For as bad as the Great Recession was, if you didn’t lose your job or your house (IOW 90+% of people) the unusually low inflation over the next ten years and the sharp rebound in asset prices for a lot of middle and upper middle class voters insulated people a little bit.
Inflation touches 100% of everyone, and there’s a lot more sense that there’s a class of wealthy assholes causing it for everybody else that wasn’t even there in the considerable anger at Wall Street in 2008-09. Ot doesn’t help that Trump’s comms operation is absolute dogshit compared to binary-polarized campaigns and even his first term, when it was nothing to shout out. Guess that why they say don’t get high on your own supply, which is what the GOP base spent 2021-24 doing
It’s sentiment more the less but valid because the Great Recession was a period of deflation where prices of goods dropped. By contrast today, the complete reverse is going on with inflation but affecting voters at their pocketbooks. This even while there have been no noticeable months of negative jobs added numbers.
and again, this is with markets, equity and property valuations near or at all time highs. Imagine even a 10-12% correction. (I am of the opinion that at least another correction will happen before Nov.)
That’s because polls are “fake” and everybody loves him. Stephen Miller can’t ethnically cleanse the country if the old idiot doesn’t exist in a hermetically sealed information ecosystem after all
If he fell that low, at what point do we start considering the possibility of expanding the Senate map to deep red states? If Trump somehow ends up around 20% approval (which I’m not expecting just to be clear) then that feels like the kind of environment in which no Senate seat would be safe.
In this scenario where we go up +12 in the Senate, we should aim for a 2008-style wave in 2028 and try to get not just a filibuster-proof trifecta but a two thirds majority. We'd need 9 seats in 2028 - Wisconsin, North Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Alaska, and 2 of Utah/Louisiana/South Carolina - which isn't any more implausible than the list of seats you mentioned that would take us to +12. I highly doubt that this will happen, especially in a presidential year, but it's nice to imagine a world in which we can get constitutional amendments out of Congress.
I think we need to dream bigger than that - Kansas is already on the board now even with Trump's approval in the mid-30s and the Democrats being massively outraised in that race. Bill Kristol just tweeted out a poll where Democrat Patrick Schmidt is only down 4 there. - https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2049961312189403190
If we're already at the point where Kansas is in play now, a world in which Trump's approval is 15 points lower than it is now seems like the kind of thing that would cause far redder states than Kansas to be in play.
The problem with that is that as unpopular as Trump is and could be, a lot of people growing dissatisfied with Trump are conservatives who aren't strongly anti-Trump and will still vote Republican, if maybe not Trump's picks in the primary. There's a reason the generic ballot lags behind approval.
Democratic strategy needs to tie these enabling Republican senators to Trump. They did not do their duty and stop his illegal tariffs, his illegal war, and his cuts to health insurance. Instead, they helped him do it and looked the other way while the trillionaires made even more money from the tax breaks that THEIR "Big Beautiful Bill" gave the billionaires.
While I typically would be cautious about doing this in Wisconsin instead of setting up a redistricting commission there since I would not want to risk us being overextended and wiped out in the midterms, we absolutely should gerrymander everywhere in 2027, get back into power in 2028, and then pass a law to ban gerrymandering nationwide in 2029 before the midterms to end this nonsense. If the only way to get enough seats to ban gerrymandering is to gerrymander everywhere, then so be it.
We need commissions in PA and WI. If we don’t get them, there is real risk of Republicans getting to gerrymander themselves majorities that are impossible to break again after 2030. I wouldn’t at all assume that the state supreme court liberal majorities are going to last forever in those states.
We don't need commissions if we are going to pass the For the People Act - if we get into power in 2028 and pass that before 2030, then no one will be able to gerrymander anywhere in the country and it won't matter if there are commissions or not.
But what if we can’t pass the federal act for whatever reason? If not, id like there to be guardrails in swing states against gerrymandering in the case where Republicans could have control in the future.
If we can’t pass the federal act even after all of this, I give up because we clearly will never have a party with enough backbone to accomplish anything so what’s the point.
And in any case, there’s no reason we couldn’t gerrymander for 2028 and then put an independent commission into place before 2030 if the For the People Act fails. Gerrymandering now and setting up a commission later aren’t incompatible.
I think this should be our approach in a lot of places where we might win a trifecta but are at risk of it going the other way (WI, PA, MI, AZ come to mind). If we wind up in control, gerrymander the crap out of everything, then put commissions in place. In places where a trifecta against us is unlikely (CO, WA, CA, VA, NV), I'd just gerrymander like crazy. I hate that this is where we are, but I think it's our only option. We have unilaterally disarmed ourselves for too long. As a side note, this is why I hate the EV compact too....
I think you are probably right on the nose here. However I don’t think we should be fighting a commission in Nevada. The chances we have a trifecta after 2030 there are very slim given that it’s likely we will have a Dem president and the governorship there is very hard for us to win as the state is trending away from us.
Yes but we don't need to maintain a trifecta - we just need the Republicans to NOT have one (which would be unlikely if we gerrymander the legislative maps). Worse case scenario, we'd wind up with a commission-like map if we have an R governor and a D legislature there.
Theres so many roadblocks in new york that i just can't believe Hochul when she talks tough on this. Dems got in their own damn way with all these damn commissions.
And he has absolutely zero right to rail against Trump when he is responsible for Republicans’ margin in the House by pushing that commission and appointing judges that struck down the Dem gerrymander in 2022.
need to pass a constitutional amendment, and yes likely the court of appeals gets involved again however the composition is more liberal thanks to state senate dems tanking a conservative nominee in early 2023
spent a bit of the morning calling my extended family in new york and begging them to call her and demand new maps, when in reality I could have waited a few hours and irritated less family members by waiting to see this post
i can't believe I'm saying this but I wish we gifted newsom the governorship of colorado, as I don't trust polis as far as I could throw him. Same thing with new york, Kathy needs to move now!
What is most profoundly disturbing about this Gerrymandering War is that it’s coming damn close to eliminating the need for voters in much of the US of A.
Democracy is, by definition, voters choosing their politicians. Today, politicians are instead choosing their voters.
You could remove jurisdiction of SCOTUS to hear an appeal in gerrymandering cases. Congress can make the DC Circuit Court of Appeals the only appellate court with jurisdiction. I am saying this because there are other ways besides packing the court that might be easier.
Jurisdiction stripping has the added advantage that voters likely won't get angry about it.
That's legally different than regulating Article 3 jurisdiction. Worst case, independent commissions can be removed from federal judicial review in all cases
Seeing the GOP react online and on TV -- "you drew NY first!" "New England is all Dem, unfair!" etc. -- has a clear implication: they still believe gerrymandering benefits them on net. Similar to the electoral college/popular vote split -- they would need to be on the losing end before wanting to change the system. So how can we get them to be on the losing end of gerrymandering? I feel even a huge wave this year won't do it, because they'll (erroneously?) believe it was a wave year and would've lost the House anyway. We need to have a crushing 2026 AND 2028 for them to come to Jesus on this issue, hopefully in a Dem admnistration in 2029.
All Dark Blue States gerrymander every single Republican district out of existence in obscene strips emanating from Blue Cities. 53-0 in California would go a long way to ending Gerrymandering in this country.
Yes.. it's just telling that their response isn't "let's all agree to call it off," it's "you started it, so we won't stop." Not a surprise of course, but need to get them to change that mindset.
Well, LA voters and a congressional candidate already sued to block the state's suspension of House primaries. The case was assigned to an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit.
I suspect it still carries some weight with AA voters, who are definitely a force in GA politics. That said, I'm guessing KLB probably had a strong majority with that group anyway.
And he doesn't have the kind of money needed to make up that much ground so quickly. Assuming KLB doesn't get over 50% and he makes the run-off (which is far from a given as he hasn't been second in any poll) he might be able to get enough attention to win but those are a lot of ifs.
Jacobin isn’t totally awful (although I’m borderline socialist so I’m biased) but some people associated with them like Bhaskar Sunkara and especially Branko Marcetic are.
Fantastic news. I applaud the Dems for being ruthless when the GOP is doing the same. No more cowering in fear.
For as bad as the Great Recession was, if you didn’t lose your job or your house (IOW 90+% of people) the unusually low inflation over the next ten years and the sharp rebound in asset prices for a lot of middle and upper middle class voters insulated people a little bit.
Inflation touches 100% of everyone, and there’s a lot more sense that there’s a class of wealthy assholes causing it for everybody else that wasn’t even there in the considerable anger at Wall Street in 2008-09. Ot doesn’t help that Trump’s comms operation is absolute dogshit compared to binary-polarized campaigns and even his first term, when it was nothing to shout out. Guess that why they say don’t get high on your own supply, which is what the GOP base spent 2021-24 doing
It’s sentiment more the less but valid because the Great Recession was a period of deflation where prices of goods dropped. By contrast today, the complete reverse is going on with inflation but affecting voters at their pocketbooks. This even while there have been no noticeable months of negative jobs added numbers.
and again, this is with markets, equity and property valuations near or at all time highs. Imagine even a 10-12% correction. (I am of the opinion that at least another correction will happen before Nov.)
And there’s six months to go!
Do I hear a 5% approval rating among Independents on the horizons?
C'mon, get lower.
TACO is still being tariff happy and won't stop the Iran spat he started.
That’s because polls are “fake” and everybody loves him. Stephen Miller can’t ethnically cleanse the country if the old idiot doesn’t exist in a hermetically sealed information ecosystem after all
22% approval would be nice!
do you mean 22% approval?
Yes, I made the corrections although now that I think about it, a 15% approval rating sounds better.
How long till we start seeing Trump hit an approval rating in the 20s in some of these polls?
$5 gas will do it.
$6 & he could hit the teens.
If he fell that low, at what point do we start considering the possibility of expanding the Senate map to deep red states? If Trump somehow ends up around 20% approval (which I’m not expecting just to be clear) then that feels like the kind of environment in which no Senate seat would be safe.
In this scenario where we go up +12 in the Senate, we should aim for a 2008-style wave in 2028 and try to get not just a filibuster-proof trifecta but a two thirds majority. We'd need 9 seats in 2028 - Wisconsin, North Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Alaska, and 2 of Utah/Louisiana/South Carolina - which isn't any more implausible than the list of seats you mentioned that would take us to +12. I highly doubt that this will happen, especially in a presidential year, but it's nice to imagine a world in which we can get constitutional amendments out of Congress.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it would certainly put a few interesting new targets on the board - KS and SC come to mind
I think we need to dream bigger than that - Kansas is already on the board now even with Trump's approval in the mid-30s and the Democrats being massively outraised in that race. Bill Kristol just tweeted out a poll where Democrat Patrick Schmidt is only down 4 there. - https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2049961312189403190
If we're already at the point where Kansas is in play now, a world in which Trump's approval is 15 points lower than it is now seems like the kind of thing that would cause far redder states than Kansas to be in play.
I don't think KS is really in play at this point...
The problem with that is that as unpopular as Trump is and could be, a lot of people growing dissatisfied with Trump are conservatives who aren't strongly anti-Trump and will still vote Republican, if maybe not Trump's picks in the primary. There's a reason the generic ballot lags behind approval.
They also might just stay home and not vote though if they are that dissatisfied with Trump.
Democratic strategy needs to tie these enabling Republican senators to Trump. They did not do their duty and stop his illegal tariffs, his illegal war, and his cuts to health insurance. Instead, they helped him do it and looked the other way while the trillionaires made even more money from the tax breaks that THEIR "Big Beautiful Bill" gave the billionaires.
Lowest from Pew for him ever, not just second term?
While I typically would be cautious about doing this in Wisconsin instead of setting up a redistricting commission there since I would not want to risk us being overextended and wiped out in the midterms, we absolutely should gerrymander everywhere in 2027, get back into power in 2028, and then pass a law to ban gerrymandering nationwide in 2029 before the midterms to end this nonsense. If the only way to get enough seats to ban gerrymandering is to gerrymander everywhere, then so be it.
We need commissions in PA and WI. If we don’t get them, there is real risk of Republicans getting to gerrymander themselves majorities that are impossible to break again after 2030. I wouldn’t at all assume that the state supreme court liberal majorities are going to last forever in those states.
We don't need commissions if we are going to pass the For the People Act - if we get into power in 2028 and pass that before 2030, then no one will be able to gerrymander anywhere in the country and it won't matter if there are commissions or not.
But what if we can’t pass the federal act for whatever reason? If not, id like there to be guardrails in swing states against gerrymandering in the case where Republicans could have control in the future.
If we can’t pass the federal act even after all of this, I give up because we clearly will never have a party with enough backbone to accomplish anything so what’s the point.
And in any case, there’s no reason we couldn’t gerrymander for 2028 and then put an independent commission into place before 2030 if the For the People Act fails. Gerrymandering now and setting up a commission later aren’t incompatible.
Pass the state commissions now, pray for a federal trifecta in 2029
I think this should be our approach in a lot of places where we might win a trifecta but are at risk of it going the other way (WI, PA, MI, AZ come to mind). If we wind up in control, gerrymander the crap out of everything, then put commissions in place. In places where a trifecta against us is unlikely (CO, WA, CA, VA, NV), I'd just gerrymander like crazy. I hate that this is where we are, but I think it's our only option. We have unilaterally disarmed ourselves for too long. As a side note, this is why I hate the EV compact too....
I think you are probably right on the nose here. However I don’t think we should be fighting a commission in Nevada. The chances we have a trifecta after 2030 there are very slim given that it’s likely we will have a Dem president and the governorship there is very hard for us to win as the state is trending away from us.
Yes but we don't need to maintain a trifecta - we just need the Republicans to NOT have one (which would be unlikely if we gerrymander the legislative maps). Worse case scenario, we'd wind up with a commission-like map if we have an R governor and a D legislature there.
it feels like reading this, a realistic target for new seats from gerrymandering blue states should be net 15-16
Theres so many roadblocks in new york that i just can't believe Hochul when she talks tough on this. Dems got in their own damn way with all these damn commissions.
cuomo loved having the state senate gop as a foil for why he couldn't do shit, the commission was his craven power play idea
And he has absolutely zero right to rail against Trump when he is responsible for Republicans’ margin in the House by pushing that commission and appointing judges that struck down the Dem gerrymander in 2022.
What are the actual steps.. does a court have to get involved again
need to pass a constitutional amendment, and yes likely the court of appeals gets involved again however the composition is more liberal thanks to state senate dems tanking a conservative nominee in early 2023
Also if Dems win the house, the voters might not feel an urgency to pass this, that's also why i'm skeptical.
I imagine they will feel the urgency when Republicans start gerrymandering other states later this year and next.
spent a bit of the morning calling my extended family in new york and begging them to call her and demand new maps, when in reality I could have waited a few hours and irritated less family members by waiting to see this post
the $5 mark was a huge psychological threshold. The moment it went above that, suddenly its like 30% of the country woke up (about the prices).
i can't believe I'm saying this but I wish we gifted newsom the governorship of colorado, as I don't trust polis as far as I could throw him. Same thing with new york, Kathy needs to move now!
What is most profoundly disturbing about this Gerrymandering War is that it’s coming damn close to eliminating the need for voters in much of the US of A.
Democracy is, by definition, voters choosing their politicians. Today, politicians are instead choosing their voters.
Hence the need in 2029 to just tear off the bandaid and abolish gerrymandering by statute for good
First, we need to pack SCOTUS from a 9 to 13-member court. That way they can't unilaterally undo the laws way they did with the Voting Rights Act.
You could remove jurisdiction of SCOTUS to hear an appeal in gerrymandering cases. Congress can make the DC Circuit Court of Appeals the only appellate court with jurisdiction. I am saying this because there are other ways besides packing the court that might be easier.
Jurisdiction stripping has the added advantage that voters likely won't get angry about it.
yes yes yes
I didn't know that limiting gerrymandering appeal cases to DC Circuit Court of Appeals was an option. Thanks!
Yep. The right to appeal is purely statutory.
If you can do that, what would stop Congress from simply saying nothing can be appealed to the Supreme Court?
But according to alito congress can do no such thing:
Justice Alito Straight Up Says Congress Has No Power to ‘Regulate’ The Supreme Court: ‘I Know This is a Controversial View’
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/justice-alito-straight-up-says-congress-has-no-power-to-regulate-the-supreme-court-i-know-this-is-a-controversial-view/
That's legally different than regulating Article 3 jurisdiction. Worst case, independent commissions can be removed from federal judicial review in all cases
I think we should steer clear of phrasing like "Pack". "Balance" the Court would be a better narrative framing.
“Re-balance” the court with 13 justices representing the 13 circuit court of appeals that we have.
Seeing the GOP react online and on TV -- "you drew NY first!" "New England is all Dem, unfair!" etc. -- has a clear implication: they still believe gerrymandering benefits them on net. Similar to the electoral college/popular vote split -- they would need to be on the losing end before wanting to change the system. So how can we get them to be on the losing end of gerrymandering? I feel even a huge wave this year won't do it, because they'll (erroneously?) believe it was a wave year and would've lost the House anyway. We need to have a crushing 2026 AND 2028 for them to come to Jesus on this issue, hopefully in a Dem admnistration in 2029.
All Dark Blue States gerrymander every single Republican district out of existence in obscene strips emanating from Blue Cities. 53-0 in California would go a long way to ending Gerrymandering in this country.
Actually they drew NC first in late 2023.
Yes.. it's just telling that their response isn't "let's all agree to call it off," it's "you started it, so we won't stop." Not a surprise of course, but need to get them to change that mindset.
Will federal courts agree with Landry, or will they force the state to have their primaries as originally intended?
Depends on whether the Purcell principle is only supposed to benefit Republicans.
Have people actually started voting in LA? That's the issue
Yes, overseas and military voters have. As well as the qualified absentee vote by mail voters who sent their ballots back.
Then this seems insane
Well, LA voters and a congressional candidate already sued to block the state's suspension of House primaries. The case was assigned to an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit.
We'll see what happens.
They'll probably permit Louisiana because the Callais decision directly affected the state and, of course, the majority said nothing about Purcell.
Why didn't they, in their decision, order the map redrawn then? Just to stall and cause more confusion?
They remanded to the trial court. So they presumably left it up to that court to decide how to proceed
Amazing.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ifevtgk3w7ov6zjmgy333jkr/post/3mkpxzeiry62r
John Sununu: "I certainly support a work requirement for able-bodied Medicare recipients."
He probably meant Medicaid, but there's no reason to include that in the attack ad.
Definitely!
Chris Pappas is looking better heading to the general election!
Yay for Kemp. NO GA redistricting this year https://x.com/Taniel/status/2050211134813151417?s=20
i'm seeing on threads and politico he is likely to call a special session in the lame duck, my biggest fear there
I’m still astounded by the Republican party’s unashamed, even proud, racism. Vote Republicans Out.
One thing no media seems to be aware of in the VRA battle...
People who care about their right to vote may stay home in many elections. The best way to get them to show up is to threaten their right.
This will mobilize people like not much else could.
Biden endorsed KLB. Ughhh.
I'd be surprised if that carries much weight.
I suspect it still carries some weight with AA voters, who are definitely a force in GA politics. That said, I'm guessing KLB probably had a strong majority with that group anyway.
Honestly, Esteves is still stuck in single digits (in most polls) and the primary is next month.
And he doesn't have the kind of money needed to make up that much ground so quickly. Assuming KLB doesn't get over 50% and he makes the run-off (which is far from a given as he hasn't been second in any poll) he might be able to get enough attention to win but those are a lot of ifs.
She's at 52% in the latest Insider Advantage poll, Thurmond is next with 14. She very well could get a majority.
https://jacobin.com/2026/04/himes-trump-surveillance-democrats-spying
CT-4: Democratic Rep. Jim Himes reportedly pushed for a bill that expanded government surveillance in private, but is publicly against it.
I've hardly ever heard of it, and I found the article from another source as I was skimming Instagram.
Gotcha. So like most news media agencies.
Just socialist, naming themselves after the leaders of the Reign of Terror?
Jacobin isn’t totally awful (although I’m borderline socialist so I’m biased) but some people associated with them like Bhaskar Sunkara and especially Branko Marcetic are.
It's been reported by both The Prospect and The Lever.
https://prospect.org/2026/04/28/implausible-deniability-fisa-section-702-congress-himes/
https://www.levernews.com/top-democrat-opposed-surveillance-bill-then-whipped-votes-for-it/
I remember someone on Bluesky floating State Rep. Antonio Felipe as a possible primary challenge to him. We’ll see if he keeps blowing it.