as a whole, would be gone, and, based on the 2020 Census, (correct me if I'm wrong) New York, a state more Democratic than the country as a whole, would gain one electoral vote if the size of the U.S. House were to remain at 435 seats. There would be 536 electoral votes, with 269 electoral votes needed for a Electoral College majority.
- If the U.S. House were to remain at 435 seats, I believe that New York would gain the 435th House seat based on the 2020 Census, but, again, correct me if I'm wrong. The extra New York district would probably only exist until the next Census, be based at least partially in New York City, and be more Democratic than the country as a whole.
- The U.S. Senate would be down to 98 seats, 50 seats would be needed for a majority (nominal majority held by the party holding the vice-presidency if a 49-49 tie were to exist), 59 votes would be needed for a filibuster-proof majority (unless it's specifically defined as 60 votes in the Senate rules; I don't know if it's defined as 60 votes or three-fifths of the whole Senate), and 66 votes would be needed for a veto-proof majority.
- There would be massive political backlash to any effort to cede a U.S. state to a foreign nation against those responsible for such a cession.
There are still a ton of pending special elections that have not been called from Louisiana to Michigan to Missouri to New Hampshire, wondering when they are going to be confirmed.
Nutt is 59 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The Republican's resignation is setting off a chain reaction as a house member, GOP Bobby Cox (not the former Atlanta Braves manager, but the Sig Sauer lobbyist who wrote our no-permit carry law) has resigned to run for Nutt's seat. Both special elections should occur on Oct 21, since state law stipulates specials on the 11th Tuesday after vacancy.
Policy-wise, he was an improvement for the district, which was previously represented by the odious bigot Lee Bright, who authored the bathroom bill that Nicki Hailey shot down, and was the source of other horrible invective against LGBTQ folk.
So if all the red states contemplating a mid-decade gerrymander are able to do it and California isn't able to get it past voters, how lopsided would the GCB have to be for Democrats to get to 218 seats? D+10?
And if Trump was able to get his mid-decade census through on his terms, then what would the GCB has to be for Dems to get 218 House seats? D+15?
I don't remember the exact number but I did the math on this a week or so ago. If I remember right it was under the assumption of them getting 12 seats from re-gerrymandering. In that scenario my recollection is that it would give them roughly a five point advantage for the purpose of determining majority control of the house.
In practice I think it would be a hurdle we could overcome for 2026. The bigger worry would be if we could overcome it for 2028. Big backlashes during midterms are, if not guaranteed, far more likely than not. The ensuing presidential election rarely has a wave at all, let alone a wave of comparable size. The only example of that happening in modern history is 2008.
Of course, even from that perspective "could" is not the same as "will." I expect it would require a GCB of somewhere between D+5 and D+8, depending on various factors and how many seats they actually got in net.
Greg Abbott went on Jake Tapper's show on CNN earlier today and openly threatened to eliminate five more Democratic districts on top of the five that him and other TX Republicans have proposed to eliminate (although three of the five are borderline dummymanders) if California goes through with a Democratic gerrymander.
That would mean attempting to reduce Democrats in Texas to just three U.S. House seats (35R-3D). As I mentioned in the weekly open thread, I theorized that Texas Rs could try to reduce Dems to just three or four House seats if they wanted to, but with at least some dummymander risk if TX becomes anything close to a swing state. Reducing TX Dems to three seats would require attempting to shut out Dems in one of the Houston, DFW, Austin/San Antonio, and El Paso areas and leaving Dems with just a single seat in the other three. That is physically possible for Texas Rs to try to do (in fact, a 38R-0D map would be physically possible as well), but it would be exceedingly difficult, if not virtually impossible, to do so without at least some dummymander risk for Republicans.
I can’t think of anything that succinctly sums up the GOP worldview on basically anything better than “you need to let us punch you and if you punch us we’ll punch you again”
I totally understand why Mary Peltola would choose to run for governor. That’s a position in which she can make consequential decisions that will really make a difference to Alaskans. In the Senate, she would be just one of a hundred votes/voices – and it sounds like it would be an uphill climb for her to get there.
I would guess the unbelievably long travel demands from DC to Alaska might play a role as well.
Yes, and after the tragic death of her husband, she probably doesn’t want to feel even more unmoored from family and friends in Alaska.
She could also try to regain her House seat, which wouldn't be an uphill climb.
…where she would merely be one of its 435 voices/votes.
…and would have to stand for re-election every two years.
I think it'd still be an uphill climb. Maybe less of one than running for senate, but she's not the incumbent anymore and Alaska is still a state that undeniably leans red at the federal level.
She's also only 51, so she could serve two terms as Governor and still find herself in the Senate before she's 60.
Indeed. And if she's a popular governor, she'd be an even more formidable Senate candidate if she decides to run for that body later.
How long ago was the last time that being a senator was a fulfilling job for politicians? Maybe the 90s? The job today boils down to approving or denying nominees chosen by someone else, and voting for or against must-pass legislation that someone else negotiated. Every few years one party or the other will hold a trifecta and then the job will also include passing legislation that will be the party's legacy for that entire generation, but the details of that will be negotiated with the most centrist members of the party instead of with every senator.
Not hard to see why people would prefer to be governor.
Not to mention all the credit that Governors get when things go well in ones state. As I tell people when they compare Governors to Senators, take the problems of governing in one state and multiply them by 50 (or 51). The one major issue is what happens - and this was very much the case with Jimmy Carter - when a Governor ascends to the Presidency and they think they can govern the same way in DC as they could in their state's capital city.
Do you also get the blame when things go to hell nationwide and you weren't able to do anything about it? This is likely to be a rocky term upcoming for any governor.
Peltola would be a critical senator in such negotiations, though.
Alaska, like Utah and Idaho is one of those "reach states" where we are going to have to build up slowly over time in the urban areas. Ironically historically we've done better in the Last Frontier in rural areas than we have in urban areas. That needs to change for us to have ANY prayer there in the long run.
Idaho and Utah?!?! You're putting Alaska in the same tier of competitiveness as Idaho and Utah?
Utah isn't too far of a stretch. It's well educated and shifting our way. If last year had the same NPV as 2020, Utah would have only been R+15.
It's a state worth investing in
Utah is a state that could, maybe, theoretically, possibly, be competitive with some realignment due to education factors. Would also require republicans to alienate mormons by "othering" them within their religious identities. So, I agree it's not impossible at some point in the future.
That point isn't now though. Alaska is absolutely more winnable for us at present than Utah. Far more so. Utah is currently a stretch, even if that has a chance to change in the future.
Because of Native support?
That's true, but this imposes it's own political costs on her too.
Also I don't think it's actually satisfying on an individual level. While I'm sure Manchin and Sinema enjoyed the power that their position granted them, I don't think they enjoyed it in a literal sense of being fulfilled or happy as a result of the process. I think Peltola would be in that kind of position too.
You don't think they got off on the power? Especially Sinema? Manchin did hate the Senate for some time, to be fair.
They liked it but they weren't waking up thinking about how awesome and fulfilling their life as a senator was. Or that's what I think anyway.
As long as they then keep their lips sealed about abuses of executive power in the federal government that they failed to prioritize when they "preferred running for Governor".
Don't need to convince me. Unfortunately I don't see her biting for the senate even though it is far more important, especially at such a crucial juncture in our history.
That would have been a compelling argument for a gubernatorial run for most of my lifetime, but when an institutional check on federal power is as badly needed as it is right now, deferring to a gubernatorial run for the sake of "managing stuff" rather than leading one's party to a Senate majority feelings like whistling past graveyards. If the Democrats come up a whisker short from taking the Senate next year, and have untold reams of poisonous legislation, two more years of dissolving legislative branch power, and two new right-wing Supreme Court justices in 2027 and 2028 as consequences for lacking the confidence to take on Dan Sullivan, the victory will be just as hollow as the "big Democratic wins" of 2018.
Peltola is a person who has her own priorities. She isn't a chess piece for your fantasy football version of politics.
I guess it's a matter of how much she, and those who would defend her prioritizing a gubernatorial run over a Senate run, fear Trump and the future of the republic.
Maybe he's not that big of a deal????
I honestly think we might win the Senate without AK, anyway. With that being said, I think Sullivan is extremely vulnerable and could lose his seat - giving a pad.
"Might" is doing a lot of work there. Republicans are strong favorites to hold the Senate, probably minus 1 or 2 seats.
For now…🤪
She is an awesome person.
Despite what Mike Braun claims, Indiana is not "more Republican." Indiana is a purple state but audacious gerrymandering at both the state and federal level keeps it red. 40% of voters in the 2024 election voted for the Democratic candidate, Jennifer McCormick.
I'm sorry, in what world is Indiana a "purple state"? They voted for Senator Obama from neighboring Illinois once and otherwise have voted Republican for president forever (since 1964, I'm guessing, or did they vote for Goldwater?). How many state-wide races have gone Democratic there in the last 20 years? Any governors?
At least half the population of Indiana does not even vote. If we had decent Democratic party leadership here, we would focus on those people and not exclusively on professed Democrats. The last two state chairs have been a disappointment. I'm waiting to see how this one does. She did show up for a second congressional district town hall, so I have hope.
Maybe, but one thing we've learned in the last 10 years is that "those who don't vote" are not who we always thought they were. They're disproportionately conservative populists. The available polling before the last election showed that Trump was poised to win by even more sweeping margins if "those who didn't vote" actually voted.
Given how much economic pain is about to be inflicted on rural Indiana, I think that there are possibilities if we do not surrender in advance.
A propos small contributions being helpful, I'm thinking about contributing to a fund for the Texas Democratic lawmakers. Is anyone doing that, and what's the best way? I guess we have to use Act Blue?
I rarely give donations to the general Democratic party because it ignored Texas when I lived there and it is now ignoring Indiana. Instead, I choose candidates in Indiana and in other states who need support.
Agreed, but that is VERY different from being a "purple state". It is a red state without a doubt.
No-one is talking about "surrendering in advance." That's a far cry from thinking Indiana is a "purple state"!
I have donated to One Texas Pac that Beta O'Rourke has started to support the Texas lawmakers. I regularly select states outside of Indiana where I live for donations, as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. However, I always support strong Indiana candidates, such as the candidate we ran for governor and the candidate we ran for Attorney General in the last election. I didn't support the Senate candidate, who was not strong. I did support the 2nd Congressional District Candidate. It is not a waste of money to support good candidates. Effective candidates need to run, and run again if they lose. Beta O'Rourke did not win either of his elections in Texas, but I would argue that he has lit a flame that will eventually help to break the stranglehold there.
I don’t think that non-voters actually have any firm ideological position: that’s why they don’t vote. They go with the political tide and pay even less attention than the already anemic level of thought the average voter has/does on politics.
In 2020 non-voters would’ve supported Biden. In 2024 it was Trump. In 2016 it was probably Trump. In 2012 and 2008 it was Obama. In 2004 and 2000 it was Bush etc.
It’s not that now all of a sudden non-voters are these MAGA Trump populist conservatives, just like it wasn’t that non-voters during Obama were suddenly progressive liberals.
They swing wildly between elections and have no firm policy position on anything because if they did, they’d actually vote.
They had a blue boomlet in 2006 and 2008 and then quickly reverted to form.
Frey served 5 years in the Maine House of Representatives representing the Bangor area. Good to see a "name" as an alternative if Mills doesn't run. He might even be a better choice since he's younger and hasn't accumulated the bruises that come with serving a high-profile office like Governor.
Aaron Frey is "a better choice" only if he has more than a Maine snowball’s chance in hell of actually defeating Susan Collins. I’ll wait for the polls and for weightier arguments.
Janet Mills has been a terrific governor, especially as contrasted with Paul LePage, whom she defeated by 13 points or so when he tried to stop Mills’ re-election bid.
If Mills was even a handful of years younger I'd be 100% onboard with hoping she's our candidate. As is she's old enough that I fear her age hurting support somewhat, or her not being able to campaign aggressively enough, or having a health scare appear during the campaign.
Collins is a tough opponent but she's beatable and if we have a serious, credible candidate we can win. Absent further information I'd prefer the much younger credible candidate over the much older but more credible candidate.
Susan Collins is 72.
Janet Mills will be 79 at the //start// of the next congressional term.
Frey seems like a pretty decent candidate - he is at least from the state and is from Bangor rather than Portland, which could also help
What do you mean by "from the state"? Were there supposed to be more words?
In contrast to Sara Gideon, who was painted as a carpet bagger
True that she was so painted after living there for "only" 16 years, but she had been elected to local and then state office in Maine multiple times and was even the speaker by the state house. amazing to me that the "not from here" attack stuck.
Did it, or was it because of something else?
I've never really read a convincing data-driven explanation of her unexpectedly significant loss, but the carpetbagger charges were definitely part of it. I just don’t think Mainers found her particularly energetic or engaging. That seems odd against Collins, but I guess it was enough.
Maine is idiosyncratic and insular. With Sara Gideon, it was as much "not one of us" as "not from here". Hugely disappointing I know.
Besides, 16 years is hardly enough. Many voters don’t consider you a Mainer unless your family has been here several generations!
One more thing, an indisputable fact: Senator Susan Collins does the work. She has over 9000 consecutive votes! I don’t think she has missed a single Senate vote since she was elected. That is something *all* Democrats should seek to emulate!
Really great news that Kentucky, New Hampshire and South Carolina leaders say they won’t redraw, that’s 3 less potential seats to overcome in 2026 for Democrats. Though, words mean little in this day and age: I’ll believe it only after the primaries are held.
I think Beshear with his veto capability is probably what blocked Kentucky GOP from joining the redistricting wars (even though they have the numbers to override it, they haven’t always succeeded and on such a ridiculously obvious power grab, I could easily see a handful of Republicans in office agreeing with him and saying no).
This is exactly why it was so important for California Democrats to respond. Yeah, Republicans have more seats available to them if every red state redraws (55 to 35 I think?), but we know based on history, not every state falls in line with a party’s goals on any issue, especially one as divisive like this.
So if every Democratic state that can, redraws and only a handful of Republican ones do, in this redistricting war for majority control in 2026, theoretically speaking, Democrats could even come out ahead in the fight they didn’t start (this is not at all what I’m expecting, but it’s a plausible, though very unlikely outcome).
SC redrawing is an almost certain dummymander and they know it. The way they are are able to pack the most Democratic parts of Charleston and Columbia (which on a fair map would anchor two Dem leaning districts) is perfect for them.
The current map packed D leaning but non Black majority areas around Charleston into the VRA seat
But Not sure about the part you can get two D leaning seats in SC without some creative line drawing.
You can count on one D leaning seat in the Midlands, but SC Lowcountry is at most in a tossup territory. Wouldn’t say you can definitely get the other D seat there.
Either way one seat would clearly still be D leaning. At the same time, you can’t really avoid having a competitive lowlands district if the most Dem parts of Charleston aren’t packed with the most Dem parts of Columbia.
The General Ass-embly can't call itself into session, and Beshear isn't going to call it into session for that, so they couldn't do anything before the 2026 session began - on the Monday before the filing deadline. (Filing opens the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November.)
To turn a 5-1 map into a 6-0 map, they'd have to split Louisville so that KY-03 extended into neighboring counties, because we're so close to the ideal district size according to the 2020 Census that Louisville and KY-03 are almost identical. That would be more trouble than it's worth, even if it would stand up in court. Some incumbents live close enough to an edge of their district that they could end up in a different district, which is something the legislative leadership really wants to avoid. Also, it's just easier for them to treat KY-03 as a district that pretty much draws itself.
All three states have obvious dummymander potential, and at least one of the three would have major legal issues that even the current SCOTUS might not sign off on:
- New Hampshire has two U.S. House seats and is more Democratic than the country as a whole, meaning that it's physically impossible to draw anything more of a Republican gerrymander than what would effectively be a bipartisan gerrymander (1D-1R) without bipartisan support.
- Eliminating Clyburn's district in South Carolina would fly in the face of court rulings that gave Louisiana and Alabama a second Black-majority district each, and SC's politics are very polarized along racial lines like politics in LA and AL. Clyburn's district would likely be considered VRA-protected, although I don't know if there would be a legal case for a second Black-majority district in SC like there is in LA and AL. It might be physically possible for Rs to go for a full 7-0 map in their favor, but that would face possible legal peril. The SC GOP could try a workaround of sorts by splitting Clyburn's district into two Black-opportunity swing districts, eliminating one of the GOP stronghold districts and forcing a sitting GOP House member to either retire or run in a competitive, but racially-polarized district. However, I don't think such a workaround would be upheld by the courts, even with SCOTUS as far-right as it is.
- Kentucky is one of the best GOP gerrymandering opportunities, even though there's only one Dem district they can eliminate (KY-3). However, it's important to note that, even if the KY GOP were to go for a full gerrymander, invariably at least one district will have voted for a Democrat in a non-federal statewide race (the Beshear/Coleman ticket) as recently as 2023. I don't know if Kentucky has any rules restricting the state legislature's ability to gerrymander, however.
If Petola runs for AK governor, I hope a strong candidate challenges Senator Dan Sullivan -- who voted for the Big Awful Bill. People like to slag on Murkowski for voting for it -- but Sullivan did too and he's up for re-election next year.
If a Peltola gubernatorial run generates coattails (e.g., through massive Native turnout), that could be great for Alaska Democrats across the board—including Sullivan's opponent.
Do we have any insight into how much coattails the top of the ticket may have in a ranked choice / jungle primary situation?
Between Kawasaki and Wielechowski we’ve got a decent bench there
The fact that she gets 45% in the senate race and Sullivan in this poll only gets up to a max of 50% more/less should be very encouraging. It's also not as if Alaska never elected a Democrat in recent history either, nor is it trending away from Democrats like West Virginia or Arkansas. With enough toxicity and unpopularity and enough name recognition, a reputable Democrat or Independent could and would conceivably win a senate election in Alaska.
SC-Sen: I'm not expecting it to happen, but wouldn't it be delicious if Lindsey Graham lost his primary?
(Yes, I know that his replacement would be just as awful if not worse, but at least that person wouldn't be held up—still!—by lazy, lunkheaded pundits as an example of a "moderate" Republican.)
Graham losing his primary would make it at least slightly more plausible that a Democratic candidate could win the race.
Still unlikely, but plausible.
He is one of the most contemptible hypocrites in Congress. Impossible to respect.
Graham lost his moral compass when McCain died.
As a SC resident, I sort of like the idea of Dans beating Graham and being the nominee. Let's put 2025 on trial. All the things that Trump has done according to 2025? You make ads that say: Dans did this. The PFAS is your water that is no longer regulated by EPA? Dans did that. The Sumter hospital closing down? Dans did that. Etc.
No party registration here, so I can vote in the GOP primary for a wacko candidate there knowing I'll vote against him in tha fall. If it worked, it would repay the favor of living thru John Engler in Michigan when the GOP votes for wacko suicide-doc lawyer Geoffrey Feiger.
I'm heading back home to DC after a weekend away and I'm frankly terrified. Trump's turning the city into a police state, and I'm sure this is a trial run for cities across the country. I encourage everyone in a major metro area to plan accordingly and find community. Just because he doesn't have jurisdiction over a Chicago or a Los Angeles doesn't mean he won't try; the rule of law doesn't matter to Trump. Be safe out there.
If Trump finds out that DC is now less than 50% black, he’ll rescind the order.
Does that matter, since it's overwhelmingly Democratic? Racism is a big part of the problem, but it's only part of it. White people who've been detained by ICE and CPB have been treated brutally, too.
I couldn’t find this googling, thought someone here might know.
In 2006, what was the biggest surprise US House victory in comparison to the 2004 Presidential vote?
Is this meant to be the biggest divergence between the 2006 house vote and 2024 presidential vote in a district?
I don't know the answer but I could see it being somewhere in Arkansas or West Virginia. We went from dominant to uncompetitive in those two states with a very short switch time. We won AR-04 75-25 in 2006, and Trump won it 70-26 in 2024.
I wrote the wrong presidential year. Thanks for answering
I’m not sure if I understand what you are asking, but if you mean a 2006 surprise compared to the 2004 presidential results, I nominate Nancy Boyda’s win in KS-2.
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 20% in KS-2 and Boyda lost to Jim Ryun by 15%. In 2006, in a surprise, she beat Ryun 51%-47%.
That’s exactly what I was talking about.
I was curious because I think 2006 is similar to the optimistic ‘26 scenario and knowing the bounds of possible flips is useful
The most surprising flips (other than KS-02) in 2006 were districts that were close Presidentially in 2004 (or outright Democratic based on the presidential numbers that year) but Republican incumbents were seen as entrenched and the Dem ones seen as “some dude”. IA-02, MN-01, NY-19, CA-11, and NH-01 all fit this description in 2006.
I'll add NY-25 as an honorary member of that group. Maffei didn't win, but he all but forced Walsh to retire and won the open seat in 2008 easily.
So there were a lot more crossover voters/districts back then, but this is actually not too difficult to answer on your own. If you open two Wikipedia articles, one on the 2006 House, and one on the 2004 presidential election and open the maps on both (the 2004 article does have a congressional district map, towards the bottom), I would look for the deepest red district that’s blue when comparing the two. As for actual numbers, this very publication should have those numbers somewhere in the data guide, while the House margins are in the 2006 house article.
Trump’s latest attempts to distract from Epstein will fall flat. Why? It’s very simple: The movement to get the files isn’t orchestrated by Democrats, it’s completely organic coming from the voters politicians are elected to serve. For a rare occasion in the modern age of Trump, Democrats are on the right side of a cultural/political issue causing anger and are amplifying the voices of the people instead of dismissing, downplaying or ignoring it.
They do that now both because they are on the side of the majority and because they’ve finally woken up to how powerful organic energy in politics that isn’t partisan, can be in the battle to win votes. Republicans have been extremely successful turning 1 isolated incident into a rallying cry to use against Democrats and to portray themselves as the real party of the people and us as out of touch.
We all know the trans women in sports argument based on the swimmer, we know about Laken Riley who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. There are countless examples of the GOP successfully making our party look like the ones unwilling to side with the American public on issues that generate genuine organic outrage.
Policy doesn’t matter in today’s age, but perception does. The more we take issues like Epstein where voters are rightfully angry about and side with them demanding answers and solutions from our government, the more our party will be viewed as fighting for the people.
I know many of you (including myself) view these as isolated incidents that don’t have any effect on the day to day lives of people, but they matter to voters far more than we’ve understood. They’re a moment where people who don’t pay attention and are tuned out of politics, tune in, if only for a moment to see what the politicians are saying or doing before going back to living their lives.
That is our chance and opportunity both now and in the future as a party, not any of the policy debates we’re having that has the average voters eyes glaze over. I don’t like that this is the reality, because we as educated Democrats care about policy, but I think it’s the truth. Hopefully we continue to see the party rally around “the distractions” and push them along with the people angered by it because I truly believe it’s our path back to power.
Are you referring to the DC crackdown? I’m far less optimistic that this could end well at all, and in fact I’m terrified of what’s coming.
How are we supposed to stop this? Trump has already threatened violence against any protestors, he has also threatened to send troops into other major cities, and I have no faith that the Dem leadership will respond.
“Do nothing/be lazy but look busy and mighty” is the man’s calling card after all
I don't think Democratic leadership will have a choice. Based on polling and anecdotal evidence from protests and town halls, the American public is very much in "lead, follow, or get out of the way" mode.
Um, DC is already under control of the federal government -- Trump was way too chicken to go to a blue state with a Dem governor after Newsom called his bluff. All FDJT did was make some noise out of his face hole (aka lie a lot) and supported by Blondi, Crazy Eyes Patel and Box of Wine Pirro.
Good point. Sorry, I’ve been a little on edge today.
I think we all get it and understand, it’s ok, especially if it’s hitting somewhere you, your family or friends live, but even if it isn’t: you have every right to be upset because none of this is ok or normal in a just, fair world.
Who can blame you? For what it's worth, I see absolutely no apologies needed from you to anyone here for expressing your sentiments.
Do I think things can escalate out of control to where it dominates the news and buries Epstein coverage? Yes. Do I think that outcome is in anyway something better for Trump or the GOP politically? No. Do I think the most likely end result is much ado about nothing? Yes.
Where you’re rightly concerned is the actual impact of the people (most of our voters) who live there with this Trump invasion into the blue cities. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that and if there were an actual way to stop him from doing it, I’d be advocating to do exactly that.
However, the reality is: there is nothing that can be done. The GOP Congress won’t intervene. The Trump Supreme Court won’t stop him. The Democrats have 0 leverage to force him to withdraw the national guard/troops and even if they did try, it would be tied up in a legal battle so long they’d all have returned from the cities and midterms would have already taken place.
So for myself, I’m trying to be practical. I hate Trump, I hate everything he does and stands for, but I can’t constantly be in a state of outrage for every single abhorrent thing he does, there’s not enough energy for any one of us to do that and still be healthy as a human being. I will get angry if something bad actually comes of it, but not before.
Here’s what to do: Make as much noise politically as possible, protests, podcasts, news media, town halls, get out there to the people and hammer this authoritarian on his dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, but nothing we say or do will actually change the current situation.
Do I think that people are going to stop asking about Epstein even if the worst case scenario comes to fruition? No, no I do not. It struck a chord in the American public’s consciousness and it’s impossible to unstrike it once it happens: see trans women in sports with the 2024 election results.
I think it's very important for us to protest in the face of any kind of show of force. I realize whenever I demonstrate, the reaction from law enforcement is unpredictable. Fortunately, the NYPD has so far been excellent and very professional at the demonstrations I attended, from what I saw, but we cannot allow ourselves to be deterred by the fear which I share with you.
I deleted comments I made earlier today about Trump appearing to erroneously refer to Alaska as part of Russia (he claimed to be going to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin when he's scheduled to meet with Putin in Anchorage, Alaska later this week, not in Russia). I think that was a slip of the tongue by Trump, but I would never completely rule out Trump doing something as stupid as trying to unilaterally cede U.S. territory to Russia (which I seriously doubt he has the authority to do unilaterally).
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lw52ij5f3u2w
However, in the hypothetical situation that Alaska were sold back to Russia or would otherwise cease being part of the Union, that would not benefit Republicans electorally, to say the least:
- Alaska's three electoral votes, in a state more Republican than the country as a whole, would be gone, and, based on the 2020 Census, (correct me if I'm wrong) New York, a state more Democratic than the country as a whole, would gain one electoral vote if the size of the U.S. House were to remain at 435 seats. There would be 536 electoral votes, with 269 electoral votes needed for a Electoral College majority.
- If the U.S. House were to remain at 435 seats, I believe that New York would gain the 435th House seat based on the 2020 Census, but, again, correct me if I'm wrong. The extra New York district would probably only exist until the next Census, be based at least partially in New York City, and be more Democratic than the country as a whole.
- The U.S. Senate would be down to 98 seats, 50 seats would be needed for a majority (nominal majority held by the party holding the vice-presidency if a 49-49 tie were to exist), 59 votes would be needed for a filibuster-proof majority (unless it's specifically defined as 60 votes in the Senate rules; I don't know if it's defined as 60 votes or three-fifths of the whole Senate), and 66 votes would be needed for a veto-proof majority.
- There would be massive political backlash to any effort to cede a U.S. state to a foreign nation against those responsible for such a cession.
And when we annex Canada, it gets even better for the Democrats!
No, thank you, please.
looks like another Special upcoming this one in SC. SEn Nutt SC District 12 just resigned https://x.com/fitsnews/status/1954957074107957498
Special election has already been called: two days before Christmas. https://scvotes.gov/state-senate-district-12-special-election/
There are still a ton of pending special elections that have not been called from Louisiana to Michigan to Missouri to New Hampshire, wondering when they are going to be confirmed.
More to that story here:
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/south-carolina-senate-roger-nutt-cox/article_d55e3639-6d0b-4670-8170-26341c7db941.html
Nutt is 59 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The Republican's resignation is setting off a chain reaction as a house member, GOP Bobby Cox (not the former Atlanta Braves manager, but the Sig Sauer lobbyist who wrote our no-permit carry law) has resigned to run for Nutt's seat. Both special elections should occur on Oct 21, since state law stipulates specials on the 11th Tuesday after vacancy.
59 is way too young to come down with Alzheimer’s! God
Yeah. He thought it was long COVID. Tragic
Policy-wise, he was an improvement for the district, which was previously represented by the odious bigot Lee Bright, who authored the bathroom bill that Nicki Hailey shot down, and was the source of other horrible invective against LGBTQ folk.
To clarify the dates between my post on SC Sen 12 (Oct 21) and Andrew's (Dec 23), it's primary vs general special.
Also anothr spscial coming in FL Sen 14. Collins is going to be FL Lt GOv and will have to resign. https://x.com/Mdixon55/status/1954988627282268519
David and Jeff, FYI, I noticed that the 2Q fundraising charts have not made it to the ultimate data guide.
So if all the red states contemplating a mid-decade gerrymander are able to do it and California isn't able to get it past voters, how lopsided would the GCB have to be for Democrats to get to 218 seats? D+10?
And if Trump was able to get his mid-decade census through on his terms, then what would the GCB has to be for Dems to get 218 House seats? D+15?
I don't remember the exact number but I did the math on this a week or so ago. If I remember right it was under the assumption of them getting 12 seats from re-gerrymandering. In that scenario my recollection is that it would give them roughly a five point advantage for the purpose of determining majority control of the house.
In practice I think it would be a hurdle we could overcome for 2026. The bigger worry would be if we could overcome it for 2028. Big backlashes during midterms are, if not guaranteed, far more likely than not. The ensuing presidential election rarely has a wave at all, let alone a wave of comparable size. The only example of that happening in modern history is 2008.
Of course, even from that perspective "could" is not the same as "will." I expect it would require a GCB of somewhere between D+5 and D+8, depending on various factors and how many seats they actually got in net.
Agree.
The census thing is so far from a possibility that it’s not worth addressing. Anyway, wouldn’t Texas lose out if that came to pass?
Greg Abbott went on Jake Tapper's show on CNN earlier today and openly threatened to eliminate five more Democratic districts on top of the five that him and other TX Republicans have proposed to eliminate (although three of the five are borderline dummymanders) if California goes through with a Democratic gerrymander.
That would mean attempting to reduce Democrats in Texas to just three U.S. House seats (35R-3D). As I mentioned in the weekly open thread, I theorized that Texas Rs could try to reduce Dems to just three or four House seats if they wanted to, but with at least some dummymander risk if TX becomes anything close to a swing state. Reducing TX Dems to three seats would require attempting to shut out Dems in one of the Houston, DFW, Austin/San Antonio, and El Paso areas and leaving Dems with just a single seat in the other three. That is physically possible for Texas Rs to try to do (in fact, a 38R-0D map would be physically possible as well), but it would be exceedingly difficult, if not virtually impossible, to do so without at least some dummymander risk for Republicans.
I can’t think of anything that succinctly sums up the GOP worldview on basically anything better than “you need to let us punch you and if you punch us we’ll punch you again”
“Only we are allowed to change the rules.”