Why is the GOP House majority so slim, despite the Democrats’ profound unpopularity? One reason is the same reason the Democrats can’t win the current gerrymandering war:
They’ve already expended their ammo.
(They also don’t control enough states.)
If you’d ask who originated gerrymandering, the Democrats or Republicans, know that the strategy is almost as old as the Republic itself. But also know it was named after Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, who facilitated it for the Democratic-Republicans in 1812. (The victims back then were the Federalists.) Today, though, the Democrats certainly have mastered the technique. This is why, for example, they hold 14 of Illinois’ 17 congressional seats — despite their winning just 55-60 percent of the statewide vote.
And now the Republicans are threatening to follow suit. In fact, should they choose the gerrymandering nuclear option, they could gain as many as 11 to 15 congressional seats. That’s just for starters, too.
“[J]ust wait until the coming reapportionment apocalypse” after the next census, writes left-wing Salon. Why, when all is said and done, the site confesses, the Democrats could be “a minority for another decade.”
The Party’s Over?
Writing Monday, Salon states that the current gerrymandering could scuttle Democrats’ chances of retaking the House of Representatives in 2026. Moreover, the site claims, the Democrats “don’t seem to fully understand the math or the depth of their difficulties.”
As Salon tells us in “Democrats can’t win the gerrymander war”:
Any day now, Texas will enact a new congressional map that nets as many as five additional GOP seats. This brazen mid-decade power grab will enhance the Republicans’ slender, three-seat majority in the U.S. House — and it won’t stop there. Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and Florida will go next, grabbing the GOP perhaps another six seats. Should Republicans decide to play serious hardball, they could remap North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas and New Hampshire too.
Democrats have more limited options. In California, voters will be asked this fall to suspend the state’s independent redistricting commission and allow the legislature to enact a new map that adds five blue seats in retaliation for the Texas gerrymander. If voters approve — and that’s not guaranteed — the two maps would cancel each other out.
But what’s step two? The trouble for Democrats is they have nowhere else to target if Republicans keep on escalating. Blue-state governors are talking tough and insisting they are at war, but that rhetoric is no match for reality. Democrats simply control too few states, and they’ve pretty much maxed out the maps in the states where they hold trifecta power.
The Details
To be precise, Republicans enjoy trifecta power (controlling the governorship and majorities in both legislative chambers) in 23 states. Democrats hold this power in just 15. As for where they do hold all the cards, Salon informs:
New York’s state constitution would prevent creating new congressional maps before the 2028 election. Illinois likely cannot carve out an additional Democratic seat in a map that already hands them 14 of 17 districts. State courts in Maryland have already blocked one Democratic map that would have eliminated the state’s lone red seat, creating an 8-0 wipeout. Oregon’s governor will not propose a new 6-0 map that would erase one GOP-friendly district.
Then there’s the post-census reapportionment. Note here, too, that President Donald Trump wants to conduct a census before 2030. He’s understandably upset that the 2020 census included, as per usual, illegal aliens. It also under-counted a number of mostly conservative states while over-counting some Democratic ones. (Will coincidences never cease?)
This matters because the number of congressional seats a state will receive is determined by its population size. Know, too, that the total number of congressional seats is limited statutorily to 435. This means that when some states gain seats, others must lose that precise number. And what will happen after the next census, according to Salon?
Well, “red” states such as Texas and Florida may gain four to five seats each. Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and North Carolina could each pick up one. But “blue” states will see a loss, as per the following estimates:
- California, -4.
- New York, -2.
- Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Oregon, Illinois, and Wisconsin, -1 each.
Common Core Math Won’t Help
In other words, between immediate gerrymandering efforts and reapportionment, the GOP could gain approximately 30 seats. This, mind you, is a major reason the Biden administration purposely flooded our nation with millions of illegal aliens. It’s also a major reason left-wing local governments have been funding these migrants’ presence in their jurisdictions. (E.g., states and cities have spent billions housing migrants in hotels. Illegals have also sometimes received prepaid debit cards — courtesy of the taxpayer, of course.) Democrats sometimes acknowledge this agenda, too. For example, in 2024, Representative Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) was heard admitting in a resurfaced video, “I need more people [read: illegals] in my district just for redistricting purposes.”
Of course, all this also means Republicans will gain an Electoral College advantage in presidential elections. So what is a Democrat to do (other than being truly wise and switching parties)?
Can Losers Win?
Well, the party of child “transgenderism” probably won’t be satisfied with just “identifying” as “in power.” So Salon has a proposal: The Democrats will actually have to win elections. They will have to run the table in the remaining swing districts, the site asserts. The party will also have to find a way to restore its brand in states where it has become toxic. The problem with this, however, was expressed by a respondent commenting on the Salon piece.
The Democrats “are on the wrong side of every single issue facing the voters,” writes poster Bob Crane. “Border, crime, taxes.. you name it…. The Dem party looks set to go the way of the Whig Party in the 1800s.”
For sure, what are the Democrats selling? “Sex-switching” kids? DEI? Identity politics? Hating whitey? Favoring illegals over citizens? Wokeness in general? Cancel culture? Demonizing MAGA? Hatred is not a strategy.
Substantive change may be off the table, too, as the emphasis still appears to be only on marketing. That is, some leftists are recommending that the Democrats stop using “woke” words. But what of deeds? As far as actually making the country better goes, we hear crickets.
So is the Democrats’ future one of hearing crickets when seeking support? This may be unlikely, but if the Dems are today’s Whigs, it won’t mean a one-party state. It’s not written in stone, after all, that our second major party must be the Democrats. The Libertarians or some other group could take their place. And, hey, this is a change to the status quo that I suspect even conservatives could endorse.
