39
Democrats won the redistricting fight in Virginia. Was Trump’s gerrymandering war all for nothing? (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Months into his second term, Donald Trump wagered that he could beat the historic trend of the party in power losing seats in midterm elections if Republican-led states redrew congressional maps to sweep Democrats out of office.

The gamble is looking to be a bust, or at best a draw, for the president, after Democrats fought back with their own redistricting efforts, the latest of which came to fruition in Virginia on Tuesday, when voters approved a plan that could remove all but one of the five Republicans in its current House of Representatives delegation.

Far from defying history, Trump now seems set to succumb to it, as the Democratic counteroffensive coupled with voter dissatisfaction towards the president’s own policies sets the stage for Republicans to suffer potentially brutal losses in November’s midterm elections.

Let's remember this is a guy who managed to bankrupt casinos. Gambling is not his strong suit.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 1 day ago

I think what actually happened is that Republicans figured that 1) Democrat legislatures would either be too scared to try this unilaterally like Republicans did, or otherwise get overturned by a hostile SCOTUS, or 2) not have enough time before the midterms to make these changes. They definitely didn't count on multiple states putting up ballot initiatives successfully. SCOTUS could still try some shenanigans, but it would be nearly impossible to justify federally blocking state-level ballot initiatives around administering elections (and Trump has already started pushing federal control, since the midterms clearly aren't setting up to go the way they want).

My real fear is that this entire exercise has been a distraction, and they're planning something else to overcome the midterms.

[-] InevitableWaffles@midwest.social 2 points 19 hours ago

I'm of the same mind. The fix is in. It's really a question of if they are smart enough to execute and have the assistance they assume.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago

Your final thought has occurred to me as well. And, sorry to say, I don't think we're special here.

I think it's worth noting that both California and Virginia sought temporary exemptions from nonpartisan redistricting boards and went to the voters. Nazi states did it legislatively and don't intend to give up absurd maps just because 2030 rolls around.

This was all a pointless exercise. Like, I'm glad Dems fought back, but how much taxpayer money did we spend to arrive at the status quo? I've love to see a Constitutional amendment stating that states shall appoint nonpartisan boards to determine congressional districts. We'll see that before term limits for Congress, but neither is ever going to sail through with two-thirds in both houses and then 35 states ratifying it.

We don't have lawmakers anymore. Just corporate interests.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

A constitutional amendment would be ideal, but it's critical we never allow a full Constitutional Convention (ConCon) to happen, because those have lower ratification requirements than the regular amendment process and any amendment can be introduced regardless of what they originally set out to pass, and I'd be worried that corpo Dems like Schumer would get tricked into going along with one in the name of a "bipartisan win", and we'd be well and truly cooked.

This was all a pointless exercise. Like, I’m glad Dems fought back, but how much taxpayer money did we spend to arrive at the status quo?

Unfortunately, we're not quite back to the status quo. The fact that Dems went a different route means that the DOJ could sue the Blue states claiming that ballot initiative changes aren't valid but legislature-passed ones are, and then tie everything up through the midterms with SCOTUS's help. Ideally we'd have 3-4 Blue states also do legislature-passed laws that directly mirror Texas'.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Also, I think a Constitutional Convention would likely end up dissolving the U.S. It wouldn't really be secession, just "nah, y'all do your thing, but this isn't what we want, and Nazi states should learn to be self-sufficient instead of relying on us to subsidize your bullshit."

You end up with greater Canada on both coasts and around the Great Lakes, and the rest can believe Jesus is about hate and women should have no rights. Good luck with your economy without California and New York.

sigh A man can dream.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

I mean, they could try to make that differentiation, but in both cases, the Legislature still has to pass the final bill again, unless I'm mistaken. I know that's the case in the Commonwealth; California, I can't say for certain.

At any rate, the rest of the world is laughing at us that instead of focusing on a pointless war, we're focused on changing election rules. If this were any other country, we'd be mocking them, but American exceptionalism strikes again.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

11461 readers
66 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org