The Landsman district is a swing district now, but it includes areas that are getting bluer. I also agree that the Democrats have reason to fear the Secretary of State will deliberately sabotage any ballot referendum as he did in the attempt to pass an independent commission.
I understand that concern, but Democrats can't just give up on using Ohio's referendum process just because politicians try to throw wrenches into the works. After all, we successfully legalized abortion in Ohio despite the wrenches that Republicans tried to put into that process. It can be done, and we definitely shouldn't stop trying.
It is a dilemma, since the map could definitely be worse. I've drawn a 13-2 map where Cincinnati is split three ways so that all of the districts are at least Trump+18, Summit County is split between districts that are Trump+20, Toledo is in a Trump+17 district, and besides the two Democratic districts, the least Republican district is Trump+13.
The extreme red turn that Ohio's rural counties have taken has really screwed us. Back when the rurals were only 60-40 Republican, it wasn't so bad. But now, 10 counties gave Trump more than 80% and another 44 gave him more than 70%. Harris only surpassed 40% in 15 counties. When it's so easy to attach cities to rural areas that are this deep red, you're going to get bad maps.
This is why Democrats need to use a different approach to redistricting-related ballot propositions. The old approach of pushing a requirement that maps try to match the partisan lean of the state has been an epic failure, since 1) it requires more gerrymandering and unusual shapes to accomplish (and remember, the average person on the street sees gerrymandering solely through the lens of bizarrely shaped districts), and 2) the partisan lean of the state can change, which is why Arizona's districts, drawn while looking at the 2020 results, are now a mild Republican gerrymander with several light red districts after the state moved to the right in 2024.
The new approach we should use is one that will make much more sense to the average person, and would make better maps for us as well. We should push ballot propositions that forbid combining urban and rural areas in the same district (except when necessary for VRA purposes, of course). Our ballot propositions should require that some districts be overwhelmingly urban/suburban, and other districts be entirely rural. This can be framed as protecting the interests of rural voters from having their districts dominated by people in urban and suburban areas (the Rural America Protection Act). With a name like that, ballot propositions like this would easily pass in most states.
And you think that Republicans are just going to throw up their hands and abide by those criteria? And that the right-wing Ohio Supreme Court will force them to?
Talk about naive. Don't forget, abiding by the Constitution (federal or state) is now optional for Republicans.
Huh? Have you not been paying attention this year? Republicans have been ignoring constitutions willy-nilly this year, and right-wing courts have let them get away with it. No reason why it wouldn't happen with OH redistricting.
The referendum route could be difficult given how many signatures are needed in very red districts. Abortion was a far easier lift than this would be. If we decided to do the referendum and don’t get the signatures, we’re screwed with a locked in 13-2 safe map where even a tsunami won’t overcome it.
I’m pretty much of the opinion for the age old “if my opponents are unhappy, then I’m happy”. Trump, The White House and NRCC are pissed. All of the Republicans on the commission didn’t vote for the map, only some did, indicating unhappiness by their members too. Take this massive gift to us and run with it. We went from a guaranteed -3 seats in the state to possibly break even, worst case -1. What’s not to like here?
The map can’t be a referendum if it’s from the commission. So the choice was either take a gamble that the legislature or State Supreme Court draws us a map other than 13-2 with all 13 as R+10 or worse for us, or take a slight disadvantage in a few seats, which may not change the current 10-5 map at all and at worst will be -1. I know which one I’m picking.
The system implemented by the ballot initiative in Ohio is a complete clusterfuck. I cannot imagine why anyone thought this overcomplicated roundabout approach to anti-gerrymandering was a good idea. In some ways it's actually worse than nothing, because it created a system by which gerrymanders can be instituted mid decade by default. It did impose some useful limits on the how of drawing districts, but the change there isn't enough to outweigh the negatives.
The insistence on this unnecessarily complex system is why we're in this mess in Ohio.
I hope Ohio Democrats find a good candidate to challenge LaRose. If they do and manage to flip that, that's one vote against slanted voter referendum language.
I’m pretty strongly against gerrymandering and particularly against mid-decade redistricting, but even I think the arguments made by the MD senate President are stupid.
Ugh.
Just say it’s undemocratic, bad for voters, breeds cynicism, and will weaken Democratic legitimacy when Democrats win back the House in ‘26.
And given that Justices Roberts & Barrett care about legitimacy and that the public will have to decide whether it’s legitimate to impeach Trump and cabinet members, legitimacy is really important.
As for “unilateral disarmament” I think that you’re making the mid-district redistricting into too big of a thing. Now there is some probably that it will be decisive, but I think it’s likely that Democrats win enough seats to overwhelm these new gerrymanders. More important is Democrats winning some state legislatures and Governors races because otherwise Republicans can just redistrict after the Census.
You think of redistricting as fighting back. I get that completely. Maybe it’s what is needed to prove Democrats will fight and that this is a particularly dangerous time. I am willing to be wrong.
But I think mid-district redistricting is fighting on the wrong terrain. I think our focus on extra seats in CA and other blue states is inconsequential. Our focus should be on what will help us win TX, OH, IA in addition to NC, ME, MI, and GA. Maybe have a surprise win in NE, KS, or AK.
I think mid-districting gerrymandering just tells the indifferent non-political person that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. My opinion is that is worse for the brand than focusing elsewhere.
My preference would have been for Pritzker and Newsom to offer TX state legislative candidates millions to run competitive races throughout TX, especially in the border counties that swung so much to Trump and to give they actual House Democrats jobs and housing so they could live out of TX for the year and continually subvert the special session.
Those millions wouldn't make a darn bit of difference - most of the districts are simply too Republican for a Democrat to win, regardless of money.
And the indifferent non-political person already thinks that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. The more the Democratic brand is seen as obsessing over process arguments, the worse we'll do in elections, since the average American doesn't give a sh*t about process. The Democratic brand needs to be about fighting for normal working Americans against the billionaires, process be damned.
This is the real worry (the only worry to me). If they can amend state law or constitution (idk which one is the barrier in Maryland) to foreclose the court setting a precedent and redistrict in 2028 is my preference.
Just because we know we’ll lose doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. But yes, I do agree with you that the court is likely to slap it down. That said, even in failure, that means we create the political backing from voters angry enough about this failure to support changing the rules making it easier to redraw Harris out of office next time.
This is what Republicans do all the time and Democrats need to start playing their game.
How likely is it for many voters to be angry that their legislators can't gerrymander? I agree with your attitude in theory, but I'm skeptical about this case in practice, if you're expecting a loud public outcry about a decision by a court that will be couched as enforcing fair districting.
Democrats will be angry that the Republican State Supreme Court won’t let them counter the GOP trying to draw themselves into permanent power if they blocked a redrawn map. Our party is partisan too and not being able to make the playing field fair will turn any 50/50 action we take afterwards into making sure we get to do so next time with a solid majority of political support: see California remap.
There’s lots of different actions we can take: referendum, making court justice appointees subject to legislature approval, removing that power from the governor and transferring to the legislature, making all judges have to win a partisan D vs R election, expanding the court and the most radical option, which I’m not advocating, but is possible: impeachment/removal of the judges.
Partisanship is the name of modern America. Frame any action as countering Trump and the king’s party and even the moderate/swing Democrats will jump on board fast with any of the above changes. The laws can be rewritten or changed, if we aren’t able to balance their power grab, then we need to change the rules so we can.
We have the power in blue states and it’s about damn time we should start using it to our advantage.
I think his issue is that the original map passed in 2022 was thrown out by the GOP dominated state supreme court and they implemented a worse map. Remember that 5 of the 7 supreme court justices in Maryland were appointed by Larry Hogan He fears that they will just throw out the map and punish the Democrats even worse for attempting to gerrymander again after the court already said no.
Not sure how that could happen. The current map isn't at issue here - no one is suing over it. If the court decides to be assholish and strike down the 8-0 map, then the current map would just be brought back as the default.
Since we have Colin Allred and James Talarico in the race with Jasmine Crockett preparing for a run as well, this has got me thinking of the kind of demographics each candidate would be able to fire up. It’s particularly interesting as the dynamics of this Senate race with soon to be three leading candidates could make TX fired up for Democrats in the midterms in ways it hasn’t been in a long time.
What particular voter demographics do you think each candidate would be able to appeal to the most?
Colin Allred - I suspect he’s got appeal to the more moderate and less liberal voters compared to Talarico and Crockett.
James Talarico certainly has youth and women voters well in his reach. He also appeals to liberal voters in general and those who are disillusioned with politics in general.
Jasmine Crockett - The black vote, the most staunchly liberal/progressive (and especially Justice Democrat types), less fortunate in wealth and the base in general that wants to go after the GOP hard.
I don’t think it’s that Crockett will pull any of Talarico’s base of progressive supporters away from him. She may just fire them up and then if Talarico advances to the general election he will get even more supporters than before.
However, progressive Democrats that support Talarico I think are less likely to be pulled away by Crockett. This is what is going to make her Senate run all the more challenging.
I would argue that liberals tend to be at the establishment of the democratic party, where as progressives are further to the left than the national party is as a whole
OK, thanks. I wouldn't make that distinction. To me, to the left of liberals would make someone a social democrat or a leftist (and I call myself not a liberal but a socialist, but I also oppose illiberalism and consider myself a civil libertarian). Almost anyone who was liberal in the 1980s called themselves "progressive" because Michael Dukakis had allowed George H.W. Bush to continue Reagan's demonizing of the word "liberal" without defending liberalism (something Mario Cuomo had done in 1984, but not as a presidential candidate).
All that said, how do you find Talarico less mainstream than Crockett or Crockett more conservative than Talarico?
Another VA poll: GOP-aligned Echelon Insights finds Spanberger leading by 12, Hashmi by 3, Miyares by 3, generic Democratic lead of 11 for House of Delegates.
I dunno. Maybe it’s because neither LG candidate has made a particularly strong impression, while people might know their individual delegate better or are in a district where they don’t have much of a choice?
At least Dems are offering voters a choice in all 100 HoD districts, while the GOP conceded 17 of them upfront (probably none of which they were going to win anyway)
I *really* don't think there's going to be that much ticket-splitting. I don't think Hashmi runs more than 2 percentage points behind Spanberger, or Jones runs more than 5 behind her. In 2021, all statewide races were within 2 percentage points of each other, and in 2017 they were all within 4 of each other. And American politics has only gotten more polarized since then.
I think that the vast majority of Spanberger voters will end up pulling the lever for Jones as well. And that Hashmi will run closer to Spanberger than the polls are suggesting.
New: Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, won't commit to release her medical records in her 2026 bid for Senate.
If she wins, Mills would be the oldest first-term senator elected in U.S. history.
w/
@AlexThomp
In a recent focus group in Maine by Senate candidate Jordan Wood, Democratic voters said they were proud of Gov. Janet Mills but thought she was too old to run for a six-year Senate term.
On an electoral level this is the smart choice. We've seen time and time again that any transparency that is anything short of perfect will get punished more than a lack of transparency.
I know. My point stands. Candidates do not get rewarded for transparency. They get punished for anything short of perfect. Fact is she is very old. People's health declines in old age, even a healthy person in their late 70s will likely have something, even something that isn't a big deal in practice, in there to mention. With that likely something, it will cost her more to be transparent than it will to refuse.
The media moves on quickly enough from non-transparency.
My reaction is that she has something to hide. I'm sure I'm not alone. Whether you're right that it's politically better for her to be opaque about her health is another matter, but this is a highly dysfunctional situation. -Every- candidate should release their health and tax information!
I'd agree. I want greater transparency and I'm so skeptical of her candidacy due to her age that even if she did have a perfectly healthy background I'd still be worried.
You don't need to convince me! I was remarking on the reality of it, not my preferences. I am deeply frustrated by the pathetic and counterproductive way the media deals with transparency. How they are unable or unwilling to punish candidates sufficiently for being opaque, while gleefully tearing candidates to shreds over even minor things that do come up from transparency efforts. Obviously they should tear candidates to shreds for more major things, but there seems to be no divergences on that matter: all sins result in extensive negative coverage.
LOL at all this "oldest first term senator in history, she won't release her medical records" stuff, like we're supposed to ignore that Trump is 2 years older than her, that she's running for a chamber that regularly re-elects 80 to 90+ year olds. Mills is younger than Angus King, Richard Blumenthal, and Ed Markey. She's only 5 years older than Susan Collins!
What are we doing here, where does this stuff come from? Im not saying primary voters can't take age into account, I certainly want to see younger leaders coming into power. But there's a thing happening here where pollsters and pundits are making sure to keep reminding people, anxious Dems and/or supporters of other candidates are playing it up, and it feels removed from the reality of how age impacts election results in this country, and disproportionately weaponized.
I think Biden thrust the age issue into the forefront, and unfortunately he's probably become an excuse for ageism among some. (Never mind the fact that Trump isn't much younger and is probably less healthy, and the media gave him a pass.) Another often cited example is RBG, but that's entirely on her as she never had to face voters. Dianne Feinstein and Raul Grijalva are a couple of arguably fair recent examples of age and/or health leaving us down an important vote.
But Janet Mills isn't necessarily comparable to them. We can probably presume that she thoroughly took stock of her physical and mental health and abilities before deciding to run (it took her months of consideration.)
Biden certainly thrust it into the forefront among the very online, but the way the election ended up going, I'm less convinced age was actually a major concern for the general electorate. No argument on RBG, Feinstein, and our multiple representatives dying in office, this is a valid concern and I do think primary voters ought to be supporting younger candidates when possible.
But there's a level of focus and handwringing over Mills' age ("oldest freshman senator ever" like the chamber hasn't elected multiple 90+ year olds) that seems disproportionate. Like, SC Gov. Henry McMaster is older than Mills but if a senate seat was open and he went for it next year, I hardly think anyone would be writing about his age or repeatedly polling voters asking them how much they care. Not just because it would be a safe race, but because people would understand his age wouldn't even meaningfully dock any points off his margin. Why would it? Voters aren't going to switch their votes over it.
Susan Collins is the head of the Approps committee, what seniority will Mills ever have. It's legitimate to scrutinize her age and you're saying she's 5 years older like they are 60 and 65. It's between two people almost 73 and 78.
I don't know if he's going to win the primary by attacking Dem senators with these atrocious takes for money.
"Tim Ryan: Fairshake support helped elect 3 Dem Senators. Period.
@coinbase
Quote
@faryarshirzad
23h
Senator @chrismurphyCT. This is ridiculous. Here are the facts:
- Fairshake is non-partisan superpac. Ask your staff to look up the public disclosures and you'll see that FS supported multiple Democrats, including 3 of your new Senate D colleagues.
Sherrod Brown is known to dislike him and is fundraising for Acton. He is the best bet but I wonder if he gets past the primary. Note that Fairstake helped defeat Brown and Casey.
There's been a subtle but steady and noticeable trend found in census data that the migration to the South and Southwest have begun slowing down considerably. To an extent it's even somewhat reversed and led to more people moving to northern states, including in the Midwest. There's a variety of reasons but apparently among the top reasons are skyrocketing prices in the South and unbearable heat. The unofficial term for the Midwest where much of this migration now occurs is the Snowbelt, as opposed to the Sunbelt in the South. Someone who's better knowledgeable than me perhaps can further enlighten and elaborate on these trends, which states benefit the most and who is moving and the socioeconomic impacts of all that.
I expected that to happen eventually, but if the trend is starting now it's much sooner than I had expected.
Climate change is going to create a huge incentive for society to want as much of the country to live outside of the south and southwest. Between the higher temperatures and the increased rate and intensity of hurricanes along the Gulf coast and south Atlantic, that area is going to be hit hard in the coming decades.
The midwest and northeast make the most sense to have people relocate to, with the midwest making the most sense due to fresh water access and physical space for cheaper housing. Although even then both regions will see more and greater winter storms. Nowhere will be devoid of climate problems.
Yeah. For all the complaints about "damn Yankees moving down here" to North Carolina, the top three states that people move to NC from are actually Virginia, South Carolina and Florida. Hardly blue bastions. New York might be #5.
And I am reading a lot of anecdotal stories about people moving to Texas because of the "lower cost of living" are moving back to blue states because of the heat, traffic and disastrous Republican policies.
The Midwest is a great place for those people from the South and Southwest to move to.
The Northeast? Unfortunately, we don't have enough reasonably-priced housing for the people already here, never mind hordes of newcomers. And our absurd zoning rules prevent a lot of new housing from being built. Until we abolish rules mandating minimum house sizes and minimum lot sizes (just to name a few), things are only going to get worse.
The northeast is a good place for people to relocate to from a geographical and climate perspective. Housing density and costs is absolutely a huge problem here that I wish we were tackling more seriously, although I have seen some efforts actually start, finally! Those housing cost problems today are not an innate, inherent quality of our region of the country. It's a solvable problem that we can and should solve, and solving it to the extent that we allow people to relocate to here is a good idea.
I think climate here is a very dodgy proposition. There are more and more severe storms, wildfires and severe heat. The Midwest will be affected, too. Maybe more people should move to like Wyoming.
Everywhere is going to suffer from climate change, absolutely!
But every study I've seen, every vulnerability map, every expert commentary on the matter has consistently come to the conclusion that the northeast and midwest are the least vulnerable.
All storms will still happen, and winter storms will be worse in both than anywhere except Alaska I assume, and the temperature will go up too. But those areas start off with a lower temperature, less vulnerability to ocean storms, greater fresh water access, and similar. Winter storms are still damaging, still kill people, and still unpleasant, but typically a bad winter storm will do substantially less damage than a bad hurricane.
It's not immunity; it's a lower level of vulnerability.
Sun Belt cities are becoming built out with ow density housing like California and the new professional class there is similarly NIMBY when compared to their Californian and NYorker counterparts.
A real dilemma for Ohio Democrats given the extreme partisan secretary of state. Otherwise, I'd say reject the offer and go the referendum route.
I'd be tempted to go along. With voter backlash, it could still result in a 10-5 result or a dummymander around Cinci/Dayton.
The Landsman district is a swing district now, but it includes areas that are getting bluer. I also agree that the Democrats have reason to fear the Secretary of State will deliberately sabotage any ballot referendum as he did in the attempt to pass an independent commission.
I understand that concern, but Democrats can't just give up on using Ohio's referendum process just because politicians try to throw wrenches into the works. After all, we successfully legalized abortion in Ohio despite the wrenches that Republicans tried to put into that process. It can be done, and we definitely shouldn't stop trying.
And Democrats did it in Missouri, albeit the courts overruled the AG and SOS on their ballot summaries and imposed fair ones.
And Ohio Rs are STILL trying to implement waiting periods for abortion and trying everything they can to undermine the voters' will.
I agree, but I think Ohio Dems should put a referendum up for a better redistricting commission
Fully agreed.
And yet that didn't fail that heavily in a less Democratic year.
It is a dilemma, since the map could definitely be worse. I've drawn a 13-2 map where Cincinnati is split three ways so that all of the districts are at least Trump+18, Summit County is split between districts that are Trump+20, Toledo is in a Trump+17 district, and besides the two Democratic districts, the least Republican district is Trump+13.
The extreme red turn that Ohio's rural counties have taken has really screwed us. Back when the rurals were only 60-40 Republican, it wasn't so bad. But now, 10 counties gave Trump more than 80% and another 44 gave him more than 70%. Harris only surpassed 40% in 15 counties. When it's so easy to attach cities to rural areas that are this deep red, you're going to get bad maps.
This is why Democrats need to use a different approach to redistricting-related ballot propositions. The old approach of pushing a requirement that maps try to match the partisan lean of the state has been an epic failure, since 1) it requires more gerrymandering and unusual shapes to accomplish (and remember, the average person on the street sees gerrymandering solely through the lens of bizarrely shaped districts), and 2) the partisan lean of the state can change, which is why Arizona's districts, drawn while looking at the 2020 results, are now a mild Republican gerrymander with several light red districts after the state moved to the right in 2024.
The new approach we should use is one that will make much more sense to the average person, and would make better maps for us as well. We should push ballot propositions that forbid combining urban and rural areas in the same district (except when necessary for VRA purposes, of course). Our ballot propositions should require that some districts be overwhelmingly urban/suburban, and other districts be entirely rural. This can be framed as protecting the interests of rural voters from having their districts dominated by people in urban and suburban areas (the Rural America Protection Act). With a name like that, ballot propositions like this would easily pass in most states.
You cannot split Cincin. There are criteria clearly laid out, as passed as Issue 1 in 2018, now a part of the state constitution.
And you think that Republicans are just going to throw up their hands and abide by those criteria? And that the right-wing Ohio Supreme Court will force them to?
Talk about naive. Don't forget, abiding by the Constitution (federal or state) is now optional for Republicans.
If you are thinking about throwing out clearly languaged descriptions in the state constitution, then why do you bother commenting on elections?
Huh? Have you not been paying attention this year? Republicans have been ignoring constitutions willy-nilly this year, and right-wing courts have let them get away with it. No reason why it wouldn't happen with OH redistricting.
Then why would the referendum you propose have any force?
A referendum should be organized by a group independent of the Democratic leadership of the State Legislature.
The referendum route could be difficult given how many signatures are needed in very red districts. Abortion was a far easier lift than this would be. If we decided to do the referendum and don’t get the signatures, we’re screwed with a locked in 13-2 safe map where even a tsunami won’t overcome it.
I’m pretty much of the opinion for the age old “if my opponents are unhappy, then I’m happy”. Trump, The White House and NRCC are pissed. All of the Republicans on the commission didn’t vote for the map, only some did, indicating unhappiness by their members too. Take this massive gift to us and run with it. We went from a guaranteed -3 seats in the state to possibly break even, worst case -1. What’s not to like here?
I'm not understanding what the downside is of collecting signatures for a referendum now.
The map can’t be a referendum if it’s from the commission. So the choice was either take a gamble that the legislature or State Supreme Court draws us a map other than 13-2 with all 13 as R+10 or worse for us, or take a slight disadvantage in a few seats, which may not change the current 10-5 map at all and at worst will be -1. I know which one I’m picking.
That sucks!
The system implemented by the ballot initiative in Ohio is a complete clusterfuck. I cannot imagine why anyone thought this overcomplicated roundabout approach to anti-gerrymandering was a good idea. In some ways it's actually worse than nothing, because it created a system by which gerrymanders can be instituted mid decade by default. It did impose some useful limits on the how of drawing districts, but the change there isn't enough to outweigh the negatives.
The insistence on this unnecessarily complex system is why we're in this mess in Ohio.
I hope Ohio Democrats find a good candidate to challenge LaRose. If they do and manage to flip that, that's one vote against slanted voter referendum language.
I’d take it at this point.
Watch Marcy Kaptur win the new district by 0.03%
Can't outmap the Kap
(It's a work in progress)
I’m pretty strongly against gerrymandering and particularly against mid-decade redistricting, but even I think the arguments made by the MD senate President are stupid.
Ugh.
Just say it’s undemocratic, bad for voters, breeds cynicism, and will weaken Democratic legitimacy when Democrats win back the House in ‘26.
No one gives a crap about "legitimacy". That's an incredibly stupid argument.
And regarding your other arguments, are you really suggesting unilateral disarmament? That's the stupidest idea of them all.
You can be against them. I don’t mind.
But all of them are true.
And given that Justices Roberts & Barrett care about legitimacy and that the public will have to decide whether it’s legitimate to impeach Trump and cabinet members, legitimacy is really important.
As for “unilateral disarmament” I think that you’re making the mid-district redistricting into too big of a thing. Now there is some probably that it will be decisive, but I think it’s likely that Democrats win enough seats to overwhelm these new gerrymanders. More important is Democrats winning some state legislatures and Governors races because otherwise Republicans can just redistrict after the Census.
You think of redistricting as fighting back. I get that completely. Maybe it’s what is needed to prove Democrats will fight and that this is a particularly dangerous time. I am willing to be wrong.
But I think mid-district redistricting is fighting on the wrong terrain. I think our focus on extra seats in CA and other blue states is inconsequential. Our focus should be on what will help us win TX, OH, IA in addition to NC, ME, MI, and GA. Maybe have a surprise win in NE, KS, or AK.
I think mid-districting gerrymandering just tells the indifferent non-political person that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. My opinion is that is worse for the brand than focusing elsewhere.
My preference would have been for Pritzker and Newsom to offer TX state legislative candidates millions to run competitive races throughout TX, especially in the border counties that swung so much to Trump and to give they actual House Democrats jobs and housing so they could live out of TX for the year and continually subvert the special session.
Those millions wouldn't make a darn bit of difference - most of the districts are simply too Republican for a Democrat to win, regardless of money.
And the indifferent non-political person already thinks that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. The more the Democratic brand is seen as obsessing over process arguments, the worse we'll do in elections, since the average American doesn't give a sh*t about process. The Democratic brand needs to be about fighting for normal working Americans against the billionaires, process be damned.
Perhaps you are right.
I think the biggest issue is probably the Maryland Court of Appeals not upholding the map. Five of the seven judges are Hogan republican appointees.
the Court of Appeals was actually officially renamed the Supreme Court in 2022! Though they did keep the red robes.
I did not know this! Thank you for this information!
This is the real worry (the only worry to me). If they can amend state law or constitution (idk which one is the barrier in Maryland) to foreclose the court setting a precedent and redistrict in 2028 is my preference.
Just because we know we’ll lose doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. But yes, I do agree with you that the court is likely to slap it down. That said, even in failure, that means we create the political backing from voters angry enough about this failure to support changing the rules making it easier to redraw Harris out of office next time.
This is what Republicans do all the time and Democrats need to start playing their game.
How likely is it for many voters to be angry that their legislators can't gerrymander? I agree with your attitude in theory, but I'm skeptical about this case in practice, if you're expecting a loud public outcry about a decision by a court that will be couched as enforcing fair districting.
Democrats will be angry that the Republican State Supreme Court won’t let them counter the GOP trying to draw themselves into permanent power if they blocked a redrawn map. Our party is partisan too and not being able to make the playing field fair will turn any 50/50 action we take afterwards into making sure we get to do so next time with a solid majority of political support: see California remap.
There’s lots of different actions we can take: referendum, making court justice appointees subject to legislature approval, removing that power from the governor and transferring to the legislature, making all judges have to win a partisan D vs R election, expanding the court and the most radical option, which I’m not advocating, but is possible: impeachment/removal of the judges.
Partisanship is the name of modern America. Frame any action as countering Trump and the king’s party and even the moderate/swing Democrats will jump on board fast with any of the above changes. The laws can be rewritten or changed, if we aren’t able to balance their power grab, then we need to change the rules so we can.
We have the power in blue states and it’s about damn time we should start using it to our advantage.
I agree, but let's retain a healthy degree of skepticism.
Could =/= will. I’m well aware of that and am advocating a different path for Democrats to take if they choose to do so.
Without knowing anything about Maryland law, could the map be instead a consitutional amendment that voters approve to supercede the court?
I think his issue is that the original map passed in 2022 was thrown out by the GOP dominated state supreme court and they implemented a worse map. Remember that 5 of the 7 supreme court justices in Maryland were appointed by Larry Hogan He fears that they will just throw out the map and punish the Democrats even worse for attempting to gerrymander again after the court already said no.
Not sure how that could happen. The current map isn't at issue here - no one is suing over it. If the court decides to be assholish and strike down the 8-0 map, then the current map would just be brought back as the default.
Thanks for the explanation.
As others have said, an angry court can't just make its own map, it'll be the map already in place.
Ohio redistricting commission adopts "compromise" map.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/these-are-ohios-new-congressional-districts
Think they did it fast to avoid Trump sabotaging the effort?
They had to do it by today or else it would go to the legislature.
if Trump tries to lean on the legislature would they be able to do anything to stop it?
I don't think they can under the redistricting law. Not that the law means much when it comes to Republicans.
If that hadn't been adopted, then this is reportedly the 13R-2D map that would have come into play:
https://x.com/rooster_ohio/status/1984286027448733733
For those not sure of partisanship. All 3 districts become all, but unwinnable even in the biggest waves.
OH-1(Landsman): D+6.3—>R+10
OH-9(Kaptur): R+6.8—>R+15.9
OH-13(Sykes): D+.01—>R+10.9
The deal map we got instead in comparison was surprisingly good.
Remarkably similar to the ones that I've drawn.
Consistently excellent analysis, pleased to support your efforts with a paid annual subscription.
TX-SEN Race:
Since we have Colin Allred and James Talarico in the race with Jasmine Crockett preparing for a run as well, this has got me thinking of the kind of demographics each candidate would be able to fire up. It’s particularly interesting as the dynamics of this Senate race with soon to be three leading candidates could make TX fired up for Democrats in the midterms in ways it hasn’t been in a long time.
What particular voter demographics do you think each candidate would be able to appeal to the most?
Colin Allred - I suspect he’s got appeal to the more moderate and less liberal voters compared to Talarico and Crockett.
James Talarico certainly has youth and women voters well in his reach. He also appeals to liberal voters in general and those who are disillusioned with politics in general.
Jasmine Crockett - The black vote, the most staunchly liberal/progressive (and especially Justice Democrat types), less fortunate in wealth and the base in general that wants to go after the GOP hard.
I don’t live in Texas, but I personally lean more Justice Dem type and I’m 110% Talarico.
Can’t speak to anyone else as again, I don’t live in TX.
I don’t know that Crockett would pull more progressives than Talarico- I don’t think she’s ever publicly taken a particularly bold policy stance.
I don’t think it’s that Crockett will pull any of Talarico’s base of progressive supporters away from him. She may just fire them up and then if Talarico advances to the general election he will get even more supporters than before.
However, progressive Democrats that support Talarico I think are less likely to be pulled away by Crockett. This is what is going to make her Senate run all the more challenging.
I honestly feel that Talarico is the populist progressive, Crockett is the liberal, and Allred is the centrist
What distinction are you making between progressive and liberal, which are -not- clearly distinct terms in the U.S.?
I would argue that liberals tend to be at the establishment of the democratic party, where as progressives are further to the left than the national party is as a whole
OK, thanks. I wouldn't make that distinction. To me, to the left of liberals would make someone a social democrat or a leftist (and I call myself not a liberal but a socialist, but I also oppose illiberalism and consider myself a civil libertarian). Almost anyone who was liberal in the 1980s called themselves "progressive" because Michael Dukakis had allowed George H.W. Bush to continue Reagan's demonizing of the word "liberal" without defending liberalism (something Mario Cuomo had done in 1984, but not as a presidential candidate).
All that said, how do you find Talarico less mainstream than Crockett or Crockett more conservative than Talarico?
The Ohio map is decent for the Dems.
A decent map for Dems in Ohio would've been if voters enacted that independent redistricting commission last year.
The map that was signed off on keeps the GOP gerrymander in place but keeps them from making it even more egregious (ie like Rs did here in NC).
Another VA poll: GOP-aligned Echelon Insights finds Spanberger leading by 12, Hashmi by 3, Miyares by 3, generic Democratic lead of 11 for House of Delegates.
https://echeloninsights.com/2025-virginia-election-survey-2/
Why is Hashimi running so far behind the House of Delegates generic ballot?
Since this is a GOP poll I imagine it's messaging "we've given up on Earle-Sears, but we still need to turn out for other things!"
I dunno. Maybe it’s because neither LG candidate has made a particularly strong impression, while people might know their individual delegate better or are in a district where they don’t have much of a choice?
At least Dems are offering voters a choice in all 100 HoD districts, while the GOP conceded 17 of them upfront (probably none of which they were going to win anyway)
Sadly, I wonder if her being Muslim is part of it. The GOP is notoriously Islamophobic (and this is a GOP poll, as noted.)
I *really* don't think there's going to be that much ticket-splitting. I don't think Hashmi runs more than 2 percentage points behind Spanberger, or Jones runs more than 5 behind her. In 2021, all statewide races were within 2 percentage points of each other, and in 2017 they were all within 4 of each other. And American politics has only gotten more polarized since then.
I think that the vast majority of Spanberger voters will end up pulling the lever for Jones as well. And that Hashmi will run closer to Spanberger than the polls are suggesting.
I'd personally take a Democrat who wrote foolish inhumane stuff years ago over a MAGA Trump bootlicker anyday.
Dominion Energy absolutely does not want Jones to win.
They also have a vote on a pro-redistricting referendum at about 50/50.
New: Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, won't commit to release her medical records in her 2026 bid for Senate.
If she wins, Mills would be the oldest first-term senator elected in U.S. history.
w/
@AlexThomp
In a recent focus group in Maine by Senate candidate Jordan Wood, Democratic voters said they were proud of Gov. Janet Mills but thought she was too old to run for a six-year Senate term.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/maine-democrats-janet-mills-age
https://x.com/hollyotterbein/status/1984260239999603100
On an electoral level this is the smart choice. We've seen time and time again that any transparency that is anything short of perfect will get punished more than a lack of transparency.
This is the Democratic primary not the general election.
I know. My point stands. Candidates do not get rewarded for transparency. They get punished for anything short of perfect. Fact is she is very old. People's health declines in old age, even a healthy person in their late 70s will likely have something, even something that isn't a big deal in practice, in there to mention. With that likely something, it will cost her more to be transparent than it will to refuse.
The media moves on quickly enough from non-transparency.
My reaction is that she has something to hide. I'm sure I'm not alone. Whether you're right that it's politically better for her to be opaque about her health is another matter, but this is a highly dysfunctional situation. -Every- candidate should release their health and tax information!
I'd agree. I want greater transparency and I'm so skeptical of her candidacy due to her age that even if she did have a perfectly healthy background I'd still be worried.
You don't need to convince me! I was remarking on the reality of it, not my preferences. I am deeply frustrated by the pathetic and counterproductive way the media deals with transparency. How they are unable or unwilling to punish candidates sufficiently for being opaque, while gleefully tearing candidates to shreds over even minor things that do come up from transparency efforts. Obviously they should tear candidates to shreds for more major things, but there seems to be no divergences on that matter: all sins result in extensive negative coverage.
LOL at all this "oldest first term senator in history, she won't release her medical records" stuff, like we're supposed to ignore that Trump is 2 years older than her, that she's running for a chamber that regularly re-elects 80 to 90+ year olds. Mills is younger than Angus King, Richard Blumenthal, and Ed Markey. She's only 5 years older than Susan Collins!
What are we doing here, where does this stuff come from? Im not saying primary voters can't take age into account, I certainly want to see younger leaders coming into power. But there's a thing happening here where pollsters and pundits are making sure to keep reminding people, anxious Dems and/or supporters of other candidates are playing it up, and it feels removed from the reality of how age impacts election results in this country, and disproportionately weaponized.
I think Biden thrust the age issue into the forefront, and unfortunately he's probably become an excuse for ageism among some. (Never mind the fact that Trump isn't much younger and is probably less healthy, and the media gave him a pass.) Another often cited example is RBG, but that's entirely on her as she never had to face voters. Dianne Feinstein and Raul Grijalva are a couple of arguably fair recent examples of age and/or health leaving us down an important vote.
But Janet Mills isn't necessarily comparable to them. We can probably presume that she thoroughly took stock of her physical and mental health and abilities before deciding to run (it took her months of consideration.)
Biden certainly thrust it into the forefront among the very online, but the way the election ended up going, I'm less convinced age was actually a major concern for the general electorate. No argument on RBG, Feinstein, and our multiple representatives dying in office, this is a valid concern and I do think primary voters ought to be supporting younger candidates when possible.
But there's a level of focus and handwringing over Mills' age ("oldest freshman senator ever" like the chamber hasn't elected multiple 90+ year olds) that seems disproportionate. Like, SC Gov. Henry McMaster is older than Mills but if a senate seat was open and he went for it next year, I hardly think anyone would be writing about his age or repeatedly polling voters asking them how much they care. Not just because it would be a safe race, but because people would understand his age wouldn't even meaningfully dock any points off his margin. Why would it? Voters aren't going to switch their votes over it.
Are you saying this is purely a double standard for Democrats vs. Republicans?
Susan Collins is the head of the Approps committee, what seniority will Mills ever have. It's legitimate to scrutinize her age and you're saying she's 5 years older like they are 60 and 65. It's between two people almost 73 and 78.
"Tim Ryan is expected to enter the race for Ohio Governor in the next "two or three weeks”
Secretary of State candidate and state representative Allison Russo is the favorite to become his running mate.
Source: The Rooster"
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1984330680885780742
Between him and Brown we can’t ask for a better opportunity at the top of the ticket. Just a shame how red Ohio has gotten
I don't know if he's going to win the primary by attacking Dem senators with these atrocious takes for money.
"Tim Ryan: Fairshake support helped elect 3 Dem Senators. Period.
@coinbase
Quote
@faryarshirzad
23h
Senator @chrismurphyCT. This is ridiculous. Here are the facts:
- Fairshake is non-partisan superpac. Ask your staff to look up the public disclosures and you'll see that FS supported multiple Democrats, including 3 of your new Senate D colleagues.
- Presidential Inaugural x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/… "
https://x.com/TimRyan/status/1984256145692012992
Sherrod Brown is known to dislike him and is fundraising for Acton. He is the best bet but I wonder if he gets past the primary. Note that Fairstake helped defeat Brown and Casey.
There's been a subtle but steady and noticeable trend found in census data that the migration to the South and Southwest have begun slowing down considerably. To an extent it's even somewhat reversed and led to more people moving to northern states, including in the Midwest. There's a variety of reasons but apparently among the top reasons are skyrocketing prices in the South and unbearable heat. The unofficial term for the Midwest where much of this migration now occurs is the Snowbelt, as opposed to the Sunbelt in the South. Someone who's better knowledgeable than me perhaps can further enlighten and elaborate on these trends, which states benefit the most and who is moving and the socioeconomic impacts of all that.
I expected that to happen eventually, but if the trend is starting now it's much sooner than I had expected.
Climate change is going to create a huge incentive for society to want as much of the country to live outside of the south and southwest. Between the higher temperatures and the increased rate and intensity of hurricanes along the Gulf coast and south Atlantic, that area is going to be hit hard in the coming decades.
The midwest and northeast make the most sense to have people relocate to, with the midwest making the most sense due to fresh water access and physical space for cheaper housing. Although even then both regions will see more and greater winter storms. Nowhere will be devoid of climate problems.
Triple-digit days have become less rare in New York, so I'm afraid the Northeast in 20 years will be like Georgia 50 years ago.
Yeah. For all the complaints about "damn Yankees moving down here" to North Carolina, the top three states that people move to NC from are actually Virginia, South Carolina and Florida. Hardly blue bastions. New York might be #5.
And I am reading a lot of anecdotal stories about people moving to Texas because of the "lower cost of living" are moving back to blue states because of the heat, traffic and disastrous Republican policies.
The same for Georgia, where the top source states would be Texas, Florida, and North Carolina. :)
The Midwest is a great place for those people from the South and Southwest to move to.
The Northeast? Unfortunately, we don't have enough reasonably-priced housing for the people already here, never mind hordes of newcomers. And our absurd zoning rules prevent a lot of new housing from being built. Until we abolish rules mandating minimum house sizes and minimum lot sizes (just to name a few), things are only going to get worse.
The northeast is a good place for people to relocate to from a geographical and climate perspective. Housing density and costs is absolutely a huge problem here that I wish we were tackling more seriously, although I have seen some efforts actually start, finally! Those housing cost problems today are not an innate, inherent quality of our region of the country. It's a solvable problem that we can and should solve, and solving it to the extent that we allow people to relocate to here is a good idea.
I think climate here is a very dodgy proposition. There are more and more severe storms, wildfires and severe heat. The Midwest will be affected, too. Maybe more people should move to like Wyoming.
Everywhere is going to suffer from climate change, absolutely!
But every study I've seen, every vulnerability map, every expert commentary on the matter has consistently come to the conclusion that the northeast and midwest are the least vulnerable.
All storms will still happen, and winter storms will be worse in both than anywhere except Alaska I assume, and the temperature will go up too. But those areas start off with a lower temperature, less vulnerability to ocean storms, greater fresh water access, and similar. Winter storms are still damaging, still kill people, and still unpleasant, but typically a bad winter storm will do substantially less damage than a bad hurricane.
It's not immunity; it's a lower level of vulnerability.
Right, but we've started to get hurricanes more up here, too, and I'm sure that will accelerate.
Where do you find that trend? Can you point to the source?
Probably too late to be a big boon for us in 2030 but maybe 2040?
Depends who is moving there, etc.
Sun Belt cities are becoming built out with ow density housing like California and the new professional class there is similarly NIMBY when compared to their Californian and NYorker counterparts.
Many of the booming affordable housing destinations are no longer affordable.
VA-Redistricting: The Senate has approved the redistricting amendment as well, setting up a new vote next session assuming we keep the majority.
https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-special-session-latest-oct-31-2025
Not a single Democrat broke ranks in either house of the VA Legislature.
This is the kind of party unity we need on redistricting.
https://districtr.org/plan
Fair Ohio map I made in response to the new one