Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
Charles Douglas and I do this every Friday, and this week we had a lot of good news to work through. That does not happen often enough, so we took our time with it.
Virginia’s redistricting referendum passed Tuesday night. Democrats are now ahead by one in the overall redistricting battle, a reversal of fortune that would have seemed unlikely just last year when Trump pushed Texas to redistrict mid-decade, and it looked like Republicans were about to rig the map for a generation. They did not count on Democrats fighting back, and they did not count on their own maps backfiring.
Charles and I went deep on the numbers: the dummymander situation in Texas, the Cook Political Report shifting four Senate races toward Democrats, the generic ballot advantage in the 36 battleground districts that will define the House, and what a potential Democratic Senate majority would actually mean for the last two years of Trump’s presidency. We also got into the broader philosophical shift that made all of this possible: Democrats are finally willing to wield power. That is new, and it matters.
Watch the full conversation above and read the key takeaways below.
Democrats Just Got The Edge In The Redistricting War
Virginia’s referendum passing is a big deal, and the context matters as much as the outcome. This fight did not start with Democrats. Trump pushed Texas to redistrict mid-decade, outside the normal census cycle, and it looked for a moment like Republicans were going to lock in a structural advantage before the midterms even arrived. That is not what happened.
Democrats are now ahead by one in the overall redistricting seat count, with California, Utah, and Virginia all approving Democratic-backed measures. On the Republican side, Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and potentially Florida are in various stages of their own efforts. The battlefield has shifted.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Hakeem Jeffries deserve direct credit here. Jeffries did significant work behind the scenes, pushing blue states to move on this. Newsom pushed California. They understood that you cannot unilaterally disarm when the other side is rewriting the rules.
Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger deserves particular recognition. Charles made the point that as a moderate Democrat in Virginia, she could have stayed out of this entirely and remained popular. She chose to push it forward anyway, taking a political hit for the broader goal. That kind of decision is what separates leaders from politicians.
On the court case: a rural Republican judge in Virginia temporarily blocked the new maps, but I want to be clear about the legal landscape. The Supreme Court already greenlit partisan gerrymandering and ruled that the judiciary has no role to play. That ruling now cuts both ways. Democrats learned the rules of the game. They are playing by them.
The close margin in Virginia is not a sign of weakness. It was a confusing race: Republicans ran ads using an older Obama statement opposing gerrymandering in the abstract, while Democrats ran ads featuring current Obama backing the referendum. Independents who generally oppose redistricting on principle made it closer than it needed to be. Charles’s read, which I share, is that a reluctant yes vote from people who do not love redistricting but recognize the necessity of it is actually a healthier sign than an overwhelming landslide. It means voters are making grown-up decisions, not just partisan ones.
The Dummymander: Republicans Shot Themselves In The Foot
This is the part of the story that is not getting enough coverage. The headline is that Democrats have a plus one advantage. The real story is that the Republican maps may have made their situation significantly worse than that number suggests.
Charles and I introduced the dummymander concept, and it is the right frame. Republicans drew their maps based on 2024 Trump data, specifically his historic Latino support numbers from that election. Those numbers have since collapsed. Latino approval of Trump has dropped from 48% in 2024 to 22% as of a March 2026 Economist analysis. They built their gerrymander on a demographic foundation that no longer exists.
To create new competitive districts out of safely blue ones, Republicans had to dilute their own deep red seats. They thinned their own margins to manufacture new ones. Our argument is that this means the actual Democratic advantage in the House is wider than a plus-one-seat count implies, because Republicans are now defending districts that are lighter red than they were drawn to be.
Charles identified North Carolina as the biggest dummymander candidate in the country, larger than Texas. North Carolina’s districts were so heavily watered down from deep red to pink that Democrats have a real structural opening there, especially with Roy Cooper running for Senate and capable of lifting the down-ballot congressional candidates alongside him.
The GOP buyer’s remorse is already showing up in reporting. An Axios piece captured it plainly: Republicans who pushed for redistricting are now saying they wish none of this had happened. The NRCC chairman, when asked about it, declined to say whether it was a good idea and distanced himself from the decision. When your own party’s campaign arm will not defend a strategy, that is a tell.
I made the point that this is a pattern with Trump: he does not think through consequences, and he does not anticipate that other people are sentient beings capable of responding. He pushed for aggressive redistricting without modeling what Democrats might do in response. Newsom, Jeffries, and Spanberger responded. Now Republicans are dealing with maps they cannot walk back.
The Generic Ballot & The Senate Map
The redistricting win is one data point. The broader electoral environment is the bigger story, and the numbers are moving in one direction.
Cook Political Report has Democrats ahead in the generic ballot, and more importantly, ahead by six points in the 36 battleground districts that will actually decide the House. That is the number that matters. The generic ballot across all districts includes safe seats that are not competitive. The six-point advantage in the districts that are actually in play is a meaningful signal.
Cook Political also shifted four Senate races toward Democrats this month: North Carolina and Georgia moved from toss-up to lean Democrat, Ohio moved from lean Republican to toss-up, and Nebraska moved toward Democrats as well.
I walked through the Nate Cohn New York Times Senate chart, which showed a scenario that was completely unthinkable heading into this year. Last year, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats might scratch out a seat or two on a favorable map if everything broke right. That framing is gone. The House is, in my read, a done deal in terms of who wins, with the question being the margin. The Senate is now a genuine possibility.
A Democratic Senate combined with a Democratic House in the final two years of Trump’s presidency would mean something real. Investigations with subpoena power. The ability to block judicial nominations. A legislative majority that can put bills on Trump’s desk and force him to veto things the American public overwhelmingly supports. It would mean a checked Trump living out the rest of his presidency bogged down rather than operating without constraint.
Charles made the projection I find useful: forget a specific seat number. We are going to pick up enough House seats that future votes will be decided by Democrats alone, with the internal debate being between the progressive majority of the caucus and the moderate members from swing districts. That is a completely different political universe than what we are in now. Fighting among ourselves about policy is so much better than what the current GOP House majority is doing.
Democrats Are Finally Willing To Wield Power
This is the shift that made all of the above possible, and it is worth naming directly because it represents a genuine evolution in how Democrats approach politics in the Trump era.
I made the point using the Andor frame, which Charles geeked out about, six minutes into the pod: Luthen Rael says he is forced to use the tools of his enemy. That is exactly where Democrats are. In a perfect world, Democrats would not be pursuing mid-decade redistricting. We do not live in a perfect world. The Supreme Court greenlit this. Republicans have been doing it. You do not win a battle by unilaterally disarming while the other side advances.
Charles’s observation about the close Virginia margin is an important counterpoint to anyone treating the slim win as a warning sign. A reluctant yes vote from people who do not love this tool but recognize it is necessary is exactly what a healthy democracy looks like. The alarming outcome would have been voters enthusiastically embracing partisan gerrymandering as a permanent feature. Instead, people made a pragmatic decision and signaled they want things to return to normal once the crisis has passed.
I noted that Democrats have finally gotten the memo: you wield power when you have it, or you lose it. The era of hoping good governance would speak for itself is behind us. Spanberger making a political sacrifice for the broader goal, Jeffries doing the organizing work behind the scenes, Newsom moving California, these are people who understand the stakes and acted accordingly.
The Coalition That’s Actually Winning
Charles closed with the argument that I think needs to be heard more clearly inside Democratic circles, because there is a live debate happening about what the party’s coalition should look like. Elections have already answered that question.
Charles laid it out plainly: the coalition that won every major race in November 2025 runs from voters in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s former district who backed Shawn Harris, 20% of whom were Republicans, all the way to progressive primary winners. That is the actual coalition. It is not a theory about what the coalition should be. It is the empirical record of who showed up.
The Hasan Piker discourse got a brief mention, and my take is that it is a pointless distraction. His name recognition outside very online circles is minimal. Treating him as some kind of gatekeeper or arbiter of Democratic politics is not a serious read of the electoral landscape. The Iran War is happening. The midterms are months away. Focus fire.
Charles’s closing line on the midterms is the one worth sitting with: it is within a margin of effort. The data is moving. The maps are shifting. The coalition is real and has been tested. What happens next depends on the work, on the doors knocked, on the volunteers deployed, on the candidates fielded.
Bottom Line
Trump started the gerrymandering war. Democrats fought back, and they are now ahead. Republicans drew maps based on a 2024 electorate that no longer exists, diluted their own safe seats in the process, and are already expressing buyer’s remorse. Four Senate races shifted toward Democrats this month. The generic ballot advantage in battleground districts is six points. The House is a question of margin. The Senate is in play.
Democrats got the memo. The coalition is real. The work continues.
If this conversation mattered to you, I hope you consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’re already a paid subscriber, thank you! Independent pro-democracy journalism only works if people back it. And if you’d like to get involved and knock doors this election year, I also highly recommend checking out Common Power.
