Please do not list any district as safely Republican as this will be an rare election with massive Democratic turnout with independents breaking for Dems in revolt against Big ugly bill, loss of healthcare, and Trump Epstein scandals. This is evidenced by the special elections and polling from Virginia and New Jersey. Republican turnout is down, partly because Trump won't be on the ballot.
That's kind of silly. Some districts are safe Republican or safe Democratic no matter what. Do you expect a Democrat to win Wyoming-At Large under any circumstances?
Again, times have changed and Repubs enjoy cruelty much more, but she also told an opponent in a wheelchair with MS she'd wishes she could slap him in the face after a debate a few weeks before the election lol. So the easy headline of "Cubin Threatens to Slap Disabled Man!" was an easy draw.
I wouldn't expect to ever see a partisan battlefield as large as 2006 again in our lifetimes. Hard to wrap my mind around the realigning force that would put that many seats in play again.
2006 had some really weird dynamics. Seats you'd think should have been slam dunks, some that even went for Kerry in 2004, were narrow wins or even retained by Republicans. Meanwhile real out there stuff like WY-AL was creeping on to the board. By comparison 2018 was defined by much more understandable patterns. I feel like we're more likely to get another 2018 than a 2006 but who knows, maybe Trump finally rubs everyone the wrong way by November of next year, rather than just suburbs and small metros.
He's not really eligible (3yr residency, needs 7), but if it comes down to it I think Blackburn would seethe but be a good little soldier and just finish out her Senate term. Maybe run for one more election in 2028.
going district by district on the new TX map, lots of basically 60-40 Safe R seats. The two South TX seats held by Ds (28 and 34) get redder but are definitely not 100% guaranteed GOP pickups.
That may not be enough to protect them from a Blue Tsunami in 2026 – unless, of course, that redistricting is combined with strong voter suppression efforts.
And the Republicans have been working on that since before the 2024 election. While the corporate media fails to cover it, Mark Elias at Democracy Docket is sounding the alarm. We need more people to get involved with countering the Republican effort.
I think it's very likely it will be challenged in court. The question is whether it will remain in effect while that challenge is ongoing or whether they will keep the current one, which is still being challenged, in effect.
Interestingly, however, the map doesn't *totally* doom Cuellar & Gonzalez. Cuellar's #TX28 would move from Trump +7 to +10, Gonzalez's #TX34 would move from Trump +5 to +10. Both are potentially survivable given ancestral Dem ties & a midterm without Trump on the ballot.
Along the I-35 corridor, the GOP map nukes Rep. Greg Casar's (D) Austin/San Antonio #TX35 (Harris +33) and creates a new 57% Hispanic, Trump +10 #TX35 outside San Antonio. This would be a very likely GOP pickup but not totally guaranteed in a bad midterm for Rs.
In DFW, the GOP map merges Rep. Marc Veasey's (D) #TX33 with Rep. Julie Johnson's (D) #TX32, and creates a new Trump +18 #TX32 stretching from northern Dallas County all the way to rural Upshur County. This would be a very safe GOP pickup.
If the special session can only last for 30 days, why aren’t Dem State House members just leaving the state to deny b the repubs a quorum? Isn’t this just the easiest way to kill all this nonsense?
Pretty sure the same Hogan-appointed judges who struck down the first gerrymander attempt are still in office but anything is worth a shot to get Harris out of Congress.
There are seven members of the court. Five are Hogan appointees, one is an O'Malley appointee, and one is a Moore appointee. Moore's appointee replaced a Hogan appointee last year.
What were the numbers on the decision? If it was 4-3 it could change from that replacement, but only if the prior justice was on the 4 side.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prior case was based on a state law that banned political gerrymandering, and if that law is repealed, there can be a legal redraw.
It can't be an initiative if it is to be on the 2026 Nov. ballot. There isn't enough time for drafting, AG's Title and Summary, and up to 150 days circulating to get the signatures all done before the deadline for certifying the proposition for the election.
The only way to make it happen would be for the Legislature to put something on the ballot. There would also be more flexibility about when the question would appear before the voters. Initiatives can't schedule special elections, the California Legislature and Governor can.
The biggest question I'm sure for Cali Dems is WHAT to put on the ballot. I've heard several different proposals from drawing maps and putting them up for a vote, straight up repealing the commission and throwing in repeal of top 2 as well among other things.
I think the cleanest way to do this is an amendment that keeps the commission for legislative districts and federal districts get drawn up by the legislature going forward. A good idea would also have a 'trigger' if Texas ever enacts nonpartisan redistricting the commission would once again have oversight over federal districts.
There is absolutely no one who has suggested a CA citizen's initiative. From Newsom's very first trial balloons weeks ago, it's been assumed to be a legislative proposition, with an "Urgency Clause" since we have super-majorities in both chambers.
(nice factoid: we actually have several seats more than needed for the two-thirds, so there's a lot of margin for defectors and absences, so no worries about that)
Also this is sweet: an Urgency Clause means that it can not be subject to a future GOP referendum to delay and attempt to void it (which all normal laws are subject to)
I never formed an opinion on Davis specifically, but we need more of this. Ancient incumbents recognizing its time to step aside. It's OK to leave office vertically.
Agreed. Plus, from a progressive point of view, it would make a progressive win in IL-9 more likely with a less split ticket (Daniel Biss being the likely progressive frontrunner). Furthermore, unless Kina Collins tries again I’m not sure which progressives besides Kat would run to replace Davis — I really don’t want Richard Boykin to win in particular, he’s a really aggressive tough on crime candidate and this district could do better.
Boykin is known to be quite a bit anti-progressive. Chicago's current (and yes, highly unpopular as I'm aware, including among other progressives) mayor got his start challenging Boykin as a Cook County Commissioner from the left. A fear I have is that Boykin may vote against key progressive priorities, which matters to me, a progressive. (Could you really picture someone like him voting for universal healthcare, for instance?) These candidates most certainly would not vote similarly -- if I recall correctly one candidate is a real estate executive, for instance, and could you really see a real estate executive voting for protections for tenants? Meanwhile a progressive candidate would support such protections.
This isn't about "labels", this is about policy. When I use the term "progressive", I am referring to a (loose) package of related policies that are typically supported by the left. Universal healthcare, strong environmental protections, regulation of the market to prevent abuse of consumers (I am of the opinion that the unregulated "free market" is a myth, and I greatly admired Lina Khan as FTC chair), affordable housing construction, etc. Boykin's record on crime is not one I'm in favor of -- I have occasional misgivings about some criminal justice proposals (restorative justice, for instance, which, barring evidence to the contrary, is not something I believe can replace prisons -- I prefer Norway-style humane prisons) but in general I strongly support criminal justice reform. Boykin quite literally went to the UN and called for them to come to Chicago's streets to do peacekeeping. That does not bode well for his other policies, for me. Hence my opposition to him.
The prospect of Mark Gordon's successful challenge of term limits on his governorship of Wyoming should not encourage Trump to consider a third term. Wyoming limits a governor to two consecutive four-year terms, but those limits are statutory, not constitutional; they were created by a vote of the legislature and are not enshrined in the state constitution. Similar statutory term limits have been challenged successfully. Short of amending the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trump, however, has no legal way of staying in office beyond January, 2029.
SCOTUS has not (yet) affirmed Trump's attempt to abolish the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. But if it does, we in effect have no constitution.
And what is to prevent Trump from running for VP, with the clear understanding that whoever is at the top of the ticket is a mere placeholder who – should they win – will resign on 21 January 2029? Making Trump once again President…
They didn't actually rule against the 14th. They ruled that a federal district judge did not have the authority to block Trump's attempt at abolishing birthright citizen nationally. SCOTUS reserved judgment on whether Trump can flout the 14th Amendment.
He has also said that he would not rule it out. Nothing he says can be trusted. Why is the Trump organization marketing "Trump 2028) hats and T-shirts?
I do not believe Trump will run for another term as POTUS. Not only is he barred from running for POTUS again, the FEC will likely get him in trouble for filing to run. It will be a liability against him from the beginning.
Besides, the chatter about Trump running for POTUS is mainly coming from Steve Bannon. Trump fired Bannon because he couldn’t shut his mouth and took too much advantage of his presidency as a way to advance his agenda.
Whatever Bannon seems to be doing now with saying everything that Trump is doing in his 2nd term is only to get attention.
Why the fuck are they drawing districts won by Biden and Beto?? Are they stupid? Do they think 2024 means the Sunbelt suburbs are just never shifting left again?
As I have long predicted, Republicans have cooked up a Latino dummymander. One Latino swing—based on Trump’s approval ratings and the generic ballot—and this gerrymander is toast. The old adage applies: the trends I like continue, and the ones I don’t magically stop. Republicans genuinely believe they’re on the right side of every 80-20 issue, that some inevitable Republican majority is on the horizon, ushering in an era of GOP dominance, overwhelming catholic support for the GOP based on abortion rights and total racial depolarization. They actually buy into their own MAGA bs from X and r/conservative. I believe that 2024 can easily prove to be an aberration based on the downstream effects of the economy and border.
Plus, Casey ran a lackluster, take-it-for-granted campaign until the very end when he realized too late that his peril was real. He had a lot in common in those respects with Bill Nelson in 2018, which gave us Rick Scott.
Republicans might be aiming more to impact 2028 and 2030 than 2026, for all the talk they're making about 2026.
Their legislative agenda more or less amounts to cut non-military spending, pass tax cuts. They got the tax cuts and a lot of spending cuts already. They do not need to maintain all of congress in 2027 to get more spending cuts, as dems in leadership habitually surrender when shutdown and debt ceiling cliffs appear. After that all they care about are confirming appointees and preventing dems from holding all of congress and force legislation to be vetoed instead of dying in the other chamber.
Republicans will almost certainly still hold the senate after the midterms, which they need for judges and appointees. If they do not, there's no amount of gerrymandering they can realistically add in right now to hold onto the house in the kind of environment that loses them four senate seats.
A Texas re-gerrymander that cannot survive a blue wave might be more than enough to survive a modest blue year, and would certainly survive a modestly red year, which are the most likely outcomes for 2028. If they can deny us the ability to pass an agenda that's a big win for them. All while "aiming smaller" so to speak might make it less likely that California retaliates or might at least make it easier for them to get all of their stakeholders on board to allow it to pass.
I didn't? I said the re-gerrymander would probably survive a modest blue year (republicans lose in 2028) and would obviously survive a modestly red year (republicans win in 2028). Then I said those two are the most likely outcomes for 2028: a modest win for one party or the other.
Supposedly, there are at least four Democrats interested in challenging Rudy Yakym in the 2nd Congressional district in Indiana, but other than that chance comment at a town hall a couple of months ago, I've heard nothing about it. I keep hoping The Down Ballot will find something. Heck, I will take ANY news on Indiana races.
Why is it that past incubent Mayors for 20 years have lost re-election? Is it because Seattle voters get cranky a lot or that the Mayors were simply not good enough for the voters?
2009 - Greg Nickels was ill advised in seeking a third term after losing the Sonics and badly bungling the December 2008 snowstorm. Not even Norm Rice, the best Major in the last forty years, went for a third.
2013 - Because Nickels froze out serious candidates by running again we got stuck with Mike “McSchwinn” McGinn as the candidate of the backlash. Nice guy, smart guy, meant well, but in over his head and could not play well with Olympia and was a creature of The Stranger’s editorial page, whose connection to brass tacks political reality was tenuous even back then
2017 - Ed Murray, a heavy hitter in Oly, parachuted in to beat McGinn and for a few years actually did okay, even as the City Council got increasingly chaotic. Glide path to reelection until it emerged that he used to fiddle kids. Not great. So we get Jenny Durkan to parachute back in from years of federal service despite even less connections to the city government than Murray had
2021 - Public safety, backlash to COVID politics and Durkan having extreme foot in mouth syndrome saw her not even bother running. Bruce Harrell rode the backlash to performative left-wing politics equated by the electorate with public disorder to the Mayoralty. I’d still say he’s favored to win, but I’m less sure of that post-Mamdani than I was before.
Seattle’s issue is that the city is heavily polarized between a fairly rote and status quo establishment liberalism and a very loud online-inspired progressivism; Harrell represents the former. Voters here get cranky quickly and easily and the pendulum swings violently. In 2021-23 the progressive ascendancy entirely collapsed, but we’ll see what happens. The city has improved of late, but public safety has improved everywhere since 2023ish, so how much of that is Harrell vs national trends you can’t really judge. I will say that comparisons to Cuomo are unfair - Harrell is a moderate only by Seattle’s unusual standards
New Primary School issue is out following a delay. A few interesting tidbits from the issue (and by all means incomplete):
CT-01: Ex-Hartford mayor Luke Bronin is officially challenging John B. Larson for this seat. (I have a feeling Larson may retire, based on this.)
IL-02: Powerful political figure in the Cook County area Toni Preckwinkle is offically backing State Sen. Robert Peters for this seat. Expected, but figured I'd mention it regardless.
ME-Gov: The AFL-CIO is backing ex-State Sen. President Troy Jackson for Governor. He's running as the progressive, and (not in the story) is also backed by Bernie Sanders.
MI-13: Another candidate is challenging Rep. Shri Thanedar -- DNC Vice Chair Nazmul Hassan. He apparently could appeal primarily to the Bengali community in the district, centered in Hamtramck.
NY-12: Jerry Nadler's got a primary challenger, in the form of PhD student and nonprofit CEO Liam Ekind. Ekind is backed by Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn and at least one Bloomberg alum. Pass.
PA-12: Update on Eugene DePasquale -- he isn't running here. He does not seem very happy to have been placed in the poll either -- apparently without his knowledge and while misrepresenting political positions of his. (The other candidate AIPAC was considering, Pittsburgh City Controller Rachel Heisler, didn't respond when a local news outlet asked, so I'm taking that as a maybe.) Rep. Summer Lee is the incumbent, and also a Squad member.
Is there any chance Democrats can get the GOP run State House to agree to implement a runoff or some other method so that a split field doesn’t mean automatic re-election in races? I know MI has a late primary, so that would probably need to be moved up too to accommodate any change as well.
ME-GOV - Per Wikipedia, Troy Jackson used to be a member of the GOP until 2002, then became an Independent for two years and since 2004 has been a Democrat.
What’s the story behind this? I’m curious about Jackson’s evolution. Seems he became liberal decades ago and has been firm with his views since then.
NY-12: I have no idea why Reid Hoffman is involved in Nadler’s primary challenger. He has been a long time donor to Democrats and even called out billionaires like Bill Ackman over their support for Trump in 2024. He even donated to David Chu’s CA State Assembly campaign back in the day.
On the other hand, Hoffman seems to be more like Sam Altman. He’s called for Lina Khan to be replaced as FTC Chair. Hoffman definitely seems to have been sucked into the Silicon Valley vortex for too long.
I hate to say this, but good. There was talk her presence could potentially negatively affect swing-seat candidates in 2026 -- in part due to her dramatic loss in the Presidential race.
(Not sure who I like best -- I do love Katie Porter though, so maybe her.)
Harris being out of the gubernatorial race is a good thing as it frees up the race so we have enough gubernatorial candidates to chose from. Don’t like the top two system but love the face that the first time in decades Democrats have choices here in a crowded primary race.
Katie Porter is fine although my gut feeling tells me she won’t win the primary race. For starters, she doesn’t have direct experience in state government and would have to adapt very quickly as Governor. Porter would have to run the state and not just use being Governor as a platform to fight Trump. Also, being that she lost the Senate primary last year to Senator Adam Schiff, Porter may find as the June 2026 primary gets closer she's going to have an even tougher battle to stand out.
State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins seems to have the most interesting profile. She came from a part of Virginia where she grew up poor and whose father was a coal miner. Also openly lesbian. Has a long history of serving in government from the local level to state government. I have a feeling Atkins would be great in advocating for blue collar workers.
Agreed. She managed to lose to Trump worse than Hillary did and barely won CA in her race statewide. New/fresh face needed. Voters just don’t like her, it’s beyond clear about that by now.
As far back as I have been following politics people have obsessed over the democratic candidate that lost the previous presidential election being "likely" to run four years later. It hasn't happened yet in the years I've followed.
That doesn't mean it will not ever happen. It does strongly suggest that election nerds like us tend to vastly overestimate the probability that it will happen. This applies to all future elections that follow us having lost the prior election.
Potentially terrible news, given that there's already two Republicans running (a neo-Nazi whackjob and the hyper-anti-immigrant Riverside County Sheriff), and there's likely to be several Democrats running. California has the top-two system, so there's a nonzero chance that two Republicans (and two far-right Republicans at that) could end up being the general election candidates.
There is more of a chance of me becoming POTUS than there is of Democrats being locked out of CA-Gov in 2026. If it looks that bad, the party will put their weight behind a candidate and enough Dem voters will follow their lead to make sure we get 1 of the top 2 spots.
I am not so sure I’d go so far as to say there is a lack of competition but then again, the gubernatorial race isn’t exactly exploding with stories right now. Governor Newsom dominates the headlines for the most part.
For what it is worth, State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins outraised the other gubernatorial candidates by over $1.6 million last year. Katie Porter’s entrance to the race may change things but I have also not seen fundraising reports as of recently.
Atkins and Porter btw are closely aligned as far as being progressive. It may end up boiling down to whether this is a question of experience vs. who has the most appeal with voters.
Question: How soon would Texas be able to enforce their gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterms? That's assuming they get through all of the legal challenges they might face. Then how soon can California, Illinois and Maryland push through their gerrymanders?
Virginia’s redistricting commission is statutory, not constitutional. If Democrats get the trifecta in November, they might be able to redistrict and change districts 1 and 2 without endangering the other seats.
It is definitely NOT statutory as it was enacted as a constitutional amendment in 2020. The whole saga on how it came to be is incredibly frustrating. It was devised when the GOP had a majorities in the GA and Dems were pressured to pass their shitty plan when they got a trifecta by good government groups.
The commission is a sham it is made up lawmakers and supposedly independent commissioners who can be lobbyist. If the commission can't agree on maps the conservative VA Supreme Court draws the map which they did in 2021. Dems need to repeal the commission but it wouldn't appear on the ballot until 2028 at the earliest.
Kind of on/off topic: When is the earliest Democrats can flip the Virginia State Supreme Court? Is it by appointment only? Can a Democratic trifecta change judgeships to have terms and elections where these conservatives will stop carrying the GOP’s water on everything (because they will be removed from office at the next chance available)?
Time to get into the trenches and legislate our way to power in every state available.
For example: Push ballot initiatives in states available to make all judicial elections nonpartisan in red or purple states. Make it partisan in blue states that aren’t already. Change any judicial seats in states that are blue to have judges run for election terms. Put up ballot initiatives to make it retention only for red states. Make it so a plurality can win in red states only.
And no I don’t care about what the state’s constitution or the law says, it’s time to stop playing fair fighting against the endless and continuous power grab attempts by the GOP because they never will.
Virginia has their justices appointed to 12 year terms by the state legislature, with both chambers voting together rather than separately. As best as I can tell, none of the seven justices on the court right now were appointed at a time that democrats held >70 seats across the two chambers. However, there were three justices that were originally appointed to temporary terms by either Mark Warner or Tim Kaine.
If we assume all seven are conservatives, the earliest we could change the composition would be 2030, but that would require us to hold a majority across both chambers basically from 2027-2030. Note that strictly speaking this year would be 2032 according to term expiration dates, but justices are required to retire shortly after hit 73, and that moves things forward due to two justices, aged 68 and 69, who would hit 73 before their term expires.
If we assume all three appointed by Warner and Kaine are democrats, then it would be 2028 instead, although that majority would be brief if we lost control afterwards.
Thank you for that detailed breakdown. I guess our only option is that we really need to entrench ourselves into the state legislature in Virginia in order to take control by the next census redraw.
My girlfriend and I were talking about Harris' decision not to run for Governor, and she asked me whether any candidate that lost a presidential election has subsequently run for a high position like Senator or Governor and won. I felt like that would have happened at some point, but I can't think of examples offhand and figured this would be a good DownBallot question.
Please do not list any district as safely Republican as this will be an rare election with massive Democratic turnout with independents breaking for Dems in revolt against Big ugly bill, loss of healthcare, and Trump Epstein scandals. This is evidenced by the special elections and polling from Virginia and New Jersey. Republican turnout is down, partly because Trump won't be on the ballot.
That's kind of silly. Some districts are safe Republican or safe Democratic no matter what. Do you expect a Democrat to win Wyoming-At Large under any circumstances?
I do agree with you that some districts are realistically not going to flip even in a major blue wave, and WY-AL by now is one of those. Yet, I couldn't help but think of when it almost flipped in 2006 (which says a lot of how times have changed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Wyoming
Again, times have changed and Repubs enjoy cruelty much more, but she also told an opponent in a wheelchair with MS she'd wishes she could slap him in the face after a debate a few weeks before the election lol. So the easy headline of "Cubin Threatens to Slap Disabled Man!" was an easy draw.
https://archive.ph/j5zie
Yep. Cubin was awful. If she held out a few more cycles she'd fit well into today's mainstream of her party
I wouldn't expect to ever see a partisan battlefield as large as 2006 again in our lifetimes. Hard to wrap my mind around the realigning force that would put that many seats in play again.
2006 had some really weird dynamics. Seats you'd think should have been slam dunks, some that even went for Kerry in 2004, were narrow wins or even retained by Republicans. Meanwhile real out there stuff like WY-AL was creeping on to the board. By comparison 2018 was defined by much more understandable patterns. I feel like we're more likely to get another 2018 than a 2006 but who knows, maybe Trump finally rubs everyone the wrong way by November of next year, rather than just suburbs and small metros.
There are many, many, many districts nationwide that are safe Republican. This is not a serious argument...
TN-Gov:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-hegseth-governor-tennessee-nbc-news_n_6889e573e4b08681ba5eea2a
Apparently Pete Hegseth has been talking about running for Governor in TN. Question: is Marsha Blackburn still interested?
He's not really eligible (3yr residency, needs 7), but if it comes down to it I think Blackburn would seethe but be a good little soldier and just finish out her Senate term. Maybe run for one more election in 2028.
It seems very clear that he’s on the way out of Pentagon eventually, question is just how and when
Here's what the coming TX map will apparently do: https://punchbowl.news/archive/73025-am/
3 of the 5 seats they are aiming for went for Trump last year by 10 but are only R+3 or 4.
going district by district on the new TX map, lots of basically 60-40 Safe R seats. The two South TX seats held by Ds (28 and 34) get redder but are definitely not 100% guaranteed GOP pickups.
https://x.com/kkondik/status/1950564906161291477
I reposted the link as a new comment with a link to a DRA mapping.
That may not be enough to protect them from a Blue Tsunami in 2026 – unless, of course, that redistricting is combined with strong voter suppression efforts.
And the Republicans have been working on that since before the 2024 election. While the corporate media fails to cover it, Mark Elias at Democracy Docket is sounding the alarm. We need more people to get involved with countering the Republican effort.
Yes! If anyone isn’t already a subscriber to Marc Elias’ free newsletter, I strongly recommend signing up for it.
Republicans can’t voter suppress their way out of a blue tsunami.
Maybe not, but we would be ill-advised to assume one.
If there's a swing back in the Latino vote, I would think that Cuellar and Gonzalez would have a decent chance to survive.
Enough dummymander potential that some Texas Rs might oppose this map for not being enough of a gerrymander.
Pending TX map: https://nitter.poast.org/RedistrictNet/status/1950560400480616454#m
Plus the data in DRA: https://nitter.poast.org/SageOfTime1/status/1950561694771462584#m
Absolutely winnable for Cuellar and Gonzales if there is any swing back to more normal performances.
Biggest changes in this map:
-Trump won both of the South Texas gains (28 & 34) by ~10 points, but 28 is much closer in PVI
-New TX 9 takes from TX 2 & 36 in Harris County
-Paired Al Green and the vacant TX 18 into one seat (18) that is a lot closer to, but not the same, as the Barbara Jordan seat
-Greg Casar's TX 35 is moved down to San Antonio and the surrounding area, he and Lloyd Doggett are paired in TX 37
-Jasmine Crockett and Marc Veasey's districts in DFW went from strong Dem to even stronger Dem
-No Dem district in FW
-Julie Johnson's TX 32 is stretched eastward
https://x.com/bradj_TX/status/1950567733281620415
Eliminating one black and Hispanic seat each can't be legal, right? Can we just get the map blocked?
I think it's very likely it will be challenged in court. The question is whether it will remain in effect while that challenge is ongoing or whether they will keep the current one, which is still being challenged, in effect.
Biden wins the Cuellar and Gonzales districts in 2020. And Beto wins a suburban Houston seat in 2018.
Interestingly, however, the map doesn't *totally* doom Cuellar & Gonzalez. Cuellar's #TX28 would move from Trump +7 to +10, Gonzalez's #TX34 would move from Trump +5 to +10. Both are potentially survivable given ancestral Dem ties & a midterm without Trump on the ballot.
Along the I-35 corridor, the GOP map nukes Rep. Greg Casar's (D) Austin/San Antonio #TX35 (Harris +33) and creates a new 57% Hispanic, Trump +10 #TX35 outside San Antonio. This would be a very likely GOP pickup but not totally guaranteed in a bad midterm for Rs.
In DFW, the GOP map merges Rep. Marc Veasey's (D) #TX33 with Rep. Julie Johnson's (D) #TX32, and creates a new Trump +18 #TX32 stretching from northern Dallas County all the way to rural Upshur County. This would be a very safe GOP pickup.
https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1950572012037968137
So, it looks like they created 2 guaranteed pickups, 1 likely, and 2 possibly.
I could see some VRA litigation boiling up over the DFW and Houston changes, but definitely not the other three
Yes, certainly Houston.
If the special session can only last for 30 days, why aren’t Dem State House members just leaving the state to deny b the repubs a quorum? Isn’t this just the easiest way to kill all this nonsense?
Yeah it could work. But I don't know if they can just call repeat special sessions.
They will be discussing flood relief funding in the same session. Although clearly that’s not being prioritized.
Ok California, get to work on that redistricting initiative.
And Maryland should redraw MD 1.
Pretty sure the same Hogan-appointed judges who struck down the first gerrymander attempt are still in office but anything is worth a shot to get Harris out of Congress.
There are seven members of the court. Five are Hogan appointees, one is an O'Malley appointee, and one is a Moore appointee. Moore's appointee replaced a Hogan appointee last year.
What were the numbers on the decision? If it was 4-3 it could change from that replacement, but only if the prior justice was on the 4 side.
It never made it to the Supreme Court. It was struck down by a lower court and Dems decided not to appeal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prior case was based on a state law that banned political gerrymandering, and if that law is repealed, there can be a legal redraw.
California is more blue than Texas is red! Opportunities abound!
It can't be an initiative if it is to be on the 2026 Nov. ballot. There isn't enough time for drafting, AG's Title and Summary, and up to 150 days circulating to get the signatures all done before the deadline for certifying the proposition for the election.
The only way to make it happen would be for the Legislature to put something on the ballot. There would also be more flexibility about when the question would appear before the voters. Initiatives can't schedule special elections, the California Legislature and Governor can.
The biggest question I'm sure for Cali Dems is WHAT to put on the ballot. I've heard several different proposals from drawing maps and putting them up for a vote, straight up repealing the commission and throwing in repeal of top 2 as well among other things.
I think the cleanest way to do this is an amendment that keeps the commission for legislative districts and federal districts get drawn up by the legislature going forward. A good idea would also have a 'trigger' if Texas ever enacts nonpartisan redistricting the commission would once again have oversight over federal districts.
I hope you're right that it would win. I remain unconvinced.
There is absolutely no one who has suggested a CA citizen's initiative. From Newsom's very first trial balloons weeks ago, it's been assumed to be a legislative proposition, with an "Urgency Clause" since we have super-majorities in both chambers.
(nice factoid: we actually have several seats more than needed for the two-thirds, so there's a lot of margin for defectors and absences, so no worries about that)
Also this is sweet: an Urgency Clause means that it can not be subject to a future GOP referendum to delay and attempt to void it (which all normal laws are subject to)
Danny Davis thankfully seems to be hanging it up
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/30/congress/danny-davis-retiring-00483259
I never formed an opinion on Davis specifically, but we need more of this. Ancient incumbents recognizing its time to step aside. It's OK to leave office vertically.
That’s long overdue. Kat Abughazaleh should run here instead, at least she technically lives in this district unlike IL-9.
Agreed. Plus, from a progressive point of view, it would make a progressive win in IL-9 more likely with a less split ticket (Daniel Biss being the likely progressive frontrunner). Furthermore, unless Kina Collins tries again I’m not sure which progressives besides Kat would run to replace Davis — I really don’t want Richard Boykin to win in particular, he’s a really aggressive tough on crime candidate and this district could do better.
Boykin is known to be quite a bit anti-progressive. Chicago's current (and yes, highly unpopular as I'm aware, including among other progressives) mayor got his start challenging Boykin as a Cook County Commissioner from the left. A fear I have is that Boykin may vote against key progressive priorities, which matters to me, a progressive. (Could you really picture someone like him voting for universal healthcare, for instance?) These candidates most certainly would not vote similarly -- if I recall correctly one candidate is a real estate executive, for instance, and could you really see a real estate executive voting for protections for tenants? Meanwhile a progressive candidate would support such protections.
This isn't about "labels", this is about policy. When I use the term "progressive", I am referring to a (loose) package of related policies that are typically supported by the left. Universal healthcare, strong environmental protections, regulation of the market to prevent abuse of consumers (I am of the opinion that the unregulated "free market" is a myth, and I greatly admired Lina Khan as FTC chair), affordable housing construction, etc. Boykin's record on crime is not one I'm in favor of -- I have occasional misgivings about some criminal justice proposals (restorative justice, for instance, which, barring evidence to the contrary, is not something I believe can replace prisons -- I prefer Norway-style humane prisons) but in general I strongly support criminal justice reform. Boykin quite literally went to the UN and called for them to come to Chicago's streets to do peacekeeping. That does not bode well for his other policies, for me. Hence my opposition to him.
Deep, deep blue Congressional District with a D+34 rating. Absolutely nothing to worry about.
The prospect of Mark Gordon's successful challenge of term limits on his governorship of Wyoming should not encourage Trump to consider a third term. Wyoming limits a governor to two consecutive four-year terms, but those limits are statutory, not constitutional; they were created by a vote of the legislature and are not enshrined in the state constitution. Similar statutory term limits have been challenged successfully. Short of amending the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trump, however, has no legal way of staying in office beyond January, 2029.
I wouldn't put it past this court to rule the constitution unconstitutional if it helps Trump.
SCOTUS has not (yet) affirmed Trump's attempt to abolish the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. But if it does, we in effect have no constitution.
I’m confident SCOTUS will rule against him on the 22nd amendment.
They ruled against the 14th Amendment, so I'm only guardedly confident. We can't trust this lawless court on anything.
The 22nd amendment is a lot more black and white than the 14th was.
And the constitutional right to absolute presidential immunity appears in which provision?
The constitution doesn't say anything about presidential immunity. It does about not running for a third term.
And what is to prevent Trump from running for VP, with the clear understanding that whoever is at the top of the ticket is a mere placeholder who – should they win – will resign on 21 January 2029? Making Trump once again President…
He’s not eligible for VP either.
They didn't actually rule against the 14th. They ruled that a federal district judge did not have the authority to block Trump's attempt at abolishing birthright citizen nationally. SCOTUS reserved judgment on whether Trump can flout the 14th Amendment.
Trump said he has no plans on running again in 2028.
He has also said that he would not rule it out. Nothing he says can be trusted. Why is the Trump organization marketing "Trump 2028) hats and T-shirts?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/us/politics/trump-2028-vance-rubio.html
He’s already taking about Vance and Rubio as heirs.
That talk is just talk. As 2028 gets closer, I suspect he'll be singing from a MUCH different hymnal.
If he really wanted to stay in office, why would he publicly back down from the third term chatter to begin with?
Besides, this BBC article says it was just trolling for the media:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I do not believe Trump will run for another term as POTUS. Not only is he barred from running for POTUS again, the FEC will likely get him in trouble for filing to run. It will be a liability against him from the beginning.
Besides, the chatter about Trump running for POTUS is mainly coming from Steve Bannon. Trump fired Bannon because he couldn’t shut his mouth and took too much advantage of his presidency as a way to advance his agenda.
Whatever Bannon seems to be doing now with saying everything that Trump is doing in his 2nd term is only to get attention.
To sell them to the marks.
Anniversaries:
Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law 60 years ago today.
Jimmy Hoffa disappeared 50 years ago today.
"You want me to give up Jimmy Hoffa"? ---Bobby Ciaro
Strange how in certain states "We’re gonna take away your AR-15" generates far more outcry than "We’re gonna cut your Medicaid and Medicare."
Why the fuck are they drawing districts won by Biden and Beto?? Are they stupid? Do they think 2024 means the Sunbelt suburbs are just never shifting left again?
https://x.com/nikicaga/status/1950588596932452642
As I have long predicted, Republicans have cooked up a Latino dummymander. One Latino swing—based on Trump’s approval ratings and the generic ballot—and this gerrymander is toast. The old adage applies: the trends I like continue, and the ones I don’t magically stop. Republicans genuinely believe they’re on the right side of every 80-20 issue, that some inevitable Republican majority is on the horizon, ushering in an era of GOP dominance, overwhelming catholic support for the GOP based on abortion rights and total racial depolarization. They actually buy into their own MAGA bs from X and r/conservative. I believe that 2024 can easily prove to be an aberration based on the downstream effects of the economy and border.
https://www.270towin.com/states/texas Texas shifted blue every year since Dubya until 2024.
Plus, Casey ran a lackluster, take-it-for-granted campaign until the very end when he realized too late that his peril was real. He had a lot in common in those respects with Bill Nelson in 2018, which gave us Rick Scott.
Republicans might be aiming more to impact 2028 and 2030 than 2026, for all the talk they're making about 2026.
Their legislative agenda more or less amounts to cut non-military spending, pass tax cuts. They got the tax cuts and a lot of spending cuts already. They do not need to maintain all of congress in 2027 to get more spending cuts, as dems in leadership habitually surrender when shutdown and debt ceiling cliffs appear. After that all they care about are confirming appointees and preventing dems from holding all of congress and force legislation to be vetoed instead of dying in the other chamber.
Republicans will almost certainly still hold the senate after the midterms, which they need for judges and appointees. If they do not, there's no amount of gerrymandering they can realistically add in right now to hold onto the house in the kind of environment that loses them four senate seats.
A Texas re-gerrymander that cannot survive a blue wave might be more than enough to survive a modest blue year, and would certainly survive a modestly red year, which are the most likely outcomes for 2028. If they can deny us the ability to pass an agenda that's a big win for them. All while "aiming smaller" so to speak might make it less likely that California retaliates or might at least make it easier for them to get all of their stakeholders on board to allow it to pass.
Why are you assuming that Republicans win 2028?
I didn't? I said the re-gerrymander would probably survive a modest blue year (republicans lose in 2028) and would obviously survive a modestly red year (republicans win in 2028). Then I said those two are the most likely outcomes for 2028: a modest win for one party or the other.
A result similar to 2020 would net them zero seats.
It's 30-8 based on 2024 numbers and 24-14 based on 2018 results.
Supposedly, there are at least four Democrats interested in challenging Rudy Yakym in the 2nd Congressional district in Indiana, but other than that chance comment at a town hall a couple of months ago, I've heard nothing about it. I keep hoping The Down Ballot will find something. Heck, I will take ANY news on Indiana races.
I'm in IN-2, I haven't heard anything but I'll admit I'm not plugged into local races at all.
Seattle, WA Mayoral Race
Why is it that past incubent Mayors for 20 years have lost re-election? Is it because Seattle voters get cranky a lot or that the Mayors were simply not good enough for the voters?
Bit of both.
2009 - Greg Nickels was ill advised in seeking a third term after losing the Sonics and badly bungling the December 2008 snowstorm. Not even Norm Rice, the best Major in the last forty years, went for a third.
2013 - Because Nickels froze out serious candidates by running again we got stuck with Mike “McSchwinn” McGinn as the candidate of the backlash. Nice guy, smart guy, meant well, but in over his head and could not play well with Olympia and was a creature of The Stranger’s editorial page, whose connection to brass tacks political reality was tenuous even back then
2017 - Ed Murray, a heavy hitter in Oly, parachuted in to beat McGinn and for a few years actually did okay, even as the City Council got increasingly chaotic. Glide path to reelection until it emerged that he used to fiddle kids. Not great. So we get Jenny Durkan to parachute back in from years of federal service despite even less connections to the city government than Murray had
2021 - Public safety, backlash to COVID politics and Durkan having extreme foot in mouth syndrome saw her not even bother running. Bruce Harrell rode the backlash to performative left-wing politics equated by the electorate with public disorder to the Mayoralty. I’d still say he’s favored to win, but I’m less sure of that post-Mamdani than I was before.
Seattle’s issue is that the city is heavily polarized between a fairly rote and status quo establishment liberalism and a very loud online-inspired progressivism; Harrell represents the former. Voters here get cranky quickly and easily and the pendulum swings violently. In 2021-23 the progressive ascendancy entirely collapsed, but we’ll see what happens. The city has improved of late, but public safety has improved everywhere since 2023ish, so how much of that is Harrell vs national trends you can’t really judge. I will say that comparisons to Cuomo are unfair - Harrell is a moderate only by Seattle’s unusual standards
Awesome summary and I agree with your analysis. Signed, a King County resident.
Thank you!
Yes—I am not a Washington State resident and I found that post to be fantastic. Great depth of knowledge in a readily digestible package.
https://primaryschool.ghost.io/issue-10/
New Primary School issue is out following a delay. A few interesting tidbits from the issue (and by all means incomplete):
CT-01: Ex-Hartford mayor Luke Bronin is officially challenging John B. Larson for this seat. (I have a feeling Larson may retire, based on this.)
IL-02: Powerful political figure in the Cook County area Toni Preckwinkle is offically backing State Sen. Robert Peters for this seat. Expected, but figured I'd mention it regardless.
ME-Gov: The AFL-CIO is backing ex-State Sen. President Troy Jackson for Governor. He's running as the progressive, and (not in the story) is also backed by Bernie Sanders.
MI-13: Another candidate is challenging Rep. Shri Thanedar -- DNC Vice Chair Nazmul Hassan. He apparently could appeal primarily to the Bengali community in the district, centered in Hamtramck.
NY-12: Jerry Nadler's got a primary challenger, in the form of PhD student and nonprofit CEO Liam Ekind. Ekind is backed by Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn and at least one Bloomberg alum. Pass.
PA-12: Update on Eugene DePasquale -- he isn't running here. He does not seem very happy to have been placed in the poll either -- apparently without his knowledge and while misrepresenting political positions of his. (The other candidate AIPAC was considering, Pittsburgh City Controller Rachel Heisler, didn't respond when a local news outlet asked, so I'm taking that as a maybe.) Rep. Summer Lee is the incumbent, and also a Squad member.
Democrats in MI 13 seem intent on making it as easy as possible for Thanedar to win.
Is there any chance Democrats can get the GOP run State House to agree to implement a runoff or some other method so that a split field doesn’t mean automatic re-election in races? I know MI has a late primary, so that would probably need to be moved up too to accommodate any change as well.
Nope - there is no chance of that
ME-GOV - Per Wikipedia, Troy Jackson used to be a member of the GOP until 2002, then became an Independent for two years and since 2004 has been a Democrat.
What’s the story behind this? I’m curious about Jackson’s evolution. Seems he became liberal decades ago and has been firm with his views since then.
NY-12: I have no idea why Reid Hoffman is involved in Nadler’s primary challenger. He has been a long time donor to Democrats and even called out billionaires like Bill Ackman over their support for Trump in 2024. He even donated to David Chu’s CA State Assembly campaign back in the day.
On the other hand, Hoffman seems to be more like Sam Altman. He’s called for Lina Khan to be replaced as FTC Chair. Hoffman definitely seems to have been sucked into the Silicon Valley vortex for too long.
Jackson was also the driving force behind passing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Excelllent! Jackson’s got a great track record.
Problematic but with good motivation. That needs to be a constitutional amendment, not something just for non-Republican states.
Welp Appears Kamala is passing on CA GOV https://x.com/VanceUlrich/status/1950631634962964636
I hate to say this, but good. There was talk her presence could potentially negatively affect swing-seat candidates in 2026 -- in part due to her dramatic loss in the Presidential race.
(Not sure who I like best -- I do love Katie Porter though, so maybe her.)
Harris being out of the gubernatorial race is a good thing as it frees up the race so we have enough gubernatorial candidates to chose from. Don’t like the top two system but love the face that the first time in decades Democrats have choices here in a crowded primary race.
Katie Porter is fine although my gut feeling tells me she won’t win the primary race. For starters, she doesn’t have direct experience in state government and would have to adapt very quickly as Governor. Porter would have to run the state and not just use being Governor as a platform to fight Trump. Also, being that she lost the Senate primary last year to Senator Adam Schiff, Porter may find as the June 2026 primary gets closer she's going to have an even tougher battle to stand out.
State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins seems to have the most interesting profile. She came from a part of Virginia where she grew up poor and whose father was a coal miner. Also openly lesbian. Has a long history of serving in government from the local level to state government. I have a feeling Atkins would be great in advocating for blue collar workers.
Pretty much means she has sights on a different office
I hope not.
Agreed. She managed to lose to Trump worse than Hillary did and barely won CA in her race statewide. New/fresh face needed. Voters just don’t like her, it’s beyond clear about that by now.
Reasonable take but we probably can't talk about that here.
Sorry, you’re right. I won’t talk about it any further.
Agreed!!
As far back as I have been following politics people have obsessed over the democratic candidate that lost the previous presidential election being "likely" to run four years later. It hasn't happened yet in the years I've followed.
That doesn't mean it will not ever happen. It does strongly suggest that election nerds like us tend to vastly overestimate the probability that it will happen. This applies to all future elections that follow us having lost the prior election.
We can't talk about that sir, how dare you, but i'd say, she'd say, she was kneecapped and didn't get a fair shot or something like that.
Last time it happened was 1972.
Potentially terrible news, given that there's already two Republicans running (a neo-Nazi whackjob and the hyper-anti-immigrant Riverside County Sheriff), and there's likely to be several Democrats running. California has the top-two system, so there's a nonzero chance that two Republicans (and two far-right Republicans at that) could end up being the general election candidates.
I really doubt that.
There is more of a chance of me becoming POTUS than there is of Democrats being locked out of CA-Gov in 2026. If it looks that bad, the party will put their weight behind a candidate and enough Dem voters will follow their lead to make sure we get 1 of the top 2 spots.
Non zero, as in .00001%? It's suuuuuuuuuuuuper unlikely.
If anything, Harris pulling out increases the chance of two dems being top two since she's not sucking all the democratic votes up.
Technically a non-zero chance, yes, but is it remotely likely....not at all.
Oh, come now.
which democratic candidate would now be considered as the front runner?
I would think Porter and Becerra would be the leading candidates.
Katie Porter would be the favorite of DSA types so i'd say just from a lack of current competition she'd be first if the election were held tomorrow.
I am not so sure I’d go so far as to say there is a lack of competition but then again, the gubernatorial race isn’t exactly exploding with stories right now. Governor Newsom dominates the headlines for the most part.
For what it is worth, State Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins outraised the other gubernatorial candidates by over $1.6 million last year. Katie Porter’s entrance to the race may change things but I have also not seen fundraising reports as of recently.
Atkins and Porter btw are closely aligned as far as being progressive. It may end up boiling down to whether this is a question of experience vs. who has the most appeal with voters.
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2024/08/05/toni-atkins-outraises-all-candidates-running-for-governor/
Kamala Harris has announced that she will not run for governor of California. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/politics/harris-california-governor-race.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU8.p0gz.q8lhv6XEmUh_&smid=url-share
Question: How soon would Texas be able to enforce their gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterms? That's assuming they get through all of the legal challenges they might face. Then how soon can California, Illinois and Maryland push through their gerrymanders?
Illinois is already gerrymandered, there’s no real way to add another Democratic seat to the state without putting the ones we currently have at risk.
Virginia’s redistricting commission is statutory, not constitutional. If Democrats get the trifecta in November, they might be able to redistrict and change districts 1 and 2 without endangering the other seats.
https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_Question_1,_Redistricting_Commission_Amendment_(2020)
It is definitely NOT statutory as it was enacted as a constitutional amendment in 2020. The whole saga on how it came to be is incredibly frustrating. It was devised when the GOP had a majorities in the GA and Dems were pressured to pass their shitty plan when they got a trifecta by good government groups.
The commission is a sham it is made up lawmakers and supposedly independent commissioners who can be lobbyist. If the commission can't agree on maps the conservative VA Supreme Court draws the map which they did in 2021. Dems need to repeal the commission but it wouldn't appear on the ballot until 2028 at the earliest.
Kind of on/off topic: When is the earliest Democrats can flip the Virginia State Supreme Court? Is it by appointment only? Can a Democratic trifecta change judgeships to have terms and elections where these conservatives will stop carrying the GOP’s water on everything (because they will be removed from office at the next chance available)?
Time to get into the trenches and legislate our way to power in every state available.
For example: Push ballot initiatives in states available to make all judicial elections nonpartisan in red or purple states. Make it partisan in blue states that aren’t already. Change any judicial seats in states that are blue to have judges run for election terms. Put up ballot initiatives to make it retention only for red states. Make it so a plurality can win in red states only.
And no I don’t care about what the state’s constitution or the law says, it’s time to stop playing fair fighting against the endless and continuous power grab attempts by the GOP because they never will.
Virginia has their justices appointed to 12 year terms by the state legislature, with both chambers voting together rather than separately. As best as I can tell, none of the seven justices on the court right now were appointed at a time that democrats held >70 seats across the two chambers. However, there were three justices that were originally appointed to temporary terms by either Mark Warner or Tim Kaine.
If we assume all seven are conservatives, the earliest we could change the composition would be 2030, but that would require us to hold a majority across both chambers basically from 2027-2030. Note that strictly speaking this year would be 2032 according to term expiration dates, but justices are required to retire shortly after hit 73, and that moves things forward due to two justices, aged 68 and 69, who would hit 73 before their term expires.
If we assume all three appointed by Warner and Kaine are democrats, then it would be 2028 instead, although that majority would be brief if we lost control afterwards.
Thank you for that detailed breakdown. I guess our only option is that we really need to entrench ourselves into the state legislature in Virginia in order to take control by the next census redraw.
My girlfriend and I were talking about Harris' decision not to run for Governor, and she asked me whether any candidate that lost a presidential election has subsequently run for a high position like Senator or Governor and won. I felt like that would have happened at some point, but I can't think of examples offhand and figured this would be a good DownBallot question.
Humphrey in 1970.
Goldwater in 1968.
Mitt Romney
McGovern in 1974 and Kerry in 2008, but, in both of those instances, they were running for re-election for the office they held.
John Quincy Adams ran for the low position of U.S House after he lost
Thomas Dewey lost to FDR in 1944, then was re-elected Governor of NY in 1946.
In 1948, he lost to Truman, then was re-elected Governor of NY in 1950.
Excellent example, thanks!