mtutiger

"Yes" didn't actually get that great of turnout compared to "No".... The analysis post-vote suggests that yesterday's electorate may have been more Republican than the one that gave Glenn Youngkin a win in 2021. But they drove home the message in NoVa hard and the swings in each of the counties around Washington were enormous. The two takeaways I have from the affair is that Elon Musk and DOGE get an assist in getting this across the finish line and that, in a Midterm environment where there are actual candidates on the ballot and not an issue referendum like this one, it's not going to go nearly as well for them electorate-composition wise as this one did

This is very very sweaty.... and with good reason

The gutting of the VRA on net is bad in my view. But the part that doesn't get talked about is that removing requirements for states like AL, SC or MS also means removing the same requirements for states like CA, NY or IL. All of whom could draw even more aggressive maps favoring Ds without VRA requirements to adhere to. On pure partisanship it nets out worse for the Ds, but it's hard to tell the effects without discussing how blue states might react as well

I hate gerrymandering as well and would love for some national consensus to emerge on the subject. But absent that, it's not clear to me why it should be the expectation that one side shoulder the responsibility for shunning the practice while it is assumed that the other side is just gonna do whatever they want and gerrymandering like crazy. After all, that is how this started, an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas. The other thing I would say... As a current resident of a Dem gerrymandered state (IL), the complaints from last night by VA Rs are nothing new. However, during the last redistricting cycle, the GOP in the state I used to live in (TX) took a meat axe to the only competitive State Senate district in the state (centered around Fort Worth and Arlington) and drew it to be about 25 points more Republican, with completely illogical borders. Essentially drew my State Senator at the time out of existence. Until the party comes out in favor of some national consensus on how to draw lines, my assumption is that they're all fine with Texas doing it, or Florida or North Carolina, and only give a **** when it affects them. I'll have more sympathy when they start to shun the practice altogether

This this this... A whole lot of whining and crying on the GOP side tonight about this result, but the reality is that NONE of this would be happening if their Golden Calf POTUS wasn't out there encouraging GOP leaders in states like Texas and Florida and NC. He and they made their beds here...

No is getting what it needs to in more red/rural counties but the results from Loudoun suggest that they are going to underperform in NoVa... not to mention nothing reporting from Richmond yet as well

I know polling no longer matters and all... But two out of every three Americans is historically bad

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the election decided mostly on people's views of the economy... And that neither the uncommitted movement nor campaigning with Liz Cheney made much of any difference on the outcome.

https://www.usccb.org/news/2026/following-trumps-critical-post-pope-leo-continues-his-plea-peace "I’m not a politician, and I have no intention of getting into a debate with him," he told an Italian television reporter April 13. "Rather, the message has always been the same: to promote peace -- and I say this for all world leaders, not just him." "To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think, is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is," Pope Leo said. "I'm sorry to hear that, but I will continue on with what I believe is the mission of the Church in the world today." These quotes from the Pope himself illustrate the issue for me. It frames the Pope's words in the context of the traditional American political food fight, and it pretty clearly isn't... He's representing the views of the church. And he'd be saying the exact same thing regardless of whichever President started this war. I interpret much of the framing to making it much more about the President personally and downplaying the actual moral stand that Leo is taking. And I don't agree with that at all.

Maybe it's that, but I think political media at large (not just the Times) has a very difficult time covering politics right now in a way that doesn't center literally everything on Trump. What's remarkable to me is that nothing that Leo has said is all that different than what any previous Pope would have said had this same conflict began, at least of the ones in my lifetime.... but because Trump is involved (and started the conflict, frankly), anodyne but important statements from the Pope about this war are now seen as a some sort of personal fight between the two when it's simply the Catholic Church taking the position the Catholic Church would have always taken in this situation.

The screenshot clearly refers to this as a conflict (it's not a conflict if it's one sided IMO), and it refers to "these two people" as if the Pope has even really done more than just simply state the Catholic Church's view on just war policy multiple times. Pretty much is a textbook example of my point.

JV drew quite a crowd in Athens last night apparently

It's not unique to the Times, but the tendency of American outlets to frame Trump attacking the Pope as a "feud" is a way to "both sides" a conflict that really has only one side to it. Which comes across as bringing Leo down to Trump's level (he's not) and making the conflict seem like it's mutual (it isn't)

Certainly think they will need to have a more focused message in a Presidential election, but I'm not sure any of us have a clue what 2028 will be like at this point. Even to the point that because of his age and infirmities, there's a nonzero chance Trump will be around as it's happening. They need to worry about the election before them and do what they need to do to try to win as many races as they can in this cycle. I'm not thinking about 2028 right now

At least when blue dresses and terrorist attacks were involved anyway. It's not the historical norm. The stakes are higher because of Trump, but I stand by what I said. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

Not even sure I agree with your premise given that a lot of the messaging I am seeing centers around economics and cost of living along with anti-Trump messaging. But even taking it at face value, they are a party competing in a midterm against a wildly unpopular President who is in the red on just about every issue and who, within the two months, dragged the country into a war that Americans don't want to be in and one that is raising gas prices for everyone. Are you suggesting they *shouldn't* have messaging that exploits that? If it's April 2028 and it's all about Trump, maybe that's a different story... But it's a Midterm cycle. Not engaging in anti-incumbent messaging against a wildly unpopular President would be malpractice

In 2022, the Democrats did better than any party in modern history in a Presidential midterm outside of Bush (post 9/11) and Clinton (post impeachment). The stakes are higher because of Trump so I understand your point... But Bombers isn't wrong here in a historical context either. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

Tell that to voters in Wisconsin who went ahead and ensured that the GOP will not control their state Supreme Court until 2030 at the earliest. I understand the desire to be skeptical of anything changing under the hood, but when an epochal shift happens in a statewide race in arguably the most important swing state in the country seven months prior to a midterm, it shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

That's incredible. Everything is staged with this crew

I don't trust the American public all that much either. But that doesn't mean they aren't pissed at the administration right now and that there aren't any options for Dem candidates to persuade some of them to vote for a Dem candidate, or to show up and vote at all. Or even simply to drive wedges into the GOP coalition such that it depresses their own turnout (which is a real risk for Trump right now, especially given how their turnout sucks when he's not actually on the ballot). But what happened in Hungary should give some hope and perhaps a roadmap for pushing back on these guys.

Really, the two groups that have split with him the most (at least in polling, caveats apply) are Hispanics and Younger voters, both of whom are the most likely groups to make up the universe of "first time Trump voters" in 2024. This is why I tend to push back pretty hard when people just write off all Trump voters as all being the same.... whether one agrees with their reasons or their logic for landing at the position they did, these particular groups didn't swing his way because they love his schtick or are balls-deep into the cult of Trump, these groups who swung his direction did so in a much more transactional way centering around delivering results on issues related to the economy and cost of living. And he's not doing that in so many different ways right now. I get why people are gun shy about him and what he can do, but the tendency to build him up as this force of nature that cannot be stopped belies how damaged his standing is right now with the broader public.

Clearest evidence yet of self-inflicted damage