Adams said Monday that Cuomo is the number one obstacle standing in the way of his reelection and called for him to step aside.
“I think he really should do an analysis and say: Give Eric an opportunity to run against [Zohran],” Adams said during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
The mayor also revealed Cuomo had called him to ask the same thing.
Mamdani’s victory in the primary has sent the city’s business and real estate circles into a panic, and the November election is unusually crowded for a city whose deep-blue electorate typically picks the next mayor during the Democratic primary.
Polls have consistently shown Cuomo out-perform Adams in a general election. Even a survey with questions that appeared to skew in favor of the incumbent still found Mamdani winning and Adams behind Cuomo by double digits
Which is all the more reason why this "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party" nonsense should cease and desist. Hopefully in the long run this serves as a wake up call for Empire State Democrats to shape up.
This is right up there with the nonsense claim that "Bernie Sanders is THE future of the Democratic Party" – despite Bernie never even being a member of the Democratic Party!
Christ, enough left-bashing. Can’t say I approve of the idea that preventing left wins is necessary. I’m not arguing Mamdani is the future or anything but the constant ideological fighting is getting tiring.
You may be onto something, but I believe the overwhelming reason for the election results last year was inflation. I appreciate that you at least regret ageism, because I think many regulars on this board would support a mandatory retirement age of 65, which the Supreme Court annulled in the 1970s as discriminatory, or even, like, 60, and I also believe that I as a 60-year-old who wants to work as a musician as long as I am physically able have a different viewpoint on this than 20-something folks who think of 60-year-olds as ancient grandparents. I will add a caveat that I don't think politicians whose sudden incapacitation or death would be a problem (let alone Supreme Court Justices like Ginsburg) should serve into, like, their 90s, with rare exceptions like former PM Mahathir of Malaysia, but if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s, I'd like to be able to continue performing if I'm up to it like Pablo Casals was.
I don't support term limits or mandatory retirements, but I am fully in support of using age as a campaign message. If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years. If you can't, thanks for your service. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
Because no one else could possibly represent a safe blue seat and the whiners just need to accept that the Democratic caucus will always be handicapped by multiple easily avoidable vacancies.
SC is going to be interesting for the next few years. We’ve got presidential candidates dropping in already, gubernatorial candidates announcing, municipal and county elections happening. What more could you possibly ask for? It’s a political junkie’s dream. Maybe one day we’ll get democracy too.
Demographically speaking, even though SC has a large African American voting bloc, it's still one of the states with the lowest share of people with college degrees. If that changes due to economic diversification, it could easily become another Georgia.
I too liked him a lot, Dems should follow his template in red states: independent, working class, socially conservative on issues other than abortion, economically populist, anti-elite; rather than trying to run the same old 2006 playbook of GOP lite neoliberal "Blue Dogs" which has seen less and less success over the years especially since 2010.
Because increasingly base Democratic voters - even in red states - won't stand for anti choice candidates. The fact that even Bob Casey Jr called out David McCormick for wanting to ban abortion outright shows that it is nonnegotiable.
In 2024, Nebraska had competing ballot measures. Based on the results, the will of Nebraska voters on abortion was clear as mud, but the result was against abortion rights.
By 51%-49%, voters rejected Initiative 439, which would have amended the state Constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability, or when necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant patient. But by 55%-45%, voters adopted Initiative 434, an abortion-restrictions amendment that bans most abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. It also gave the Legislature the authority to pass additional restrictions, up to a complete ban.
"Calculations by The Downballot show that the 6th backed Donald Trump 57-42 last year. However, Beshear's landslide 60-40 victory here against Cameron has Democrats hoping for an upset."
After the 2018 wave wasn't /quite/ enough to oust Barr, and our 2020 candidate barely cleared 40%, the KDP went back to not really contesting the seat in 2022 and 2024. This year is different because Barr isn't running, we have a candidate who's used to campaigning, and is 2 for 3 in close elections for a seat that Democrats aren't expected to win in a walk, the KDP is contesting the seat, and the DCCC was targeting Barr even before he decided to go for Senate. That's what has me hoping for a win.
Rep. John Larson has been an outspoken champion of clean energy, with a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He also has 100% ratings each from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and a 94% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Assuming his health holds up, it would be a mistake for Connecticut 1 voters to replace him, merely because he is in his 70s, with someone whose only experience is service on a local school board.
He had two health incidents in 3 months. We've already had 3 Democratic reps die since November. Frankly, I'm not putting too much stock in "if he's able to get beyond them."
Also, I'm not super onboard with the idea that it'd be a mistake to elect "someone whose only experience is service on a local school board." Everyone starts somewhere; I think it's a mistake to write off a candidate because of a perceived lack of experience. There have been plenty of successful officials who didn't have any electoral experience before a congressional run.
I would argue that being at the local level puts them more in touch with the needs of their constituents rather than someone who's been in Washington for 20 years.
I agree with you. And recent service on a school board could help a member provide some leadership on education issues. Senator Bennet of Colorado was the incumbent Denver Board of Ed Chairman, and everyone would surely admit that he's been a completely competent senator.
Heck one of the best current senators very famously started her political career as a mom in tennis shoes. Is anyone arguing Patty Murray shouldn’t have run?
It's not a problem until it isn't and sure... Someone in their 30s and 40s can have a freak health incident but when margins are THIS tight do we really want to gamble with the health of a septuagenarian with health issues when someone whose baseline is all of those things and maybe even more progressive. These people are replaceable we need to stop pretending they aren't.
I'd argue that's not the right way of looking at it.
What would his realistic replacement's stances be? If any realistic successor is roughly as good or better on those issues then those are not good reasons for him to avoid retirement.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, points out that even if Republican voters lose access to health care, it’s far from a given that they’ll hold their party responsible. “Even if it’s clearly the Republicans who’ve done it, they’ll find a reason to blame the Democrats,” he said.
https://archive.ph/Q4uzh NYT: Everyone Hates This Bill. Dan Osborn Could Make Republicans Pay for It. - Michelle Goldberg
Sorry, I don't remember which Goldberg this is and what they ran for. But in terms of partisans being partisan, there aren't many partisan Democrats who would always blame Republicans for things Democrats did or said.
Let's gooooo!! I wouldn't call this Tilt D, but it's clearly in the Tossup camp and, if forced, I'd say we're slightly favored. Plus I love Cooper - he'd be great in higher office (while avoiding the forbidden topic)...
Those of you who've read my comments in this thread know that I agree that elected officials with serious health conditions and, generally speaking, very old officials whose sudden incapacitation or death would cause serious problems, should retire. But I'd like to challenge those of you who are claiming that the Democrats lost the Presidential election last year because of age. Biden was not on the ballot. Who is younger and healthier, Harris or Trump? I strongly suggest you all reconsider why the election was lost if you think it was because someone who was no longer on the ballot was old.
I think the perception of age was too baked into the election by the time Harris became our nominee. Especially because the reason she became our nominee was Biden fumbling on the debate stage on live TV due to his age. If she had been our presumed nominee since the start of the year rather than the middle of it, I do think that would have changed it and she could have avoided this issue.
Voters think about elections weird, once we get down to it. I'd argue, strongly, that even in a contest between Biden and Trump that Trump was by far the candidate who seemed more debilitated by advanced age. He cannot communicate at all, cannot stand straight, has terrible memory, appears to be suffering from severe mental decline, etc. But because he gets his terrible fake tan and dyes his terrible hair, people will perceive him as either less elderly or even non-elderly.
So, yes it makes no logical sense with Harris as our actual nominee but the zeitgeist of the election was one of democrats=old.
I will maintain that she was given one of the worst conditions possible to become a presidential candidate. The fact that she nearly won despite it all shows that she was a stronger campaigner than she has been given credit for in the aftermath.
I firmly believe that most of the anger over "Biden's age" was really anger that Biden was unable to bring back 2019 (because that was impossible). Trump was voted out in 2020 for much the same reason.
The media spending four years trying to talk a recession into being didn't help, either. (A LOT of moneyed interests thought that the pandemic would usher in another post-2008 economy–i.e., multiple desperate applicants bidding against each other for every shitty job—and were fit to be tied when that didn't happen.)
I don't think Democrats could recover in the span of a few months from putting up a frail incoherent man who bragged about "beating Medicare" though I give Harris credit for trying to steer a ship that was full of water. Harris and other dems spent years claiming everything was fine the debate destroyed that narrative and she had to pick up the pieces and build a campaign in a few months after years of Biden failing to articulate much less defend his policies.
Well reasoned and articulated. Two things can be true - 1) Biden's age wasn't the predominant factor in Trump's in and 2) we should be looking to get younger with our candidates up and down ballot for a litany of reasons...
Touching on something brought up yesterday, I do think this Epstein thing would have some real legs, particularly if Dems really hit Trump over it. Over on r/conservative, which is a group of Trump sycophant goons, they are really upset with Trump over this.
I would say that we should stay out of it as long as they are tearing each other apart over the Epstein files. As soon as we start attacking Trump then his followers will fall in line to attack us. Let them fight.
I still wonder how they think the guy that partied with Epstein, bragged about wanting to date his daughter and how he could sneak into the Miss teen pageant dressing room and how he could do whatever he wants to women because he is a celebrity is the hero in their fable but another chance to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I have a fever and will go to bed in a minute, but in case this wasn't covered, I want you all to see the relevant portions of an email the NAACP sent me:
NAACP VOTING RIGHTS VICTORY: NEW TENNESSEE MAP PROVIDES FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR BLACK VOTERS AFTER LEGAL BATTLE!
When drawing the old voting map in Fayette County, Tennessee, the all-white County Commission ignored warnings from experts about its harm. The Commission also rejected alternative plans that would have lessened the map's racially discriminatory impact.
Although Black voters make up more than a quarter of Fayette County's voting-age population, in 2021, the County Commission drew a map that locked Black voters entirely out of the electoral process.
As a result, NAACP and LDF filed a lawsuit alleging that the 2021 plan diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
AND WE WON!
In response to the legal pressure, public education, and grassroots organizing, local lawmakers unanimously passed a new County Commission electoral map that creates three new majority-Black single-member districts ensuring Black voters can elect candidates of their choice to the County Commission.
The new map will be used in the 2026 election cycle, the first in years that Black communities in Fayette County will have an equal voice when participating in the democratic process.
Why aren't we playing dirty politics and demonizing Texas republicans while hitting the GOP on Epstein? If such a tragedy happened in California or NY, they would have made hundreds of bigoted DEI, Sodom and Gomorrah attacks! It's not like they are faultless, they cut taxes again this year while declining the county's funding request!
Has anyone tried to mock up what a hyper gerrymandered map of California would look like? Republicans only won 9 seats there in 2024. I wonder if it’s possible to get that number much lower.
Davis should not run for senate. He has a far better chance of holding on to NC 1 than he does winning a general election for senate.
Absolutely. The time for needing someone from the eastern plains to win statewide, probably has come and gone.
He has almost no statewide profile. I don't think he'd make even Nickel sweat in the primary.
Adams said Monday that Cuomo is the number one obstacle standing in the way of his reelection and called for him to step aside.
“I think he really should do an analysis and say: Give Eric an opportunity to run against [Zohran],” Adams said during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
The mayor also revealed Cuomo had called him to ask the same thing.
Mamdani’s victory in the primary has sent the city’s business and real estate circles into a panic, and the November election is unusually crowded for a city whose deep-blue electorate typically picks the next mayor during the Democratic primary.
Polls have consistently shown Cuomo out-perform Adams in a general election. Even a survey with questions that appeared to skew in favor of the incumbent still found Mamdani winning and Adams behind Cuomo by double digits
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/07/game-of-chicken-eric-adams-cuomo-want-each-other-out-of-nyc-mayoral-race-00441398
It's all so silly; if the "establishment" could've propped up a non-scandal plagued candidate, they'd probably win easy. It wasn't that hard!
Which is all the more reason why this "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party" nonsense should cease and desist. Hopefully in the long run this serves as a wake up call for Empire State Democrats to shape up.
This is right up there with the nonsense claim that "Bernie Sanders is THE future of the Democratic Party" – despite Bernie never even being a member of the Democratic Party!
Christ, enough left-bashing. Can’t say I approve of the idea that preventing left wins is necessary. I’m not arguing Mamdani is the future or anything but the constant ideological fighting is getting tiring.
But they decided to endorse the sex creep on "character" and got the result they deserve.
What I wonder is whether this could make Cuomo a threat in the general election in spite of the drubbing he took in the primary.
Cuomo will need Adams and Silwa to drop out, which they won't. I'm guessing Adams hits the right wing grifter circuit after his loss.
I don't think Silwa needs to drop out for Adams or Cuomo to win - but one of the two of them needs to...
Better yet, a compromise: Both Cuomo and Adams should acknowledge their rejection by the voters of New York and step aside.
LOL. Adams's number one obstacle is Adams.
Why wld a 76yr old run for re-election? Can’t he hear the ‘people’. And, he has health issues. This is what the DCCC has wrought upon us all!!
There's nothing wrong with a 76-year-old running for re-election, especially to the House. Health is a separate issue.
You may be onto something, but I believe the overwhelming reason for the election results last year was inflation. I appreciate that you at least regret ageism, because I think many regulars on this board would support a mandatory retirement age of 65, which the Supreme Court annulled in the 1970s as discriminatory, or even, like, 60, and I also believe that I as a 60-year-old who wants to work as a musician as long as I am physically able have a different viewpoint on this than 20-something folks who think of 60-year-olds as ancient grandparents. I will add a caveat that I don't think politicians whose sudden incapacitation or death would be a problem (let alone Supreme Court Justices like Ginsburg) should serve into, like, their 90s, with rare exceptions like former PM Mahathir of Malaysia, but if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s, I'd like to be able to continue performing if I'm up to it like Pablo Casals was.
I don't support term limits or mandatory retirements, but I am fully in support of using age as a campaign message. If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years. If you can't, thanks for your service. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
76-year-olds have health issues (often unseen!) that 40- and 50-year olds don't. We've had 3 deaths this year that could've stopped Trump's dumb bill.
Because no one else could possibly represent a safe blue seat and the whiners just need to accept that the Democratic caucus will always be handicapped by multiple easily avoidable vacancies.
But he voted for the bill, right?
SC is going to be interesting for the next few years. We’ve got presidential candidates dropping in already, gubernatorial candidates announcing, municipal and county elections happening. What more could you possibly ask for? It’s a political junkie’s dream. Maybe one day we’ll get democracy too.
Demographically speaking, even though SC has a large African American voting bloc, it's still one of the states with the lowest share of people with college degrees. If that changes due to economic diversification, it could easily become another Georgia.
Hmm. It would be interesting to look at the educational background of the in migration over the last 10-15 years.
Well, a Democrat won a special election for Georgetown Co school board here today. Officially non-partisan, but he didn't shy from being a D.
And it's official: Dan Osborn is back, running (as an independent again) against Sen. Pete Ricketts this time in Nebraska!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/independent-dan-osborn-launches-another-nebraska-senate-run-rcna215998
I liked Osborn a lot last time, and I look forward to another run from him.
Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Dem Chair supports him. It was noted in the Politico article.
So glad the Kleebs are still around, making an impact. Maybe we'll see one of them run again someday.
Same, I wish him luck
Terrific news
I too liked him a lot, Dems should follow his template in red states: independent, working class, socially conservative on issues other than abortion, economically populist, anti-elite; rather than trying to run the same old 2006 playbook of GOP lite neoliberal "Blue Dogs" which has seen less and less success over the years especially since 2010.
Why single out abortion if being conservative on it is the thing that could win a Dem, or a non-Republican, a seat?
Because increasingly base Democratic voters - even in red states - won't stand for anti choice candidates. The fact that even Bob Casey Jr called out David McCormick for wanting to ban abortion outright shows that it is nonnegotiable.
Not every state or district is the same. Competing in Nebraska and Pennsylvania are two different things.
Last I checked, most people in Nebraska are pro-choice, even though it's a red state. Neighboring Kansas is the same way.
They did pass restrictions via ballot last year. https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/06/nebraska-passes-abortion-restrictions-amendment-bucking-national-trend/
In 2024, Nebraska had competing ballot measures. Based on the results, the will of Nebraska voters on abortion was clear as mud, but the result was against abortion rights.
By 51%-49%, voters rejected Initiative 439, which would have amended the state Constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability, or when necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant patient. But by 55%-45%, voters adopted Initiative 434, an abortion-restrictions amendment that bans most abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. It also gave the Legislature the authority to pass additional restrictions, up to a complete ban.
Current law allows abortions up to 12 weeks.
"Calculations by The Downballot show that the 6th backed Donald Trump 57-42 last year. However, Beshear's landslide 60-40 victory here against Cameron has Democrats hoping for an upset."
After the 2018 wave wasn't /quite/ enough to oust Barr, and our 2020 candidate barely cleared 40%, the KDP went back to not really contesting the seat in 2022 and 2024. This year is different because Barr isn't running, we have a candidate who's used to campaigning, and is 2 for 3 in close elections for a seat that Democrats aren't expected to win in a walk, the KDP is contesting the seat, and the DCCC was targeting Barr even before he decided to go for Senate. That's what has me hoping for a win.
Vote him out to old. Need younger democrats
Rep. John Larson has been an outspoken champion of clean energy, with a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He also has 100% ratings each from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and a 94% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Assuming his health holds up, it would be a mistake for Connecticut 1 voters to replace him, merely because he is in his 70s, with someone whose only experience is service on a local school board.
But the point is, it's not merely because he's in his 70s but more because he's had 2 health incidents.
Everyone has health incidents. If he is able to get beyond them, he deserves support.
He had two health incidents in 3 months. We've already had 3 Democratic reps die since November. Frankly, I'm not putting too much stock in "if he's able to get beyond them."
Also, I'm not super onboard with the idea that it'd be a mistake to elect "someone whose only experience is service on a local school board." Everyone starts somewhere; I think it's a mistake to write off a candidate because of a perceived lack of experience. There have been plenty of successful officials who didn't have any electoral experience before a congressional run.
I would argue that being at the local level puts them more in touch with the needs of their constituents rather than someone who's been in Washington for 20 years.
Reps can die at any age. For the hazards of trusting someone with no electoral experience, look no further than the current POTUS.
I agree with you. And recent service on a school board could help a member provide some leadership on education issues. Senator Bennet of Colorado was the incumbent Denver Board of Ed Chairman, and everyone would surely admit that he's been a completely competent senator.
Heck one of the best current senators very famously started her political career as a mom in tennis shoes. Is anyone arguing Patty Murray shouldn’t have run?
It's not a problem until it isn't and sure... Someone in their 30s and 40s can have a freak health incident but when margins are THIS tight do we really want to gamble with the health of a septuagenarian with health issues when someone whose baseline is all of those things and maybe even more progressive. These people are replaceable we need to stop pretending they aren't.
Who was the last Dem rep. in their 30/40s to die in office?
I'd argue that's not the right way of looking at it.
What would his realistic replacement's stances be? If any realistic successor is roughly as good or better on those issues then those are not good reasons for him to avoid retirement.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, points out that even if Republican voters lose access to health care, it’s far from a given that they’ll hold their party responsible. “Even if it’s clearly the Republicans who’ve done it, they’ll find a reason to blame the Democrats,” he said.
https://archive.ph/Q4uzh NYT: Everyone Hates This Bill. Dan Osborn Could Make Republicans Pay for It. - Michelle Goldberg
Sorry, I don't remember which Goldberg this is and what they ran for. But in terms of partisans being partisan, there aren't many partisan Democrats who would always blame Republicans for things Democrats did or said.
But Trump and Musk -have- damaged the economy, even if not as much as quickly as I would have expected.
Another example is free trade, Democrats approval of free trade increased dramatically since Trump took office.
Michelle Goldberg is a progressive New York Times opinion journalist.
NC-Sen: It's happening.
https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1942678409496117724
YES!
Let's gooooo!! I wouldn't call this Tilt D, but it's clearly in the Tossup camp and, if forced, I'd say we're slightly favored. Plus I love Cooper - he'd be great in higher office (while avoiding the forbidden topic)...
Those of you who've read my comments in this thread know that I agree that elected officials with serious health conditions and, generally speaking, very old officials whose sudden incapacitation or death would cause serious problems, should retire. But I'd like to challenge those of you who are claiming that the Democrats lost the Presidential election last year because of age. Biden was not on the ballot. Who is younger and healthier, Harris or Trump? I strongly suggest you all reconsider why the election was lost if you think it was because someone who was no longer on the ballot was old.
I think the perception of age was too baked into the election by the time Harris became our nominee. Especially because the reason she became our nominee was Biden fumbling on the debate stage on live TV due to his age. If she had been our presumed nominee since the start of the year rather than the middle of it, I do think that would have changed it and she could have avoided this issue.
Voters think about elections weird, once we get down to it. I'd argue, strongly, that even in a contest between Biden and Trump that Trump was by far the candidate who seemed more debilitated by advanced age. He cannot communicate at all, cannot stand straight, has terrible memory, appears to be suffering from severe mental decline, etc. But because he gets his terrible fake tan and dyes his terrible hair, people will perceive him as either less elderly or even non-elderly.
So, yes it makes no logical sense with Harris as our actual nominee but the zeitgeist of the election was one of democrats=old.
I will maintain that she was given one of the worst conditions possible to become a presidential candidate. The fact that she nearly won despite it all shows that she was a stronger campaigner than she has been given credit for in the aftermath.
I firmly believe that most of the anger over "Biden's age" was really anger that Biden was unable to bring back 2019 (because that was impossible). Trump was voted out in 2020 for much the same reason.
The media spending four years trying to talk a recession into being didn't help, either. (A LOT of moneyed interests thought that the pandemic would usher in another post-2008 economy–i.e., multiple desperate applicants bidding against each other for every shitty job—and were fit to be tied when that didn't happen.)
I don't think Democrats could recover in the span of a few months from putting up a frail incoherent man who bragged about "beating Medicare" though I give Harris credit for trying to steer a ship that was full of water. Harris and other dems spent years claiming everything was fine the debate destroyed that narrative and she had to pick up the pieces and build a campaign in a few months after years of Biden failing to articulate much less defend his policies.
Well reasoned and articulated. Two things can be true - 1) Biden's age wasn't the predominant factor in Trump's in and 2) we should be looking to get younger with our candidates up and down ballot for a litany of reasons...
Touching on something brought up yesterday, I do think this Epstein thing would have some real legs, particularly if Dems really hit Trump over it. Over on r/conservative, which is a group of Trump sycophant goons, they are really upset with Trump over this.
I would say that we should stay out of it as long as they are tearing each other apart over the Epstein files. As soon as we start attacking Trump then his followers will fall in line to attack us. Let them fight.
His followers will fall in line soon enough, once it falls out the news cycle, which is any minute now. Better to keep it in the cycle, I think.
I still wonder how they think the guy that partied with Epstein, bragged about wanting to date his daughter and how he could sneak into the Miss teen pageant dressing room and how he could do whatever he wants to women because he is a celebrity is the hero in their fable but another chance to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Misogyny.
I have a fever and will go to bed in a minute, but in case this wasn't covered, I want you all to see the relevant portions of an email the NAACP sent me:
NAACP VOTING RIGHTS VICTORY: NEW TENNESSEE MAP PROVIDES FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR BLACK VOTERS AFTER LEGAL BATTLE!
When drawing the old voting map in Fayette County, Tennessee, the all-white County Commission ignored warnings from experts about its harm. The Commission also rejected alternative plans that would have lessened the map's racially discriminatory impact.
Although Black voters make up more than a quarter of Fayette County's voting-age population, in 2021, the County Commission drew a map that locked Black voters entirely out of the electoral process.
As a result, NAACP and LDF filed a lawsuit alleging that the 2021 plan diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
AND WE WON!
In response to the legal pressure, public education, and grassroots organizing, local lawmakers unanimously passed a new County Commission electoral map that creates three new majority-Black single-member districts ensuring Black voters can elect candidates of their choice to the County Commission.
The new map will be used in the 2026 election cycle, the first in years that Black communities in Fayette County will have an equal voice when participating in the democratic process.
Why aren't we playing dirty politics and demonizing Texas republicans while hitting the GOP on Epstein? If such a tragedy happened in California or NY, they would have made hundreds of bigoted DEI, Sodom and Gomorrah attacks! It's not like they are faultless, they cut taxes again this year while declining the county's funding request!
It’s a question I’ve been asking. Might as well bang your head against the wall.
Has anyone tried to mock up what a hyper gerrymandered map of California would look like? Republicans only won 9 seats there in 2024. I wonder if it’s possible to get that number much lower.
(3-4 seats seems realistic I guess, but more?)