MI-10: Macomb County assistant prosecutor Robert Lulgjuraj, a Republican candidate in this swing seat, faces numerous challenges to his eligibility from his primary opponents, including Army veteran Mike Bouchard Jr.
Prosecutor Christina Hines, attorney Eric Chung and Pontiac mayor Tim Griemel (who isn't from the district) are the major Democrats.
Thank you for the link, but I couldn't read the article completely without subscribing. In what I could see of the second paragraph, challengers are questioning the validity of at least enough signatures on his nominating petitions to invalidate his candidacy. Also they are claiming he was not using his proper address on the filing. After that, the subscribe window came up and blocked my view. I would have spent the $ to subscribe for a month, but I just filled the gas tank yesterday. Anyway, it is the now familiar problem with Republican Candidates in our State. They use commercial ballot paid petition signature gatherers, instead of happy volunteers, and end up with all kinds of invalid signatures, because the people used get paid by the signature or page! I guess they just don't learn, or don't have enough committed people who believe in them, to pass the necessary nominating papers to even get them on the ballot. Is it a mind set that they think money is the only necessary criteria necessary for Office?? I can't remember a single Democratic candidate getting caught in this signature debockal.
CT Democrats passed House Bill 5001 along party lines (25-11) in the state Senate on Wednesday. Once signed by Gov Lamont, it will allow any registered CT voter to vote by mail.
Are you in a Republican-held swing seat like the 1st or 2nd where your vote could really make a difference? I have family in both seats - the 1st residents (uncles and cousins) are very liberal but my aunt in the 2nd is MAGA.
What an amazing democracy we have where red states can gerrymander their districts overnight without voter approval but blue states have to play by the fair rules that they themselves wrote. What a joke of a country.
Yeah - I’m about to the point where it’s either apathy or time to tear it all down and start over - ie a revolution. So done with all of this bullshit.
We don't need a revolution. Just continue to push these referendums and redraws. Virginia's problem is its courts and most other blue states have more favorable judiciaries.
Actually, most of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are Catholics aren't they? Or are you speaking of the Virginia Supreme Court? As a Protestant but not Virginian, I kind of take issue with your name calling you used.
Calvinball isn't a reference to John Calvin or protestants in general. It's a reference to Calvinball from Calvin and Hobbes. It's a reference to a game without known rules such that the outcome is whatever the author wants it to be, which is ideally used for humor.
I had a feeling that Dems wouldn’t be able to get away with half of what Republicans are doing redistricting wise. The best path forward to diminish Republican gerrymandering is to get commissions in as many swing states as possible if we are able to get trifectas (WI and PA) there in 2026 to prevent future Republican gerrymandering there. Dems will never get away with aggressive gerrymanders in those states and even favorable state courts won’t do that.
No, the best path is to treat the courts like a non-legitimate actor, as they are behaving, calling special sessions and passing them there because that's the will of the voters. Our reliance on institutions unaligned with the populace is a road to defeat. Let them wither away, and we replace them with better ones.
For a number of reasons, that isn't going to work, and is going to make things worse. If blue states ignore all court rulings, red states could too and make life miserable for minority groups. A constitutional crisis can get peopled killed.
They already ignore them, and people are already getting killed here and abroad, including minority groups. Minority groups are the reason the VA referendum passed in the first place.
Red states do not broadly ignore court rulings (I'm sure you can point to instances where they did but those aren't most cases), and while the deaths of immigrants due to ICE is awful, it can get so, so much worse. What's going on abroad isn't something a state defying a state supreme court ruling can change. Again, a full blown constitutional crisis is unlikely to end peacefully.
The GOP leader of the Alabama Senate said today he hoped that the SC would rule that the 14th amendment was unconstitutional - the full blown constitutional crisis is already here.
It is probably the most fringe position I have but I do think that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and the judicial branch (mostly federally but elsewhere as well) needs to be reined in. The only other country that lets unelected judicial scholars make this much public law and policy is Iran. I don't expect it to be mainstream or anything but considering the scope of the damage the only way I can think of to undo the damage that the GOP and FedSoc have done to Article III courts is to throw the ring into mount doom.
Constitutional Amendments on Commissions, can't be overturned by Legislatures by themselves. Commissions everywhere by Constitutional Amendment by Petition means is the safest method to end gerrymandering. I know. I live in Michigan and we did it. Our model could be used everywhere, when this current mess is over with. Our State had been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans for 40 years, and voters from both parties got fed up. Petition passers approached Republicans with the speel that Democrats would gerrymander just as bad as Republicans if they got control. Republican voters signed the petitions just as fast and heavily as Democrats. Probably half the voters in the State signed to put it on the ballot as a Constitutional Amendment.
it is easy to make va a liberal court, in january 27 and january 28 the General Assembly votes on whether two of the scumbags that ruled in favor of this farce get to keep their seat. I trust ms. lucas and the house of delegates will remove the stain of these two activist members of the court
Honestly the commissions, while definitely fantastic on paper, were such a poison pill for us because it came with the expectation that Republicans would act in good faith, which is a foolish assumption. The best way forward, imo, is to either enact a nationwide gerrymandering ban or uncapping the house and using multi-member districts based on proportional representation. That only works with a Dem president, senate, and House, however, and the path for all three in 2028 narrows by the day as long as Republicans can keep passing these maps
The VA commission specifically was the worst of them all because Dems passed it knowing full well they’d have control of the legislature and that on balance it’s settled into a Likely Dem state. They were afraid of the WaPo oped board and good government voters who wouldn’t really hold this against them considering the myriad of other issues people vote on.
Are you familiar with Sen Lee Lucas? If anything this will make her try for an 11-0 map in 28. We need more leaders like her - she’s really the only thing giving me a modicum of hope these days.
The Commonwealth, aka VA Democrats, insisted throughout the process that the referendum should go forward regardless based on previous precedent, which the Court cited.
While the media will characterize this as a devastating loss to Dems, it’s worth recalling that Dems were looking poised to pick up 2 (VA-01 and VA-02) and maybe even 3 seats (VA-05) under the old maps
The deadline was supposed to be extended to May 22. I imagine Vindman can run in the 7th and that whole group of candidates will drop. Say goodbye to Beth Macy and Tom Perriello's runs, too.
Oh please no. I hate practicing in front of baby judges. Having experience really counts for something. And 99% of work the judges will be doing will likely be apolitical
No! When will we understand that always trying to be the better people because reasons winds up screwing us over? I don’t care if they’re inexperienced, they’re going to vote our way consistently for the next 50 years on the bench. That’s worth a million times more than having someone who knows how to do the behind the scenes process work that only sometimes votes how we want and for only the next 20 years.
Do you think Trump’s appointees like Aileen Cannon and Judge Ho had enough experience to be a judge? Do you think they have the right temperament? Impartiality? Well, guess what, now they are judges in control of interpreting the law. Do you think the GOP considered any of that before confirming them? If they can be partisan hack inexperienced young judges, so too can a progressive right out of law school.
Stop playing into our enemies hands by not being willing to do what Republicans have done and would do. Seriously, I’m so done with the Democrats who still don’t get this yet.
I think Johnny has a good point. We don't need judges with 50 years experience who are old enough to retire. But someone with little/no experience is more likely to shift and be unreliable. That's what happened to republicans with Souter: he was on a federal court for only a few months before he moved to SCOTUS.
We can appoint people in their early-mid 40s that have enough experience under their belt that they're both competent and we know what we're getting. At that age they will still have a long career ahead of them. Our options aren't limited to the extremes of 25 years old or 60 years old.
Winning back the House looking like a heavier lift every day. Seems like we're fast approaching a D+10 national environment being needed to win the 222 or so seats that will be required to avoid Trump and Johnson sabotage.
Voters have lost the ability to control the direction of their country more in the last two weeks than in the previous 48 years of my life...and we're just getting started.
Given that red state after red state is redrawing their lines as we speak to become impenetrably Republican and snuff out Democratic incumbents, the eight-seat metric is dubious. It all depends on how much the courts allow these new lines to take effect in 2026 as opposed to 2028. The way things have gone so far, I'm confident the judiciary will find a way to allow red state district lines to take effect for this cycle. The red states redrawing their lines must be confident of it too....otherwise they wouldn't be dropping all other business to get redistricting done immediately.
Of course they're trying to take advantage of it. Why wouldn't they. But in a +10 environment, Democrats would pick up at least 5 seats in NY, NJ and PA alone.
And even if the GOP eliminates every district held by Democrats in a safe red state by 2028, we're talking about a gain of 11 more seats by the Republicans (1 in South Carolina, 1 in Tennessee, 2 in Alabama, 1 in Mississippi, 2 in Louisiana, 2 in Indiana, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Kansas). Maybe they squeeze another 2 out of Georgia as well, which would bring it to 13. Let's say by 2028 we actually gerrymander Virginia, New York, and Colorado and squeeze an additional district out of Illinois and Maryland - that would be enough to mostly offset the Republican gerrymander. This would be terrible for our democracy, but it wouldn't create an insurmountable advantage for Republicans - it would just create the kind of advantage they had in the 2010s again.
And on top of that, this does not take into consideration additional states like WA, OR, a possible CA re-do, and even MN, WI, PA, even MI in the event Dems take those state legislatures. That may help us further push back, at least.
Mark, I get that there are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic about the world, but can you please stop taking the single most doom and gloom position on everything? You’ve been doing it for years and it has really gotten old. How are we fast approaching needing a 10 point win to win the House? And if you really believe that, why are you even commenting on an election forum if you think elections aren’t capable of fixing anything?
Elections would be capable of fixing things if the elections were in good faith. But we're not gonna be having good-faith elections anymore. We're gonna have monstrous power grabs that calculatedly ensure that elections won't be capable of fixing things moving forward.
Ok, then give up. Seriously, if you think there’s no hope, just give up. But please stop going and telling the rest of us that we’re all doomed and there’s no hope, it’s simply not constructive or helpful to those of us who are actually trying to fix things. There is a massive gulf between Republicans getting a few more seats out of redistricting this cycle and us needing to win by a 10 point margin to get a bare majority, and your pessimism is really missing that.
I don't instruct you about what your takes should be. Kindly show me the same respect and we can both offer up our opinions on the state of elections on 2026 in this forum. Deal?
Can you please at least just think about why you're posting what you're posting? it sometimes doesn't seem like you're doing it to spark discussion, to get more information, or to think of what the best path forward for Democrats is. When you're commenting things like "elections won't be capable of fixing things going forward," unless if you're advocating action outside of elections to fix things (which I'd love to hear your thoughts on if you have ideas there), it just sounds defeatist. And defeatism really doesn't have a place on a board for winning elections and building a better future, it kind of goes against the entire point of this site.
Mark has been around for a long time though. His takes are pessimistic, but I’ve seen enough posts over the years to know that he doesn’t just doom post. It’s not like those people elsewhere who know nothing about politics and only show up to say negative things.
I'm not as pessimistic about 2026, but in general I agree with the overall worry. For the immediate future my worry has been and remains 2028.
We're fast approaching a point where legislative elections are a formality in all but a handful of seats.
For 2026 specifically, I'd want to see how competitive seats 215-225 are after all the maps have changed, under the presumption that the courts don't do anything to stop republican states' most recent efforts. If I had that data and it was sufficiently bad I could be swayed into the 2026 pessimism camp.
It should, but a lot of those efforts are difficult and require statewide votes. I doubt we'll get all of them, especially since it so easily can be delayed or stopped by a single disinterested actor, like in Maryland. I'm not exactly full of confidence in Hochul's willingness to go for the jugular. She's said the state will do something but I'll wait until I see real action. Similar story for Colorado.
Our problem right now is that the elected officials are painfully more placid than our voters. Not all of them, but enough. Voters have short memories, which is another problem. If we need to hold a statewide referendum in New York or Colorado or California/Virginia 2.0 next year, how much will voters remember what's happening right now? Just look at Virginia's vote -- it was a bare win and I guarantee you that Yes would have done substantially better if it had been held the same day as California's vote (aka, closer to Texas' redraw).
My big worry for 2028 is that we're unlikely to have a huge wave behind our back that year. Wave elections are both more common and larger during midterms due to the political dynamics of this country.
I wouldn’t assume 2028 would be particularly unfavorable to Dems. Particularly with Trump term limited and a potentially highly unpopular Vance candidacy.
Yes, it can. I didn't say 2028 would be a bad year for us. I didn't even say that we cannot have a big wave in 2028. Only that it's less likely than a big wave happening this year.
It's all about uncertainty. What do you think the odds are of a big wave this year? What data do you have backing that up? Now ask yourself the same thing for 2028. Your number for 2026 should be a lot larger than your number for 2028, because of your answer on the data. We have far more data for the election in 2026 than in 2028.
The range of possibilities for 2026 is shrinking as we get closer to this November. There's less time for things to change and the electoral data we have on what will happen stays consistent while comporting with secondary data on the economy and geopolitical sphere. For 2028 the range of possibilities is bigger. There is a lot of time for things to change, both towards us or away from us.
Beyond not knowing the nominees for each party, we do not even know the candidates that will compete to be the nominee. We do not know if the economy will get worse or better, if a major rally around the flag effect will happen, if something happens to collapse GOP support. The number of unknowns for 2028 is huge and creates uncertainty by definition. Anyone confident, today, of a big wave for 2028 -- more than two years in advance -- is overconfident and unrealistic. Historically, big waves are far less likely in presidential years (only 2008 this century), which makes it harder to bank on.
We don’t know yet if a blue wave election will or will not hit in 2028.
Trump won’t be on the ballot and there’s uncertainty as to who will emerge both on the Democratic and GOP side. Redistricting is going to affect House races but not the presidential race. Could make a bit of an impact on the difference in margin but still TBD.
I’d say better wait until months after the midterms, say 2027, to make a better assessment.
According to the US Supreme Court, now any state can just redistrict whenever. Democrats should just cite the recent ruling and say that it overrides this decision and keep the new districts anyway.
Honestly this was always the most likely outcome given Democrats’ pretty clear circumvention of Virginia’s constitutional amendment procedures. The amendment process taken was a completely rushed mess and the Court had an obligation to enforce the law regardless of the political outcome.
Frankly, I find it refreshing for once to see a court apply the law as written instead of ruling purely through the lens of partisan politics. Plus, as mentioned above this also really only takes a couple seats off the table for this year and Dems in the GA should be able to follow the correct procedures this time around if they want to try it for 28.
Yeah because Republicans always follow the law and the rules *eyeroll*. If you like this ruling, you’ve been in a coma as to what’s happened in America since 2016. Process for Democrats, victories for Republicans. Such a good thing we should celebrate.
They did rule on partisan grounds - if the referendum had failed, they wouldn't have thrown out the result and granted the Democrats a Mulligan based on this same reasoning. Otherwise, they could've ruled it out months ago when it first went to them. They let it proceed to see the outcome, then rule on that basis. It's basically Bush v. Gore at the state level.
I mean, what this ruling seemed to hinge on was if an election begins before election day. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an election lasts for however long people can vote. This wouldn't be so infuriating if the national courts were not also allowing Republicans to blow up election dates and minority districts. At the very least, the Virginia supreme court doesn't seem so partisan as to block an attempt for 2028.
The amicus curiae brief provided by the Department of Justice referenced by Justice Samuel Alito in the recent Callais ruling has been found to have several irregularities.
If Alito somehow holds off on retiring until after the midterms and Dems hopefully have more power on appointments, it will honestly be an immense improvement if he gets replaced by a Trump I type justice. He's truly one of the most hackish people to ever sit on the Court.
I'd rather Dems flip the Senate this year and Alito and Thomas are arrogant enough to stay on the court. Schumer will be under immense pressure to pull a McConnell if one or both die while Trump or JDV is in the Oval Office.
The only way we have any power over a SCOTUS appointee through 2029 is if we hold the senate. At which point we can, and should, block it entirely. All or nothing.
And to confirm/appoint a replacement we’d need to hold the senate in 2028 (should be easy given the class up and it being what should be a D presidential victory year) and win the presidency. Basically any chance of us getting another appointment anytime soon has to be in that 2028-2030 period, because I don’t see us holding the senate in 2030 given the seats up if a Dem is President and there won’t be many targets left to get it back shortly after that (and if the D presidential victory serves two terms it gets even tougher in the senate due to facing two midterms).
The 2030 map is one where I think we could hold on a modestly bad year where Rs win by say 4ish points nationally, but would be a disaster in a red wave. If we can have a 2022-ish environment we could even plausibly hold all of our seats.
Potentially vulnerable seats for us: AZ, NV, MN, WI, MI.
Potentially vulnerable seats for Rs: PA, maybe TX if it's a dem friendly year.
Of that group I'm most worried about Nevada. Hopefully the state starts to shift back towards us.
So like, what now? Obviously I think the people dooming about losing the midterms are overblowing it since the national environment will still bring Dems into power, but the combination of
a) the VA Supreme Court overruling the will of the people (even though they could've issued an injunction BEFORE the vote was held...)
b) Callais allowing the South to do whatever the fuck they want regarding majority Black districts
c) Florida and Tennessee (among others) cramming through gerrymanders in the matter of *days* (despite the FL constitution forbidding such gerrymandering but it's Republicans so it's fine I guess /s)
d) Louisiana canceling their primaries to re-rig their maps
is all not just bad for 2026/2028, but horrible for American democracy generally. Even if we run a candidate in 2028 who promises to ban partisan gerrymandering, pack the courts, etc., what's to stop them from *not* doing that once elected?
I'm just really frustrated, as I image most of you are as well. If I hear Schumer or Ken Martin talk about rules, I'm gonna fucking lose it. The right has shown time and time and time and time again that they give 0 shits about the rules when it comes to them. I'm tired of the "when they go low we go high" mentality because that has gotten us absolutely nowhere.
Anyway, fuck Trump, fuck the Virginia Supreme Court, fuck Republicans, fuck Merrick Garland for not prosecuting Trump 1.0, fuck.
There's a chance that courts will enjoin Tennessee and Florida. One for vote dilution even under Callais and the other as a blatant violation of the constitutional amendment passed by Florida voters. Would I bet my life savings on it? No. But sometimes even hostile courts can do the right thing.
On May 12, the Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging which map is currently in effect. Plaintiffs argue that after petitioners submit enough signatures to prompt a statewide vote, the new map should be put on hold until voters approve it.
So, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama are still up in the air. And if South Carolina acts to eliminate Clyburn's district, they also will be taken to court.
Democrat should continue to do what they are doing. They're still on track to win the house in a D+4+ environment, and the median seat may only move from around 3 to 5, which is not ideal but not insurmountable.
To give you a state of affairs in the country and our spiraling infotainment landscape, I watched "NBC Nightly News" last night. To my surprise, they did have a 10-second snippet talking about the protests in Nashville over the first dismantling of a former VRA district being turned into a Republican stronghold. They followed it with a 30-second snippet of a guy water skiing into a whale that they put on replay three times.
1) Every VA Supreme Court Justice who voted to strike this down needs to be removed or impeached. Or change these positions into partisan elected ones where every judge must run as a Republican in 2028 elections. Hope you enjoyed your time as a “Justice”, because your careers are about to be over. The Republican judges in this country will never ever side with the will of the people over their partisanship.
2) Every blue state with a GOP majority State Supreme Court needs to remove or impeach the justices now. Or again make these judges run as Republicans in blue states. And also ban them from running as independents, they’ve chosen their party over the voters, so they should be forced to run as representatives of their partisanship. They will never allow Democrats to fight back, so we need to change the referees by any means necessary.
3) Every blue state Democrat (looking at you asshole, Ferguson in MD, hope it was worth it and that you enjoy your retirement!) who refuses to rip up their commissions and redraw out every single Republican seat needs to be removed from office in primaries. 52-0 California, 26-0 New York and 8-0 Colorado etc. No Republicans in blue states unless necessary as a vote sink. That’s the new rules of the game. The GOP has no idea what they’ve unleashed, they’ll soon find out.
4) On a silver lining note, now Democrats have 2 more years to analyze and redraw the VA congressional map to make sure it’s an even stronger, more impenetrable gerrymander. This one was vulnerable in a wave and done fast, now we can take time to perfect it.
5) If you think Democrats were mad before today, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thanks GOP for nitro turbo charging our voters, you will regret this, I promise you that. We’re going to be flipping seats in November that aren’t even on the radar yet.
6) My new litmus test for the unmentionable race in 2028 is court packing. If a Democrat won’t do it and rip up the filibuster in order to achieve that, they won’t get my support. No more pussyfooting, process, fairness, norms bullshit, fight to win or we will lose everything forever. The GOP does this, we need to too.
1) The VA Supreme Court is appointed by the legislature. One of the 4 judges who voted to annul the referendum is up for reappointment in January 2027 and another in 2028. I'm 99% certain that after today, those two justices will be denied another term and progressives replace them both.
2) If by some miracle NC Dems flip control of the legislature after Nov, they will redraw the maps in retaliation for Rs doing it (ditto for GA). And they will look to pass laws to punish or remove activist judges like Newby, Berger Jr., Barringer and Griffin.
Any Democrats who aren't willing to take the fight to the Republicans need to be removed from office. This is a fight for the Republic at this point. We need more Louise Lucases and less Chuck Schumers.
“one reason I am actually quite optimistic that national Dems will push hard for another round of retaliatory gerrymanders in 2028 is that Black Southern Dems are critical to the current leadership class's hold on power and they're gonna be pretty mad when a bunch of their fav members get drawn out”
“I don't think the resulting Northern and Western replacement members will be quite as leadership-friendly, and it's of course extremely bad to lose Southern Black representation, but if anything will make House Dems see red and lash out for maximum damage it's this.”
Curious to know what posters here think. Might losing a large number of current leadership-friendly Dems result in more aggressive gerrymanders?
I think it will in NY and NJ. And VA will definitely push for a 2028 redistricting, esp with two of the judges in the SCOVA majority being swapped out.
I will always respect Harkin for his role in creating and passing the ADA. The positive effect that bill has had on the lives of disabled people all over this country is immeasurable.
The ADA was a major step in the right direction although as it relates to ADHD, autism, etc., there needs to be modifications to the law so that anyone who is neurodivergent can be better understood and accommodated as needed in the workforce.
I 110% agree. I am autistic and the bill could certainly go further towards recognizing neurodivergency. It’s still a massive upgrade from what existed before.
I was too. He stayed quiet for a long time. There are other shoes that will drop on Zach Wahls. He does have a progressive voting record and an inspiring life story. If he wins the primary, I guess we will see those other shoes drop in a general election. Full disclosure: I am a Turek supporter.
Scandals. I try to remain civil in this race despite the fact that Zach has accused Josh Turek of being corrupt even though they both asked Chuck Schumer for financial support. Zach is a talented guy and whatever he does, he will do well. I don't trust him on a human to human level.
Why not just push those scandals out now? You are the second IA person I've seen mention scandals related to Wahls, and if winning the senate depends on winning IA, it seems reasonable for the other campaign to raise them now instead of letting them happen in the GE.
VA - 0 (Dem redistricting approved by voters annulled by state supreme court)
IN - 0 (Rep redistricting approved by state house but rejected by state senate)
---
TX - +5R
FL - +4R
MO - +1R
TN - +1R
NC - +1R
OH - +2R
---
LA - Potential +2R
GA - Potential +3R
AL - Potential +2R
MS - Potential +1R
SC - Potential +1R
---
Total Dem pickup - +6D
Total Rep pickup - +14R
Net change - +8R
Median district - Around 4% more R than country as a whole
---
Max potential Dem pickup - +6D
Max potential Rep pickup - +23R
Potential net change - +17R
Median district - Around 8% more R than the country as a whole
---
It's important to note that there are still a lot of moving parts, and any potential redistricting for the 2028 elections isn't factored in. This also doesn't factor in dummymander potential (Texas is notable in this regard), Republicans in states like Louisiana deciding on weaker gerrymanders than what is maximally possible, and potential court rulings, among other factors. CNN does not list Mississippi or Georgia as considering redistricting for the 2026 elections, which would lower the maximum potential Republican pickup to +19R for a potential net change of +13R (median district around 5-6% more Republican than the country as a whole).
There’s plenty of hope. For one thing, we’re probably gonna win by more than 6% nationwide, which would still be enough to flip the House. For another, Republicans probably aren’t going to actually succeed in flipping both of those Ohio districts (we’re very likely going to win OH-1, which only voted for Trump by 3 points, and Marcy Kaptur has held on in worse environments than this). Republicans are very unlikely to actually flip all 5 Texas districts and all 4 Florida districts as well. This is going to be harder for us than it would be with fair maps, but we’re still favored to take the House.
IIRC, even one of the Republican vote-sinks in California is potentially competitive. If the national partisan popular vote gets into a high-single digit advantage for Dems, it becomes too big of a margin for Republicans to rig a majority.
That is overly bullish on R's. LA and AL are only considering getting rid of one seat right now. GA and MS are not in play for 2026 at the moment (and no way is more than 1 pickup being seriously considered in GA). AL and SC are getting pretty close to their primaries and may not make it, plus AL has the injunction and SC has some hesitation in the state senate. And we can't close the door on the courts in any of the R states.
VA-Ref - The Virginia Supreme Court annulling the state redistricting referendum is, to my knowledge, the first instance of a statewide election of any kind being outrught annulled since the 1974 U.S. Senate election in New Hampshire.
We have got to get to our feet one more time than we are knocked down. If the filing deadline has not passed where you live, then your first step is candidate recruitment. Grassroots recruitment for grassroots offices. My mind often drifts to the elected County Clerks in three Latino-majority counties in Southwest Kansas. Finney County (Garden City), Ford County (Dodge City), and Seward County (Liberal) are all Republican-ruled. The County Clerks run elections in Finney, Ford, and Seward Counties. These are sparely-populated counties. Very, very, very local elections.
Some distance from the Statehouse in Richmond and from the Halls of Congress in Washington DC. But bricks in the wall, nonetheless. Bricks in the wall.
The NRCC released a bunch of internal polls with Republican House candidates overperforming expectations, like Paul LePage being up by 10 in ME-2 and Greg Cunningham only 2 behind Rep. Gabe Vasquez in NM-2.
LePage being up in ME-2 is no surprise. If Vasquez held on the last two cycles I can't see that changing this year. Plus as noted below Davis looks good in NC-1.
Tied in NC-01 (a Trump +11 district) is pretty embarrassing actually. But in the end these are carefully selected internals from a pollster (co/efficient) that churned out constant slop in 2022. Tells us nothing useful, not with any confidence. I'd take a single Emerson poll over a hundred of these.
Democrats might actually gain seats out of North Carolina despite mid-decade GOP gerrymandering. Didn't NC-3 become less GOP-leaning with the changes to NC-1? NC-11 is very much in play as well (although not due to redistricting).
Heavy dose of skepticism here. Not least of all because internals tend to vastly overstate a candidate's supposed lead and often prove to badly miss the mark. I'm suspecting a low response rat and/or oversampling of MAGA voters.
co/efficient turned in some farcical numbers in 2022. They had Patty Murray up by 3, and she won by 14.5, Hassan and Bolduc tied, she won by 9.1, Oz up by 3, Fetterman won by 4.9, and missed the mark to the right in all of their polling.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/07/republican-robert-lulgjuraj-eligibility-challenge-michigan-10th-district-congressional-race/89963866007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z114544p119950l116550c119950u001344e1166xxv114544&gca-ft=200&gca-ds=sophi
MI-10: Macomb County assistant prosecutor Robert Lulgjuraj, a Republican candidate in this swing seat, faces numerous challenges to his eligibility from his primary opponents, including Army veteran Mike Bouchard Jr.
Prosecutor Christina Hines, attorney Eric Chung and Pontiac mayor Tim Griemel (who isn't from the district) are the major Democrats.
Thank you for the link, but I couldn't read the article completely without subscribing. In what I could see of the second paragraph, challengers are questioning the validity of at least enough signatures on his nominating petitions to invalidate his candidacy. Also they are claiming he was not using his proper address on the filing. After that, the subscribe window came up and blocked my view. I would have spent the $ to subscribe for a month, but I just filled the gas tank yesterday. Anyway, it is the now familiar problem with Republican Candidates in our State. They use commercial ballot paid petition signature gatherers, instead of happy volunteers, and end up with all kinds of invalid signatures, because the people used get paid by the signature or page! I guess they just don't learn, or don't have enough committed people who believe in them, to pass the necessary nominating papers to even get them on the ballot. Is it a mind set that they think money is the only necessary criteria necessary for Office?? I can't remember a single Democratic candidate getting caught in this signature debockal.
It wouldn't be a Michigan primary if a major candidate wasn't disqualified, lol
I’d like to donate but my data gets sold and then I get a million more email solicitations.
Sounds like you need an email account with a better spam filter.
I just use a secondary email personally.
Yeah, I just use a totally different email and just immediately send "STOP" and block any texts.
I have done that same thing in the past,especially in Presidential years.
Yeah, I have a separate email I created specifically for my ActBlue account. It gets spammed like crazy, but I don't see any of the notifications.
CT Democrats passed House Bill 5001 along party lines (25-11) in the state Senate on Wednesday. Once signed by Gov Lamont, it will allow any registered CT voter to vote by mail.
https://ctmirror.org/2026/05/06/voting-by-mail-to-be-a-universal-option-in-connecticut/
Also includes a provision for a nine-member task force to study efforts to achieve 100% voter participation in the state by January 1, 2030.
Lamont should want to sign it, right?
He made comments about how bad the SAVE Act was and how bad TACO's election executive orders were. Can't see him not signing it.
I still hope he loses his primary lol
The VA state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to strike the redraw because it was done in too-compresed of a timeline: https://webdev.vacourts.gov/dynamic/scndex.htm
Dismayed. Depressed. Don’t know what to do now as a VA resident
Are you in a Republican-held swing seat like the 1st or 2nd where your vote could really make a difference? I have family in both seats - the 1st residents (uncles and cousins) are very liberal but my aunt in the 2nd is MAGA.
Yep I am in the 2nd and hope to get Kiggans out
I think we're likely to beat both Kiggans and Wittman even under the old lines in this type of political environment.
What an amazing democracy we have where red states can gerrymander their districts overnight without voter approval but blue states have to play by the fair rules that they themselves wrote. What a joke of a country.
the swing vote on the case can be removed by the General Assembly in January of 27. Needs to be done. disgusting
VA's court is still GOP leaning. If it was a Democratic-leaning court they would have ruied in favor of VA.
Redo the referendum again for 2028 after the court's composition changes.
Yeah - I’m about to the point where it’s either apathy or time to tear it all down and start over - ie a revolution. So done with all of this bullshit.
We don't need a revolution. Just continue to push these referendums and redraws. Virginia's problem is its courts and most other blue states have more favorable judiciaries.
Because that's worked so well for us so far
It worked out in California. Not every state will be like Virginia.
It’s been a successful congressional redistricting process this year here in WI with our liberal SC. Oh wait a minute…
Maybe wait for when WI gets a trifecta.
I'm so tired of this Republican Supreme Court(s) Calvinball Heads I win, Tails You Lose, B.S.
Actually, most of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are Catholics aren't they? Or are you speaking of the Virginia Supreme Court? As a Protestant but not Virginian, I kind of take issue with your name calling you used.
Calvinball isn't a reference to John Calvin or protestants in general. It's a reference to Calvinball from Calvin and Hobbes. It's a reference to a game without known rules such that the outcome is whatever the author wants it to be, which is ideally used for humor.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Calvinball
Thank you for clearing this up for me. I didn't think Calvinism was in vogue in this day and age.
I had a feeling that Dems wouldn’t be able to get away with half of what Republicans are doing redistricting wise. The best path forward to diminish Republican gerrymandering is to get commissions in as many swing states as possible if we are able to get trifectas (WI and PA) there in 2026 to prevent future Republican gerrymandering there. Dems will never get away with aggressive gerrymanders in those states and even favorable state courts won’t do that.
No, the best path is to treat the courts like a non-legitimate actor, as they are behaving, calling special sessions and passing them there because that's the will of the voters. Our reliance on institutions unaligned with the populace is a road to defeat. Let them wither away, and we replace them with better ones.
For a number of reasons, that isn't going to work, and is going to make things worse. If blue states ignore all court rulings, red states could too and make life miserable for minority groups. A constitutional crisis can get peopled killed.
They already ignore them, and people are already getting killed here and abroad, including minority groups. Minority groups are the reason the VA referendum passed in the first place.
Red states do not broadly ignore court rulings (I'm sure you can point to instances where they did but those aren't most cases), and while the deaths of immigrants due to ICE is awful, it can get so, so much worse. What's going on abroad isn't something a state defying a state supreme court ruling can change. Again, a full blown constitutional crisis is unlikely to end peacefully.
The GOP leader of the Alabama Senate said today he hoped that the SC would rule that the 14th amendment was unconstitutional - the full blown constitutional crisis is already here.
It is probably the most fringe position I have but I do think that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and the judicial branch (mostly federally but elsewhere as well) needs to be reined in. The only other country that lets unelected judicial scholars make this much public law and policy is Iran. I don't expect it to be mainstream or anything but considering the scope of the damage the only way I can think of to undo the damage that the GOP and FedSoc have done to Article III courts is to throw the ring into mount doom.
Constitutional Amendments on Commissions, can't be overturned by Legislatures by themselves. Commissions everywhere by Constitutional Amendment by Petition means is the safest method to end gerrymandering. I know. I live in Michigan and we did it. Our model could be used everywhere, when this current mess is over with. Our State had been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans for 40 years, and voters from both parties got fed up. Petition passers approached Republicans with the speel that Democrats would gerrymander just as bad as Republicans if they got control. Republican voters signed the petitions just as fast and heavily as Democrats. Probably half the voters in the State signed to put it on the ballot as a Constitutional Amendment.
Actually, they definitely can. The problem right now is VA's courts are still conservative leaning. It would easily pass a liberal court.
it is easy to make va a liberal court, in january 27 and january 28 the General Assembly votes on whether two of the scumbags that ruled in favor of this farce get to keep their seat. I trust ms. lucas and the house of delegates will remove the stain of these two activist members of the court
They only need one to flip the ruling given it's a 4-3.
Honestly the commissions, while definitely fantastic on paper, were such a poison pill for us because it came with the expectation that Republicans would act in good faith, which is a foolish assumption. The best way forward, imo, is to either enact a nationwide gerrymandering ban or uncapping the house and using multi-member districts based on proportional representation. That only works with a Dem president, senate, and House, however, and the path for all three in 2028 narrows by the day as long as Republicans can keep passing these maps
The VA commission specifically was the worst of them all because Dems passed it knowing full well they’d have control of the legislature and that on balance it’s settled into a Likely Dem state. They were afraid of the WaPo oped board and good government voters who wouldn’t really hold this against them considering the myriad of other issues people vote on.
Wow.
I was afraid of this. It’s disgraceful that they let the referendum go forward knowing that they would strike it down.
Yeah, that was a stupid thing of them.
I’m glad they tried. And I hope they try again for the 2028 elections, but I fear they’ll be too scared to do so.
I think they may try again when the courts get better.
I think they'll try again for the 2028 cycle. And they'll space it out so that SCOVA won't strike it down again.
They gave a bullshit reason and can easily invent another.
Yeah they will be and so will Dems in other states. As I’ve said, Dems won’t be able to get away with what Republicans are doing with redistricting
Democrats are not afraid of redistricting. If anything they're more emboldened than ever.
They can be as emboldened as they want but they're gonna continue to face different sets of rules than red states.
Rules they can easily change if they play hardball.
Are you familiar with Sen Lee Lucas? If anything this will make her try for an 11-0 map in 28. We need more leaders like her - she’s really the only thing giving me a modicum of hope these days.
Ignore the court
The Commonwealth, aka VA Democrats, insisted throughout the process that the referendum should go forward regardless based on previous precedent, which the Court cited.
So? Democrats said they should uphold the referendum. They didn’t do that.
While the media will characterize this as a devastating loss to Dems, it’s worth recalling that Dems were looking poised to pick up 2 (VA-01 and VA-02) and maybe even 3 seats (VA-05) under the old maps
Yeah, this isn’t ideal, but it’s hardly going to stop us from winning the House this year
VA 5 might be a bit of a stretch
Depends. People are beyond livid with Trump. I wouldn’t count it out yet.
Does anyone know if they touched reopening candidate filing deadlines for House races, or is Vindman locked into a race with Wittman now?
The deadline was supposed to be extended to May 22. I imagine Vindman can run in the 7th and that whole group of candidates will drop. Say goodbye to Beth Macy and Tom Perriello's runs, too.
Oh, I keep forgetting House had a diff deadline.
Yeah, other offices like Senate closed a few weeks ago, I think.
I fully expect the General Assembly to revamp judicial appointments and make them statewide partisan elected positions.
Absolutely disgraceful.
They (the legislature) appoint them and one of the 4 is up next January.
Needs to be a young progressive out of law school then.
Oh please no. I hate practicing in front of baby judges. Having experience really counts for something. And 99% of work the judges will be doing will likely be apolitical
No! When will we understand that always trying to be the better people because reasons winds up screwing us over? I don’t care if they’re inexperienced, they’re going to vote our way consistently for the next 50 years on the bench. That’s worth a million times more than having someone who knows how to do the behind the scenes process work that only sometimes votes how we want and for only the next 20 years.
Do you think Trump’s appointees like Aileen Cannon and Judge Ho had enough experience to be a judge? Do you think they have the right temperament? Impartiality? Well, guess what, now they are judges in control of interpreting the law. Do you think the GOP considered any of that before confirming them? If they can be partisan hack inexperienced young judges, so too can a progressive right out of law school.
Stop playing into our enemies hands by not being willing to do what Republicans have done and would do. Seriously, I’m so done with the Democrats who still don’t get this yet.
I think Johnny has a good point. We don't need judges with 50 years experience who are old enough to retire. But someone with little/no experience is more likely to shift and be unreliable. That's what happened to republicans with Souter: he was on a federal court for only a few months before he moved to SCOTUS.
We can appoint people in their early-mid 40s that have enough experience under their belt that they're both competent and we know what we're getting. At that age they will still have a long career ahead of them. Our options aren't limited to the extremes of 25 years old or 60 years old.
Winning back the House looking like a heavier lift every day. Seems like we're fast approaching a D+10 national environment being needed to win the 222 or so seats that will be required to avoid Trump and Johnson sabotage.
Voters have lost the ability to control the direction of their country more in the last two weeks than in the previous 48 years of my life...and we're just getting started.
There's no way 222, an 8 seat gain, requires a +10 result.
Given that red state after red state is redrawing their lines as we speak to become impenetrably Republican and snuff out Democratic incumbents, the eight-seat metric is dubious. It all depends on how much the courts allow these new lines to take effect in 2026 as opposed to 2028. The way things have gone so far, I'm confident the judiciary will find a way to allow red state district lines to take effect for this cycle. The red states redrawing their lines must be confident of it too....otherwise they wouldn't be dropping all other business to get redistricting done immediately.
Of course they're trying to take advantage of it. Why wouldn't they. But in a +10 environment, Democrats would pick up at least 5 seats in NY, NJ and PA alone.
I'm still skeptical we see more than 3 or 4 seats eliminated from Callais this year. The rest could take effect in 2028.
I think the GOP gets LA, TN, and possibly one of AL or SC.
Adding on to that, GA is having a competitive governor race this year. If we win that, we may be able to prevent a ludicrous gerrymander there.
And even if the GOP eliminates every district held by Democrats in a safe red state by 2028, we're talking about a gain of 11 more seats by the Republicans (1 in South Carolina, 1 in Tennessee, 2 in Alabama, 1 in Mississippi, 2 in Louisiana, 2 in Indiana, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Kansas). Maybe they squeeze another 2 out of Georgia as well, which would bring it to 13. Let's say by 2028 we actually gerrymander Virginia, New York, and Colorado and squeeze an additional district out of Illinois and Maryland - that would be enough to mostly offset the Republican gerrymander. This would be terrible for our democracy, but it wouldn't create an insurmountable advantage for Republicans - it would just create the kind of advantage they had in the 2010s again.
And on top of that, this does not take into consideration additional states like WA, OR, a possible CA re-do, and even MN, WI, PA, even MI in the event Dems take those state legislatures. That may help us further push back, at least.
Mark, I get that there are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic about the world, but can you please stop taking the single most doom and gloom position on everything? You’ve been doing it for years and it has really gotten old. How are we fast approaching needing a 10 point win to win the House? And if you really believe that, why are you even commenting on an election forum if you think elections aren’t capable of fixing anything?
Elections would be capable of fixing things if the elections were in good faith. But we're not gonna be having good-faith elections anymore. We're gonna have monstrous power grabs that calculatedly ensure that elections won't be capable of fixing things moving forward.
Ok, then give up. Seriously, if you think there’s no hope, just give up. But please stop going and telling the rest of us that we’re all doomed and there’s no hope, it’s simply not constructive or helpful to those of us who are actually trying to fix things. There is a massive gulf between Republicans getting a few more seats out of redistricting this cycle and us needing to win by a 10 point margin to get a bare majority, and your pessimism is really missing that.
I don't instruct you about what your takes should be. Kindly show me the same respect and we can both offer up our opinions on the state of elections on 2026 in this forum. Deal?
Can you please at least just think about why you're posting what you're posting? it sometimes doesn't seem like you're doing it to spark discussion, to get more information, or to think of what the best path forward for Democrats is. When you're commenting things like "elections won't be capable of fixing things going forward," unless if you're advocating action outside of elections to fix things (which I'd love to hear your thoughts on if you have ideas there), it just sounds defeatist. And defeatism really doesn't have a place on a board for winning elections and building a better future, it kind of goes against the entire point of this site.
I wish I could like this comment 1,000 times. I have seen this sentiment all over Reddit and parts of Bluesky and I am tired of it.
I’ll just say what I’ve been saying: if we fight, they might win. If we don’t fight, they will win.
Mark has been around for a long time though. His takes are pessimistic, but I’ve seen enough posts over the years to know that he doesn’t just doom post. It’s not like those people elsewhere who know nothing about politics and only show up to say negative things.
I'm not as pessimistic about 2026, but in general I agree with the overall worry. For the immediate future my worry has been and remains 2028.
We're fast approaching a point where legislative elections are a formality in all but a handful of seats.
For 2026 specifically, I'd want to see how competitive seats 215-225 are after all the maps have changed, under the presumption that the courts don't do anything to stop republican states' most recent efforts. If I had that data and it was sufficiently bad I could be swayed into the 2026 pessimism camp.
A consideration about 2028: Dems are also gerrymandering heavily. Depending on how heavily, that may, if nothing else, lessen the blow.
It should, but a lot of those efforts are difficult and require statewide votes. I doubt we'll get all of them, especially since it so easily can be delayed or stopped by a single disinterested actor, like in Maryland. I'm not exactly full of confidence in Hochul's willingness to go for the jugular. She's said the state will do something but I'll wait until I see real action. Similar story for Colorado.
Our problem right now is that the elected officials are painfully more placid than our voters. Not all of them, but enough. Voters have short memories, which is another problem. If we need to hold a statewide referendum in New York or Colorado or California/Virginia 2.0 next year, how much will voters remember what's happening right now? Just look at Virginia's vote -- it was a bare win and I guarantee you that Yes would have done substantially better if it had been held the same day as California's vote (aka, closer to Texas' redraw).
My big worry for 2028 is that we're unlikely to have a huge wave behind our back that year. Wave elections are both more common and larger during midterms due to the political dynamics of this country.
I wouldn’t assume 2028 would be particularly unfavorable to Dems. Particularly with Trump term limited and a potentially highly unpopular Vance candidacy.
Yes, it can. I didn't say 2028 would be a bad year for us. I didn't even say that we cannot have a big wave in 2028. Only that it's less likely than a big wave happening this year.
It's all about uncertainty. What do you think the odds are of a big wave this year? What data do you have backing that up? Now ask yourself the same thing for 2028. Your number for 2026 should be a lot larger than your number for 2028, because of your answer on the data. We have far more data for the election in 2026 than in 2028.
The range of possibilities for 2026 is shrinking as we get closer to this November. There's less time for things to change and the electoral data we have on what will happen stays consistent while comporting with secondary data on the economy and geopolitical sphere. For 2028 the range of possibilities is bigger. There is a lot of time for things to change, both towards us or away from us.
Beyond not knowing the nominees for each party, we do not even know the candidates that will compete to be the nominee. We do not know if the economy will get worse or better, if a major rally around the flag effect will happen, if something happens to collapse GOP support. The number of unknowns for 2028 is huge and creates uncertainty by definition. Anyone confident, today, of a big wave for 2028 -- more than two years in advance -- is overconfident and unrealistic. Historically, big waves are far less likely in presidential years (only 2008 this century), which makes it harder to bank on.
We don’t know yet if a blue wave election will or will not hit in 2028.
Trump won’t be on the ballot and there’s uncertainty as to who will emerge both on the Democratic and GOP side. Redistricting is going to affect House races but not the presidential race. Could make a bit of an impact on the difference in margin but still TBD.
I’d say better wait until months after the midterms, say 2027, to make a better assessment.
According to the US Supreme Court, now any state can just redistrict whenever. Democrats should just cite the recent ruling and say that it overrides this decision and keep the new districts anyway.
Unbelieveable.
Rules for Dems are different.
Honestly this was always the most likely outcome given Democrats’ pretty clear circumvention of Virginia’s constitutional amendment procedures. The amendment process taken was a completely rushed mess and the Court had an obligation to enforce the law regardless of the political outcome.
Frankly, I find it refreshing for once to see a court apply the law as written instead of ruling purely through the lens of partisan politics. Plus, as mentioned above this also really only takes a couple seats off the table for this year and Dems in the GA should be able to follow the correct procedures this time around if they want to try it for 28.
Yeah because Republicans always follow the law and the rules *eyeroll*. If you like this ruling, you’ve been in a coma as to what’s happened in America since 2016. Process for Democrats, victories for Republicans. Such a good thing we should celebrate.
They did rule on partisan grounds - if the referendum had failed, they wouldn't have thrown out the result and granted the Democrats a Mulligan based on this same reasoning. Otherwise, they could've ruled it out months ago when it first went to them. They let it proceed to see the outcome, then rule on that basis. It's basically Bush v. Gore at the state level.
I mean, what this ruling seemed to hinge on was if an election begins before election day. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an election lasts for however long people can vote. This wouldn't be so infuriating if the national courts were not also allowing Republicans to blow up election dates and minority districts. At the very least, the Virginia supreme court doesn't seem so partisan as to block an attempt for 2028.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/08/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-misleading-data-doj
The amicus curiae brief provided by the Department of Justice referenced by Justice Samuel Alito in the recent Callais ruling has been found to have several irregularities.
If Alito somehow holds off on retiring until after the midterms and Dems hopefully have more power on appointments, it will honestly be an immense improvement if he gets replaced by a Trump I type justice. He's truly one of the most hackish people to ever sit on the Court.
Trump I? I don't want another Gorsuch/ACB/Kavanaugh idiot on the SCOTUS.
If it's him appointing the justice, that's the best we can get.
Exactly (and Barrett is extremely smart)
If she was smart, she wouldn't have participated in the majority on Dobbs and Callais.
Smart people can have shitty opinions and make terrible decisions.
I know this is painful, but she's objectively smart and probably the best writer on the Court rn.
I'd rather Dems flip the Senate this year and Alito and Thomas are arrogant enough to stay on the court. Schumer will be under immense pressure to pull a McConnell if one or both die while Trump or JDV is in the Oval Office.
Schumer would not need to be pressured to pull a McConnell.
The only way we have any power over a SCOTUS appointee through 2029 is if we hold the senate. At which point we can, and should, block it entirely. All or nothing.
And to confirm/appoint a replacement we’d need to hold the senate in 2028 (should be easy given the class up and it being what should be a D presidential victory year) and win the presidency. Basically any chance of us getting another appointment anytime soon has to be in that 2028-2030 period, because I don’t see us holding the senate in 2030 given the seats up if a Dem is President and there won’t be many targets left to get it back shortly after that (and if the D presidential victory serves two terms it gets even tougher in the senate due to facing two midterms).
The 2030 map is one where I think we could hold on a modestly bad year where Rs win by say 4ish points nationally, but would be a disaster in a red wave. If we can have a 2022-ish environment we could even plausibly hold all of our seats.
Potentially vulnerable seats for us: AZ, NV, MN, WI, MI.
Potentially vulnerable seats for Rs: PA, maybe TX if it's a dem friendly year.
Of that group I'm most worried about Nevada. Hopefully the state starts to shift back towards us.
The problem is that we can’t count on another 2022 type year. We were helped a lot by Dobbs that year.
Also Moreno.
So like, what now? Obviously I think the people dooming about losing the midterms are overblowing it since the national environment will still bring Dems into power, but the combination of
a) the VA Supreme Court overruling the will of the people (even though they could've issued an injunction BEFORE the vote was held...)
b) Callais allowing the South to do whatever the fuck they want regarding majority Black districts
c) Florida and Tennessee (among others) cramming through gerrymanders in the matter of *days* (despite the FL constitution forbidding such gerrymandering but it's Republicans so it's fine I guess /s)
d) Louisiana canceling their primaries to re-rig their maps
is all not just bad for 2026/2028, but horrible for American democracy generally. Even if we run a candidate in 2028 who promises to ban partisan gerrymandering, pack the courts, etc., what's to stop them from *not* doing that once elected?
I'm just really frustrated, as I image most of you are as well. If I hear Schumer or Ken Martin talk about rules, I'm gonna fucking lose it. The right has shown time and time and time and time again that they give 0 shits about the rules when it comes to them. I'm tired of the "when they go low we go high" mentality because that has gotten us absolutely nowhere.
Anyway, fuck Trump, fuck the Virginia Supreme Court, fuck Republicans, fuck Merrick Garland for not prosecuting Trump 1.0, fuck.
edit: reposted under a new handle
There's a chance that courts will enjoin Tennessee and Florida. One for vote dilution even under Callais and the other as a blatant violation of the constitutional amendment passed by Florida voters. Would I bet my life savings on it? No. But sometimes even hostile courts can do the right thing.
Also, what's going on with MO's referendum? Is the upcoming state case about whether it enjoins the map until after the referendum is voted on?
On May 12, the Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging which map is currently in effect. Plaintiffs argue that after petitioners submit enough signatures to prompt a statewide vote, the new map should be put on hold until voters approve it.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/missouri/kansas-city/missouris-redistricted-congressional-map-continues-to-face-legal-challenges#google_vignette
So, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama are still up in the air. And if South Carolina acts to eliminate Clyburn's district, they also will be taken to court.
This has just been a remarkably bad f-ing week. BLECH.
Democrat should continue to do what they are doing. They're still on track to win the house in a D+4+ environment, and the median seat may only move from around 3 to 5, which is not ideal but not insurmountable.
I fully believe, barring something major, the GCB will be D+double digits by Election Day.
To give you a state of affairs in the country and our spiraling infotainment landscape, I watched "NBC Nightly News" last night. To my surprise, they did have a 10-second snippet talking about the protests in Nashville over the first dismantling of a former VRA district being turned into a Republican stronghold. They followed it with a 30-second snippet of a guy water skiing into a whale that they put on replay three times.
MS NOW has been more vocal about this. They’ve been talking a lot about the VRA, if it at all helps.
A lot of thoughts this morning.
1) Every VA Supreme Court Justice who voted to strike this down needs to be removed or impeached. Or change these positions into partisan elected ones where every judge must run as a Republican in 2028 elections. Hope you enjoyed your time as a “Justice”, because your careers are about to be over. The Republican judges in this country will never ever side with the will of the people over their partisanship.
2) Every blue state with a GOP majority State Supreme Court needs to remove or impeach the justices now. Or again make these judges run as Republicans in blue states. And also ban them from running as independents, they’ve chosen their party over the voters, so they should be forced to run as representatives of their partisanship. They will never allow Democrats to fight back, so we need to change the referees by any means necessary.
3) Every blue state Democrat (looking at you asshole, Ferguson in MD, hope it was worth it and that you enjoy your retirement!) who refuses to rip up their commissions and redraw out every single Republican seat needs to be removed from office in primaries. 52-0 California, 26-0 New York and 8-0 Colorado etc. No Republicans in blue states unless necessary as a vote sink. That’s the new rules of the game. The GOP has no idea what they’ve unleashed, they’ll soon find out.
4) On a silver lining note, now Democrats have 2 more years to analyze and redraw the VA congressional map to make sure it’s an even stronger, more impenetrable gerrymander. This one was vulnerable in a wave and done fast, now we can take time to perfect it.
5) If you think Democrats were mad before today, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thanks GOP for nitro turbo charging our voters, you will regret this, I promise you that. We’re going to be flipping seats in November that aren’t even on the radar yet.
6) My new litmus test for the unmentionable race in 2028 is court packing. If a Democrat won’t do it and rip up the filibuster in order to achieve that, they won’t get my support. No more pussyfooting, process, fairness, norms bullshit, fight to win or we will lose everything forever. The GOP does this, we need to too.
1) The VA Supreme Court is appointed by the legislature. One of the 4 judges who voted to annul the referendum is up for reappointment in January 2027 and another in 2028. I'm 99% certain that after today, those two justices will be denied another term and progressives replace them both.
2) If by some miracle NC Dems flip control of the legislature after Nov, they will redraw the maps in retaliation for Rs doing it (ditto for GA). And they will look to pass laws to punish or remove activist judges like Newby, Berger Jr., Barringer and Griffin.
1) Yes, I’m aware of how VA judges get onto the bench and also aware 2 seats are going to flip by the 2028 elections.
2) Agreed.
Hear, Hear.
Any Democrats who aren't willing to take the fight to the Republicans need to be removed from office. This is a fight for the Republic at this point. We need more Louise Lucases and less Chuck Schumers.
There's no way to force people to run as Republicans and not independents, but yes on the rest.
Perhaps they mean making elections partisan, as judicial elections tend to be non-partisan.
So, in response to this VA ruling, Kevin/Nick Tagliaferro (ex-Primary School co author) made an interesting argument on Bluesky:
https://bsky.app/profile/reginageorgebush.bsky.social/post/3mle2t2bd6c23
“one reason I am actually quite optimistic that national Dems will push hard for another round of retaliatory gerrymanders in 2028 is that Black Southern Dems are critical to the current leadership class's hold on power and they're gonna be pretty mad when a bunch of their fav members get drawn out”
“I don't think the resulting Northern and Western replacement members will be quite as leadership-friendly, and it's of course extremely bad to lose Southern Black representation, but if anything will make House Dems see red and lash out for maximum damage it's this.”
Curious to know what posters here think. Might losing a large number of current leadership-friendly Dems result in more aggressive gerrymanders?
I think it will in NY and NJ. And VA will definitely push for a 2028 redistricting, esp with two of the judges in the SCOVA majority being swapped out.
For those that may have missed it late last night: Tom Harkin has endorsed Josh Turek in the Iowa U.S. Senate Race.
https://rleonard.substack.com/p/iowa-senator-tom-harkin-endorses?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=29uy5g&utm_id=97757_v0_s00_e232_tv2_tp1_a1demoo1886ml5&fbclid=IwY2xjawRq-xFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF0cFZZSEhXS1o4RXIzdDJYc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHlup3salOf2Ofo29Ap9rdXsmw0GofUCF4FwO2tlXl9gqQSv5muTR3yIlRGWN_aem_2RrA4Hkkh9f_xF0SHCk2ZA&triedRedirect=true
I will always respect Harkin for his role in creating and passing the ADA. The positive effect that bill has had on the lives of disabled people all over this country is immeasurable.
The ADA was a major step in the right direction although as it relates to ADHD, autism, etc., there needs to be modifications to the law so that anyone who is neurodivergent can be better understood and accommodated as needed in the workforce.
Still, ADA is a great law.
I 110% agree. I am autistic and the bill could certainly go further towards recognizing neurodivergency. It’s still a massive upgrade from what existed before.
Absolutely!
I’m surprised he endorsed, both Wahls and Turek have publicly said how much they admire Harkin
I was too. He stayed quiet for a long time. There are other shoes that will drop on Zach Wahls. He does have a progressive voting record and an inspiring life story. If he wins the primary, I guess we will see those other shoes drop in a general election. Full disclosure: I am a Turek supporter.
What do you mean by other shoes?
Scandals. I try to remain civil in this race despite the fact that Zach has accused Josh Turek of being corrupt even though they both asked Chuck Schumer for financial support. Zach is a talented guy and whatever he does, he will do well. I don't trust him on a human to human level.
Why not just push those scandals out now? You are the second IA person I've seen mention scandals related to Wahls, and if winning the senate depends on winning IA, it seems reasonable for the other campaign to raise them now instead of letting them happen in the GE.
Re: Oklahoma.
Great for Leader Munson!
Mid-decade redistricting scorecard:
CA - +5D
UT - +1D
---
VA - 0 (Dem redistricting approved by voters annulled by state supreme court)
IN - 0 (Rep redistricting approved by state house but rejected by state senate)
---
TX - +5R
FL - +4R
MO - +1R
TN - +1R
NC - +1R
OH - +2R
---
LA - Potential +2R
GA - Potential +3R
AL - Potential +2R
MS - Potential +1R
SC - Potential +1R
---
Total Dem pickup - +6D
Total Rep pickup - +14R
Net change - +8R
Median district - Around 4% more R than country as a whole
---
Max potential Dem pickup - +6D
Max potential Rep pickup - +23R
Potential net change - +17R
Median district - Around 8% more R than the country as a whole
---
It's important to note that there are still a lot of moving parts, and any potential redistricting for the 2028 elections isn't factored in. This also doesn't factor in dummymander potential (Texas is notable in this regard), Republicans in states like Louisiana deciding on weaker gerrymanders than what is maximally possible, and potential court rulings, among other factors. CNN does not list Mississippi or Georgia as considering redistricting for the 2026 elections, which would lower the maximum potential Republican pickup to +19R for a potential net change of +13R (median district around 5-6% more Republican than the country as a whole).
So what do we do now? What hope, if any, is there?
There’s plenty of hope. For one thing, we’re probably gonna win by more than 6% nationwide, which would still be enough to flip the House. For another, Republicans probably aren’t going to actually succeed in flipping both of those Ohio districts (we’re very likely going to win OH-1, which only voted for Trump by 3 points, and Marcy Kaptur has held on in worse environments than this). Republicans are very unlikely to actually flip all 5 Texas districts and all 4 Florida districts as well. This is going to be harder for us than it would be with fair maps, but we’re still favored to take the House.
IIRC, even one of the Republican vote-sinks in California is potentially competitive. If the national partisan popular vote gets into a high-single digit advantage for Dems, it becomes too big of a margin for Republicans to rig a majority.
Also it's highly unlikely GOP comes close to maxing out on the remaining southern states this cycle.
what would you do?
Vote obviously.
I’d protest consistently every day if a long-term, major protest movement did that, but so far no such movement has emerged.
That is overly bullish on R's. LA and AL are only considering getting rid of one seat right now. GA and MS are not in play for 2026 at the moment (and no way is more than 1 pickup being seriously considered in GA). AL and SC are getting pretty close to their primaries and may not make it, plus AL has the injunction and SC has some hesitation in the state senate. And we can't close the door on the courts in any of the R states.
Oh, I am so sorry! Thanks for correcting my assumption.
VA-Ref - The Virginia Supreme Court annulling the state redistricting referendum is, to my knowledge, the first instance of a statewide election of any kind being outrught annulled since the 1974 U.S. Senate election in New Hampshire.
We have got to get to our feet one more time than we are knocked down. If the filing deadline has not passed where you live, then your first step is candidate recruitment. Grassroots recruitment for grassroots offices. My mind often drifts to the elected County Clerks in three Latino-majority counties in Southwest Kansas. Finney County (Garden City), Ford County (Dodge City), and Seward County (Liberal) are all Republican-ruled. The County Clerks run elections in Finney, Ford, and Seward Counties. These are sparely-populated counties. Very, very, very local elections.
Some distance from the Statehouse in Richmond and from the Halls of Congress in Washington DC. But bricks in the wall, nonetheless. Bricks in the wall.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/gop-polls-show-they-have-a-shot-at-flipping-house-dem-districts-trump-won-00910791?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nname=playbook&nrid=0c0f2795-92d8-4acf-93ec-bf766862c235
The NRCC released a bunch of internal polls with Republican House candidates overperforming expectations, like Paul LePage being up by 10 in ME-2 and Greg Cunningham only 2 behind Rep. Gabe Vasquez in NM-2.
Sounds like thinly veiled copium to me.
💯
LePage being up in ME-2 is no surprise. If Vasquez held on the last two cycles I can't see that changing this year. Plus as noted below Davis looks good in NC-1.
Tied in NC-01 (a Trump +11 district) is pretty embarrassing actually. But in the end these are carefully selected internals from a pollster (co/efficient) that churned out constant slop in 2022. Tells us nothing useful, not with any confidence. I'd take a single Emerson poll over a hundred of these.
Democrats might actually gain seats out of North Carolina despite mid-decade GOP gerrymandering. Didn't NC-3 become less GOP-leaning with the changes to NC-1? NC-11 is very much in play as well (although not due to redistricting).
Heavy dose of skepticism here. Not least of all because internals tend to vastly overstate a candidate's supposed lead and often prove to badly miss the mark. I'm suspecting a low response rat and/or oversampling of MAGA voters.
co/efficient turned in some farcical numbers in 2022. They had Patty Murray up by 3, and she won by 14.5, Hassan and Bolduc tied, she won by 9.1, Oz up by 3, Fetterman won by 4.9, and missed the mark to the right in all of their polling.