Yes the Dems became elitists and forgot who they worked for . They were too far away up on their pedestals and just forgot the people they represent— the labor party and the middle class. They failed us completely. We all knew we could probably get a beer with Obama but we could never have sat down with Pelosi and Schumer. It’s sad
Mike you make it sound like the Republicans and Democrats redistricting had something to do with this Supreme Court decision. This is a project that Republicans and their billionaire donors have been working on for decades. The Voting Rights Act has long been a target of Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell along with the Federalist Society. Same as the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They just had to get the right number of bought and paid for justices to hear cases in shadow dockets and select just the right cases to hear to enact their agenda.
I hate to break this to you but partisan gerrymandering has been around since 20 years after the founding of this country. Read the Substack I just posted today from Lee Durban to educated yourself on the redistricting wars of the 1830’s and 40’s.
This is not Project 2025 it’s endemic to partisan tribes. You have a very small and narrow understanding of American history. That’s why I wrote this substack. I’m sure you are very caught up with this moment, your social media feeds and cable news but this is much larger and has a much richer history than you understand.
Please read more and learn more. There’s plenty on my Substack page on the broad sweeps of this topic in our history.
This did not begin a few years ago. It did not begin a decade ago. This is not new.
An educated populace is required to keep our democracy. Please read more.
Mike I think you are fantastic anyway. It’s a cold hard knock but due to our extremists in office people are moving farther and farther to the left. I see it more and more
Hey Mike, I appreciate you speaking hope to an otherwise hopeless situation. After some tough medicine for us Dems, of course. I totally hear what you’re saying about Latinos not voting as a monolith, therefore race-based districts might not make sense for that community. Having said that, the black community really lost out today! Their community is still subject to lots of racism and systematic disadvantage and they lost an essential tool to have the representation they deserve. Meanwhile gerrymandering meant to benefit white people, political gerrymandering, are left in place. It can be argued that their protection under the law just got that much more unequal. It will be that much harder for them to win elections.
The Supreme Court acted in the foulest hypocrisy possible. They’ve allowed gerrymandering that benefits their party while disallowed gerrymandering for communities already disadvantaged. Equal protection would be to disallow gerrymandering everywhere. But that’s not what they’ve done. This court is corrupt and is a gross miscarriage of justice. This court is a threat to our democracy and they relish in it.
SCOTUS tossed a key feature of the Voting Rights Act: race based districts. If race is unacceptable as a basis for drawing legislative districts, and partisanship is lawful but undesirable because its destructive to democracy, then what is/are the preferable basis/bases? Is it economic class? Do we still have a large middle class, is it distributed on a bell curve, and is it geographically mappable? Also, if the basis is economic class, what are the measures? Is it wealth? Is it income? Is it GDP? Is it something else?
How do we then allocate districts among our population? In 2030, Texas is projected to have a population of 35 million and will be allocated 42 Congressional seats. How are we supposed to draw new districts?
For example, “Some research indicates that, in the aftermath of the civil-rights era, the achievement gap between rich and poor students now dwarfs the gap between white and Black students. Even so, well-intentioned blue-state Democrats keep pushing for race-based affirmative action, to their own political detriment, rather than supporting a much fairer policy of providing a leg up to economically disadvantaged people of all races.”
I think it’s a mixture of regional geography and economic tclass considerations with an effort to make sure the map doesn’t look like it’s playing Twister.
I think I want to see as many competitive (“swing”) districts as possible in the middle of the bell curve. I doubt I’ll get to see what I think I want. Not sure it’s possible, no idea really.
Fair enough. What you are talking about is a political process. However, the recent Supreme Court decision appears to be yet another example of Supreme Court right-wing judicial activism, and that is another serious problem. If changes have occurred that affect this law, that ought to be a matter for the legislature, not for judges who usurp the legislature’s role.
I didn't think SCOTUS was going to move any other way. Now the question is how quickly will states that were just waiting pull the trigger on new maps and will they be able to enact them in time for November. SCOTUS handed Florida a win. Candidates are going to have to run to represent people now, not party as it should be. I know this is pie in the sky, but it would be something if we could get an amendment to do away with the electoral college and have one person one vote.
This is so sad and hard to accept. SMH the SCOTUS is apart of the hate agenda
💯gerrymandering in all forms is undemocratic period! It must be abolished. Both parties are to blame.
Yes the Dems became elitists and forgot who they worked for . They were too far away up on their pedestals and just forgot the people they represent— the labor party and the middle class. They failed us completely. We all knew we could probably get a beer with Obama but we could never have sat down with Pelosi and Schumer. It’s sad
Thank Mike, brilliant synopsis.
Mike you make it sound like the Republicans and Democrats redistricting had something to do with this Supreme Court decision. This is a project that Republicans and their billionaire donors have been working on for decades. The Voting Rights Act has long been a target of Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell along with the Federalist Society. Same as the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They just had to get the right number of bought and paid for justices to hear cases in shadow dockets and select just the right cases to hear to enact their agenda.
I hate to break this to you but partisan gerrymandering has been around since 20 years after the founding of this country. Read the Substack I just posted today from Lee Durban to educated yourself on the redistricting wars of the 1830’s and 40’s.
This is not Project 2025 it’s endemic to partisan tribes. You have a very small and narrow understanding of American history. That’s why I wrote this substack. I’m sure you are very caught up with this moment, your social media feeds and cable news but this is much larger and has a much richer history than you understand.
Please read more and learn more. There’s plenty on my Substack page on the broad sweeps of this topic in our history.
This did not begin a few years ago. It did not begin a decade ago. This is not new.
An educated populace is required to keep our democracy. Please read more.
You read my mind. Everything you said was “spot on,” RG.
Mike I think you are fantastic anyway. It’s a cold hard knock but due to our extremists in office people are moving farther and farther to the left. I see it more and more
I feel like I need to rewatch this to digest it
You’re not alone! I almost always listen/watch more than once.
Would be interesting to see you and Waj talk about this
Janell, I think so also. Would love to see them discuss this.
Hey Mike, I appreciate you speaking hope to an otherwise hopeless situation. After some tough medicine for us Dems, of course. I totally hear what you’re saying about Latinos not voting as a monolith, therefore race-based districts might not make sense for that community. Having said that, the black community really lost out today! Their community is still subject to lots of racism and systematic disadvantage and they lost an essential tool to have the representation they deserve. Meanwhile gerrymandering meant to benefit white people, political gerrymandering, are left in place. It can be argued that their protection under the law just got that much more unequal. It will be that much harder for them to win elections.
Yes this is what I said in the video
You did say that. Apologies. Sorry. I’m just so frustrated with this extremely corrupt court
I think a summary/repetition is good- helps reinforce the concepts 👍
The Supreme Court acted in the foulest hypocrisy possible. They’ve allowed gerrymandering that benefits their party while disallowed gerrymandering for communities already disadvantaged. Equal protection would be to disallow gerrymandering everywhere. But that’s not what they’ve done. This court is corrupt and is a gross miscarriage of justice. This court is a threat to our democracy and they relish in it.
You mean racism is alive, well and legal…….😂 who knew….
SCOTUS tossed a key feature of the Voting Rights Act: race based districts. If race is unacceptable as a basis for drawing legislative districts, and partisanship is lawful but undesirable because its destructive to democracy, then what is/are the preferable basis/bases? Is it economic class? Do we still have a large middle class, is it distributed on a bell curve, and is it geographically mappable? Also, if the basis is economic class, what are the measures? Is it wealth? Is it income? Is it GDP? Is it something else?
How do we then allocate districts among our population? In 2030, Texas is projected to have a population of 35 million and will be allocated 42 Congressional seats. How are we supposed to draw new districts?
All great questions. I think these are what we need to
Consider as we move into this new age.
For example, “Some research indicates that, in the aftermath of the civil-rights era, the achievement gap between rich and poor students now dwarfs the gap between white and Black students. Even so, well-intentioned blue-state Democrats keep pushing for race-based affirmative action, to their own political detriment, rather than supporting a much fairer policy of providing a leg up to economically disadvantaged people of all races.”
via: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/05/democrats-racial-preferences-affirmative-action/687147/
I think it’s a mixture of regional geography and economic tclass considerations with an effort to make sure the map doesn’t look like it’s playing Twister.
I think I want to see as many competitive (“swing”) districts as possible in the middle of the bell curve. I doubt I’ll get to see what I think I want. Not sure it’s possible, no idea really.
I favor policies to rebuild a larger middle class, so allocating congressional seats to them is one way to help with that.
Fair enough. What you are talking about is a political process. However, the recent Supreme Court decision appears to be yet another example of Supreme Court right-wing judicial activism, and that is another serious problem. If changes have occurred that affect this law, that ought to be a matter for the legislature, not for judges who usurp the legislature’s role.
I think they would have done it anyway
Also I still think we did the right thing right now.
It’s never the right time to do the wrong thing. Never.
This is tough love for those of us promoting democracy. We have our work cut out for us and it’s a continuous effort.
Question: Mike, what would the necessary legislation look like to restore balance to our election processes?
Thanks for the medicine even though it’s a bitter pill.
I didn't think SCOTUS was going to move any other way. Now the question is how quickly will states that were just waiting pull the trigger on new maps and will they be able to enact them in time for November. SCOTUS handed Florida a win. Candidates are going to have to run to represent people now, not party as it should be. I know this is pie in the sky, but it would be something if we could get an amendment to do away with the electoral college and have one person one vote.