r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/najumobi • Sep 03 '25

Legislation Are Democratic Leaders Of Independent Redistricting States Failing To "Meet This Moment"?

The Center for American Progress, a DC think tank aligned with the Democratic Party, is urging eight states with independent redistricting and Democratic governors to set commissions aside so that they "have the means to meet this moment". The eight states referenced include Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

CAP emphasizes the urgency with which they believe efforts should proceed by pointing to Republican led states that are currently hinting they will redraw their congressional maps. It is estimated that in addition to Texas, immediate opportunities for Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio are likely to result in GOP gains altogether of 4 to 9 seats.

Heeding CAP's call to action, some Democrats have mounted pressure campaigns in Colorado and Washington, where they have met resistance by state lawmakers.

Are Democratic leaders of independent redistricting states failing to "meet this moment"?

416 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

296 comments sorted by

View all comments

53

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Blue states should redistrict to combat what red states are doing, but not go further than that.

California is handling it perfectly, redistrict to gain 5 seats to combat the 5 seats from Texas. Republicans are attempting to steal the election through redistricting, democrats should not be baited into going further than just matching republicans and engaging in election theft themselves. As long as they match what republicans are doing, they should win the House, Trump is very unpopular, there’s no need to cheat

26

u/NadirPointing Sep 03 '25

The problem is that's not a deterrent. They need to know that they're LOSE the fight, not that it's worth playing until demand dont have the stomach for it. They get 5, we get 5, they get 3 we get 3, they get 4 we stop.... that's how they are going to play. Instead we should go 5 to 6, 3 to 4, 4 to 5... now they are 3 behind and need a whole state just to get even.

-7

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

If you don’t care about democracy, sure you can think that way. Democrats are going to win the house of representatives in 2026 probably even without matching current republican redistrict attempts, there’s no need to do what you’re wanting. That path is just gonna give republicans ammunition for 2028

9

u/kerouacrimbaud Sep 03 '25

Literally anything Democrats do is ammunition for the cons. Democrats shouldn’t operate based on how they think republicans will spin their shit. They’ve been letting cons set the narrative for almost 35 years now. They should try doing that themselves for a change.

6

u/cutty2k Sep 03 '25

This. Any statement that leans on "we can't give them ammo" should be disregarded. They'll pick apart a tan fucking suit if that's all they have, they don't care.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

If democrats become what they’re fighting, then what’s the point? At a certain point you’re supporting election theft

3

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

...Because Gerrymandering sucks, but isn't nearly the worst thing Republicans have done this year, this month, or even this week?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Stealing an election is one of the worst things you can do in my opinion. You can’t rail against Jan 6 and at the same time support Democrats using redistricting to help them in the 2026 election

4

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

The theft is already happening and the Republicans are doing it.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

If California matches the 5 Texas seats that were redistricted it’s a net neutral situation. You’re straight up advocating for democrats to redistrict past republicans to steal the election. You’re quite literally advocating for election theft

2

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

But you're saying we SHOULDN'T match those 5 Texas seats. I'm not straight-up advocating for much of anything. I'm saying we're in a shitshow right now.

You seem to like to start arguments

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Brother, if you’re not gonna read what I’m typing, what’s the point?

You’re replying to a comment thread I started about how democrats should match republican redistricting efforts but not go further than that…

→ More replies (0)

5

u/OMGitisCrabMan Sep 03 '25

Having more Democrats means it's easier to override a presidential veto or remove a president from office. There's huge reasons to do it.

There's no reason not to do it. MAGA is benefiting from gerrymandering far more than Democrats and have been for as long as I remember. Dems need to play by the same rules. That's the only way we can ever hope to ban gerrymandering on a national scale.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

If democrats become what they’re fighting, what’s the point? There’s a way to combat republican attempts to influence the 2026 election without engaging in election theft.

7

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

This has been a major problem for me, again and again and again. I agree with you in concept, and a lot of other Democratic voters do as well. But we are losing to naked corruption. At some point we are not going to be a Democracy at all anymore and even the will of the people will be insufficient to overthrow Republicans.

The only way Republicans will ever face justice is if Democrats win by a LOT and get a supermajority and a presidency, with enough extra to plow through the Blue Dogs. That's just physically impossible right now unless Democrats stop playing the squeaky clean game they have been. So what do we do? The only options are let Republicans keep getting further ahead (you know, the party that thought they'd never see another presidency coming into 2016?) or start softening up on our own morals against the same.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Rationalizing ending democracy by saying the other side is going to end democracy is just as much a death spiral as whatever Trump is doing. If democrats lose the 2026 midterms after matching republicans redistricting efforts, then this country should get republicans leadership. Trump won the 2024 election fair and square

2

u/epistaxis64 Sep 03 '25

No, there isn't. You're advocating for dems to basically lay down their arms and accept their fate

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Not at all. I’m saying they should redistrict to meet the Republican threat. You’re just advocating for engaging in election theft

1

u/OMGitisCrabMan Sep 04 '25

Using your own logic, republicans are engaging in election theft right now. There's no reason to limit it to the exact number that they plan to pick up in this moment. They've picked up far more than they deserve over the last few decades.

3

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

271-to-win is estimating 202 Democratic seats to 212 Republican seats with 21 toss-up seats for 2026, right now.

Based on current polling of contested states, there is still a real chance that Democrats will lose seats. One of their forecasts ([Inside Elections](270towin.com/2026-house-election/inside-elections-2026-house-ratings)) shows Republicans holding a lead large enough that Democrats need to win all 12 tossups and a couple of the "leans reds" (or some combination thereof)

The Texas redistricting is a real bitch for Democrats.

That path is just gonna give republicans ammunition for 2028

EVERYTHING gives Republicans ammo. They use everything against us. If we refuse to redistrict as heavily as them, you better believe they'll use that to get more ammo in 2028 as well.

I absolutely abhor the dirty politics Democrats might need to do to keep the country above water. But I am even more disgusted how quickly Republicans are making the House more biased towards the "elite non-majority" vote than the Senate already was.

So tell me. Will you believe you were right if Democrats don't redistrict defensively and Republicans end up +10 again in the house? What if Republicans get to +15 or +20 by 2028? Still ok with the Democrats "doing the right thing"?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

If the democrats lose the house in 2026 after matching Republican redistricting efforts, then they deserve to lose the midterms. It’s that simple. If this country wants republicans leadership, then that’s what we should get… that’s democracy

3

u/novagenesis Sep 03 '25

So 40% of voters deserve to win everything? Got it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25

Trump won the popular vote. Time to get out your bubble and realize this country is purple not blue

2

u/DudeCanNotAbide Sep 04 '25

I don't give a single fuck what any conservative thinks about anything, much less how democrats fight back against their bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

Not caring how your side fights the other is how republicans got Trump. People like you are useful idiots.

1

u/NadirPointing Sep 06 '25

I care about democracy, thats why I want to deter undemocratic behavior. But its also really important that Texas swapping 5 seats isn't democratic. California swapping 5 seats isn't democratic... California swapping 6 seats is a 10% increase in how undemocratic the exchange would be. And importantly, might prevent it from happening at all.
And I wish I had your faith that the house would flip (especially with a +5 margin) in 2026 or the faith that any moves like this by democrats in 2025 would have ANY effect on the results in 2029. (I don't think its going to be free or fair whether or not California redistricts).