https://www.aol.com/articles/controversial-cbs-news-boss-gets-213917000.html
Bari Weiss might not last much longer. Also places lower odds of CNN becoming more MAGA mouthpieces even post merger.
Hey guys,
Its been a rough week for democracy. Im a card-carrying optimist and even Ive been made anxious by the events of the past week and how low Republicans are stooping, and then we lost the Virginia map after a successful referendum over a protocol issue.
It sucks. A lot. BUT Democrats are still strong to overwhelming favorites to win the house anyway. Here is why.
First the polling. Most recent generic ballot polls have Dems pulling ahead more than enough to compensate for this.
RMG Research - 2000 RV poll. D+9
HareisX Poll. 2569 A. D+7
Marist. 1155 RV. D+10
Big Data Poll. 2874 LV. D+11
Emerson College. 1000 LV. D+10
Echelon Insights. 1012 LV. D+6
Fox News. 1001 RV. D+5. (!!)
Marquette. 576 LV. D+10
Edit: This is an after-the-fact addition but Rasmussen that dropped today. D +9. Rasmussen tends to be republican friendly as a pollster
I couls share more polls but these are all results from within the past 2 weeks. Nate Silver and G elliott morris aggregators have D+6 but thats including older polls before this that didnt show as strong a lead for Dems. Likely they will refect these results more in the coming weeks.
Lets say the aggregators arrrive at D+8 in the coming weeks. Its historical precedent that generic ballot shifts against the party in the white house by an average of an additional 3-4 points between now and November even in neutral times but we can be conservative.
Each generic ballot point lead correlates to a gain of 4 seats on average in past midterms. But it has gone as high as 5 in the past.
so D+8 translates out to a range of 32-40 seats gained. And honestly Id bet on the ultimately midterm lead being higher than that.
So lets tally the redistricting score now and we will assume no dummymanders.
Dem: +5 from Cali. +1 from Utah
Rep: +5 from TX. +4 from FL. + 1 from NC. +2 from OH, +1 from LA, +1 from TN, +1 from MO, +1 from MS
GOP gains 10 seats on net from all this. Im leaving off AL and SC because there big procedural reasons they may not be able to redistrict in time but it would be +1 from each od them at worst.
The current house balance is 215-220 D vs R.
So letd say dems take 32 seats. knock off 10 from the gerrymanders. the final balance is 237 vs 198 Dem vs R. A very healthy working majority.
If you factor in potential for dummymanders the margins are even bigger, and the seats most vulnerable for that are 3 of the new TX seats due to GOP assumptions on hispanics sticking with them that probably wont hold, 1-2 of the Florida seats, and possibly the north carolina seats. That makes the actual advantage the GOP has gained from all this even slimmer to 5-6 seats on net instead of 10.
And again, this is assuming the gen ballot lead wont get bigger, that Dems wont overperform like theyve been doing every off year election since early 2025, and every gerrymander works as intended with no dummymanders.
Odds are still with us even after all this, which more than everything speaks to how badly Republicans have shat the bed.
Its gonna be ok guys.
The SCOTUS ruling on the VRA was undeniably bad, even if it wasnt quite the worst case scenario and its impact on 2026 will likely be neglible and the impact on 2028 will likely be countered by state level dem opposition and counter-gerrymanders, but thats still not ideal for democracy.
But lets look ahead to 2029 where its more likely than not at this point Dems have a trifecta again. What can be done about it.
Bad news first. Just codifying the VRA like before is probably not an option with this SCOTUS unless we are either REALLY lucky with timely retirements of Alito/Thomas or Dems score such large majorities they can pack the court (Something even FDR failed to do)
Good news now. Theres actually quite a few good options to neuter the impact of state gerrymandering that dont require nearly as heavy lifts.
First one. Make the house way bigger.
This sounds kind of basic but this would actually be a very easy way to neutralize any gerrymandering impact because even though this wouldnt make gerrymandering illegal or penalize it directly, but its much harder to gerrymander to any intended result with smaller districts (like <30000 per representative) without hitting diminishing returns and is not only likely to survive any SCOTUS review but would be hard for a republican majority to reverse later.
https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/section/1
2nd: Independent commissions.
A bit harder to make happen than expanding the house. But easier than you might think and depends on size of future senate majority and/or willingness to do filibuster carvouts. Theres already legislation thats been proposed previously that sets mandatory criteria for congressional districting including population equality, VRA compliance, and protection of communities of interest.
Thr major act that lays this out is Redistricting Reform Act of 2025, introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren in September 2025, co-led by Senators Warnock, King, and Schiff. Article I, Section 4 of the constitution actially explicitly authorizes Congress to "make or alter" regulations on "the Times, Places and Manner" of House elections, and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — while ruling partisan gerrymandering non-justiciable as a constitutional matter — explicitly invited Congress to legislate standards. This approach is race-neutral too so it would also likely pass SCOTUS review, though I could see them narrowing the federal mandate part.
Lastly, multimember districts with proportional representation. The hardest one to pass but not impossible to imagine. The Fair Representation Act (Don Beyer's bill) would create multi-member districts of 3-5 representatives elected via ranked-choice proportional methods, which would essentially eliminate gerrymandering as a meaningful tool because you can't usefully gerrymander a district that elects multiple representatives proportionally. This is also race neutral and probably survives SCOTUS review but also requires every incumbent representative to be ok with a complete reorientation of their district so there would probably be some pushback even from some dems. If this goes through it would probably be a steady roll out rather than a blunt all-at-once change. Also very hard for a republican majority to reverse later
This all sounds kind of technical but I think if people reach out to their reps and senators with specific suggestions rather than just venting anger and demanding dems FIGHT it sends a message that these kinds of proposals are supported broadly by their base and they may be more likely to take a shot.
The Wake Up to Politics substack is a real godsend on this one. Link below and heres the major quote.
"Early last month, President Trump made a bold announcement on Truth Social.
Trump wanted the election bill known as the SAVE America Act to be passed by the Senate “immediately,” and he was prepared to amp up pressure on Congress to make it happen. “I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed,” Trump threatened, a pledge that quickly made its way into headlines on NPR, NBC, Axios, and other outlets.
Seven weeks later, the SAVE America Act has not been passed. (In fact, the Senate hasn’t held a vote related to the bill in more than a month, ending a halfhearted attempt to consider the measure.) And yet, Trump has dropped his promise: since saying he would stop signing bills into law, the president has signed eight bills into law.
The most recent was on Monday, when Trump signed a measure undoing a Biden-era ban on mining in a Minnesota wilderness area. He has also signed bills awarding Medals of Honor to three veterans and posthumously promoting another, reauthorizing a program for small businesses, helping families recover art stolen in the Holocaust, and temporarily extending a key surveillance authority — all in violation of his March 8 pledge.
This has become a familiar pattern throughout the second Trump administration: The president announces a new policy initiative on Truth Social, often saying it will be “effective immediately.” News outlets send out “breaking news” alerts. Members of Congress issue statements. Furor ensues. And then … nothing happens. No executive order is signed. No new policy is put into place. Very rarely do news outlets return to their earlier stories broadcasting Trump’s initial missive and clarify that the thing he was announcing never came to pass.
According to a Wake Up To Politics analysis, since returning to office, Trump has issued 29 Truth Social posts announcing that policies would be “effective” or “starting” either immediately or on an upcoming date. Only nine of those actually happened as announced. Two-thirds of the time, when the president unveils a new initiative on social media, it does not materialize as promised."
Share this to any friends, loved ones, doomers, what have you who continue to respond to every insane social media post like trained seals.
Hey all.
One point I saw brought up a few times is the looming 2030 census changes that will lead to more seats counted in Texas and Florida,less seats for NY and California ultimately exacerbating a GOP advantage for the house and presidency.
The first election this would be relevant for is the 2032 presidential.
Its a form of doom thats hard to fully debunk because the trend of people moving as described is definitely happening, and while a lot of conditions are required to make the true worst case scenario happen, I cant exactly prove it wont. So I decided to do a deep dive and look at when people and pundits in the past have tried to make sweeping predictions about future political coalitions based on population and demographic changes hoping to find examples of people making bold claims that history would later trample on. I wasnt dissapointed.
Kevin Phillips and "The Emerging Republican Majority" (1969). Phillips coined the term "Sun Belt" and argued that population shifts southward would cement Republican dominance. (Sound familiar?) What actually happened was that thr regional shift did happen, but California, which people forget was a heavy red state until 1988, voted democrat from 1992 onwards and has never looked back. Currently California is so blue Republicans have been frozen out almost entirely. What happened is the population growth happened as predicted but instead of adding more electorals and seats for the Republican side, California just got bluer as most of the growth went to big centers like LA and SF.
Theres a similar story going on with Virginia and Colorado.
Virginia and Colorado — Both states "evolved from ruby red to purple to blue," driven by exactly the kind of population growth that was supposed to benefit Republicans in Cali.. Virginia gained electoral votes through the same Sunbelt migration patterns that analysts assumed would help the GOP, but the main areas of population growth were Democratic-leaning — Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Henrico County — while population declined in Republican strongholds in the southwest. It sure doesnt seem like VA is going to flip red again any time soon. And Id be nervous about how Georgia is looking if I were the GOP.
"The Emerging Democratic Majority" (2002). Most of yall probably know this one. Judis and Teixeira argued that demographic changes — growing minority populations, college-educated professionals, and urbanization — would produce a durable Democratic majority. What ended up happening was minorities did broadly file in to the democrat partu, white working class voters tacked more conservative, creating the somewhat unsteady back and forth weve had for a while.
The "Permanent Republican Majority" (2004–2005). After Bush's reelection, Tom DeLay told Republicans in 2004 that it was "the year we start thinking like a permanent majority." Even many liberal publications at the time started using the phrase "Jesusland". Two guesses how this turned out. (Obama and near 60 seat senate majority for dems in 2008)
TLDR - people in general are very bad at making sweeping predictions about what the political future will hold, which really shouldnt be that shocking as were talking about a country of 330 million people of extremely varying ethnicities and ideologies that has a known habit of culturally and politically reinventing itself at the drop of a hat.