2025/2026 Elections Congressional & State

[BDKJMU]

GOP frets ‘dangerous’ result in Tennessee

The GOP should be worried about 2026. What exactly is the GOP doing with their hold of power other than experimenting with the awful idea of tariffs as an economic model and doing clandestine and potentially illegal immigration enforcement? If that's their platform for 2026 they're going to lose the House and could lose the Senate (although that one's less likely). It's not as if the Dems really have any plan for government either, but in our two-party system when the party in power fails to govern well we turn to the other party (ala what we did in 2020 and 2024). At least in 2028 we'll get a real chance at a significant change as there'll be two new people vying for the top spot - just a chance, though, we could still end up with crappy candidates then.

You may as well have said water is wet. Every midterm the party in power in the White House should be worried.
The last 20 post WWII midterms going back 80 years, the party in power in the WH has lost an average of 25 seats in the House. Only 2 of those 20 have they gained seats: donks in 1998 under Clinton, and conks in 2002 under Bush.

It’s actually worse for the party in power if you use the entire 20th century or go back to the 19th. It’s like clockwork:
-Voters vote for Party A for president.
-2 years later voters are mad, Vote for Party B in the midterms.

Rinse, repeat every 4 years. The issue isn’t the pols, it’s the voters constant flip flop cycles.

[GannonFan]

The GOP should be worried about 2026. What exactly is the GOP doing with their hold of power other than experimenting with the awful idea of tariffs as an economic model and doing clandestine and potentially illegal immigration enforcement? If that's their platform for 2026 they're going to lose the House and could lose the Senate (although that one's less likely). It's not as if the Dems really have any plan for government either, but in our two-party system when the party in power fails to govern well we turn to the other party (ala what we did in 2020 and 2024). At least in 2028 we'll get a real chance at a significant change as there'll be two new people vying for the top spot - just a chance, though, we could still end up with crappy candidates then.

You may as well have said water is wet. Every midterm the party in power in the White House should be worried.
The last 20 post WWII midterms going back 80 years, the party in power in the WH has lost an average of 25 seats in the House. Only 2 of those 20 have they gained seats: donks in 1998 under Clinton, and conks in 2002 under Bush.

It’s actually worse for the party in power if you use the entire 20th century or go back to the 19th. It’s like clockwork:
-Voters vote for Party A for president.
-2 years later voters are mad, Vote for Party B in the midterms.

Rinse, repeat every 4 years. The issue isn’t the pols, it’s the voters constant flip flop cycles.

Well, imagine if the politicians actually accomplished something that was pleasing to the electorate. Maybe voters wouldn't flop back and forth, kicking out the party in power, if the party in power was actually more interested in governing well as opposed to profiting off of being in power. Wouldn't that be something.

[BDKJMU]

You may as well have said water is wet. Every midterm the party in power in the White House should be worried.
The last 20 post WWII midterms going back 80 years, the party in power in the WH has lost an average of 25 seats in the House. Only 2 of those 20 have they gained seats: donks in 1998 under Clinton, and conks in 2002 under Bush.

It’s actually worse for the party in power if you use the entire 20th century or go back to the 19th. It’s like clockwork:
-Voters vote for Party A for president.
-2 years later voters are mad, Vote for Party B in the midterms.

Rinse, repeat every 4 years. The issue isn’t the pols, it’s the voters constant flip flop cycles.

Well, imagine if the politicians actually accomplished something that was pleasing to the electorate. Maybe voters wouldn't flop back and forth, kicking out the party in power, if the party in power was actually more interested in governing well as opposed to profiting off of being in power. Wouldn't that be something.

It’s the electorate though who keeps voting in these same pols though over and over. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And round and round we go.

[UNI88]

Well, imagine if the politicians actually accomplished something that was pleasing to the electorate. Maybe voters wouldn't flop back and forth, kicking out the party in power, if the party in power was actually more interested in governing well as opposed to profiting off of being in power. Wouldn't that be something.

It’s the electorate though who keeps voting in these same pols though over and over. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And round and round we go.

The electorate tends to like their individual Congress critters but blames Congress as a whole so they keep voting for their elected officials all while complaining about Congress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Well, imagine if the politicians actually accomplished something that was pleasing to the electorate. Maybe voters wouldn't flop back and forth, kicking out the party in power, if the party in power was actually more interested in governing well as opposed to profiting off of being in power. Wouldn't that be something.

It’s the electorate though who keeps voting in these same pols though over and over. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And round and round we go.

I'm not really sure the electorate is being given much option. Thanks to gerrymandering (which has always been fairly equally employed by both parties) the number of actually competitive Congressional seats is almost below 30 - that means the other 405 House races every other year are already decided when the political party in sole charge in that area selects the candidate that the electorate really only gets to rubber stamp. The Senate is not much better, if it is. That's had more to do with the denuding of power of Congress over the past couple of decades than anything else. It's not really answerable to the people anymore, so why should we be shocked when they spend more time on their own insider trading than on the needs of their constituents?

Trump's appeal has always been the electorate getting to give the middle finger to the status quo and to the political elite, because they don't really have any other way to do that other than by electing a previously unelectable type of politician.

[kalm]

It’s the electorate though who keeps voting in these same pols though over and over. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And round and round we go.

I'm not really sure the electorate is being given much option. Thanks to gerrymandering (which has always been fairly equally employed by both parties) the number of actually competitive Congressional seats is almost below 30 - that means the other 405 House races every other year are already decided when the political party in sole charge in that area selects the candidate that the electorate really only gets to rubber stamp. The Senate is not much better, if it is. That's had more to do with the denuding of power of Congress over the past couple of decades than anything else. It's not really answerable to the people anymore, so why should we be shocked when they spend more time on their own insider trading than on the needs of their constituents?

Trump's appeal has always been the electorate getting to give the middle finger to the status quo and to the political elite, because they don't really have any other way to do that other than by electing a previously unelectable type of politician.

Campaign finance also plays a massive roll toon in the 90+ % incumbent winning percentage.

That said, 40 seats flipped Dem in 2018 midterm.

[Baldy]

To be clear, this is the good type of redistricting.

[UNI88]

To be clear, this is the good type of redistricting.

It's all bullsh!t and we shouldn't be doing it.

[UNI88]

[GannonFan]

I've been an independent in name only probably since I was registered to vote. I change party affiliation between Dem or Rep sometimes before a primary election in PA in order to vote in the more interesting/impactful election. Not sure what I will be this year till I see who's running - no Senate election in PA this year and I'm happy with my Congressperson (currently a Dem).

[UNI88]

I've been an independent in name only probably since I was registered to vote. I change party affiliation between Dem or Rep sometimes before a primary election in PA in order to vote in the more interesting/impactful election. Not sure what I will be this year till I see who's running - no Senate election in PA this year and I'm happy with my Congressperson (currently a Dem).

I registered as a Democrat in Iowa in 1988 so I could participate in the caucuses. Bob Dole was going to win the Republican caucus and the Democratic caucus was much more interesting with Mike Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, and Paul Simon. I moved to Illinois in late 1988 and they have open primaries so that was the last time I registered for either party.

I still remember Senator Chuck Grassley (R) introducing Gephardt at a campaign event at UNI. It was an extremely positive introduction. Too bad something like that is extremely unlikely today. I also remember Grassley sparring with Reagan in the early 80's. I miss the Grassley who could both reach across the aisle and stand up to his own party to fight for the best interests of his constituents.

[BDKJMU]

Oh FFS.

24 members of Congress are 80 or older. More than half are running for re-election.

….But of the two dozen members of the Silent Generation now serving in the 119th Congress, more than half (13) have decided to run again in 2026, according to an NBC News review.

In total, this Congress is the third-oldest in U.S. history, with an average age of 58.9 years at the start of this session one year ago. The median age in the U.S. is 39.1.

Among Congress’ 24 Silent Generation members (defined as those born from 1928 to 1945, from the start of the Great Depression to the end of World War II), the average age is 83.8. Most are Democrats. Sen. Chuck Grassley (92) is the oldest, and Rep. David Scott (80) is the youngest. Seven members of the cohort are 85 or older.

By the end of this year, the average age will be nearly 85. Ten members will be that age or older, and three will be at or knocking on 90’s door.

…..A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 82% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats back an age limit for federal elected officials….

….Many of those lawmakers have secured positions that wield enormous power and influence on Capitol Hill through seniority.

Along with the title of “chairman” or “ranking member” of a top committee comes control over funding and legislative agendas, extra office space, committee rooms and staff rosters that, in some cases, reach into the dozens….

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... rcna249479

[BDKJMU]

To be clear, this is the good type of redistricting.

The donks in VA 2026 redistributing scheme in time for the for the 2026 Congressional election ruled illegal.

[UNI88]

To be clear, this is the good type of redistricting.

Blocked. The donks in VA wanted to do a blantantly illegal redistributing for just 1 election (2028).

I wish we'd never gone down this road. trump never should have pushed Texas to kick off this charlie foxtrot.

We'd be better off if we could get politicians out of the business of drawing the maps and have unbiased maps.

[kalm]

Blocked. The donks in VA wanted to do a blantantly illegal redistributing for just 1 election (2028).

I wish we'd never gone down this road. trump never should have pushed Texas to kick off this charlie foxtrot.

We'd be better off if we could get politicians out of the business of drawing the maps and have unbiased maps.

This.

[GannonFan]

I wish we'd never gone down this road. trump never should have pushed Texas to kick off this charlie foxtrot.

We'd be better off if we could get politicians out of the business of drawing the maps and have unbiased maps.

This.

I agree, but this is as old as time (Elbridge Gerry was governor back in 1812). Trump stoked the flames, but gerrymandering has been in practice by both parties anywhere and everywhere they can do it for as long as we've had maps and lines to draw. I'd love to be an idealist and say there is an ideal way to do this, but there isn't. But I would take an attempt at idealism over what we have today. If the House doesn't have competitive elections, and we're down to less than 30 every election cycle, then we end up with Congresses that are elected without any purpose in mind other than to win elections. I'd prefer that people come to government with something they'd like to fix or make better, and then maybe even leave when they've accomplished it. We don't have that today and the morass we're in is the result. It has to happen state by state, I don't see how the federal government could override that, but it would be nice to see states fix what's clearly an embarrassment in pretty much every state.

[Caribbean Hen]

Out migration from blue states like California and NY could cost them big based on a 2030 census forecast ….

one of the great things about America is you can always move to escape these politicians that are intent on holding back your full potential

“New York and California specifically are projected to lose a combined six seats, while Texas and Florida may gain eight, according to the 2025-based estimates forecast by Jonathan Cervas at Carnegie Mellon University and shared by Redistricting Network.