• 0 Posts
  • 99 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2025

help-circle
  • Yeah, I hear ya, I really do, but here’s the thing - he’s still on the books as a Democrat, so if everything else lines up, he makes it so the Dems control the Senate, even if he isn’t playing along. If the count is close enough, with two DINOs (Fetterman), it might mean they can’t win some votes, but as the Majority Party, they still control the legislative schedule, and most importantly they control committees, including investigative and oversight committees with subpoena and arrest powers.

    Any Dem legislation isn’t going to go anywhere anyway, because Trump will never sign it, so the real job over the next 2 years will be investigating people, getting things on the record, impeaching where possible, etc., and cranking up the outrage for 2028. In a situation like that, DINOs still have a big impact, just by keeping the majority control out of MAGA hands.
















  • Not at all. People don’t understand a lot of the nuances of gerrymandering, and this sort of reliance on it often backfires, especially as a decade goes on.

    The redistricting happens at the beginning of the decade, following the Census. As the decade progresses, many areas change, with some areas booming, others waning, and their original influence on the redistricting changes. For instance, a Red rural area may start to lean Blue as new housing developments around a new industry pop up, and by the end of the decade, that reliable Red district is now very Purple, maybe even fully Blue.

    This unusual mid-decade redistricting happened based on 6 year old data, a period of extreme political upheaval. To expect that the political make-up is exactly the same as it was back then is expecting a LOT. Many districts are an unknown factor.

    Consider this:

    They got rid of one solid Blue district, but diluted three solid Red districts. Those Red districts are probably 30% Blue now. Normally, that wouldn’t be enough to win the district, but we have been seeing elections in Trump districts that are showing enormous drops in support, sometimes by 30 points or more. If this redistricting has given Dems a 30% boost in a year on which MAGAs are down 20-30%, those previously solid districts become prime for flips. And that’s without even considering that the party make-up may already be far different than expected, because of time.

    The thing to remember is that MAGAs always have a plan, but it’s always a bad plan. They only see what’s right in front of them, and they never look down the road, to the next several steps. In this case, they killed a Blue district, and that’s good enough. They have no idea they’ve endangered three districts. Maybe they won’t get all three, but if they flip even one, then their efforts will be a net negative, because now they have three MAGA Congressional reps who now have a significant number of hostile constituents they’ll have to deal with, whether they like it or not. They’ll screw this up, they always do.





  • That’s what I’m trying to explain to people. This gerrymandering is likely to backfire, especially in a bloodbath Midterms.

    In Louisiana, they got rid of one Blue district, by spreading the votes across three Solid Red Districts, severely diluting them. The district may have gone away, but the votes are still there. Now there are a LOT more Dem votes in those three districts, during an election in which MAGA votes are likely to either flip to Dem, or not vote at all. It is very possible that they may just have taken away one district, only to flip three.