You're going to say that I'm living in dreamland, and maybe I am.
But I just drew a map that Louisiana Democrats should propose to replace their current one. It checks all the necessary boxes - Mike Johnson and Julia Letlow are both protected, with districts similar to what they had on the 2022 map. Scalise and Higgins have safe districts as well. I'm not entirely sure why the state legislature didn't like former congressman Garrett Graves, but he still wouldn't have a good district to make a comeback. The 6th becomes much more compact, and is no longer majority-Black, but still voted for Harris by 5 and Biden by 10. Fields would beat Graves if he tried to run there.
Louisiana Republicans were intent on protecting her last time.
Many of them probably want to make sure there continue to be two Congressmembers from Northern Louisiana. Since there are still some cultural differences between evangelical Northern Louisiana and Cajun/Catholic Southern Louisiana (even if the voting differences between them have largely disappeared).
I wonder how Trump's war with the Pope went over with those southern Louisiana voters? Is there a possible opening further down the ballot for some Democrats in local elections to build the Democratic Party from grassroots?
That's an interesting idea. I'm not really plugged in with the sort of people who would know. The Pope will obviously never endorse a candidate or a party, so I'm not really expecting Democrats to be able to make much hay from it.
FL-14: Despite declining before the redraw, I wonder if Lt. Gov. Jay Collins will run against Rep. Kathy Castor to save his career and end his ill-fated gubernatorial campaign.
MN-HD-58B - Republican Minnesota State Rep. Drew Roach was the only member of the evenly-divided state house to vote against an ban on using AI to create child sexual abuse material:
Roach got 60% of the vote in 2024, but, combined with the national political mood not being in Republicans' favor and Roach being extremely controversial, does the DFL have a chance here?
I would say AI-simulated CSAM is less bad than child marriage, which is abusive to actual people, but certainly not a competition anyone should be trying to win, yeesh!
It depends on the ages of the spouses in question. I also have a different attitude from many Americans because I grew up partly in rural Malaysia. There didn't use to be a statutory age of consent in Malaysia, so it was common for teenage lovers to get married, thereby making their children legitimate. Malaysia subsequently instituted an 18-year-old age of consent. The result? There have been a slew of unwed Malay (i.e., Muslim) mothers. That's a permanent blot on their reputations, and while I hope there has been some kind of reform since the last time I checked, I know that it was hard to register such births and have the "illegitimate" children get an education and social services. Basically, in societies that believe in chastity before marriage and discriminate against single parents and the children of unwed parents, allowing teenagers to marry each other is the lesser evil.
Way worse. I don’t agree with it personally but there’s at least an argument for 17 year olds who are emancipated entering into legal contracts like marriage. AI CSAM? Fuck no
That district is based in the city of Farmington, a southern suburb of the Twin Cities. Farmington is 55% Republican, and unlike other Twin Cities suburbs it hasn't gotten bluer during the Trump era. The rest of the district is rural townships that are even redder.
The district voted for Trump by 19%. If Dems win it, the necessary Democratic wave would be beyond anything in my wildest dreams. (Don't forget that most Americans don't even know who their state legislators are, much less how they voted on any specific piece of legislation.)
What happened there when ICE targeted the Twin Cities? Please don't mind all my questions. I have over active curiosity when it comes to the intersection of politics and human behavior. I have been a people watcher from as far back as 5 years old.
This district has a good chunk of the Senate district Democrat Matt Little found a way to win in 2016. That was a fluke though, as evidenced by his defeat four years later.
Here's Roach's response/reasoning for why he voted no. For clarification, I completely disagree with his vote and think he could have (and should have) voted yes while still advocating for further measures. I think his vote came from something similar to an all-or-nothing mindset, which when it comes to CSAM is inappropriate and dangerous. But good to know he's not actually in support of CSAM.
Material disseminated using nudification technology is “disgusting” and “vile,” and the victims should have accountability and justice, said Rep. Drew Roach (R-Farmington). But he opposes the bill because it doesn’t get at the root cause and prevent it from happening in the future. He noted that the bill wouldn’t prevent someone from nudifying an image or video if they know how to do it themselves.
“What we’re going to do here is we’re going to attack a software, a manufacturer and instead, shifting our focus on that instead of the perpetrators of these crimes,” he said. “If we want to prevent this from happening in the future, we should go after those perpetrators with the full force of the law.”
Also, it gives Trump less to work with because in the spat he had with Mills last year at a meeting with Governors, he argued Mills couldn’t get elected to anything - All because Mills was defending transgender rights.
I interpreted the comment as saying Platner’s controversies would impede him being elected. I don’t think I agree with that sentiment in this environment. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong though.
Both your statement and BPFish's can be (and, I think, are) true. Platner is the favorite in this environment AND his past behavior is going to make the win harder than it should be.
Platner is just one of those candidates that we are going to roll the dice on. He has earned it, IMO. Collins and her allies will hammer on the same stuff, hopefully no other new stuff pops up, but if it does...so be it. We gotta take chances in life sometimes, and definitely in politics.
I actually like that he's a bit controversial and rough around the edges. I feel like going the safe, establishment route (Mills, Gideon, etc.) has cost Democrats the seat in the past.
MAGA Republicans have been gerrymandering our maps for maximum effect since Operation REDMAP, they've milked 90-95% of the seats they can get.
They're desperately trying to avoid the midterm blue wave but it's not going to help with an unpopular president and fired up Democrats, angry independents and betrayed Republicans looking to vote for the opposition.
I'm not sure about MAGA Republicans voting Blue. I read an article in the NYT yesterday that interviewed 10 Trump Voters who said that they regretted their vote for Trump in 2024 Some said they voted for him 3 times. All said they felt betrayed, but the majority said that they probably just wouldn't vote in the next election coming up. Only about 3 Independents said they were angry enough to vote Democratic. One man in Florida, one woman in Tennessee and another woman in Oregon. The woman in Oregon was from a family that normally voted D.
Most mentioned the Trans.issue for their objection to the Democratic Party. It seemed to be a moral hurdle they couldn't jump. So culture warfare still has a tight grip on these voters! It was extremely evident in the remarks by the young Black Male Republican. The questionnaire article was shared to me by my sister.
I’ll admit that I will never understand why these people regard the concerns of a group that is a super minority of the queer community itself as some all-encompassing “moral issue.” It’s just baffling
They need someone to hate, and they need someone that is socially acceptable for them to hate openly and unambiguously.
Eventually society will hopefully reach a point where hating trans people is viewed similarly as being openly racist or homophobic. At which point this type of conservative will have found a new target to hate.
That the group is a minority of a minority makes it easier for them. They're unlikely to meet or befriend someone in that group and their kids are less likely to be part of it. The typical avenues for acceptance, while still existent, are less probable.
It may be a super small group, but they get the discourse bandwidth and airtime of a top 10, sometimes top 5 issue. Due to the scale, and the potential amount of voters it scares away versus those it attracts, it will remain a massive political loser for Dems, for the foreseeable future. There are less than 20 elite trans athletes in the country at the top level. Lots of Dems (and non-Dems) give it the same airtime as inflation and issues affecting 330M people. Due to the structure of society, trans people are easy to target, and so they get targeted. We need to defend them to the death, but we also need to recognize political realities.
I am writing from the viewpoint of what has happened, and the trends derived from that data. in 2024, it cost Dems many voters, and/or kept away independents and conservatives that would otherwise join the Dems.
This is why no matter how much people around here don't want to have this conversation, the trans issue is central to Democratic electability with a wide swath of voters. Maybe it will lose momentum and salience, but there's no questioning right now that it's lowering the Democratic ceiling.
My theory is that not enough time has passed for opinions to evolve. At least for 90% of the population, no one talked about this issue before 2020, then all of a sudden it exploded, so in the grand historical scheme of things it is still very early in the cycle.
The special legislative elections in TX, FL and IA suggest otherwise. Either way, if we peel off 8-12% of disaffected R voters that vote for Ds in November (plus a percentage of Rs staying home), we're going to flip swing seats plus win a couple of seats Rs thought were safe.
One thing that kept coming up was some version of "I thought he had learned his lesson" or "thought he had learned from his mistakes". Given his whole campaign was about retribution and he never admitted making any mistakes, that was hard to read. I tend to think it's not the real reason, just one people fill in when it seems appropriate for their audience.
I think the part I screamed the loudest at, which was part of a response to what Dems should do differently, was "There were books in libraries on penises, vaginas, stuff that little children, kindergartners, shouldn’t even know about. So I think that was a big thing that was being pushed when Biden was in office and changing genders of children."
I think it was a combination of the 2024 presidential election plus Berger and Moore gleefully overriding his vetoes in his last two years in office that spurned him to run.
What better way to get back at those two by succeeding Thom Tillis in the Senate? I think that if both NC U.S. Sen seats flip by 2028 and there's a Dem federal trifecta, Cooper will probably recommend some of the (former) state justices for federal vacancies.
I really strongly don't think Schumer had anything to do with Cooper. He declined consideration for Harris's running mate, even though he was likely her preferred pick, and everyone at the time said "Oh, it's because he wants to challenge Tillis."
Seems like most of these candidates were going to run either way. Schumer may have talked Peltola into Senate instead of the Governor's race, which would be a credit to him. But Pappas, Brown, Cooper, Talarico, and most of the other top candidates were probably going to run regardless. His preferred candidates in MN and MI are either outright losing (Craig) or not running away with the race (Steven is in a 3-way tie, essentially). I think Schumer really only gets credit for Janet Mills, which is to say he gets credit for nothing now, except perhaps AK (which may have come at the possible cost of AK-Gov being more competitive).
Former Rep. Dave Brat has been selected to be U.S. Ambassador to Australia. You may remember his historic defeat of Eric Cantor in 2014 — or his 2018 loss to Abigail Spanberger.
A lot of former House members in this administration. Lori Chavez-DeRemer until she left, Tulsi Gabbard, Doug Collins, Michelle Steel, Dan Bishop, Anthony D'Esposito, the failed nominations of Gaetz, Stefanik and Weldon.
Don't forget Mike Waltz, Sean Duffy, John Ratcliffe, and Lee Zeldin, and if you include former Senators you get Markwayne Mullin, Marco Rubio, Kelly Loeffler, David Purdue, and failed candidates Herschel Walker and Sam Brown. I have a feeling that Trump prefers congresspeople because he knows that they've shown they have no backbone and will always bow down to him, unlike the private sector people and career military officers who he had in his administration in his first term like Tillerson or Mattis who occasionally tried to reign him in.
Even VP JD Vance, whose Senate tenure as short as it was, confirms your theory. He famously flip-flopped on his views from being a never Trumper to whatever he is now.
In a country as diverse as the U.S, it'd be nice if ambassador appointments were professionalized, and the people chosen for them had roots in or extensive knowledge of the country they were the ambassadors to.
I’ve thought that myself. Sadly we’re not immune either, Rahm Emanuel being made Ambassador to Japan was particularly egregious given his role in the cover up of Lacquan McDonald’s death, and Eric Garcetti got some blowback when he was made Ambassador to India since he was accused of sexual misconduct. Ambassadors should really have experience in their field, I agree.
Yes! This Version of a Supreme Court is pretty predictable. We need to start grilling candidates for Congress now, on their stance on reforming that Court! Primary season is the time to start addressing the issue, especially since minorities are such a huge part of the Democratic Party Coalition. When the Dems had the trifecta in Michigan in 2022,even though it was later found to be out of compliance with the VRA, Democrats in the Legislature from all over the State funneled money back into historically under funded Detroit. It is ironic that being in compliance now and the Legislature split, Detroit has gotten nothing.
Our Independent Commission Amendment called for all districts to be drawn as close to 50/50 split between the two parties as closely as possible to hopefully as presented to address not only Party gerrymandering but extremist candidates running as well. So the Commission drew all the District lines in the Detroit Metro area in a rather pinwheel shape around the center of the city,dividing the Districts half suburban and half city. There are about 5 or 6 of these districts. In the first election, in the primaries all but one of the districts chose white or other minorities from the Democratic Side, not the Black Candidates. The primary contests were very close, but the finale results were mostly white labor unions type candidates and they won all those seats in the general election. Both the Michigan Senate and House were in Democratic hands for the first time in over 40 years. The NAACP brought suit on behalf of the Black Democratic Candidates under the VRA,and won. The same Commission went back to the drawing board and redrew the line around Detroit to make at least half of these districts black majority, but in doing so the Democrats lost the much more solidly white suburban and exurban new districts, in the next election for the State House. Dems were able to retain the Senate by only one seat. With the Black Democratic votes concentrated in the City by itself, the white Democrats weren't able to win by themselves. Maybe it was an anomaly, but the first results funneled tons of State money into the City of Detroit for everything from infrastructure to green energy to education and social safety net spending. All came to a halt in this legislature, which stopped everything City and State Wide. The Legislature remains deadlocked on every single item. All progress on everything from education to the environment has come to a halt. Although the redistricting didn't affect my districts State or Federal from the first map, I am a bit bitter to see, although Blacks got their districts, it messed things up both for them politically and for the rest of us progressives in places like Washtenaw and Genesee Counties. And Statewide! Almost half of us whites in a Northern State like Michigan are Democrats. It broke a very fair and functional Democratic Coalition. So different from the Situation in the South where it is only a Party aligned with race problem. I felt the two lawsuits linked together before the Supreme Court just shouldn't have been linked. The Congressional Delegation from the Commission plan produced a very mixed bunch out of Metro Detroit. One Black Republican, One Philippino , one Arab, and a Jewish Member. Nice mix.
Big year for people trying to manifest primary polls into reality. Krishnamoorthi's allies were pumping internals all year showing him way ahead. TX-Sen primary polling was all over the map. One thing Swalwell figured out was that in a crowded race like this, perception of a lead was in itself valuable, regardless of how real that lead was. At this point you might as well throw polls like this in the trash. Have you heard of Gudelunas Strategies before today?
As was briefly discussed yesterday, it's possible to make NJ 11-1, but despite the strong disappointment voiced here by legislators, there is no appetite to make the deep blue districts in North jersey less blue, and no desire to redraw.
Also, progressives don't want to make NJ-11 less Democratic-leaning and potentially endanger Analilia Mejia's re-election chances in a general election.
while I am a mejia fan, is it more important to have an extra dem out of jersey or to have one specific legislator protected? The CBC already endorsed blowing up the Chicago VRA districts to add more Dem seats there. I wish our party would have reacted more strongly to the redistricting war sooner. Maryland, new york, and colorado need to start moving so we can have a decent counterweight in 28 but I have serious doubts re any of that
there is a plethora of blame to go around. you can start with not holding the confederacy accountable, letting nixon put the author of the powell memo on the supreme court when they had already blocked two terrible appointments, congressional democrats not recognizing they should have dumped carter heading into the cataclysmic election of 1980, or the more recent missteps by RBG and Garland.
The bottom line, we can't play with counterfactuals, we've got to unite and push democratic states to blow up those seats. The CBC is on board, so for now we turn our attention to those not on board.
We really should get Cleo Fields to run for the Senate since Louisiana is eliminating his district and we don’t have a strong Senate candidate in Louisiana. He probably wouldn’t win, but he’d have a better chance at that than at being reelected to the House.
John Bel Edwards might have been an effective candidate but his record on abortion would have been an issue for enough of the Democratic base to give him enough support.
Of course, this is LA so JBE might have gotten by with this if he ran on an agenda that was more focused on bread and butter issues.
Ah ok, I assumed that if they were reopening filing for the House that they’d have to reopen it across the board, good to know that’s unfortunately not possible.
Fields would be a disaster statewide. He's a financially corrupt has-been who cooperated with Repubs to put in place a seat that was clearly vulnerable so he could finally come back to the House. If they're going to nuke both seats, Troy Carter would be the better candidate.
What is the credibility of Ragnar? Those numbers seem like conservative estimates regarding Democratic overperformance.
The fact that Ciscomani is *still* under even with the conservative bias is hilarious
That was the first thing that leaped to my mind.
It's a Repub polling firm.
https://ragnarresearch.com/political
These Ragnar polls look out of whack to me, for the most part. No way Nunn is ahead of Trone Garriott like that.
Or they could have an unrealistic likely voter model.
You're going to say that I'm living in dreamland, and maybe I am.
But I just drew a map that Louisiana Democrats should propose to replace their current one. It checks all the necessary boxes - Mike Johnson and Julia Letlow are both protected, with districts similar to what they had on the 2022 map. Scalise and Higgins have safe districts as well. I'm not entirely sure why the state legislature didn't like former congressman Garrett Graves, but he still wouldn't have a good district to make a comeback. The 6th becomes much more compact, and is no longer majority-Black, but still voted for Harris by 5 and Biden by 10. Fields would beat Graves if he tried to run there.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/c5608b3b-032c-4323-a29b-deed99608be1
Why would Letlow need protection? She's leaving.
Louisiana Republicans were intent on protecting her last time.
Many of them probably want to make sure there continue to be two Congressmembers from Northern Louisiana. Since there are still some cultural differences between evangelical Northern Louisiana and Cajun/Catholic Southern Louisiana (even if the voting differences between them have largely disappeared).
I wonder how Trump's war with the Pope went over with those southern Louisiana voters? Is there a possible opening further down the ballot for some Democrats in local elections to build the Democratic Party from grassroots?
That's an interesting idea. I'm not really plugged in with the sort of people who would know. The Pope will obviously never endorse a candidate or a party, so I'm not really expecting Democrats to be able to make much hay from it.
Graves was a McCarthy consigliere. That's why they wanted to screw him.
FL-14: Despite declining before the redraw, I wonder if Lt. Gov. Jay Collins will run against Rep. Kathy Castor to save his career and end his ill-fated gubernatorial campaign.
MN-HD-58B - Republican Minnesota State Rep. Drew Roach was the only member of the evenly-divided state house to vote against an ban on using AI to create child sexual abuse material:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DXu5FEJAA3f/?igsh=eGlhMnlpamtwbHYy
Roach got 60% of the vote in 2024, but, combined with the national political mood not being in Republicans' favor and Roach being extremely controversial, does the DFL have a chance here?
Had to do a double take here. That's almost as bad if not worse as Justin Humphrey voting against banning child marriage in Oklahoma.
Much worse, IMO.
I would say AI-simulated CSAM is less bad than child marriage, which is abusive to actual people, but certainly not a competition anyone should be trying to win, yeesh!
It depends on the ages of the spouses in question. I also have a different attitude from many Americans because I grew up partly in rural Malaysia. There didn't use to be a statutory age of consent in Malaysia, so it was common for teenage lovers to get married, thereby making their children legitimate. Malaysia subsequently instituted an 18-year-old age of consent. The result? There have been a slew of unwed Malay (i.e., Muslim) mothers. That's a permanent blot on their reputations, and while I hope there has been some kind of reform since the last time I checked, I know that it was hard to register such births and have the "illegitimate" children get an education and social services. Basically, in societies that believe in chastity before marriage and discriminate against single parents and the children of unwed parents, allowing teenagers to marry each other is the lesser evil.
Teens marrying each other and adults marrying teens "with parental consent" are different things.
Absolutely. Though if the "adult" in question is 18 and the child is 16, it could be OK.
Sounds like Malaysians need to learn about birth control.
Do you understand how traditionally religious societies are?
Way worse. I don’t agree with it personally but there’s at least an argument for 17 year olds who are emancipated entering into legal contracts like marriage. AI CSAM? Fuck no
That district is based in the city of Farmington, a southern suburb of the Twin Cities. Farmington is 55% Republican, and unlike other Twin Cities suburbs it hasn't gotten bluer during the Trump era. The rest of the district is rural townships that are even redder.
The district voted for Trump by 19%. If Dems win it, the necessary Democratic wave would be beyond anything in my wildest dreams. (Don't forget that most Americans don't even know who their state legislators are, much less how they voted on any specific piece of legislation.)
What happened there when ICE targeted the Twin Cities? Please don't mind all my questions. I have over active curiosity when it comes to the intersection of politics and human behavior. I have been a people watcher from as far back as 5 years old.
This district has a good chunk of the Senate district Democrat Matt Little found a way to win in 2016. That was a fluke though, as evidenced by his defeat four years later.
Are Minnesota Senate terms 4 years?
Yes except in the immediate aftermath of a reapportionment. After the 2030 cycle, for instance, all of the Senators will be up again in 2032.
Seems to open a lane for a GOP primary challenge, if not too late.
Seems to open a lane for a GOP primary challenge, if not too late.
Here's Roach's response/reasoning for why he voted no. For clarification, I completely disagree with his vote and think he could have (and should have) voted yes while still advocating for further measures. I think his vote came from something similar to an all-or-nothing mindset, which when it comes to CSAM is inappropriate and dangerous. But good to know he's not actually in support of CSAM.
copied from https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/19118
Material disseminated using nudification technology is “disgusting” and “vile,” and the victims should have accountability and justice, said Rep. Drew Roach (R-Farmington). But he opposes the bill because it doesn’t get at the root cause and prevent it from happening in the future. He noted that the bill wouldn’t prevent someone from nudifying an image or video if they know how to do it themselves.
“What we’re going to do here is we’re going to attack a software, a manufacturer and instead, shifting our focus on that instead of the perpetrators of these crimes,” he said. “If we want to prevent this from happening in the future, we should go after those perpetrators with the full force of the law.”
ME-Sen: Mills drops out
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/us/politics/janet-mills-drops-out-senate-race-platner-schumer.html
Wow. That's surprising. There were signs, but still.
Whoa.
Just confirms that her heart wasn't really in it. The question is, does she endorse Platner now?
I could see her endorsing Collins before him.
I really can't lol. She'll endorse him or not endorse at all, she's not endorsing Collins.
Why? She complimented Collins pretty well a month or so before running.
Because she's a loyal Democrat who knows it's an election.
Because in the article above her spokesperson directly says she will not be voting for Collins
Fair enough. That's a better answer than "oh, she's a Democrat, so she'll always support the left!"
Only if she's really got a chip on her shoulder at Schumer for aggressively recruiting her and setting her up for this humiliation.
What? No chance. People seem to think Mills is some sort of secret MAGA Republican or something. She's not...
I got the sense that her run was a little like Tommy Thompson's against Baldwin a while ago. He was clearly unenthusiastic.
Wow!
Had Chuck Schumer & Co not pushed Mills to run for the Senate in the first place, I doubt she would have ever considered a campaign.
Good on her for seeing the writing was on the wall. It would’ve been a sad way to end her career in a landslide loss.
Also, it gives Trump less to work with because in the spat he had with Mills last year at a meeting with Governors, he argued Mills couldn’t get elected to anything - All because Mills was defending transgender rights.
Say hello to Senator Plattner. Mills out https://x.com/mwilburn123/status/2049836936102117591?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Janet Mills was never an obstacle to a Senator Platner. Graham Platner himself is the single biggest obstacle to a Senator Platner.
In this environment, I’m not so sure. Trump and the GOP are loathed enough that I could see Platner winning.
I'm not reading a disagreement from you. Who or what are you suggesting is the biggest obstacle to a Senator Platner?
I interpreted the comment as saying Platner’s controversies would impede him being elected. I don’t think I agree with that sentiment in this environment. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong though.
Think about it this way: if he loses, what would have caused the loss? That's the point, not whether he will actually lose.
Good point, agreed.
The polling has shown him a consistently stronger candidate against Collins than Mills.
Both your statement and BPFish's can be (and, I think, are) true. Platner is the favorite in this environment AND his past behavior is going to make the win harder than it should be.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/platner-consolidates-democratic-support-maine-senate-race_n_69f2b6f9e4b084a938d80cec/amp
Before dropping out, Mills lost some key endorsements from legislators to Platner.
Mills is a poor governor, too pro-corporation, not strong enough on labor, and would not have been much weaker vs Collins.
Better than an R, but not by much.
C'mon now. You really think Mills would only be SLIGHTLY better than having a Republican in that seat? You can't be serious.
Depends on the Republican, though not as much these days.
Point well taken.
Platner is just one of those candidates that we are going to roll the dice on. He has earned it, IMO. Collins and her allies will hammer on the same stuff, hopefully no other new stuff pops up, but if it does...so be it. We gotta take chances in life sometimes, and definitely in politics.
I actually like that he's a bit controversial and rough around the edges. I feel like going the safe, establishment route (Mills, Gideon, etc.) has cost Democrats the seat in the past.
No, you're right, this is the right type of candidate for the era. Kinda funny how the land of Olympia Snowe and Angus King may elect Platner.
MAGA Republicans have been gerrymandering our maps for maximum effect since Operation REDMAP, they've milked 90-95% of the seats they can get.
They're desperately trying to avoid the midterm blue wave but it's not going to help with an unpopular president and fired up Democrats, angry independents and betrayed Republicans looking to vote for the opposition.
I'm not sure about MAGA Republicans voting Blue. I read an article in the NYT yesterday that interviewed 10 Trump Voters who said that they regretted their vote for Trump in 2024 Some said they voted for him 3 times. All said they felt betrayed, but the majority said that they probably just wouldn't vote in the next election coming up. Only about 3 Independents said they were angry enough to vote Democratic. One man in Florida, one woman in Tennessee and another woman in Oregon. The woman in Oregon was from a family that normally voted D.
Most mentioned the Trans.issue for their objection to the Democratic Party. It seemed to be a moral hurdle they couldn't jump. So culture warfare still has a tight grip on these voters! It was extremely evident in the remarks by the young Black Male Republican. The questionnaire article was shared to me by my sister.
I’ll admit that I will never understand why these people regard the concerns of a group that is a super minority of the queer community itself as some all-encompassing “moral issue.” It’s just baffling
Republicans are obsessed with trans people. Really, you'd think they have a fetish or something.
Targeting trans kids isn't going to make gas prices or your grocery bill cheaper.
They need someone to hate, and they need someone that is socially acceptable for them to hate openly and unambiguously.
Eventually society will hopefully reach a point where hating trans people is viewed similarly as being openly racist or homophobic. At which point this type of conservative will have found a new target to hate.
That the group is a minority of a minority makes it easier for them. They're unlikely to meet or befriend someone in that group and their kids are less likely to be part of it. The typical avenues for acceptance, while still existent, are less probable.
I wish I could like this comment a thousand times. It pretty much hits the nail on the head....
It may be a super small group, but they get the discourse bandwidth and airtime of a top 10, sometimes top 5 issue. Due to the scale, and the potential amount of voters it scares away versus those it attracts, it will remain a massive political loser for Dems, for the foreseeable future. There are less than 20 elite trans athletes in the country at the top level. Lots of Dems (and non-Dems) give it the same airtime as inflation and issues affecting 330M people. Due to the structure of society, trans people are easy to target, and so they get targeted. We need to defend them to the death, but we also need to recognize political realities.
I don't think we can foresee for how long a large number of Americans will base voting decisions on the existence and treatment of trans people.
I am writing from the viewpoint of what has happened, and the trends derived from that data. in 2024, it cost Dems many voters, and/or kept away independents and conservatives that would otherwise join the Dems.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/us/politics/democrats-transgender-rights.html
This is why no matter how much people around here don't want to have this conversation, the trans issue is central to Democratic electability with a wide swath of voters. Maybe it will lose momentum and salience, but there's no questioning right now that it's lowering the Democratic ceiling.
My theory is that not enough time has passed for opinions to evolve. At least for 90% of the population, no one talked about this issue before 2020, then all of a sudden it exploded, so in the grand historical scheme of things it is still very early in the cycle.
The special legislative elections in TX, FL and IA suggest otherwise. Either way, if we peel off 8-12% of disaffected R voters that vote for Ds in November (plus a percentage of Rs staying home), we're going to flip swing seats plus win a couple of seats Rs thought were safe.
I read it too. This is the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/28/opinion/focus-group-trump-voters-disappointed.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eVA.NgFL.plrsi4b9ZK8w
One thing that kept coming up was some version of "I thought he had learned his lesson" or "thought he had learned from his mistakes". Given his whole campaign was about retribution and he never admitted making any mistakes, that was hard to read. I tend to think it's not the real reason, just one people fill in when it seems appropriate for their audience.
I think the part I screamed the loudest at, which was part of a response to what Dems should do differently, was "There were books in libraries on penises, vaginas, stuff that little children, kindergartners, shouldn’t even know about. So I think that was a big thing that was being pushed when Biden was in office and changing genders of children."
Lots of it was hard to read though.
Franceska's comments pissed me off so much. Chris and John's comments were typical ignorant white Republican men.
Yeah. She also said, "I thought that they would get rid of taxes so we would get our full paycheck instead of just half of it."
I'm amazed Mills dropped out this early.
Entered late, dropped out early. Why did she run in the first place?
Pressure from Schumer and the establishment. He did good with Peltola, but not here.
Schumer also recruited Roy Cooper, but he's been pushing for him for Senate ever since he was NC's Attorney General.
Besides, Cooper could have ended his career as governor. Senate is the next and likely last logical step for him.
I'm just hoping he'll get some downballot Dem candidates over the line with him in November. Not just incumbent SCONC Justice Anita Earls.
I think it was a combination of the 2024 presidential election plus Berger and Moore gleefully overriding his vetoes in his last two years in office that spurned him to run.
What better way to get back at those two by succeeding Thom Tillis in the Senate? I think that if both NC U.S. Sen seats flip by 2028 and there's a Dem federal trifecta, Cooper will probably recommend some of the (former) state justices for federal vacancies.
I really strongly don't think Schumer had anything to do with Cooper. He declined consideration for Harris's running mate, even though he was likely her preferred pick, and everyone at the time said "Oh, it's because he wants to challenge Tillis."
Seems like most of these candidates were going to run either way. Schumer may have talked Peltola into Senate instead of the Governor's race, which would be a credit to him. But Pappas, Brown, Cooper, Talarico, and most of the other top candidates were probably going to run regardless. His preferred candidates in MN and MI are either outright losing (Craig) or not running away with the race (Steven is in a 3-way tie, essentially). I think Schumer really only gets credit for Janet Mills, which is to say he gets credit for nothing now, except perhaps AK (which may have come at the possible cost of AK-Gov being more competitive).
I didn't even think Schumer had much influence with Talarico or Brown.
The Maine Democratic Convention is this upcoming weekend.
Where Are They Now?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/apr/28/trump-picks-former-republican-congressman-to-be-ambassador-to-australia-after-17-month-vacancy
Former Rep. Dave Brat has been selected to be U.S. Ambassador to Australia. You may remember his historic defeat of Eric Cantor in 2014 — or his 2018 loss to Abigail Spanberger.
A lot of former House members in this administration. Lori Chavez-DeRemer until she left, Tulsi Gabbard, Doug Collins, Michelle Steel, Dan Bishop, Anthony D'Esposito, the failed nominations of Gaetz, Stefanik and Weldon.
Don't forget Mike Waltz, Sean Duffy, John Ratcliffe, and Lee Zeldin, and if you include former Senators you get Markwayne Mullin, Marco Rubio, Kelly Loeffler, David Purdue, and failed candidates Herschel Walker and Sam Brown. I have a feeling that Trump prefers congresspeople because he knows that they've shown they have no backbone and will always bow down to him, unlike the private sector people and career military officers who he had in his administration in his first term like Tillerson or Mattis who occasionally tried to reign him in.
Mullin and Noem also check the House boxes.
Even VP JD Vance, whose Senate tenure as short as it was, confirms your theory. He famously flip-flopped on his views from being a never Trumper to whatever he is now.
The shifting around of Billy Long.
In a country as diverse as the U.S, it'd be nice if ambassador appointments were professionalized, and the people chosen for them had roots in or extensive knowledge of the country they were the ambassadors to.
I’ve thought that myself. Sadly we’re not immune either, Rahm Emanuel being made Ambassador to Japan was particularly egregious given his role in the cover up of Lacquan McDonald’s death, and Eric Garcetti got some blowback when he was made Ambassador to India since he was accused of sexual misconduct. Ambassadors should really have experience in their field, I agree.
I bet Jeff and David had 90% of the postVRA post written last fall. (Unfortunately) 😕
Yes! This Version of a Supreme Court is pretty predictable. We need to start grilling candidates for Congress now, on their stance on reforming that Court! Primary season is the time to start addressing the issue, especially since minorities are such a huge part of the Democratic Party Coalition. When the Dems had the trifecta in Michigan in 2022,even though it was later found to be out of compliance with the VRA, Democrats in the Legislature from all over the State funneled money back into historically under funded Detroit. It is ironic that being in compliance now and the Legislature split, Detroit has gotten nothing.
What are you referring to that was found to be out of compliance with the VRA? A district, I guess?
Our Independent Commission Amendment called for all districts to be drawn as close to 50/50 split between the two parties as closely as possible to hopefully as presented to address not only Party gerrymandering but extremist candidates running as well. So the Commission drew all the District lines in the Detroit Metro area in a rather pinwheel shape around the center of the city,dividing the Districts half suburban and half city. There are about 5 or 6 of these districts. In the first election, in the primaries all but one of the districts chose white or other minorities from the Democratic Side, not the Black Candidates. The primary contests were very close, but the finale results were mostly white labor unions type candidates and they won all those seats in the general election. Both the Michigan Senate and House were in Democratic hands for the first time in over 40 years. The NAACP brought suit on behalf of the Black Democratic Candidates under the VRA,and won. The same Commission went back to the drawing board and redrew the line around Detroit to make at least half of these districts black majority, but in doing so the Democrats lost the much more solidly white suburban and exurban new districts, in the next election for the State House. Dems were able to retain the Senate by only one seat. With the Black Democratic votes concentrated in the City by itself, the white Democrats weren't able to win by themselves. Maybe it was an anomaly, but the first results funneled tons of State money into the City of Detroit for everything from infrastructure to green energy to education and social safety net spending. All came to a halt in this legislature, which stopped everything City and State Wide. The Legislature remains deadlocked on every single item. All progress on everything from education to the environment has come to a halt. Although the redistricting didn't affect my districts State or Federal from the first map, I am a bit bitter to see, although Blacks got their districts, it messed things up both for them politically and for the rest of us progressives in places like Washtenaw and Genesee Counties. And Statewide! Almost half of us whites in a Northern State like Michigan are Democrats. It broke a very fair and functional Democratic Coalition. So different from the Situation in the South where it is only a Party aligned with race problem. I felt the two lawsuits linked together before the Supreme Court just shouldn't have been linked. The Congressional Delegation from the Commission plan produced a very mixed bunch out of Metro Detroit. One Black Republican, One Philippino , one Arab, and a Jewish Member. Nice mix.
Interesting, thanks.
Credit goes to Stephen Wolf and David!
Does anyone think the conveniently-timed decision was held until right after the Virginia vote as to not fire up Dems to turn out?
CA Gov poll Becerra pulling away. https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2049858111586869335?s=20
Commissioned by an anti-Steyer group.
Big year for people trying to manifest primary polls into reality. Krishnamoorthi's allies were pumping internals all year showing him way ahead. TX-Sen primary polling was all over the map. One thing Swalwell figured out was that in a crowded race like this, perception of a lead was in itself valuable, regardless of how real that lead was. At this point you might as well throw polls like this in the trash. Have you heard of Gudelunas Strategies before today?
As was briefly discussed yesterday, it's possible to make NJ 11-1, but despite the strong disappointment voiced here by legislators, there is no appetite to make the deep blue districts in North jersey less blue, and no desire to redraw.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/a-real-setback-black-n-j-leaders-decry-supreme-courts-redistricting-ruling/
Also, progressives don't want to make NJ-11 less Democratic-leaning and potentially endanger Analilia Mejia's re-election chances in a general election.
while I am a mejia fan, is it more important to have an extra dem out of jersey or to have one specific legislator protected? The CBC already endorsed blowing up the Chicago VRA districts to add more Dem seats there. I wish our party would have reacted more strongly to the redistricting war sooner. Maryland, new york, and colorado need to start moving so we can have a decent counterweight in 28 but I have serious doubts re any of that
Day late, dollar short - the CBC is one of the reasons we didn't blow up maps even in the 90s to improve our chances elsewhere.
there is a plethora of blame to go around. you can start with not holding the confederacy accountable, letting nixon put the author of the powell memo on the supreme court when they had already blocked two terrible appointments, congressional democrats not recognizing they should have dumped carter heading into the cataclysmic election of 1980, or the more recent missteps by RBG and Garland.
The bottom line, we can't play with counterfactuals, we've got to unite and push democratic states to blow up those seats. The CBC is on board, so for now we turn our attention to those not on board.
We really should get Cleo Fields to run for the Senate since Louisiana is eliminating his district and we don’t have a strong Senate candidate in Louisiana. He probably wouldn’t win, but he’d have a better chance at that than at being reelected to the House.
I wish JBE had run. Ah well.
John Bel Edwards might have been an effective candidate but his record on abortion would have been an issue for enough of the Democratic base to give him enough support.
Of course, this is LA so JBE might have gotten by with this if he ran on an agenda that was more focused on bread and butter issues.
And in the end he almost certainly wouldn’t have gotten above 45% even in a very good year statewide in Louisiana.
If JBE broke with the Democratic Party on issues like abortion I could see why.
Otherwise, not getting above 45% might be more applicable to challenging incumbent GOP Senators.
I hope something similar to Kildere's map takes effect.
Candidate filing closed last month, and no indication they'll reopen it for Senate. The primary for LA-Sen reportedly will even still happen next month. https://www.nola.com/news/politics/elections/louisiana-postpones-primary-elections-supreme-court-ruling/article_6efaf265-024c-4d38-86f5-9ee3c8ce57b1.html
Ah ok, I assumed that if they were reopening filing for the House that they’d have to reopen it across the board, good to know that’s unfortunately not possible.
Remember: For the Republicans, the unfairness is the point. They are trying to grab power in any way, legitimate or illegitimate.
Fields would be a disaster statewide. He's a financially corrupt has-been who cooperated with Repubs to put in place a seat that was clearly vulnerable so he could finally come back to the House. If they're going to nuke both seats, Troy Carter would be the better candidate.
Agreed - I think we're forgetting his terrible 1995 performance in the governor's race, and Bill Clinton and Mary Landrieu won statewide a year later.
Checkout this map in the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision with:
1. Racial and ethnic composition by county
2. 231 ICE detention facilities
3. Elected reps (House and Senate) for that area
Purpose is to be able to make it clear to voters how MAGA is hurting them locally.
MAGA Supreme Court OKs racial gerrymandering. Mapping how it could backfire on Republicans.
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/04/30/mapping-racial-gerrymandering-backfire-scotus-2026/