In light of some recent news, I am now quite interested in the Senate. It certainly seems more winnable than it did before — I hope. Thoughts?
As for the House, I’ll be curious to see how redistricting affects individual House races. I’m already hearing about Texas and California candidates and races starting to shape up. Here’s my question: what candidates may run in hypothetical redistricted districts other than TX or CA? Like, FL, MO, MD, NY, etc. Who might be able to take advantage of those maps, on either side?
Finally, this one’s more of a question than a race proper, but I’m curious to know from posters here — has anyone heard of any intriguing local races? Like, state legislatures or city councils? Other than NJ or VA — I’ve heard quite a bit of those already. It’s the other states I’m interested in.
I’ll be interested to see how Washington state’s special elections shake out for the two Senate districts this November. We’re pretty close to maxed out in that legislature but I’m curious if there’s anywhere we might be able to sneak a seat or two
Specifically, the 15th got redrawn in 2024 for being insufficiently able to elect a candidate of Latino choice. Now, most Latino residents of The Yakima Valley are noncitizens or often nonvoters, and there was a big swing right in that group in WA and nationally. But if the same swing seen in some polling bears out this could nab a rare seat east of the mountains.
The 6th is always targeted but Jeff Holy is a tenured lawmaker and experienced campaigner and Spokane’s movement towards Ds has stalled out a bit with the same kinds of transplants who head to neighboring North Idaho. If the backlash is big enough we could make it a race but sadly I doubt this one is a priority for Shasti Conrad and co
2006 Senate vibes in the sense that the candidates are there and the path is more clear even if it is extremely difficult and requires a lot of big breaks.
We have a non-zero chance of retaking the Senate. So far we have the ideal array of top-tier candidates – and who knows, we just may add Janet Mills in Maine and Mary Peltola in Alaska to the list!
All in all, the odds are looking much better than a few months ago. Yes, it’s an uphill battle, but we and our candidates are ready to fight like hell!
Next Tuesday is the special election in Iowa Sen-1. If Democrat Catelin Drey wins, we will: (1) end the R's two-third lock on the state senate; and (2) show continuing momentum in Iowa off-year races which may foretell improvement in 2026 when the US Senate, Gov, and multiple US House seats are going to be contested.
Iowa: I'm also curious if Trump's continued craziness against clean energy, including wind, could hurt the R's in Iowa. Iowa generates a higher percentage of its electricity from wind than any other state, 64% as of 2024.
Yeah, the hate boner for wind is self defeating considering how many farmers have come to rely on it (beyond utility scale wind in several red states, like Kansas, Oklahoma and the Dakotas)
NY GOP seems to betting on another similar 2022 environment in NY with Hochul leading the ticket. She seems to picked up in popularity but who knows where she could be polling a year from now. Would've been nice if she passed on re-election.
Has anyone heard about that stupid controversary in VA about some random women holding up an offensive sign about Winsome Sears?
The Spanberger campaign felt the need to issue TWO statements profusely apologizing for the actions of someone not even affiliated with her campaign at a protest her campaign had nothing to do with. I am tired of seeing Dems always on the defensive and apologizing for everything under the sun while Republican candidates routinely sink to new lows. Every Dem needs to take notes from Newsom on how to punch back ASAP.
What also doesn’t help is we have Ben Tribbett (a loudmouth and notable local Dem “consultant”) fanning the flames on Twitter. When our own side keeps bringing attention to this bullshit, we just can’t win. Republicans have no one in their ecosystem that’s a huge thorn in their side but is nonetheless still treated like a party voice in good standing.
Ben’s assessments are dumb for sure, but he’s the only reason this story even appeared on my timeline. And he beats the drum enough to gets reporters to pick up on it
Not really. The view stats on Twitter are often inflated by bots/Elon being a weirdo and doing weird stuff with the algorithm. Viral tweets regularly get over 10 million views. 150K is nothing, and the number of them who were potential swing voters in Virginia likely is close to zero.
"Rick Caruso, the Los Angeles-based billionaire (who has bounced between the Republican and Democratic parties) who unsuccessfully ran for Los Angeles mayor in 2024 and has been a vocal critic of the state’s Democratic leadership, says that he will also donate to and support the redistricting effort, Julia Wick of the LA Times reported."
That's a pleasant surprise. BTW, the Americana open-air mall in Glendale, CA that he owns is excellent even if it's upper crust.
yeah: $7.9 billion estimated net worth as of last year.
He's probably concluded the proposition passes, and wants to be on the winning side.
However, this will definitely make enemies of Trump & the White House, not to mention the CA GOP. So he's likely Democratic party or NPP for the time being.
If he does want to run again then he probably wants to shed the impression which formed during his LA mayoral race that he's really a Republican at heart, and is only a Democrat in name because that's the only way he can win. This is probably as a good a way as any to prove his blue bona fides.
The Texas Senate passed the new maps after denying Sen. Carol Alvarado the ability to filibuster. Republicans said since she sent out a fundraising email before the filibuster, that her filibustering would constitute a campaign event which would be illegal and unethical when acting in her official capacity, as well as illegal and unethical because it would have involved the other senators in a campaign event as well as state staff.
Big mistake that she essentially announced her filibuster ahead of time. You simply don’t announce your strategy and tactics to the other side. Senator Alvarado should just have continued talking after taking the podium!
This was a case (again) of Democrats playing by the rules and not realizing that Cersei doesn't care about their rules. Having worked for a state senator, it's proper to inform the Lite Gov that you plan to filibuster. I can remember having to type out a letter for that purpose.
This is also one small example of how the state senate works. Everything in the state senate is completely orchestrated to avoid surprises. Senators have to prove to the Lite Gov they have the required number of votes to pass their bill. Senators are usually limited to the number of bills they can bring to a vote on the floor per day.
Here’s a question that’s come to mind, and I’m wondering what you all think. Suppose, hypothetically, you could wave a magic wand and make one of these things come true right now:
(A) Nationwide ban on gerrymandering (nonpartisan redistricting in all 50 states)
(B) Reverse the Citizens United ruling and get money out of politics entirely
(C) Require ranked choice voting (RCV) for all elections (thus creating a multi-party system)
Which one of these would you pick and why? Personally, I would like all three to happen, which means I would pick the one that’s most likely to lead to the other two coming true at some point in the future. Consequently, this raises the following questions:
• How likely is it that we’ll get B and C in the future if we get A now?
• How likely is it that we'll get A and C in the future if we get B now?
• How likely is it that we’ll get A and B in the future if we get C now?
Tough call between A and B; I'd go with A. Our country is polarized enough that gerrymandering can be a massive political advantage, far more so than any advantage that B alone provides Republicans (B is more of an advantage to moderates in D primaries and far-right extremists in R primaries than it is in general elections).
C would probably not affect the balance of power in either house of Congress significantly by itself (RCV with single-member districts wouldn't break the two-party system; you'd need either RCV or party-list voting and multi-member districts), but either of the first two would. Also, multi-member districts can still be gerrymandered, even if the maximum possible advantage gained from gerrymandering multi-membered districts isn't as large as gerrymandering single-member districts.
I agree that C wouldn't affect the balance of power immediately. In fact, we'll probably continue to elect only Republicans and Democrats for at least the first few election cycles after adopting RCV. However, that's because, immediately after adopting RCV, not enough time will have passed yet (i) for the two major parties to splinter into separate parties, (ii) for third parties to build up the infrastructure to compete in various states and districts, and (iii) for people to move past the GOP vs Dem dichotomy in their minds. Once enough time passes, we would start to see more third party and Independent candidates get elected to office.
In my view, one of the benefits of RCV is that one party rule will become less common at the state and local level, which will hopefully lead to less corruption in places that currently have one party rule.
As far as the country being polarized, one could argue that the fact that we have a two party system is why we're as polarized as we are. I think polarization would become less severe if we truly had a multi-party system. People would (hopefully) start viewing politics more in shades of grey and with more nuance than they do now.
In summary, I think the benefits of RCV are greater than you seem to think, although I do agree that the benefits of it are more long term, whereas the benefits and A and B would be felt immediately. With all this being said, I also recognize how beneficial A and B can be, which is why it's hard for me to pick between A, B, and C.
Where's the evidence of an increase in 3rd-party and independent candidates winning in places that adopted some kind of ranked choice voting a while ago?
RCV avoids spoiler candidates and ensures that a Third-Party vote is not wasted. (Maine would have been spared having Paul LePage as governor.) That alone would be a boon to democracy and lift the fortunes of Third Parties – even if not enough to win.
Runoffs, whether traditional or ranked choice, are an impediment to third parties. This is pretty clear comparing internationally. It's only because third parties are so weak in the US that we've managed to convince ourselves that it would somehow work in their favor.
With A there's certainly some states like NC, TN, and TX where we'd get more seats but we'd lose some in states like IL and MD as well. Due to self-sorting of Democrats into urban areas and Republicans into rural areas I think the impact of this would be limited.
The amount of money in our politics is obscene. They have so many billionaires and we can barely keep up with ActBlue. Though I guess one could argue that after blowing a billion dollars last year money isn't everything.
At this point in history, Republicans are gerrymandering a lot more than Democrats are. Therefore, Democrats would likely gain seats in the event of a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, which is precisely why Republicans in Congress are (at this point in time) unanimously opposed to a nationwide ban.
It's true, though, that most Congressional districts in this country would still lean strongly towards one party or another if we had fair maps across the country. If a district leans strongly enough to one party or another, then no amount of money will allow the minority party to win that district.
I'd pick (A) and it's not even close. It's not just about congressional gerrymandering (which is bad and getting apocalyptically worse) it's also state legislatures, where Republicans can and have drawn themselves permanent one-party control in swing states. People think that can't happen federally, because each state draws their own lines, but we've finally got a president trying to exert that kind of national redistricting control. The goal is making elections pointless, no seats changing hands regardless of waves, and the kinds of absurd max-limit fantasy maps we used to post on DKE a decade ago are becoming realities.
There is a limit to what kind of gerrymandering can be overcome. Somewhere around a PVI of +5 or so it becomes effectively unwinnable for the opposing party. Often even in waves, although a small quantity could maybe fall then. Not enough to change the speakership. Candidate quality, campaign quality, fundraising... none of it is enough to overcome partisanship in seats that are sufficiently biased towards one party or the other.
Right now we hold one R+3 seat and an additional R+4 seat. Republicans hold a single D+3 seat. I believe the most atypical win by PVI in recent memory is Peltola winning Alaska's seat (R+6) for a single term under rather exceptional circumstances.
As you say, we could end up at a point where elections are largely irrelevant for legislatures. As-is the field of competitive seats is tiny. If we're lucky we'll have a small window after 2028 to do something about this. If not, the 2032-2040 cycles are likely to look even worse.
That heavily depends on the fact if the President is to the right or left of Biden (other than on immigration OfCourse). I don't think someone to his right will have the guts to gut the filibuster.
I don't think this is the right spectrum. I could see Bernie preserving the filibuster and Whitmer nuking it. The real breaking point for Dems is whether they reached national office before or after Trump rose to power.
Another secondary factor is if they were in the senate during or before that time as well. Longtime senators love the filibuster. Newer senators or politicians that have never been a senator are not likely to be a fan of the filibuster.
Agreed. The "money in politics" is here to stay (folk would just do creative stuff post-B), so let's do the best thing to ensure competitiveness (and really, representative democracy).
No question in my mind that A is the best for Democrats. Republicans have ruthlessly gerrymandered us for decades and only recently have our leaders started to do the same. In fact, since most redrawing commissions have tried to create partisan fairness in only blue and purple states, we’d certainly come out on top of seats gained in red states compared to seats lost in blue ones.
Also, A happening would lead to less monetary influence effecting races. While that’s not banning money entirely, it takes a good whack at it and cuts their billionaire advantage down to size. Rigging the maps in their favour is the only reason the GOP holds the House right now. An even playing field and Trump would have a critical check on his policies currently instead of a rubber stamp party.
A) will never happen as such, since it's impossible to define gerrymandering in any way that's legally enforceable across the entire country. Some people seem to think that any map where the delegation doesn't match the partisanship of the state is a gerrymander, however that doesn't take into account situations like Massachusetts where it's literally impossible to draw three Republican seats there. And "nonpartisan" redistricting always has backdoors for political parties to get involved, as we've seen in states like Colorado and Virginia (where Republicans still manipulated their commissions for their benefit).
Any law regarding redistricting would need to be extremely specific. My personal solution is to pass a law (the "Rural America Protection Act") that would outlaw the inclusion of rural areas in districts that are dominated by cities and suburbs (unless such a combination is required for VRA purposes). This would effectively make a certain number of districts all-rural, and then all other districts would be all-urban or suburban. Considering that a core tactic of Republican gerrymandering is placing light-blue urban and suburban areas with deep-red rural areas, this would cut down on Republican gerrymandering significantly, and Dems can frame it as protecting the interests of rural voters by making sure their representation isn't drowned out by cities and suburbs.
As for the other options, C) would have significantly less of an impact on America politics than many people seem to believe. So I would choose B), especially if it was accompanied by a massive tax hike on billionaires so that they didn't have so much money to affect politics in other ways as well.
It's been suggested that Article I, Section 5 " Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" could be used to ban Gerrymandering at the Congressional level. I don't know if that would hold up in court. It certainly seems a stretch from the literal meaning and historical use of that clause.
That is a MASSIVE stretch. It wouldn't hold up in court, and frankly it shouldn't. Democrats need to stop trying to desperately twist sentences or phrases that have nothing to do with gerrymandering into absurd attempts to declare it illegal. All it does is destroy Democrats' credibility with judges.
It would also be a terrible precedent. Presumably if you hold that clause allows the House to set rules about how districts are drawn, you would need to likewise allow them control over other aspects of election administration. And since the Constitution says "each House* the Senate would have the same powers. So the House could create one set of rules for the election of its members and the Senate could create another contradictory set of rules, necessitating two separate elections for the different offices.
Actually that’s not true. Gerrymandering can be defined and its effect quantified. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project / Electoral Innovation Lab has done precisely that, and offering its data and approach to the courts. Unfortunately, SCOTUS and other Republican-controlled courts have not been interested – quite the contrary.
Your comment, perhaps unintentionally, shows why I'm right. The courts have no interest in vague or academic definitions, and frankly they're right. Democrats need to stop expecting or hoping that courts will immediately accept these abstract, clearly Dem-slanting theories that will have major partisan effects.
Instead, Dems need to write laws that are extremely specific, so that the courts cannot misinterpret them. And Dems need to use data that comes from official government sources (like, of course, the Census Bureau) rather than a bunch of academics (since the courts will never accept the latter). The Census Bureau publishes statistics on the area and population of census blocks, cities, and counties across America. Dems should just use the resulting population density figures to decide which areas count as urban and suburban vs. rural, so they can prevent the mixing of urban/suburban and rural areas across congressional districts that is a cornerstone of Republican gerrymandering.
Yes, things need to be quantified. Congressional legislation and/or court rulings need to adopt objective, mathematically-defined standards. That is the very opposite of a "vague definition"!
Precisely this was the contribution made by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project / Electoral Innovation Lab.
Well, this premise involves waving a magic wand so we have to assume it would come to pass fairly.
But on Earth 1, what definition of banning gerrymandering do we think would hold up at the Supreme Court? Honestly curious. Dems would have get a bill through and hope it passes muster with Roberts +1 (who voted against this very issue 7 years ago but might now see the error of his ways. Maybe).
Maybe not ban gerrymandering, but at least require every state to set up an independent commission where both sides theoretically have a seat at the table and require specific rules regarding city and county splits. I’d rather have a gerrymander that both sides agreed upon in every state than most states being gerrymandered solely by Republicans without any opposing input.
No, bipartisan commissions are not the way, and are precisely why New York State is responsible for Republicans controlling the House today! The point is to have districts that fairly represent the state, not excessive influence of the minority party in the state.
An “independent commission where both sides have a seat at the table” is an oxymoron and self-contradictory. If any political side has a seat at the table, then it’s not an independent commission. An independent, nonpartisan commission, by definition, is one where no political side influences the commission.
Bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions are two different things. The former has partisanship built into it, while the latter is supposed to not have any partisanship in it.
I think if you put some version of reversing B to the voters as a constitutional amendment, it would pass overwhelmingly, even in Wyoming and Massachusetts.
Canadian history lesson: in 2015, Justin Trudeau promised electoral reform and was then elected with a majority government. He vowed it would be the last election under first-past-the-post voting. The Liberals set up a commission, there were hearing and investigations, and they came back suggesting a referendum with proportional representation or the status quo. The government said "nope" and shelved it, which cost it a lot of goodwill. We have had minority governments ever since, and while it isn't a straight line back to the electoral reform issue, it sure didn't help them.
I have come around to the belief that electoral reform sounds great in principle, but the problem is everyone has their own idea of what it means, finding a consensus is nigh-impossible, and imposing a change could end up backfiring on you quite spectacularly. I think independent redistricting would be a better choice in the long-term. It has worked here in Canada for the longest time, we have competitive elections in many ridings and it hasn't given an advantage to any party.
Canada's redistricting is a lot less independent than most people seem to believe. Political parties still have a lot of power to approve or shoot down certain districts or whole entire maps. To give a historical example, redistricting commissions dominated by Liberals repeatedly tried to draw future PM John Diefenbaker out of his seat. First, they removed areas that heavily supported him, and when that didn't work, they dismantled his district and split it between three others. In Diefenbaker's case, he overcame it because there were a lot more swing voters back then.
1000% I’d go with A. Politicians picking their own voters and large parts of the county being totally uncompetitive is a big reason we’re where we are at now
This is 100% the issue. If the House had 25 more Don Bacons worried about their next election instead of Anna Paulina Lunas, the country would be in a much different spot.
I would pick B, no question about it. You really can't overstate the pernicious influence money has on politics and policy. It's true that in the short term, banning gerrymandering would have a more positive influence on democracy because it would give democrats a political advantage, but it would do nothing to help the fix the weaknesses within the Democratic Party itself. Imagine how much different our government would be if AIPAC or the crypto bros couldn't drop millions on a quiet house primary election.
Unless we really backslide into authoritarianism in the near future, it's inevitable that dems regain power at the federal level. The thing that keeps me up at night is thinking about a future in which we have the trifecta and do NOTHING to address systemic corruption and inequality. Getting money out of politics is the single most important thing we could do to ensure that we make meaningful changes that help fix America's chronic problems next time we have unified control of government. Over time, that will strengthen the party, it'll strengthen the country, and it'll strengthen democracy by extension.
What legislation could prevent organizations like AIPAC from contributing to political campaigns or advertising for or against candidates? The First Amendment expressly protects lobbying.
I'm not talking about lobbying; I'm talking about how each cycle, AIPAC drops millions in campaign spending. Lobbying can be ignored and in many cases is arguably a good thing. If all AIPAC did was lobby, they wouldn't have nearly the influence they do. It's the uncontrolled dark money spending that makes members of Congress fear them.
I guess the idea would be to restrict how much individuals and organizations could contribute to political campaigns or ads that mention a politician or party. I'd support that. I'd expect this lineup of the Supreme Court to annul it as unconstitutional, though.
I think B but i'm a little burned on nonpartisan redistricting after we get a 4-4 map in CO with Harris winning by double digits and more then any Dem since LBJ minus Biden.
Colorado’s redistricting commission is only a bad thing because of how much Republicans gerrymander in the states they control. If every state is required to have fair maps, then I’ll be perfectly happy with Colorado and other blue states having independent redistricting commissions. The partisan breakdown of the current map in Colorado (4D-3R-1T) is actually reflective of how the state as a whole normally votes.
With that being said, until fair redistricting is required in every state, Democrats should gerrymander in Colorado and every other state they control. I was able to draw an 8D-0R map of Colorado in DRA.
I don't disagree overall with the first point and onboard with the second point. I guess my faith that it would work out nationwide to something that isn't at least slanted in the Republican direction is zilch.
The two most notable parts of that top half of the front page are Hilda Solis considering a Congressional comeback run, as well as a poll (not sure of the pollster) having redistricting ahead 46-36, although it was a "good idea"/"bad idea" poll and not actually asking whether voters would vote for or against the redistricting referendum.
Hilda Solis is now term limited on the LA Board of Supervisors. And according to that story, she's powerful enough that she's practically sewn up that redrawn 38th District seat, and other politicians are all yielding.
The first-in-the nation LGBTQ+ legal hotline is being birthed right here in Illinois, thanks to Governor and possible 2028 Democratic Presidential candidate JB Pritzker. The LGBTQ+ legal hotline is named Illinois Pride Connect, the statewide version of The Trevor Project.
Glad to see Pritzker having the LGBTQ+ community’s backs in Illinois. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Marc Elias’s firm is challenging the new Texas districts. I hope they turn things upside down and argue that the Legislature impermissibly considered the whiteness of some the new districts.
If you're upset about Peltola eyeing the Senate instead of the Governor’s mansion, ask yourself this: Is running a state of 740,000 people really worth more than winning the Senate, putting a firm brake on Trump's agenda, stopping MAGA Justices from replacing Alito and Thomas between 2027–2029? A slim Senate majority through 2029 could mean two progressive Supreme Court Justices, carving out the filibuster, statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico, independent redistricting, SC potentially upholds the NPVIC ending the Electoral College — and a generational shift in American democracy. The Governor's chair lasts four years. This potential Senate majority could change the country for forty. This is not even taking into account that we could codify abortion rights, buy-in Medicare, campaign finance reform etc.
Personally, I was upset that she is/was eyeing Gov. You hear a lot of talk about Dems taking back the House but, as you have pointed out, taking back the Senate is far more consequential. BTW, what is happening in IA senate race? Thanks.
I think the question pretty much depends on whether you live there or not. If you live there, the answer is more debatable. Although I’m sure many (or perhaps even most?) of Alaskans agree the Senate is more important, but it definitely wouldn’t be unanimous. If you don’t live there though, then a Democratic Senate seat is far more valuable to you.
It could mean all of those things. Given the Democrats' track record and how much lack of urgency some of them seem to feel, I wouldn't expect all of them, only some.
I've noticed a growing trend of some Democratic elected officials copying Trump's speaking/social media style on social media to criticize Trump and/or other Republicans. Gavin Newsom is most well-known for this, but Florida State Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith (D-Orlando) also did this in response to Florida's newly-ordered ban against rainbow-themed crosswalks, which infamously included FDOT painting over a rainbow-colored crosswalk near the former Pulse nightclub, the site of the deadliest terrorist attack against the LGBTQIA+ community in U.S. history.
That's not something I'd recommend most Democratic elected officials and political candidates use, aside from a handful of people within our party who can get away with mocking Trump's communication style without coming across as awkward or inauthentic.
Also, Third Way wants Democratic candidates to ban mention of "LGBTQIA" and "cisgender", among many other terms focusing on social justice, which is stupid and would amount to caving to GOP culture wars:
Third Way hasn't been relevant outside of mainstream media pundit class circles since the Clinton Administration, which enacted a lot of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation in the 1990s (RFRA, DOMA, DADT, the latter two of which were repealed by future Democratic administrations).
Do you really believe someone would base their Presidential vote solely on the word “Latinx”? Or “cisgender”? I really don’t think this is the issue many on the center are making it out to be.
Also, that’s a crappy attitude to have about voters, and it’s the exact attitude that’s costing us, even if there are a lot of stupid voters. People see us as elitist. Shit like that does not help.
Solely, no. But it all adds up to part of the culture of our party, which is not popular with people. And I am sorry if being honest about voters sounds elitist to you but using words like "cisgender" sounds elitist and crazy to to the typical voter. It's a good idea to understand the kind of people that vote of you want them to vote for you. You love in NY 17 as well, right? Do you know how many people in Putnam county would roll their eyes out the back of their heads at a candidate who used the term "intersectionality"?
What do you define as that “culture”? Are you insinuating the party is too far left?
I will defend my claims about elitism. Voters can tell when they’re being misled. If Democrats are going around saying voters are stupid and we have to change our message to appeal to them, we are not presenting a very good case IMO. Voters, in my experience, like honesty. Projecting it to voters is hard, but it gets harder when people openly disparage parts of the population.
I’m in Westchester for the record. People in my area are quite liberal actually. Even in swing districts people don’t all think alike. I’m aware of Putnam and Rockland being more conservative than where I live, for one.
I think we have to alter our approach for different areas. And I’m not even just talking about moderating in some swing districts. What flies in NYC, the Midwest, the South, etc. can be wildly different. Just as some voters may see us as too far left for our progressive wing, others may see us as lurching too conservative for our centrist wing. We cannot only appeal to the center, just as we cannot only appeal to the left. I don’t think the entire party needs to necessarily follow one line. Our coalition is very diverse, in terms of ideology, race, etc., more so than the GOP which is effectively now a Trump-centered cult. We cannot afford to enforce purity, from whatever angle. We have to somehow keep our coalition together, which may include allowing some wings who disagree with each other. That’s what I’m saying.
One more thing: you know what “intersectionality” means right? Just because it sounds weird doesn’t mean it is. Obviously I’m not saying to campaign on it, but I don’t like the idea of just throwing around words without explaining what they are to disparage the social justice wing of the Dems. If that’s not what you’re doing I apologize — that’s just how it came off to me.
We are obviously too far left for the voters of this country. America is a conservative nation that will only embrace leftward policies when in the throes of massive disaster, and only if minorities are largely excluded and redlined out of those policies. Me, being of the opinion that a nation of people who read below a 6th grade level and think Donald Trump should be President are not the most informed or moral people around, is not going to impact the average voter because I'm not telling it to their face. Our most successful politicians of the past 30 years, Clinton, Obama and Biden before his health failed him, were successful because they spoke very simply to people.
I agree with a lot of this post, but if a plurality of voters weren't fucking idiots, why would they have thought Trump would magically lower their prices? Fucking stupid idiots! It's -their- fault the country is fucked!
Tik Tok has played a part in centering those weirdos and making them look bigger and broader a demographic than they are. It's why Chaya Raichik and Chris Rufo made it big online. I hope they can compel Tik Tok's US services either to be sold to a neutral private American party or shut off like the law (and a 9-0 Scotus ruling) requires.
Social media in general has become a real problem. TikTok is part of it, but I'd argue Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, even Bluesky, etc. are no better. Lots of horrible, horrible people are being amplified thanks to social media and its poisoning the country. From Gen Z to Boomers, people worldwide (and not just Americans, as the rise of the European far right shows) are being brainwashed by all kinds of deranged propaganda on the internet.
I used to be a big believer in the idea that the internet was going to be a wonderful thing that would allow for new ideas, concepts, etc. to exist, and that a lot of the regulation was designed to kneecap its progress. For example, I opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act back in 2012 (the first political cause I remember paying attention to, at the age of 12) in part due to seeing them as attempts to smother the internet. I stand by my opposition to both bills (and general support for copyright reform), but now I'm more skeptical of the direction the internet has taken. Clearly it wasn't the liberator I naively thought it was, and I will accept that I was wrong about that.
At any rate, compelling TikTok to be sold is a step in the right direction, and will hopefully lead to more comprehensive social media regulation down the line.
Reminds me when in 2004 Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to announce support for gay marriage bans on the ballot in multiple states that year. Not only would that have been a complete betrayal of the LGBT community, but Kerry would have looked ridiculous and completely inauthentic. Only someone like Bill Clinton could have pulled that off successfully.
Letting the Tik Tok ban actually be enforced would help. Tiktok was and probably still is an effective "trompe l'œil" for RWers to make people paranoid about deviants running amok everywhere when really they are a niche community.
If they're not doing it on TikTok, wouldn't they just go to YouTube shorts or somewhere else? I'm not arguing against responsible private censorship of hate speech, but I am being realistic.
The bigger issue is that, even if literally no one is doing it on TikTok, Fox News and Facebook is gonna tell their viewers that someone is doing it anyway, and it will be immediately validated by dumbasses like Third Way who will jump at any chance to punch left.
I don’t recall ever seeing trompe-l'œil used that way. Fascinating.
But I agree with Michael. Almost every content creator with a TikTok account has migrated over to YouTube and now uses both. The more effective means of combatting online nuttery is to expose and counter it in the same milieu, to borrow another French expression.
I don’t know if a ban on TikTok would have solved anything all together but I am also going with a mindset of having ideal tech regulation where TikTok as a platform would be required to redesign it’s platform and tighten user privacy and security.
Small business establishments like single screen movie theaters need influencers on TikTok and other channels to generate word of mouth when it can’t be enough otherwise.
Most of the terms Third Way criticises I think are cumbersome at best, but few if any Democratic candidates in competitive districts or states actually use them.
Not listed in there is "Latinx", which became the near poster-child for activist and academic language that is not used by the people whom activists and supportive (i.e. Democratic) candidates claim to speak for. Maybe it's already fallen far enough out of use?
Third Way actually does list "Latinx", as well as "BIPOC" and "intersectionality". (I would argue that the latter term has been transformed into a vehicle for antisemitism.)
The term is legitimate – but not what it has come to mean.
Edit: If you wish to examine my point, you can start with an examination of the 2017 Women’s March, and how the organizers (with some key leaders heavily influenced by Louis Farrakhan) were outright hostile to the participation of Jewish women. Here are two essays worth exploring:
Interesting discussion and context. I'll keep my ears more finely tuned when hearing intersectionality used in conjunction with Jewish identity. But I don't think the meaning has morphed outside of that context (e g., Black and gay, etc.)
I always understood intersectionality as being the intersection of being part of multiple minority group, and the subsequent discrimination faced on multiple fronts. As in, being black and disabled vs. white and disabled, or being gay and Hispanic vs. straight and Hispanic.
This is the first I’m hearing of antisemitism involved — I haven’t read the journals yet but perhaps I might. Before I read it, is my definition correct? And is my definition the one that is considered antisemitic? I would assume that being Jewish fits in with my definition — such as, for example, facing discrimination for being a gay Jew or female Jew vs. a straight or male Jew, as is the case with other minority groups. Is this not the case?
I understand intersectionality precisely as you do! And, no, this original definition, which you site, is not antisemitic.
The problem arises when discrimination and attacks against Jews is defined away as "not really racism" but as "something else". Or that Jews are a priori defined as "a privileged group", or as "colonizers" (in Israel) or "supporters of colonization" (if pro-Israeli, or even without being asked).
(Ok, that is as close as I will come to touching on the I/P topic.)
I’m a young person and I have not heard Latinx in some time. Not since 2021.
This feels like a made-up controversy to me. Occasionally I’ll hear people complain about “woke” but the terms thing not so. Usually just crime and stuff like that.
My wife works with a predominantly Latin American college population and the term is used amongst queer students there. But yes, I think latinx is over emphasized because it isn't used that much.
I lived in PR for 8 years and have worked there for for more than 25. Almost no one used Latinx. It's not even pronounceable. Latin-hha? La-tinx like minx? Some use o/a. Students I've worked with from South America use Latine with the e pronounced eh. It's closer to a neuter form and came about organically from Latine people themselves, not white people looking for a polite term. Similarly, my Black friends and colleagues almost never use African American.
DADT was an improvement over the status quo, where you were banned outright if you're gay. Being gay was classified as a mental and moral defect that made you 4F or a Section 8. DOMA was passed with a veto-proof margin when gay marriage was considered a pipe dream.
I don’t want the Democratic Party as a wider strategy to capitalize on Trump’s antics and tweet style by emulating him. We’re supposed to win elections with more and better Democrats and I really don’t desire having more of the same strategy where Democrats get their base fired up only when President Bush or Trump is in office or when it’s just about electing a POTUS like Obama.
However, this seems to be primarily a tactic Newsom is doing so he can fight against Trump and get his agenda thrown against him so CA can lead by example. Others should just stay away from this as they can’t follow through like Newsom does, especially with the Press Release tweets (those are classic).
In San Francisco, there’s the LGBT Career Center but the name itself does not have “Q” letter attached. LGBTQ in my view is already inclusive to begin with although I’m sure anyone non-binary might have different thoughts otherwise.
FYI, a good reason why I am exercising caution with anything as far as LGBTQ or whatever more inclusive name that may be considered:
Not everyone associated in this community evolves the same way. Take for instance Demi Levato. She had gone through issues in her life to the point where she was coming out as queer, non-binary with they/them pronouns only then to not actually be completely this way in the end. Last reported, Levato went back to being interested in dating men and is now she/her.
Point being, it’s complicated, especially when anyone is trying to figure out if they are truly men, truly women or something else.
Greco is an Eric Adams ally who handed a journalist a potato chip bag with cash stuffed in it. I'm not sure how Herr's potato chips are available at NYC, because the only retailer that I know that sells that brand of chips is Menards, and they're a big-box hardware/building materials store chain in the Midwest, far from NYC, that sells some grocery items on the side.
Southern PA must be one of the snack food (potato chips, pretzels, popcorn, etc.) capitals of America. In York County they have Utz and Snyder's of Hanover. And Martin's and Gibble's are also in the region. All those are available in my area.
In light of some recent news, I am now quite interested in the Senate. It certainly seems more winnable than it did before — I hope. Thoughts?
As for the House, I’ll be curious to see how redistricting affects individual House races. I’m already hearing about Texas and California candidates and races starting to shape up. Here’s my question: what candidates may run in hypothetical redistricted districts other than TX or CA? Like, FL, MO, MD, NY, etc. Who might be able to take advantage of those maps, on either side?
Finally, this one’s more of a question than a race proper, but I’m curious to know from posters here — has anyone heard of any intriguing local races? Like, state legislatures or city councils? Other than NJ or VA — I’ve heard quite a bit of those already. It’s the other states I’m interested in.
I’ll be interested to see how Washington state’s special elections shake out for the two Senate districts this November. We’re pretty close to maxed out in that legislature but I’m curious if there’s anywhere we might be able to sneak a seat or two
Specifically, the 15th got redrawn in 2024 for being insufficiently able to elect a candidate of Latino choice. Now, most Latino residents of The Yakima Valley are noncitizens or often nonvoters, and there was a big swing right in that group in WA and nationally. But if the same swing seen in some polling bears out this could nab a rare seat east of the mountains.
The 6th is always targeted but Jeff Holy is a tenured lawmaker and experienced campaigner and Spokane’s movement towards Ds has stalled out a bit with the same kinds of transplants who head to neighboring North Idaho. If the backlash is big enough we could make it a race but sadly I doubt this one is a priority for Shasti Conrad and co
2006 Senate vibes in the sense that the candidates are there and the path is more clear even if it is extremely difficult and requires a lot of big breaks.
We have a non-zero chance of retaking the Senate. So far we have the ideal array of top-tier candidates – and who knows, we just may add Janet Mills in Maine and Mary Peltola in Alaska to the list!
All in all, the odds are looking much better than a few months ago. Yes, it’s an uphill battle, but we and our candidates are ready to fight like hell!
I think folks are already assuming Mills and Peltola are in, in this scenario.
By "just may" I mean that there’s a chance – a decent chance. I’m not making any assumptions.
I'd say we are at 2% right now, and 5-7% is likely the best we can get.
Still glad we are trying, mind.
I think NC + ME + one of the reaches and Murkowski going independent bumps the probability up to 10-15%
Next Tuesday is the special election in Iowa Sen-1. If Democrat Catelin Drey wins, we will: (1) end the R's two-third lock on the state senate; and (2) show continuing momentum in Iowa off-year races which may foretell improvement in 2026 when the US Senate, Gov, and multiple US House seats are going to be contested.
Iowa: I'm also curious if Trump's continued craziness against clean energy, including wind, could hurt the R's in Iowa. Iowa generates a higher percentage of its electricity from wind than any other state, 64% as of 2024.
Yeah, the hate boner for wind is self defeating considering how many farmers have come to rely on it (beyond utility scale wind in several red states, like Kansas, Oklahoma and the Dakotas)
NY-19:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/08/oberacker-challenge-riley-ny-19/407626/?oref=csny-homepage-top-story
Republican State Senator Peter Oberacker is planning to challenge Democrat Josh Riley. Thoughts? Threat, or no?
It seems doubtful in the environment that we will likely be in next November
NY GOP seems to betting on another similar 2022 environment in NY with Hochul leading the ticket. She seems to picked up in popularity but who knows where she could be polling a year from now. Would've been nice if she passed on re-election.
I don't see Delgado being better for down-ballot.
Curious - who would you suggest?
For house down ballot purposes? No one.
If he could win the primary, he might be. I can't see anybody being excited to vote for Hochul.
"NY GOP seems to betting on another similar 2022 environment in NY with Hochul leading the ticket."
Because the same roster of federal officeholders is still in office and public opinion is the same, or redder, than it was then....(eyeroll)
Has anyone heard about that stupid controversary in VA about some random women holding up an offensive sign about Winsome Sears?
The Spanberger campaign felt the need to issue TWO statements profusely apologizing for the actions of someone not even affiliated with her campaign at a protest her campaign had nothing to do with. I am tired of seeing Dems always on the defensive and apologizing for everything under the sun while Republican candidates routinely sink to new lows. Every Dem needs to take notes from Newsom on how to punch back ASAP.
What also doesn’t help is we have Ben Tribbett (a loudmouth and notable local Dem “consultant”) fanning the flames on Twitter. When our own side keeps bringing attention to this bullshit, we just can’t win. Republicans have no one in their ecosystem that’s a huge thorn in their side but is nonetheless still treated like a party voice in good standing.
Governor Ed Gillespie can tell you how accurate Ben Tribbett's assessments of what affects races and is most important to Virginia voters are.
Let me guess: Governor Gillespie says Ben Tribbett’s self-assessment and self-importance is greatly exaggerated?
Ben’s assessments are dumb for sure, but he’s the only reason this story even appeared on my timeline. And he beats the drum enough to gets reporters to pick up on it
These "anti-woke" crusading dems are usually like this.
In two days, the original tweet doesn't even have 150K views. It's not going to break through to the vast majority of Virginia voters.
I agree it won’t, but Spanberger already released two statements and the local party is in a tailspin.
That's a significant number.
Not really. The view stats on Twitter are often inflated by bots/Elon being a weirdo and doing weird stuff with the algorithm. Viral tweets regularly get over 10 million views. 150K is nothing, and the number of them who were potential swing voters in Virginia likely is close to zero.
I take your point about how Musk can manipulate views on X.
WATN: Rick Caruso says he'll back the redistricting referendum monetarily: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/22/california-redistricting-explainer
"Rick Caruso, the Los Angeles-based billionaire (who has bounced between the Republican and Democratic parties) who unsuccessfully ran for Los Angeles mayor in 2024 and has been a vocal critic of the state’s Democratic leadership, says that he will also donate to and support the redistricting effort, Julia Wick of the LA Times reported."
That's a pleasant surprise. BTW, the Americana open-air mall in Glendale, CA that he owns is excellent even if it's upper crust.
Huh. What do you know. That is a pleasant surprise
money means nothing to him...he thinks this will help him if he has future pol aspirations
yeah: $7.9 billion estimated net worth as of last year.
He's probably concluded the proposition passes, and wants to be on the winning side.
However, this will definitely make enemies of Trump & the White House, not to mention the CA GOP. So he's likely Democratic party or NPP for the time being.
If he does want to run again then he probably wants to shed the impression which formed during his LA mayoral race that he's really a Republican at heart, and is only a Democrat in name because that's the only way he can win. This is probably as a good a way as any to prove his blue bona fides.
If it's a generous donation to a PAC and not some meager lip service, it's cool.
Right now, if the goal is to elect more Democrats outside of Rick Caruso’s political ambitions, all the help is welcome.
Is Caruso more Bloomberg-right than MAGA-right?
I think he's definitely Bloomberg-ian.
The Texas Senate passed the new maps after denying Sen. Carol Alvarado the ability to filibuster. Republicans said since she sent out a fundraising email before the filibuster, that her filibustering would constitute a campaign event which would be illegal and unethical when acting in her official capacity, as well as illegal and unethical because it would have involved the other senators in a campaign event as well as state staff.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/22/texas-congressional-redistricting-map-senate-governor-desk/
Big mistake that she essentially announced her filibuster ahead of time. You simply don’t announce your strategy and tactics to the other side. Senator Alvarado should just have continued talking after taking the podium!
This was a case (again) of Democrats playing by the rules and not realizing that Cersei doesn't care about their rules. Having worked for a state senator, it's proper to inform the Lite Gov that you plan to filibuster. I can remember having to type out a letter for that purpose.
This is also one small example of how the state senate works. Everything in the state senate is completely orchestrated to avoid surprises. Senators have to prove to the Lite Gov they have the required number of votes to pass their bill. Senators are usually limited to the number of bills they can bring to a vote on the floor per day.
Alvarado had a catheter and IV drip put in as an elective procedure for nothing: https://www.instagram.com/p/DNrZsjkWvKM/?igsh=czV1NmpndGczbG1h
Here’s a question that’s come to mind, and I’m wondering what you all think. Suppose, hypothetically, you could wave a magic wand and make one of these things come true right now:
(A) Nationwide ban on gerrymandering (nonpartisan redistricting in all 50 states)
(B) Reverse the Citizens United ruling and get money out of politics entirely
(C) Require ranked choice voting (RCV) for all elections (thus creating a multi-party system)
Which one of these would you pick and why? Personally, I would like all three to happen, which means I would pick the one that’s most likely to lead to the other two coming true at some point in the future. Consequently, this raises the following questions:
• How likely is it that we’ll get B and C in the future if we get A now?
• How likely is it that we'll get A and C in the future if we get B now?
• How likely is it that we’ll get A and B in the future if we get C now?
What do you all think?
Tough call between A and B; I'd go with A. Our country is polarized enough that gerrymandering can be a massive political advantage, far more so than any advantage that B alone provides Republicans (B is more of an advantage to moderates in D primaries and far-right extremists in R primaries than it is in general elections).
C would probably not affect the balance of power in either house of Congress significantly by itself (RCV with single-member districts wouldn't break the two-party system; you'd need either RCV or party-list voting and multi-member districts), but either of the first two would. Also, multi-member districts can still be gerrymandered, even if the maximum possible advantage gained from gerrymandering multi-membered districts isn't as large as gerrymandering single-member districts.
I agree that C wouldn't affect the balance of power immediately. In fact, we'll probably continue to elect only Republicans and Democrats for at least the first few election cycles after adopting RCV. However, that's because, immediately after adopting RCV, not enough time will have passed yet (i) for the two major parties to splinter into separate parties, (ii) for third parties to build up the infrastructure to compete in various states and districts, and (iii) for people to move past the GOP vs Dem dichotomy in their minds. Once enough time passes, we would start to see more third party and Independent candidates get elected to office.
In my view, one of the benefits of RCV is that one party rule will become less common at the state and local level, which will hopefully lead to less corruption in places that currently have one party rule.
As far as the country being polarized, one could argue that the fact that we have a two party system is why we're as polarized as we are. I think polarization would become less severe if we truly had a multi-party system. People would (hopefully) start viewing politics more in shades of grey and with more nuance than they do now.
In summary, I think the benefits of RCV are greater than you seem to think, although I do agree that the benefits of it are more long term, whereas the benefits and A and B would be felt immediately. With all this being said, I also recognize how beneficial A and B can be, which is why it's hard for me to pick between A, B, and C.
Where's the evidence of an increase in 3rd-party and independent candidates winning in places that adopted some kind of ranked choice voting a while ago?
RCV avoids spoiler candidates and ensures that a Third-Party vote is not wasted. (Maine would have been spared having Paul LePage as governor.) That alone would be a boon to democracy and lift the fortunes of Third Parties – even if not enough to win.
Runoffs, whether traditional or ranked choice, are an impediment to third parties. This is pretty clear comparing internationally. It's only because third parties are so weak in the US that we've managed to convince ourselves that it would somehow work in their favor.
I'm going with B.
With A there's certainly some states like NC, TN, and TX where we'd get more seats but we'd lose some in states like IL and MD as well. Due to self-sorting of Democrats into urban areas and Republicans into rural areas I think the impact of this would be limited.
The amount of money in our politics is obscene. They have so many billionaires and we can barely keep up with ActBlue. Though I guess one could argue that after blowing a billion dollars last year money isn't everything.
At this point in history, Republicans are gerrymandering a lot more than Democrats are. Therefore, Democrats would likely gain seats in the event of a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, which is precisely why Republicans in Congress are (at this point in time) unanimously opposed to a nationwide ban.
It's true, though, that most Congressional districts in this country would still lean strongly towards one party or another if we had fair maps across the country. If a district leans strongly enough to one party or another, then no amount of money will allow the minority party to win that district.
I'd pick (A) and it's not even close. It's not just about congressional gerrymandering (which is bad and getting apocalyptically worse) it's also state legislatures, where Republicans can and have drawn themselves permanent one-party control in swing states. People think that can't happen federally, because each state draws their own lines, but we've finally got a president trying to exert that kind of national redistricting control. The goal is making elections pointless, no seats changing hands regardless of waves, and the kinds of absurd max-limit fantasy maps we used to post on DKE a decade ago are becoming realities.
That is my thinking too.
There is a limit to what kind of gerrymandering can be overcome. Somewhere around a PVI of +5 or so it becomes effectively unwinnable for the opposing party. Often even in waves, although a small quantity could maybe fall then. Not enough to change the speakership. Candidate quality, campaign quality, fundraising... none of it is enough to overcome partisanship in seats that are sufficiently biased towards one party or the other.
Right now we hold one R+3 seat and an additional R+4 seat. Republicans hold a single D+3 seat. I believe the most atypical win by PVI in recent memory is Peltola winning Alaska's seat (R+6) for a single term under rather exceptional circumstances.
As you say, we could end up at a point where elections are largely irrelevant for legislatures. As-is the field of competitive seats is tiny. If we're lucky we'll have a small window after 2028 to do something about this. If not, the 2032-2040 cycles are likely to look even worse.
Yep if we have a trifecta in 2029 it’s gonna be a while before we have another and we need to aggressively use that window knowing that.
That heavily depends on the fact if the President is to the right or left of Biden (other than on immigration OfCourse). I don't think someone to his right will have the guts to gut the filibuster.
I don't think this is the right spectrum. I could see Bernie preserving the filibuster and Whitmer nuking it. The real breaking point for Dems is whether they reached national office before or after Trump rose to power.
Another secondary factor is if they were in the senate during or before that time as well. Longtime senators love the filibuster. Newer senators or politicians that have never been a senator are not likely to be a fan of the filibuster.
Bernie is not running again, that’s insane.
Agreed. The "money in politics" is here to stay (folk would just do creative stuff post-B), so let's do the best thing to ensure competitiveness (and really, representative democracy).
It isn't the same in most other countries with real elections.
No question in my mind that A is the best for Democrats. Republicans have ruthlessly gerrymandered us for decades and only recently have our leaders started to do the same. In fact, since most redrawing commissions have tried to create partisan fairness in only blue and purple states, we’d certainly come out on top of seats gained in red states compared to seats lost in blue ones.
Also, A happening would lead to less monetary influence effecting races. While that’s not banning money entirely, it takes a good whack at it and cuts their billionaire advantage down to size. Rigging the maps in their favour is the only reason the GOP holds the House right now. An even playing field and Trump would have a critical check on his policies currently instead of a rubber stamp party.
A) will never happen as such, since it's impossible to define gerrymandering in any way that's legally enforceable across the entire country. Some people seem to think that any map where the delegation doesn't match the partisanship of the state is a gerrymander, however that doesn't take into account situations like Massachusetts where it's literally impossible to draw three Republican seats there. And "nonpartisan" redistricting always has backdoors for political parties to get involved, as we've seen in states like Colorado and Virginia (where Republicans still manipulated their commissions for their benefit).
Any law regarding redistricting would need to be extremely specific. My personal solution is to pass a law (the "Rural America Protection Act") that would outlaw the inclusion of rural areas in districts that are dominated by cities and suburbs (unless such a combination is required for VRA purposes). This would effectively make a certain number of districts all-rural, and then all other districts would be all-urban or suburban. Considering that a core tactic of Republican gerrymandering is placing light-blue urban and suburban areas with deep-red rural areas, this would cut down on Republican gerrymandering significantly, and Dems can frame it as protecting the interests of rural voters by making sure their representation isn't drowned out by cities and suburbs.
As for the other options, C) would have significantly less of an impact on America politics than many people seem to believe. So I would choose B), especially if it was accompanied by a massive tax hike on billionaires so that they didn't have so much money to affect politics in other ways as well.
It's been suggested that Article I, Section 5 " Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" could be used to ban Gerrymandering at the Congressional level. I don't know if that would hold up in court. It certainly seems a stretch from the literal meaning and historical use of that clause.
That is a MASSIVE stretch. It wouldn't hold up in court, and frankly it shouldn't. Democrats need to stop trying to desperately twist sentences or phrases that have nothing to do with gerrymandering into absurd attempts to declare it illegal. All it does is destroy Democrats' credibility with judges.
It would also be a terrible precedent. Presumably if you hold that clause allows the House to set rules about how districts are drawn, you would need to likewise allow them control over other aspects of election administration. And since the Constitution says "each House* the Senate would have the same powers. So the House could create one set of rules for the election of its members and the Senate could create another contradictory set of rules, necessitating two separate elections for the different offices.
Uh the Supreme Court has already upheld Congress's ability to designate specific criteria for the creation of districts under the VRA.
Actually that’s not true. Gerrymandering can be defined and its effect quantified. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project / Electoral Innovation Lab has done precisely that, and offering its data and approach to the courts. Unfortunately, SCOTUS and other Republican-controlled courts have not been interested – quite the contrary.
Your comment, perhaps unintentionally, shows why I'm right. The courts have no interest in vague or academic definitions, and frankly they're right. Democrats need to stop expecting or hoping that courts will immediately accept these abstract, clearly Dem-slanting theories that will have major partisan effects.
Instead, Dems need to write laws that are extremely specific, so that the courts cannot misinterpret them. And Dems need to use data that comes from official government sources (like, of course, the Census Bureau) rather than a bunch of academics (since the courts will never accept the latter). The Census Bureau publishes statistics on the area and population of census blocks, cities, and counties across America. Dems should just use the resulting population density figures to decide which areas count as urban and suburban vs. rural, so they can prevent the mixing of urban/suburban and rural areas across congressional districts that is a cornerstone of Republican gerrymandering.
Yes, things need to be quantified. Congressional legislation and/or court rulings need to adopt objective, mathematically-defined standards. That is the very opposite of a "vague definition"!
Precisely this was the contribution made by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project / Electoral Innovation Lab.
Well, this premise involves waving a magic wand so we have to assume it would come to pass fairly.
But on Earth 1, what definition of banning gerrymandering do we think would hold up at the Supreme Court? Honestly curious. Dems would have get a bill through and hope it passes muster with Roberts +1 (who voted against this very issue 7 years ago but might now see the error of his ways. Maybe).
That was a case on if it was unconstitutional. A statutory ban by Congress is at least in theory a different story.
Roberts himself said that Congress would need to resolve the issue.
Maybe not ban gerrymandering, but at least require every state to set up an independent commission where both sides theoretically have a seat at the table and require specific rules regarding city and county splits. I’d rather have a gerrymander that both sides agreed upon in every state than most states being gerrymandered solely by Republicans without any opposing input.
No, bipartisan commissions are not the way, and are precisely why New York State is responsible for Republicans controlling the House today! The point is to have districts that fairly represent the state, not excessive influence of the minority party in the state.
An “independent commission where both sides have a seat at the table” is an oxymoron and self-contradictory. If any political side has a seat at the table, then it’s not an independent commission. An independent, nonpartisan commission, by definition, is one where no political side influences the commission.
Bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions are two different things. The former has partisanship built into it, while the latter is supposed to not have any partisanship in it.
But in the real world it’s impossible to find “nonpartisan” consensus on what a fair district should look like.
California's system isn't perfect, but it's good and would be a good blueprint for nationwide redistricting guidelines.
A without question.
A for me
I think if you put some version of reversing B to the voters as a constitutional amendment, it would pass overwhelmingly, even in Wyoming and Massachusetts.
Canadian history lesson: in 2015, Justin Trudeau promised electoral reform and was then elected with a majority government. He vowed it would be the last election under first-past-the-post voting. The Liberals set up a commission, there were hearing and investigations, and they came back suggesting a referendum with proportional representation or the status quo. The government said "nope" and shelved it, which cost it a lot of goodwill. We have had minority governments ever since, and while it isn't a straight line back to the electoral reform issue, it sure didn't help them.
I have come around to the belief that electoral reform sounds great in principle, but the problem is everyone has their own idea of what it means, finding a consensus is nigh-impossible, and imposing a change could end up backfiring on you quite spectacularly. I think independent redistricting would be a better choice in the long-term. It has worked here in Canada for the longest time, we have competitive elections in many ridings and it hasn't given an advantage to any party.
Canada's redistricting is a lot less independent than most people seem to believe. Political parties still have a lot of power to approve or shoot down certain districts or whole entire maps. To give a historical example, redistricting commissions dominated by Liberals repeatedly tried to draw future PM John Diefenbaker out of his seat. First, they removed areas that heavily supported him, and when that didn't work, they dismantled his district and split it between three others. In Diefenbaker's case, he overcame it because there were a lot more swing voters back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Diefenbaker#Leadership_contender_(1948%E2%80%931956)
Fun fact about Diefenbaker - in 1965 in Barbados he nearly drowned, but was dragged in to shore to safety.
The man who dragged him to safety? John Turner, future PM of Canada
And from the opposing party.
1000% I’d go with A. Politicians picking their own voters and large parts of the county being totally uncompetitive is a big reason we’re where we are at now
This is 100% the issue. If the House had 25 more Don Bacons worried about their next election instead of Anna Paulina Lunas, the country would be in a much different spot.
Ding ding ding
I would pick B, no question about it. You really can't overstate the pernicious influence money has on politics and policy. It's true that in the short term, banning gerrymandering would have a more positive influence on democracy because it would give democrats a political advantage, but it would do nothing to help the fix the weaknesses within the Democratic Party itself. Imagine how much different our government would be if AIPAC or the crypto bros couldn't drop millions on a quiet house primary election.
Unless we really backslide into authoritarianism in the near future, it's inevitable that dems regain power at the federal level. The thing that keeps me up at night is thinking about a future in which we have the trifecta and do NOTHING to address systemic corruption and inequality. Getting money out of politics is the single most important thing we could do to ensure that we make meaningful changes that help fix America's chronic problems next time we have unified control of government. Over time, that will strengthen the party, it'll strengthen the country, and it'll strengthen democracy by extension.
What legislation could prevent organizations like AIPAC from contributing to political campaigns or advertising for or against candidates? The First Amendment expressly protects lobbying.
I'm not talking about lobbying; I'm talking about how each cycle, AIPAC drops millions in campaign spending. Lobbying can be ignored and in many cases is arguably a good thing. If all AIPAC did was lobby, they wouldn't have nearly the influence they do. It's the uncontrolled dark money spending that makes members of Congress fear them.
I guess the idea would be to restrict how much individuals and organizations could contribute to political campaigns or ads that mention a politician or party. I'd support that. I'd expect this lineup of the Supreme Court to annul it as unconstitutional, though.
Before I read any responses, I was thinking that the institutionalized bribery is the worst thing.
I think B but i'm a little burned on nonpartisan redistricting after we get a 4-4 map in CO with Harris winning by double digits and more then any Dem since LBJ minus Biden.
Colorado’s redistricting commission is only a bad thing because of how much Republicans gerrymander in the states they control. If every state is required to have fair maps, then I’ll be perfectly happy with Colorado and other blue states having independent redistricting commissions. The partisan breakdown of the current map in Colorado (4D-3R-1T) is actually reflective of how the state as a whole normally votes.
With that being said, until fair redistricting is required in every state, Democrats should gerrymander in Colorado and every other state they control. I was able to draw an 8D-0R map of Colorado in DRA.
I don't disagree overall with the first point and onboard with the second point. I guess my faith that it would work out nationwide to something that isn't at least slanted in the Republican direction is zilch.
Don't you think it would still be better than nothing?
Sure, better then getting money out of politics? Less sure it ends up being a better outcome.
https://x.com/paulmitche11/status/1958970547171410245
Not surprised that redistricting is on the front page of the LA Times. But every story on the front page? WOW.
The two most notable parts of that top half of the front page are Hilda Solis considering a Congressional comeback run, as well as a poll (not sure of the pollster) having redistricting ahead 46-36, although it was a "good idea"/"bad idea" poll and not actually asking whether voters would vote for or against the redistricting referendum.
Hilda Solis is now term limited on the LA Board of Supervisors. And according to that story, she's powerful enough that she's practically sewn up that redrawn 38th District seat, and other politicians are all yielding.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-21/l-a-may-land-a-new-congressional-seat-is-it-already-reserved
The first-in-the nation LGBTQ+ legal hotline is being birthed right here in Illinois, thanks to Governor and possible 2028 Democratic Presidential candidate JB Pritzker. The LGBTQ+ legal hotline is named Illinois Pride Connect, the statewide version of The Trevor Project.
Glad to see Pritzker having the LGBTQ+ community’s backs in Illinois. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
https://www.them.us/story/illinois-lgbtq-legal-hotline-announcement
Marc Elias’s firm is challenging the new Texas districts. I hope they turn things upside down and argue that the Legislature impermissibly considered the whiteness of some the new districts.
https://bsky.app/profile/marcelias.bsky.social/post/3lx2zhb27h223
Good for him. There’s a lot of ways he can cut against these lines
If you're upset about Peltola eyeing the Senate instead of the Governor’s mansion, ask yourself this: Is running a state of 740,000 people really worth more than winning the Senate, putting a firm brake on Trump's agenda, stopping MAGA Justices from replacing Alito and Thomas between 2027–2029? A slim Senate majority through 2029 could mean two progressive Supreme Court Justices, carving out the filibuster, statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico, independent redistricting, SC potentially upholds the NPVIC ending the Electoral College — and a generational shift in American democracy. The Governor's chair lasts four years. This potential Senate majority could change the country for forty. This is not even taking into account that we could codify abortion rights, buy-in Medicare, campaign finance reform etc.
Personally, I was upset that she is/was eyeing Gov. You hear a lot of talk about Dems taking back the House but, as you have pointed out, taking back the Senate is far more consequential. BTW, what is happening in IA senate race? Thanks.
I think the question pretty much depends on whether you live there or not. If you live there, the answer is more debatable. Although I’m sure many (or perhaps even most?) of Alaskans agree the Senate is more important, but it definitely wouldn’t be unanimous. If you don’t live there though, then a Democratic Senate seat is far more valuable to you.
Who is upset Peltola is looking at Senate? Unanimous consensus on this board seems to be that she should run for that office if she can
I wouldn’t mind seeing her run for the house seat. But the senate seat would be a lot better than governor.
Are you saying you'd rather she run for the House than the Senate? If so, why? For me, Senate > House > Governor.
I think she’d have a better shot of winning.
Why? They're all statewide contests.
Primarily because Sullivan is a tougher opponent.
Yea, only people I saw were annoyed she was looking at governor
It could mean all of those things. Given the Democrats' track record and how much lack of urgency some of them seem to feel, I wouldn't expect all of them, only some.
I've noticed a growing trend of some Democratic elected officials copying Trump's speaking/social media style on social media to criticize Trump and/or other Republicans. Gavin Newsom is most well-known for this, but Florida State Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith (D-Orlando) also did this in response to Florida's newly-ordered ban against rainbow-themed crosswalks, which infamously included FDOT painting over a rainbow-colored crosswalk near the former Pulse nightclub, the site of the deadliest terrorist attack against the LGBTQIA+ community in U.S. history.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DNtZnolXiYj/?igsh=MWVsbXA1end1NHNpcQ==
That's not something I'd recommend most Democratic elected officials and political candidates use, aside from a handful of people within our party who can get away with mocking Trump's communication style without coming across as awkward or inauthentic.
Also, Third Way wants Democratic candidates to ban mention of "LGBTQIA" and "cisgender", among many other terms focusing on social justice, which is stupid and would amount to caving to GOP culture wars:
https://www.advocate.com/politics/democrat-consultants-words-avoid-lgbtq?link_source=ta_thread_link&taid=68a8d5ca634a4d00015d1cc9&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=threads.net#toggle-gdpr
Third Way hasn't been relevant outside of mainstream media pundit class circles since the Clinton Administration, which enacted a lot of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation in the 1990s (RFRA, DOMA, DADT, the latter two of which were repealed by future Democratic administrations).
I saw the bit about Third Way on Bluesky. I really don’t think voters care that deeply about terminology.
They care a lot. Voters are petty, small minded and stupid.
Do you really believe someone would base their Presidential vote solely on the word “Latinx”? Or “cisgender”? I really don’t think this is the issue many on the center are making it out to be.
Also, that’s a crappy attitude to have about voters, and it’s the exact attitude that’s costing us, even if there are a lot of stupid voters. People see us as elitist. Shit like that does not help.
Solely, no. But it all adds up to part of the culture of our party, which is not popular with people. And I am sorry if being honest about voters sounds elitist to you but using words like "cisgender" sounds elitist and crazy to to the typical voter. It's a good idea to understand the kind of people that vote of you want them to vote for you. You love in NY 17 as well, right? Do you know how many people in Putnam county would roll their eyes out the back of their heads at a candidate who used the term "intersectionality"?
What do you define as that “culture”? Are you insinuating the party is too far left?
I will defend my claims about elitism. Voters can tell when they’re being misled. If Democrats are going around saying voters are stupid and we have to change our message to appeal to them, we are not presenting a very good case IMO. Voters, in my experience, like honesty. Projecting it to voters is hard, but it gets harder when people openly disparage parts of the population.
I’m in Westchester for the record. People in my area are quite liberal actually. Even in swing districts people don’t all think alike. I’m aware of Putnam and Rockland being more conservative than where I live, for one.
I think we have to alter our approach for different areas. And I’m not even just talking about moderating in some swing districts. What flies in NYC, the Midwest, the South, etc. can be wildly different. Just as some voters may see us as too far left for our progressive wing, others may see us as lurching too conservative for our centrist wing. We cannot only appeal to the center, just as we cannot only appeal to the left. I don’t think the entire party needs to necessarily follow one line. Our coalition is very diverse, in terms of ideology, race, etc., more so than the GOP which is effectively now a Trump-centered cult. We cannot afford to enforce purity, from whatever angle. We have to somehow keep our coalition together, which may include allowing some wings who disagree with each other. That’s what I’m saying.
One more thing: you know what “intersectionality” means right? Just because it sounds weird doesn’t mean it is. Obviously I’m not saying to campaign on it, but I don’t like the idea of just throwing around words without explaining what they are to disparage the social justice wing of the Dems. If that’s not what you’re doing I apologize — that’s just how it came off to me.
We are obviously too far left for the voters of this country. America is a conservative nation that will only embrace leftward policies when in the throes of massive disaster, and only if minorities are largely excluded and redlined out of those policies. Me, being of the opinion that a nation of people who read below a 6th grade level and think Donald Trump should be President are not the most informed or moral people around, is not going to impact the average voter because I'm not telling it to their face. Our most successful politicians of the past 30 years, Clinton, Obama and Biden before his health failed him, were successful because they spoke very simply to people.
I agree with a lot of this post, but if a plurality of voters weren't fucking idiots, why would they have thought Trump would magically lower their prices? Fucking stupid idiots! It's -their- fault the country is fucked!
"Voters can tell when they’re being misled."
November 2024 would like a word.
Tik Tok has played a part in centering those weirdos and making them look bigger and broader a demographic than they are. It's why Chaya Raichik and Chris Rufo made it big online. I hope they can compel Tik Tok's US services either to be sold to a neutral private American party or shut off like the law (and a 9-0 Scotus ruling) requires.
Social media in general has become a real problem. TikTok is part of it, but I'd argue Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, even Bluesky, etc. are no better. Lots of horrible, horrible people are being amplified thanks to social media and its poisoning the country. From Gen Z to Boomers, people worldwide (and not just Americans, as the rise of the European far right shows) are being brainwashed by all kinds of deranged propaganda on the internet.
I used to be a big believer in the idea that the internet was going to be a wonderful thing that would allow for new ideas, concepts, etc. to exist, and that a lot of the regulation was designed to kneecap its progress. For example, I opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act back in 2012 (the first political cause I remember paying attention to, at the age of 12) in part due to seeing them as attempts to smother the internet. I stand by my opposition to both bills (and general support for copyright reform), but now I'm more skeptical of the direction the internet has taken. Clearly it wasn't the liberator I naively thought it was, and I will accept that I was wrong about that.
At any rate, compelling TikTok to be sold is a step in the right direction, and will hopefully lead to more comprehensive social media regulation down the line.
Fuck Third Way! The Democrats can emphasize economics more, but betraying LGBT folks would just make them another party standing for social injustice.
Reminds me when in 2004 Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to announce support for gay marriage bans on the ballot in multiple states that year. Not only would that have been a complete betrayal of the LGBT community, but Kerry would have looked ridiculous and completely inauthentic. Only someone like Bill Clinton could have pulled that off successfully.
He would have offered a don’t ask, don’t tell alternative.
Well, Bill Clinton probably wished he had a "don’t ask, don’t tell" alternative regarding his novel cigar use.
Ayyyyyy
They are correct here. A lot of activist speak is damaging. They can make people fear getting a miniature struggle session for an innocent mistake.
What are you proposing?
Letting the Tik Tok ban actually be enforced would help. Tiktok was and probably still is an effective "trompe l'œil" for RWers to make people paranoid about deviants running amok everywhere when really they are a niche community.
If they're not doing it on TikTok, wouldn't they just go to YouTube shorts or somewhere else? I'm not arguing against responsible private censorship of hate speech, but I am being realistic.
The bigger issue is that, even if literally no one is doing it on TikTok, Fox News and Facebook is gonna tell their viewers that someone is doing it anyway, and it will be immediately validated by dumbasses like Third Way who will jump at any chance to punch left.
I don’t recall ever seeing trompe-l'œil used that way. Fascinating.
But I agree with Michael. Almost every content creator with a TikTok account has migrated over to YouTube and now uses both. The more effective means of combatting online nuttery is to expose and counter it in the same milieu, to borrow another French expression.
I was thinking of an optical illusion that makes something look more than what it actually is and that hit me.
I don’t know if a ban on TikTok would have solved anything all together but I am also going with a mindset of having ideal tech regulation where TikTok as a platform would be required to redesign it’s platform and tighten user privacy and security.
Small business establishments like single screen movie theaters need influencers on TikTok and other channels to generate word of mouth when it can’t be enough otherwise.
Most of the terms Third Way criticises I think are cumbersome at best, but few if any Democratic candidates in competitive districts or states actually use them.
Not listed in there is "Latinx", which became the near poster-child for activist and academic language that is not used by the people whom activists and supportive (i.e. Democratic) candidates claim to speak for. Maybe it's already fallen far enough out of use?
I usually use Latino in ordinary speech unless it's a specific reference to Hispanic women/Latinas, then I obviously use Latina.
In more formal writing, I use Latin(o/a), but I would read that out loud as "Latino and Latina”, not as it's actually written.
Third Way actually does list "Latinx", as well as "BIPOC" and "intersectionality". (I would argue that the latter term has been transformed into a vehicle for antisemitism.)
Really on intersectionality? It seems like a legitimate term to me that means something I can't think of any other word covering.
The term is legitimate – but not what it has come to mean.
Edit: If you wish to examine my point, you can start with an examination of the 2017 Women’s March, and how the organizers (with some key leaders heavily influenced by Louis Farrakhan) were outright hostile to the participation of Jewish women. Here are two essays worth exploring:
https://fathomjournal.org/intersectionality-and-antisemitism-a-new-approach/
https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/302664/how-intersectionality-became-a-sinister-threat-to-american-jewry/
But what's the alternative word or expression that can be substituted for it?
NB. I am not arguing against the word!
Interesting discussion and context. I'll keep my ears more finely tuned when hearing intersectionality used in conjunction with Jewish identity. But I don't think the meaning has morphed outside of that context (e g., Black and gay, etc.)
I always understood intersectionality as being the intersection of being part of multiple minority group, and the subsequent discrimination faced on multiple fronts. As in, being black and disabled vs. white and disabled, or being gay and Hispanic vs. straight and Hispanic.
This is the first I’m hearing of antisemitism involved — I haven’t read the journals yet but perhaps I might. Before I read it, is my definition correct? And is my definition the one that is considered antisemitic? I would assume that being Jewish fits in with my definition — such as, for example, facing discrimination for being a gay Jew or female Jew vs. a straight or male Jew, as is the case with other minority groups. Is this not the case?
I understand intersectionality precisely as you do! And, no, this original definition, which you site, is not antisemitic.
The problem arises when discrimination and attacks against Jews is defined away as "not really racism" but as "something else". Or that Jews are a priori defined as "a privileged group", or as "colonizers" (in Israel) or "supporters of colonization" (if pro-Israeli, or even without being asked).
(Ok, that is as close as I will come to touching on the I/P topic.)
I also understand it to mean that you are part of a group that faces discrimination or hatred but may have privileges as a member of another group.
"latinx" is absolutely used by young, queer people. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for Dem officials to use it though, or any of the above terms.
I’m a young person and I have not heard Latinx in some time. Not since 2021.
This feels like a made-up controversy to me. Occasionally I’ll hear people complain about “woke” but the terms thing not so. Usually just crime and stuff like that.
My wife works with a predominantly Latin American college population and the term is used amongst queer students there. But yes, I think latinx is over emphasized because it isn't used that much.
I know of no Hispanic or Latino in my friends circle who use Latinx. The name sounds like it rhymes like Kleenex, which is bad enough already.
I lived in PR for 8 years and have worked there for for more than 25. Almost no one used Latinx. It's not even pronounceable. Latin-hha? La-tinx like minx? Some use o/a. Students I've worked with from South America use Latine with the e pronounced eh. It's closer to a neuter form and came about organically from Latine people themselves, not white people looking for a polite term. Similarly, my Black friends and colleagues almost never use African American.
Seems to be working for Gavin, he's rising up the charts
DADT was an improvement over the status quo, where you were banned outright if you're gay. Being gay was classified as a mental and moral defect that made you 4F or a Section 8. DOMA was passed with a veto-proof margin when gay marriage was considered a pipe dream.
Yeah DADT was absolutely not anti-gay legislation.
I don’t want the Democratic Party as a wider strategy to capitalize on Trump’s antics and tweet style by emulating him. We’re supposed to win elections with more and better Democrats and I really don’t desire having more of the same strategy where Democrats get their base fired up only when President Bush or Trump is in office or when it’s just about electing a POTUS like Obama.
However, this seems to be primarily a tactic Newsom is doing so he can fight against Trump and get his agenda thrown against him so CA can lead by example. Others should just stay away from this as they can’t follow through like Newsom does, especially with the Press Release tweets (those are classic).
In San Francisco, there’s the LGBT Career Center but the name itself does not have “Q” letter attached. LGBTQ in my view is already inclusive to begin with although I’m sure anyone non-binary might have different thoughts otherwise.
FYI, a good reason why I am exercising caution with anything as far as LGBTQ or whatever more inclusive name that may be considered:
Not everyone associated in this community evolves the same way. Take for instance Demi Levato. She had gone through issues in her life to the point where she was coming out as queer, non-binary with they/them pronouns only then to not actually be completely this way in the end. Last reported, Levato went back to being interested in dating men and is now she/her.
Point being, it’s complicated, especially when anyone is trying to figure out if they are truly men, truly women or something else.
NYC-Mayor - Zohran Mamdani references the Winnie Greco scandal in a new campaign video:
https://www.threads.com/@zohrankmamdani/post/DNs60fQ4oRw?xmt=AQF0hz_fB7HPWVpwNzP-rWNqwvlJer2yuEws5S42wIEzCw&slof=1
Greco is an Eric Adams ally who handed a journalist a potato chip bag with cash stuffed in it. I'm not sure how Herr's potato chips are available at NYC, because the only retailer that I know that sells that brand of chips is Menards, and they're a big-box hardware/building materials store chain in the Midwest, far from NYC, that sells some grocery items on the side.
I live on Long Island and Herr’s are readily available in most supermarkets and convenience stores here!
More importantly, which is the best brand of chips available?
Cape Cod.
Probably so.
I've seen Herr's at Stop & Shop. It isn't uncommon in the NY area.
Herr's is based out of Chester County, PA.
Southern PA must be one of the snack food (potato chips, pretzels, popcorn, etc.) capitals of America. In York County they have Utz and Snyder's of Hanover. And Martin's and Gibble's are also in the region. All those are available in my area.
Hot Wheels from TX announces he’ll run for a fourth term.
Sigh.
Are there enough TX voters tired of his fascist ass after the mid decade gerrymandering drama?
Doubt it...fascist asses love a fascist ass!