WI (PA is the other) where Dems need to be trying to get an independent redistricting commission if they win a trifecta in 2026. These states aren’t like VA where it’s almost impossible for Republicans to get a trifecta for the 2031 and later redistrictings. Just because Dems might get a trifecta in these states in 2026 doesn’t mean they will be able to hold them for very long. Better safe than sorry (see Dems many states after 2006 and 2008 and then 2010 where Republicans ended up getting trifectas and gerrymandered near permanent majorities for themselves).
As I've said before, the language regarding the commission's requirements needs to be written very carefully. The commission can't merely use compactness and CoIs to draw the maps, because Wisconsin's political geography means that those maps would favor Republicans. Any redistricting commission in Wisconsin needs to specify that the party that wins a majority of the vote should win a majority of seats. If that language isn't in there, then Democrats would be shooting dozens of bullets into our feet by supporting a commission.
Having any independent commission is better than Republicans drawing the maps. Dems walking away from something that’s not perfect for them would be very stupid in this case.
Dems idiotically walked away from Republican offers for independent redistricting in NC and OH in 2009 and are still paying for it almost 20 years later.
This is extremely shortsighted. Without language ensuring that the party that wins the most votes will most likely win a majority of seats, a commission's map would be no different than a Republican gerrymander. And the legislature would be safely Republican in all but the most massive Democratic waves.
Democrats wouldn't be walking away from it because it's not perfect, they'd be walking away from it because it would heavily favor Republicans. As they should.
I mean at that point you're arguing for proportional representation. I don't think it's possible to effectuate such language in a small-r republican system.
Trying to go for proportional representation in these commissions is what makes them fail on referendum. We just need to accept that in some states geography helps us (CA, NV) and in others it hurts us (WI) and then let the chips fall.
Hell no! Letting the chips fall as they may is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Republicans would never even think about doing something like that. They understand that they have to actually control the chips. And Democrats are never going to consistently win elections until we understand that as well.
The language of the Michigan redistricting law says "Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.", which is different than what you're arguing.
Regardless of the exact language of Michigan's commission, the effect of that language is what we want (and should demand in any hypothetical Wisconsin commission). Ann Arbor split between four HDs to spread out its Democratic voters. Four solidly Democratic districts in the Lansing area. Five in Grand Rapids (a CoI map would have only three). The Saugatuck-to-New Buffalo district along the Lake Michigan shore. These Democratic-favoring aspects of the map were drawn because otherwise, the map would've favored Republicans. The commission's language made sure that didn't happen. That's what we need in a Wisconsin commission.
That makes sense, I was just saying the specific language you were advocating, "specify that the party that wins a majority of the vote should win a majority of seats", is simply not possible without going for full PR.
This is not disarming, it’s purchasing insurance. It’s highly unlikely we’ll have a trifecta in WI (or PA) coming out of 2030. A Republican trifecta in both states is far more likely than a Dem one in 2031.
Yep, preemptive measures in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where we could very well see Republican trifectas in 2030 is smart. Any blue leaning state is different.
Your specificity in the caption: "Florida Democrat Emily Gregory (second from left)" – when she’s the only woman, in fact only female, in the photo – made me chuckle.
Once again Undecided is leading the field in the latest CA-Gov poll. My theory is that voters will start focusing on the election when the ballots hit their mailboxes in early May.
Primary Day in CA is a numerical palindrome: 6/2/26... (some useless information for you all).
"Haley Stevens also seemed generally impressed with the (ICE) staff during the visit and their treatment of detainees.
“Of note, there is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today and explained, on the intake process"
“What we were informed of is that there is still an ongoing review of his death, and yet a man is dead, and he died here in this ICE center, this ICE processing center, this detention center.” "
Michigan congresswomen get no answers on Baldwin ICE facility death during visit and tour
"Of note, there is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today and explained, on the intake process" ok gaslight gatekeep girlboss
Lol, the threat of facing Talarico in the general already cost them 60 million. Imagine the tens of millions he will divert away from the core states of Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Alaska, North Carolina if he wins the primary.
There's a non-zero chance the FCC may have unintentionally triggered a butterfly effect that could ultimately lead to the abolition of the Electoral College.
I am curious about two primaries here in North Carolina that doesn't have much or no polling:
Kate Barr v. Tim Moore (NC CD 14 Republican primary)
- Barr has been open about being a progressive faux Republican and said on HCR's podcast last night that should she win the GOP primary and Nov election, she would vote for Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker.
Christine Walczyk v. James Whalen (NC Court of Appeals Democratic primary)
- Both are really good and qualified candidates, but I think Whalen gets the edge because he successfully defended Justice Allison Riggs' win in court. Walczyk would be an incredible candidate for one of the three state Supreme Court seats up in 2028.
The fact that she's making him work for his gerrymandered seat gives me great satisfaction. And people have to be creative in states that are viciously gerrymandered like NC.
Plus, he's young. Meaning that if he wins the primary and the general in November, he'll be primed to join his client on the state Supreme Court in several years.
Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to him running for Supreme Court in 2028 tbh. Maybe Allegra Collins? Idk why she's leaving the court this year, maybe she has a 2028 NCSC race on her mind?
I would love to see Collins run for the state Supreme Court in 2028. That said, being part of a judicial minority in the Court of Appeals can take its toll.
It would be nice if he won the Court of Appeals seat and should he run for the state Supreme Court in 2028, he can run for that (and have Stein appoint his replacement on CoA).
Yes, though it’s a much heavier lift than the South Texas trio and maybe even that new gerrymandered seat near San Antonio that Casar used to represent
I said a while ago that this was a district to watch because Gonzales was likely to lose his primary (even before this affair allegation), but now I’m certain of it with endorsement withdrawals like this.
R+7 district, but we don’t really have a strong Democratic candidate here unfortunately. Santos Limon is running again after getting 38% of the vote in 2024, but none of the other candidates are Hispanic/Latino (I think?), which is a must to pull off an OK05 like massive upset here.
Alexis Goldstein, fired CFPB official, is running here, I assume in the Dem primary against April McClain-Delaney (haven't watched the video yet). This also marks the first time in my memory that a candidate has announced on Democracy Now. (Which is great IMO, I love D Now.)
Jasmine Crockett makes her case on Day 1 of early voting. Telling us she is the “most qualified” candidate and voters should not be distracted by the “dog whistle” of an electability concern.
Ugh, it's tough because that is a real dog whistle people sometimes use against women and candidates of color, but it's also a valid question here. The Crockett people keep bringing up these concerns which are totally valid and based on things that have happened to candidates in the past, so you can't fully dismiss them, by I also don't think they apply here. The sooner this primary is over, the better.
Also frequently used against progressives in general.
Nevertheless, Crockett is not going to win. Too much of a bombthrower. (I also like Talarico’s emphasis on progressive Christianity, as a progressive Christian myself.)
Progressive Mark Pinsley drops out, running for State Senate instead (specifically PA-SD-16 against incumbent Republican Jarrett Coleman).
From a progressive point of view, good, as now Bob Brooks can consolidate progressive support. Pinsley had no chance anyway.
Also, was Coleman vulnerable or no? I feel like I’d heard he was vulnerable. Any PA people here who can help? (If so, Pinsley, a progressive, would certainly be an upgrade from the GOP).
Tbh the likelier option is the Dem establishment in California puts their thumb on the scale on the Dem they most like (likely Swalwell) and that clinches it. A lot of the Dems running here especially Becerra and Villaraigosa have nothing to lose by continuing their doomed campaigns.
Unsurprising. Besides if you’re a Red Tory type like Jeneroux you haven’t had a Liberal leader overlap with your views this much ever; not even Paul Martin
I have a friend who's a Red Tory(?) who threw a fit in our mutual ravers group chat when the Liberals won again, claimed Trump would dog walk Mark Carney, but several months later said Carney was growing on him especially as he's been reversing Justin Trudeau's more questionable policies.
Hell fucking yes. I obviously highly doubt the 2025 result is anywhere close to the baseline, but cut the margin in half (D+7.5) and you have Harris 2024 (D+6). So cut the margin shift here in half and a 2 point shift bluer in a neutral year would’ve saved Luria. The seat now is likely only at risk in a Republican wave year and if it’s one of those, we’ve already lost Luria and the majority, so it’s not a big deal.
Way happier about this map now, even if the other Harris +3 district could be a bit bluer. We are so incredible lucky to have her as State Senate leader. She’s going down in history as one of the all time Democratic greats.
I'm also glad to see she's playing hardball on this. However, I still think northern Norfolk (i.e. the majority white part of Norfolk) should be put in VA-02 and Isle of Wight County should be put in VA-03.
I would not be surprised if L. Louise Lucas frequented Elections X for ideas about drawing Virginia's congressional map.
Now Virginia Democrats just have to convince voters to once again show the GOP the same mercy they showed them when putting them on the unemployment dole during DOGE.
I hope this group is connected to one of the groups already trying to do this. If it isn’t, there are now 3 different groups trying to redistrict in CO. What a mess.
Are republicans going to start using independent commissions? If not then going back to the independent commission if just going to tie are hands next decade.
Yeah, this is a detail that is driving me absolutely up the wall with so many of our responses. Texas, Tennessee, Florida, etc. aren't going to reverse course and go for anything other than maximal gerrymanders after the 2030 census. Why are we limiting ourselves to fighting back for a single round?
It's going to be harder to get voters to go back and do this whole process a second time. We should do it once and do it right.
If there's an ingrained need to soften it, add in a language that ties the return of the commission to the adoption of a similarly created commission in a republican state of appropriate size. California suspends their commission until Texas adopts one. Virginia does until North Carolina has one too. New York puts theirs on pause until Florida has one. It has a nice "good government" vibe and the end state where republicans actually do adopt those commissions is a great thing for us too -- it's win/win if we do it this way.
One thing at a time here. First, we need to get Democratic gerrymanders implemented ASAP to counteract Trump's Republican gerrymanders.
Then, once we have that, we can pass ballot referendums suspending the independent commissions in blue states until red states create their own independent commissions. That's what California should be focusing on now.
Just as early voting begins in the Texas primaries, a scandal emerged around Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales (23rd CD). Months after an aide set herself fatally on fire, other aides are reporting that Gonzales had conducted an affair with her. Both were married to others. One newspaper has withdrawn its endorsement of Gonzales, who narrowly defeated a right-wing challenger, Brandon Herrera, in 2024. Herrera is challenging him again. https://newrepublic.com/post/206702/republican-representative-gonzales-affair-aide-suicide-fire
Looks like Tony Evers is no dummy:
https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2023949070335656188?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2023949070335656188%7Ctwgr%5E7760283415fe0a7f17dff6ee0dfde246d223e541%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkelections.org%2FFORUM%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D648108.msg10211060new
WI (PA is the other) where Dems need to be trying to get an independent redistricting commission if they win a trifecta in 2026. These states aren’t like VA where it’s almost impossible for Republicans to get a trifecta for the 2031 and later redistrictings. Just because Dems might get a trifecta in these states in 2026 doesn’t mean they will be able to hold them for very long. Better safe than sorry (see Dems many states after 2006 and 2008 and then 2010 where Republicans ended up getting trifectas and gerrymandered near permanent majorities for themselves).
As I've said before, the language regarding the commission's requirements needs to be written very carefully. The commission can't merely use compactness and CoIs to draw the maps, because Wisconsin's political geography means that those maps would favor Republicans. Any redistricting commission in Wisconsin needs to specify that the party that wins a majority of the vote should win a majority of seats. If that language isn't in there, then Democrats would be shooting dozens of bullets into our feet by supporting a commission.
Having any independent commission is better than Republicans drawing the maps. Dems walking away from something that’s not perfect for them would be very stupid in this case.
Dems idiotically walked away from Republican offers for independent redistricting in NC and OH in 2009 and are still paying for it almost 20 years later.
This is extremely shortsighted. Without language ensuring that the party that wins the most votes will most likely win a majority of seats, a commission's map would be no different than a Republican gerrymander. And the legislature would be safely Republican in all but the most massive Democratic waves.
Democrats wouldn't be walking away from it because it's not perfect, they'd be walking away from it because it would heavily favor Republicans. As they should.
What was the offer in Ohio in 2009? Republicans held the state senate.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2009/09/senate_republicans_pass_consti.html
So it was basically abolishing the Voting Rights Act as a poison pill? Was it even constitutional?
I mean at that point you're arguing for proportional representation. I don't think it's possible to effectuate such language in a small-r republican system.
Trying to go for proportional representation in these commissions is what makes them fail on referendum. We just need to accept that in some states geography helps us (CA, NV) and in others it hurts us (WI) and then let the chips fall.
Hell no! Letting the chips fall as they may is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Republicans would never even think about doing something like that. They understand that they have to actually control the chips. And Democrats are never going to consistently win elections until we understand that as well.
I'm pretty sure Michigan's commission has language like that.
Yeah that could be added here.
The language of the Michigan redistricting law says "Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.", which is different than what you're arguing.
Regardless of the exact language of Michigan's commission, the effect of that language is what we want (and should demand in any hypothetical Wisconsin commission). Ann Arbor split between four HDs to spread out its Democratic voters. Four solidly Democratic districts in the Lansing area. Five in Grand Rapids (a CoI map would have only three). The Saugatuck-to-New Buffalo district along the Lake Michigan shore. These Democratic-favoring aspects of the map were drawn because otherwise, the map would've favored Republicans. The commission's language made sure that didn't happen. That's what we need in a Wisconsin commission.
That makes sense, I was just saying the specific language you were advocating, "specify that the party that wins a majority of the vote should win a majority of seats", is simply not possible without going for full PR.
Compactness is always my least favorite redistricting factor.
Wisconsin Rs are not going to do it. Vos will gavel in and then gavel out within seconds.
Then Dems should do it if they get legislative majorities in 2026.
It should be one of the first things they pass. They'll need to pass it twice like in Virginia before putting it to voters.
And then a Voter's Bill of Rights like the proposed initiative in OH that nullifies the WI photo ID amendment.
I would not pair them together.
On the ballot as one, no.
Two separate amendments, yes.
That seems to make it more likely Republicans could a
use the voter ID one as a stalking horse to get both voted down. I would recommend worrying about the redistricting one alone first.
Disarming in the middle of a war is stupid.
This is not disarming, it’s purchasing insurance. It’s highly unlikely we’ll have a trifecta in WI (or PA) coming out of 2030. A Republican trifecta in both states is far more likely than a Dem one in 2031.
Yep, preemptive measures in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where we could very well see Republican trifectas in 2030 is smart. Any blue leaning state is different.
Your specificity in the caption: "Florida Democrat Emily Gregory (second from left)" – when she’s the only woman, in fact only female, in the photo – made me chuckle.
Check out the addition of “(right)” to a photo caption of bagpipe player and "indifferent penguin" in Antarctica:
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/154482764904/who-would-have-believed-that-the-perfect-wikipedia
lol not Becerra trying to spin being at 6% in his own poll as a good thing. At least Swalwell‘s poll a week or so ago showed him in 2nd place.
Once again Undecided is leading the field in the latest CA-Gov poll. My theory is that voters will start focusing on the election when the ballots hit their mailboxes in early May.
Primary Day in CA is a numerical palindrome: 6/2/26... (some useless information for you all).
"Haley Stevens also seemed generally impressed with the (ICE) staff during the visit and their treatment of detainees.
“Of note, there is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today and explained, on the intake process"
“What we were informed of is that there is still an ongoing review of his death, and yet a man is dead, and he died here in this ICE center, this ICE processing center, this detention center.” "
Michigan congresswomen get no answers on Baldwin ICE facility death during visit and tour
https://michiganadvance.com/2026/02/17/michigan-congresswomen-get-no-answers-on-baldwin-ice-facility-death-during-visit-and-tour/
Her successor, Jeremy Moss, will be a big upgrade. He supports abolishing ICE unlike her.
"Of note, there is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today and explained, on the intake process" ok gaslight gatekeep girlboss
"See! They have Girlboss Concentration Camp guards. How progressive of them" talk about tone deaf.
"Paxton surviving cash dump in Texas Senate primary
TYLER, Texas — The GOP establishment spent more than $60 million to kneecap Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Senate campaign.
It didn’t work."
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/paxton-survival/
Lol, the threat of facing Talarico in the general already cost them 60 million. Imagine the tens of millions he will divert away from the core states of Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Alaska, North Carolina if he wins the primary.
Talarico just raised 2.5 million in the 24 hour period after his interview with Stephen Colbert
The FCC’s bullshit was an in-kind contribution to the Talarico campaign
There's a non-zero chance the FCC may have unintentionally triggered a butterfly effect that could ultimately lead to the abolition of the Electoral College.
I am curious about two primaries here in North Carolina that doesn't have much or no polling:
Kate Barr v. Tim Moore (NC CD 14 Republican primary)
- Barr has been open about being a progressive faux Republican and said on HCR's podcast last night that should she win the GOP primary and Nov election, she would vote for Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker.
Christine Walczyk v. James Whalen (NC Court of Appeals Democratic primary)
- Both are really good and qualified candidates, but I think Whalen gets the edge because he successfully defended Justice Allison Riggs' win in court. Walczyk would be an incredible candidate for one of the three state Supreme Court seats up in 2028.
Moore will easily win the first one. Not sure about the second though.
The fact that she's making him work for his gerrymandered seat gives me great satisfaction. And people have to be creative in states that are viciously gerrymandered like NC.
I am voting for Whalen. He seems well-regarded in Democratic circles.
Plus, he's young. Meaning that if he wins the primary and the general in November, he'll be primed to join his client on the state Supreme Court in several years.
Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to him running for Supreme Court in 2028 tbh. Maybe Allegra Collins? Idk why she's leaving the court this year, maybe she has a 2028 NCSC race on her mind?
I would love to see Collins run for the state Supreme Court in 2028. That said, being part of a judicial minority in the Court of Appeals can take its toll.
It would be nice if he won the Court of Appeals seat and should he run for the state Supreme Court in 2028, he can run for that (and have Stein appoint his replacement on CoA).
graduated with him from law school, he is the epitome of empathy and integrity
https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/tony-gonzales-affair-regina-santos-aviles-21357720.php
TX-23: Rep. Tony Gonzales, who is married, has been accused of having an affair with his now deceased staff member.
Congrats Congressman Herrera (shudders)
If Republicans truly do see a collapse with hispanic voters, it'd materialize here too.
Yes, though it’s a much heavier lift than the South Texas trio and maybe even that new gerrymandered seat near San Antonio that Casar used to represent
I have a horrible premonition that this is a replay of Cal Cunningham, North Carolina.
At least Cunningham's mistress didn't set herself on fire.
I said a while ago that this was a district to watch because Gonzales was likely to lose his primary (even before this affair allegation), but now I’m certain of it with endorsement withdrawals like this.
R+7 district, but we don’t really have a strong Democratic candidate here unfortunately. Santos Limon is running again after getting 38% of the vote in 2024, but none of the other candidates are Hispanic/Latino (I think?), which is a must to pull off an OK05 like massive upset here.
https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/editorial/article/tony-gonzales-affair-no-recommendation-21359457.php
Tony Gonzales has questions to answer after affair comes to light. No recommendation in CD 23 GOP primary.
In light of text messages confirming U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales’ affair with a former staffer, we are withdrawing our recommendation.
By Express-News Editorial Board,
Opinion Staff
Feb 17, 2026
SEASIDE LAIR!!!
Pictured: Hall of Doom | Superman Wiki | Fandom https://share.google/YO3HTDqnbMd3EASkb
MD-06:
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/2/18/alexis_goldstein_cfpb_consumer_protection_doge
Alexis Goldstein, fired CFPB official, is running here, I assume in the Dem primary against April McClain-Delaney (haven't watched the video yet). This also marks the first time in my memory that a candidate has announced on Democracy Now. (Which is great IMO, I love D Now.)
"“I’m tired of people asking if I’m electable.”
Jasmine Crockett makes her case on Day 1 of early voting. Telling us she is the “most qualified” candidate and voters should not be distracted by the “dog whistle” of an electability concern.
@FOX4
@JasmineForUS
#TXSEN"
https://x.com/StevenDialFox4/status/2023879120351084719
Ugh, it's tough because that is a real dog whistle people sometimes use against women and candidates of color, but it's also a valid question here. The Crockett people keep bringing up these concerns which are totally valid and based on things that have happened to candidates in the past, so you can't fully dismiss them, by I also don't think they apply here. The sooner this primary is over, the better.
It’s a totally valid question and Crockett’s response strikes me as way too much like “how dare you question me”
Also frequently used against progressives in general.
Nevertheless, Crockett is not going to win. Too much of a bombthrower. (I also like Talarico’s emphasis on progressive Christianity, as a progressive Christian myself.)
Ok I'm not even a detractor of Crockett but what exactly makes her more qualified than Talarico? Because she's a lawyer?
PA-7:
https://www.mcall.com/2026/02/18/mark-pinsley-drops-out-of-race-for-congress-in-lehigh-valley-will-run-for-state-senate-seat/
Progressive Mark Pinsley drops out, running for State Senate instead (specifically PA-SD-16 against incumbent Republican Jarrett Coleman).
From a progressive point of view, good, as now Bob Brooks can consolidate progressive support. Pinsley had no chance anyway.
Also, was Coleman vulnerable or no? I feel like I’d heard he was vulnerable. Any PA people here who can help? (If so, Pinsley, a progressive, would certainly be an upgrade from the GOP).
SD-16 voted for the Democratic judicial candidates last year. It's definitely a seat that PA Democrats should be targeting.
CA Gov: Emerson poll (1000 LVs 2/13-2/14)
Steve Hilton 17%
Eric Swalwell 14%
Chad Bianco 14%
Katie Porter 10%
Tom Steyer 9%
Xavier Becerra 4%
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/california-2026-poll-hilton-swalwell-bianco-lead-nonpartisan-primary-for-governor/
Hopefully some of these candidates drop out as we get closer to the primary
Tbh the likelier option is the Dem establishment in California puts their thumb on the scale on the Dem they most like (likely Swalwell) and that clinches it. A lot of the Dems running here especially Becerra and Villaraigosa have nothing to lose by continuing their doomed campaigns.
Yea that' the nuclear option, these candidates stuck on 3% and 4% after months need to get a clue that no one is interested.
News from the North: LOL and LMAO: Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux joins Liberal caucus: Carney | CBC News https://share.google/rwZFSyx3hlEWgR31W
Additionally, he is staying in Parliament after previously saying he would resign.
Apparently his family and the Carney speech at Davos changed his mind.
Unsurprising. Besides if you’re a Red Tory type like Jeneroux you haven’t had a Liberal leader overlap with your views this much ever; not even Paul Martin
Also I bet he knows how to read polling data.
Red Tories in Canada and the UK are an extinct breed. Unfortunately.
I have a friend who's a Red Tory(?) who threw a fit in our mutual ravers group chat when the Liberals won again, claimed Trump would dog walk Mark Carney, but several months later said Carney was growing on him especially as he's been reversing Justin Trudeau's more questionable policies.
A Red Tory raver seems like an oxymoron, either the dancehall kind or someone ranting and raving, seems out of character.
Hell yeah
https://x.com/Jaaavis/status/2024118444203892780
L Louise Lucas turned CD2 a bit bluer.
A leader who takes feedback fancy that
Hell fucking yes. I obviously highly doubt the 2025 result is anywhere close to the baseline, but cut the margin in half (D+7.5) and you have Harris 2024 (D+6). So cut the margin shift here in half and a 2 point shift bluer in a neutral year would’ve saved Luria. The seat now is likely only at risk in a Republican wave year and if it’s one of those, we’ve already lost Luria and the majority, so it’s not a big deal.
Way happier about this map now, even if the other Harris +3 district could be a bit bluer. We are so incredible lucky to have her as State Senate leader. She’s going down in history as one of the all time Democratic greats.
I'm also glad to see she's playing hardball on this. However, I still think northern Norfolk (i.e. the majority white part of Norfolk) should be put in VA-02 and Isle of Wight County should be put in VA-03.
Could you tell me the close districts, the people running there and their updated margins?
I would not be surprised if L. Louise Lucas frequented Elections X for ideas about drawing Virginia's congressional map.
Now Virginia Democrats just have to convince voters to once again show the GOP the same mercy they showed them when putting them on the unemployment dole during DOGE.
She is a part of Election Twitter lol. She regularly engages with many random people there and even liked a couple of my suggestions.
I'm not usually one to cheerlead for politicians, but Louise Lucas is AMAZING.
Colorado Dems are jumping into the redistricting wars.
Coloradans for a Level Playing Field, launched today, will push for a November ballot initiative to temporarily redraw maps ahead of 2028.
After 2030, they’d revert back to an independent redistricting commission.
https://x.com/ec_schneider/status/2024141916766360001?s=20
I hope this group is connected to one of the groups already trying to do this. If it isn’t, there are now 3 different groups trying to redistrict in CO. What a mess.
Are republicans going to start using independent commissions? If not then going back to the independent commission if just going to tie are hands next decade.
Yeah, this is a detail that is driving me absolutely up the wall with so many of our responses. Texas, Tennessee, Florida, etc. aren't going to reverse course and go for anything other than maximal gerrymanders after the 2030 census. Why are we limiting ourselves to fighting back for a single round?
It's going to be harder to get voters to go back and do this whole process a second time. We should do it once and do it right.
If there's an ingrained need to soften it, add in a language that ties the return of the commission to the adoption of a similarly created commission in a republican state of appropriate size. California suspends their commission until Texas adopts one. Virginia does until North Carolina has one too. New York puts theirs on pause until Florida has one. It has a nice "good government" vibe and the end state where republicans actually do adopt those commissions is a great thing for us too -- it's win/win if we do it this way.
One thing at a time here. First, we need to get Democratic gerrymanders implemented ASAP to counteract Trump's Republican gerrymanders.
Then, once we have that, we can pass ballot referendums suspending the independent commissions in blue states until red states create their own independent commissions. That's what California should be focusing on now.
Bummer they're not considering an 8-0.
Just as early voting begins in the Texas primaries, a scandal emerged around Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales (23rd CD). Months after an aide set herself fatally on fire, other aides are reporting that Gonzales had conducted an affair with her. Both were married to others. One newspaper has withdrawn its endorsement of Gonzales, who narrowly defeated a right-wing challenger, Brandon Herrera, in 2024. Herrera is challenging him again. https://newrepublic.com/post/206702/republican-representative-gonzales-affair-aide-suicide-fire