Are you including or excluding the Santos/Suozzi seat? Because even GOP pundits had the Dems netting 3-4 seats from 2022 to 2024 with or without a changed map. That's assuming they don't go extreme and try to draw out people like Malliotakis again.
I still see the Senate as Tilt to Lean R and the House control will be in the 220s either way, very narrow control on either side, and will depend on who wins the Presidency. Open seats like MI-07 and MI-08 can absolutely flip if Trump does better in MI than 2020. OH-09 for instance is flippable with a well funded, socially moderate candidate. If Trump flips Nevada (I'm still not sold, but the right wing and even centrist podcasts and polls seem to think it can happen) then 1, 2, or even all 3 of the Democrat House seats in Nevada are in jeopardy. If NE PA flips red and SE PA continues zooming blue, does Cartwright lose, probably, and does Fitzpatrick lose? Probably not because he's an ultra popular in bent, but who knows. Out west, CO-03 was a major question mark and with Hoebert moving, it's not going to flip blue. I have OR-05 flipping back blue and WA-03 flipping back red. If Trump does at least as well as in 2020 or better in Arizona then Schweikert holds on one more cycle, even with legal abortion likely to pass on the same ticket. I'm not convinced that the Central Valley California GOP in bents (Duarte/Valadao) are necessarily doomed; I think that area has authentically trended red as it's majority hispanic rural/exurban working class, not hispanic urbanites like the west coast of Cali.
As per current presidential polling data, factoring in the Dems probably gain 1-2 net seats in redistricting, but also factoring in the Democrat retirements in swing state swing districts and also factoring in that the GOP seriously underperformed in 2022 when abortion is a much hotter topic than 2024 (not saying it'll be a non-issue, but it'll be towards the bottom since most states have already decided by this point)... the house is Lean R. 224 R or so would be about my best guess. But in a Biden re-election victory scenario I wouldn't be surprised if Jeffries gets a slim majority.
I’m not reading that whole paragraph but agree that the senate is lean R. As long as the Montana GOP nominates Sheehy over Rosendale that rating isn’t changing either since that’s literally the only race they need to flip the senate.
When I say gains 3-4 seats I mean that NY17, NY22, NY04 and potentially NY19 get redrawn in a way where partisanship can carry any Democrat regardless of candidate quality.
So you're essentially saying 4 or 5 pickups from 2022 to 2024, counting NY-03. Answered my question.I’m not reading that whole paragraph but agree that the senate is lean R
When I say gains 3-4 seats I mean that NY17, NY22, NY04 and potentially NY19 get redrawn in a way where partisanship can carry any Democrat regardless of candidate quality.
I'm going to stick to my prediction of, 224R-211D in a Trump victory scenario, or 219D-216R in a Biden victory scenario.
House is still inherently tilt R because the GOP underperformed in districts they should have won especially in the rust belt, but never count out Ronna and the GOP to underperform again
I actually think Larose over Brown in Ohio, not a particularly split ticket state on the federal level when Trump's going to win there by double digits, is more of a sure thing than Sheehy over Tester, in a state that's been forever red on the presidential level but voted for Max Buchus by dictator margins for decades at the senate level. Granted, Tester isn't Buchus, but both Sheehy and Rosendale are carpetbaggers and Tester like Buchus is MT born and bred.
Surprisingly, it looks like the Louisiana GOP is going to pass a new map with a 2nd majority black seat with no additional fighting or court battles.
Rumor is that Rep. Garrett Graves has pissed a lot of people in leadership off while there’s a black Dem who’s friendly with the new LA governor so they’re happy to use this as a way to give him a seat while drawing Graves out.
It's American Democracy, Will, like permitting, thus encouraging assassination attempts upon the life of President Trump, his wife and their only child.
Why, though? Simple; he made President.
TL;DR Landry if he supports Trump he's a dumbass to do that because not having a trifecta will seriously hamper Trump's "project 2025 / agenda 47". He'll be forced to nuke the all time record for most executive orders in a term, in his first year alone. SCOTUS may or may not uphold it.
I think the Dems are all in on that plan that I discussed with you months ago, absolutely barnstorm the House in 2024, punt away the presidency to Trump, flush out his last term, do enough damage control in the Senate to minimize the GOP to 52-53 senate seats, stonewall Trump's presidency with a slim House majority if they can, hope Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson all make it 4 more years (they should), ride Trump's unpopularity to a blue wave 2026 and then get an actual competent two-term Presidential candidate nominated in 2028, someone like Shapiro and Whitmer who stands for the working middle American man/woman and not just being the party of coastal elites, s, and Free Palestine.
Landry is the one pushing it because he's one of the people Graves doesn't get along with.
What makes no sense to me is that they could screw Graves but make it so the 2nd district more purple. This map gives the Dems two safe blue, majority black seats for no reason.
Also there's now a lawsuit challenging the Wisconsin congressional map but I'd be very surprised if it does anything before 2024.
The new lib majority in Wisconsin is definitely hackish but they're not going to abandon any semblance of credibility which is what would be required to hear a case about a new congressional map on an expedited basis.
who the did Graves piss off so much? They put him in the majority black seat and were blatant about it.
It'd also require cracking Madison to make WI-03 anything bluer than purple.
That's an ugly, Pritzkermander-esque map. It's also the first time I've seen one party intentionally draw a map that's in favor of the other party, not by court order but out of spite.
I can't even tell which two of those seats are going blue? Is is that ugly 6th district and the 1st or 2nd district? One of those is Scalise's seat which I'm sure they wouldn't touch. Also, Mike Johnson's seat is safe.
No significant redistricting expected in NY:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...-york-00141458
Didn't happen. If anything they solidified the GOP and Democrat in bents (Molinaro, Ryan, Lawler) aside from Brandon Williams whose seat got 3-4 points bluer, and of course Tony Desposito who was DOA anyway because it's a D+14 seat.
Aside from the Suozzi seat you're getting 2 pick-ups (NY-04 and NY-22) and that's it.
Too late on Utah and WI/FL.
It's either a net pickup of 1 or a wash depending on what you think of Don Davis's seat.
When it's too hard to tell whether a gerrymander was racist or merely partisan, a presumption of bona fides applies to the legislature that drew the lines -- in this case, South Carolina, who cracked Charleston to create a safe R district.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/351406/th...gerrymanderingAs the Supreme Court held in Cooper, a lower court’s “findings of fact — most notably, as to whether racial considerations predominated in drawing district lines — are subject to review only for clear error.”
Alito’s Alexander opinion pays lip service to this clear error standard, but it effectively eliminates it in redistricting cases. The new rule is that state lawmakers enjoy a “presumption of legislative good faith” when they are accused of racial gerrymandering.
Alito writes that “nothing rules out the possibility” that movement of Black voters out of the First District “was simply a side effect of the legislature’s partisan goal.” And given the presumption that legislatures can do what they want, “that possibility is dispositive.”
Later in his opinion, Alito goes even further. The lower court, he claims, “critically erred by failing to draw an adverse inference against the Challengers for not providing a subs ute map that shows how the State ‘could have achieved its legitimate political objectives’ in District 1 while producing ‘significantly greater racial balance.’”
What Alito is saying here is that, when a state draws a partisan gerrymander, anyone who wants to challenge it as an illegal racial gerrymander should show that there is some way to draw more racially equitable maps that still achieve the same partisan goals. And if the challengers can’t do that, courts generally must rule against those challengers.
more Republican contempt for Ohio voters
https://x.com/MorganTrau/status/1818679471420871012
Whatever it takes.
Utahns already passed a voter initiative on redistricting. Fresh from getting their asses kicked in court, friendly Republican lawmakers are stepping in now -- to "restore and strengthen" the initiative process.
https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/1825672732425805859
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-19-2024 at 07:57 PM.
the special session will change a legal deadline so the Utah lege can slip in a cons utional amendment that lets it modify voter referendums. just naked grasping for power here.
just ridiculous chicanery
https://x.com/wosunews/status/1854020888271684014
Marcy in' Kaptur needed a in' recount to win.
Democrats flip 14 seats in the Wisconsin Legislature in 2024 after redistrictingUnder new legislative district maps that affirmed the undoing of a longstanding Republican gerrymander, Democratic candidates won back 14 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate in the 2024 election, setting the stage for a close contest for majorities in the 2026 vote.
surprising wrinkle
I was thinking the same thing. How come the GOP won the popular vote by so much but the house hasn't been called yet? I mean, the GOP will win, like 222-213 again, but there are definitely more Democrat gerrymanders on the board at this point than compared to the post-2010 REDMAP era 10-12 years ago, there's no doubt about that. OR, WA, NY, IL of course, NM, NV, plus your two bogus VRA districts in AL/LA that are hopefully wiped off the board by SCOTUS in 2025.
Dems won a lot of very, very close races. The GOP must counter in Ohio. As per cons utional law the 2022 map only passed provisionally so they MUST re-draw a map in 2025 for the 2026 elections, and fortunately the voters voted against the "bipartisan committee" so it's time for the Ohio GOP House majorities, backed by a now hardline 6-1 Ohio Supreme Court majority, to get cooking and to draw out both Kaptur and Sykes.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on it like, not kidding, seven times. Everyone acts like nothing happened, and run the election with uncons utional maps.
Extreme contempt for adverse judges and the voting public in Ohio.
Did you follow the referendum battle over this?
right, but that was in 2021/2022 when the supreme court was basically 3-3-1 and the "1" was a RINO (Maureen O'Connor) who favored the Dems on this issue.
in 2025, the supreme court will be 6-1, as O'Connor quit in 2022 and Donnelly and Stewart (2 dems) were replaced by 2 hardcore conservatives. So their rulings in 2025 on this issue will be much more right leaning.
They are forced to draw a new map in 2025 anyway, and with the trifecta and the overwhelmingly conservative supreme court (only 1 liberal justice left this time) they'll have no issue with gerrymandering to their heart's desire, leaving just 1 blue district in each of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote