John Regan

@atom_jarvis @ChrisCillizza I seem to recall a lot of “I hate Obama” as the reason to vote for Trump. What’s all this with the Golden statue and commemorative coins? How is any of that making us better. Those are the whims of a would be King, and that’s why “no Kings” matters for many people.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza No kings is stupid. We don’t have a king. We just had an election less than 2 yrs ago. Kamala was an abysmally bad candidate. Why wd blocking traffic & vandalizing businesses give u a feeling of solidarity? Dems have no leader & no message other than “I hate Trump”

The Democrats' "plan" to overturn the VA Supreme Court decision on the congressional map is, um, roughly 16 steps long nytimes.com/2026/05/10/us/…

No Kings rallies are about solidarity. People need to know they are not alone, and they need to see that there is a movement across the country and even around the world. That is not stupid. I’m not moving Democratic, but for now, I will not vote for a Republican for federal office. I do hope Democrats come up with something like Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” from decades ago — something clear, focused, and understandable.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza Bro… the no kings protests stupid If you’re moving toward the Democrats, that’s fine, but what message do they have? Is it one of hope for a bright future? All I’m seeing is chaos in no leadership, threats of violence, impeachment & generalized Trump hate

I used to consider myself Republican, but I feel more independent now. And I honestly don’t know many independent-minded people who have any enthusiasm for Trump or the GOP right now. Do you see any strong independent movement toward Republicans? I don’t. Marches and rallies like No Kings seem to be filled with independents joining Democrats. MAGA may still be largely behind Trump and the GOP, but independents seem much more likely either to vote Democratic or stay home. That does not bode well for red districts.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza I think you’re getting it. Dems need to adopt a positive message. Right now they look like childish toddlers VA was a stupid move. Ds blew $40M bc they didn’t follow the procedural rules for the state. They’ve got to go back & try again. It’s prob too late for Nov

I’ve changed my mind. I don’t think any of this is likely to work for Democrats legally. But politically, if they are going to challenge it, the stronger message is not, “We’re going to force our way through.” It is: “We are trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us.” That probably works better as a political argument than a legal one. Courts are not going to decide these cases simply on partisan fairness. But it does highlight the larger inconsistency and the GOP effort to use redistricting to lock in power. In that sense, even losing could have value if Democrats can honestly say, “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election.” But going into this thinking they can win by forcing Virginia Supreme Court justices to retire would reflect very badly on them. That looks desperate and institutional, not persuasive. Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans. This moment should be used to show exactly that.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza Bro.. no VA is keeping its original districting. The districts VA Dems tried to implement got tossed out. The old district lines were not based on race.

That’s what Democrats need to do if they want to win. We’ll see, but I think the climate is favorable for them. Congress has been under GOP control for two terms and has done very little. Many incumbents are not running for reelection, and most of them are Republicans. Also, in creating these new red districts, Republicans may be diluting some of their existing safe districts. There is no guarantee Republican voters will appreciate being moved from safe districts into less secure ones. Add in the anti-war climate and persistent inflation, and that is bad news for Republicans. Independents do not seem to be on Trump’s side this time around.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza @ProfMJCleveland "Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans." But they don't, so they can't See: Biden Years

If you followed the conversation, the argument wasn’t about the state Supreme Court. It was about the SCOTUS ruling on race and redistricting, which is a completely different issue from the state constitutional question. I don’t think that argument would likely succeed, but it would be better than trying to unseat members of the state Supreme Court. Democrats should say: “We did our best to stop the GOP’s redistricting rigging in other states. The courts stopped us. Now we need independents to join us in defeating Trump and MAGA in every district in Virginia and beyond.”

@ProdigalSibling @LarrySabato @nytimes SCOTUS would laugh you out of their chambers. They've already determined state courts are the final rule on state constitutions.

Virginia Redistricting: It’s not over after all. nytimes.com/2026/05/10/us/… via @NYTimes

You’re right. They would be better off saying: “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election. Now we have to go out and prove to independents that we will govern better than the GOP that rigged the map.” If Democrats can convince independents that two more years of unchecked Trump would be unsustainable, then the House — and maybe even the Senate — could be in play. But I would still like to see the Democrats’ actual plan.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza They would still have to go to court and prove those districts are racist, they would have to admit in court that they have districts that are made based solely on race. They don’t want an admission like that on the record.

@BlankAddd @ChrisCillizza I think if they WANT TO they’ll have to find some other reason than RACE specifically to do that. If they come out and said we purposefully mapped this to get extra minority-majority districts, that could be challenged and defeated in court now.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza That’s not the ruling. A state is allowed to take race into consideration if they want to. Or better said a state can draw maps HOWEVER THEY WANT TO. The Supreme Court only said a state does not HAVE to take race into consideration If they DONT want to.

@Boris1112NY @TheBigB3nny @EricLDaugh Yes. It’s bad. If you wouldn’t want it done to you, you shouldn’t do it to someone else. And the principal, just because you can doesn’t mean you should applies here. All hell broke out this year, but hopefully there will be sanity after the next census.

@ProdigalSibling @TheBigB3nny @EricLDaugh Is that bad though?

🚨 LIB: You’re splitting a black district in Memphis! SCOTT JENNINGS: Is the rep there black? [He’s white] LIB: Black people can like people who don’t look like them SCOTT: EXACTLY! Race doesn’t decide politics. Black voters are still franchised. 🫳🏻🎤

@MrSallyTomato @ChrisCillizza Which one of these comments is not like the others? 🤔

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza

I don’t think any of this is likely to work for Democrats legally. But politically, if they are going to challenge it, the stronger message is not, “We’re going to force our way through.” It is: “We are trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us.” That probably works better as a political argument than a legal one. Courts are not going to decide these cases simply on partisan fairness. But it does highlight the larger inconsistency and the GOP effort to use redistricting to lock in power. In that sense, even losing could have value if Democrats can honestly say, “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election.” But going into this thinking they can win by forcing Virginia Supreme Court justices to retire would reflect very badly on them. That looks desperate and institutional, not persuasive. Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans. This moment should be used to show exactly that.

Any Democrat who supports destroying Virginia’s judicial branch (just to pick up a couple congressional seats!) will do the same to the U.S. Supreme Court in a heartbeat

I don’t think any of this is likely to work for Democrats legally. But politically, if they are going to challenge it, the stronger message is not, “We’re going to force our way through.” It is: “We are trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us.” That probably works better as a political argument than a legal one. Courts are not going to decide these cases simply on partisan fairness. But it does highlight the larger inconsistency and the GOP effort to use redistricting to lock in power. In that sense, even losing could have value if Democrats can honestly say, “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election.” But going into this thinking they can win by forcing Virginia Supreme Court justices to retire would reflect very badly on them. That looks desperate and institutional, not persuasive. Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans. This moment should be used to show exactly that.

Virginia Democrats didn’t like the Supreme Court ruling on their map, so they’re floating an idea to change the retirement age of judges so they can force them all off the court and install new ones who would rubber stamp their illegal map. These people are genuinely insane.

I don’t think any of this is likely to work for Democrats legally. But politically, if they are going to challenge it, the stronger message is not, “We’re going to force our way through.” It is: “We are trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us.” That probably works better as a political argument than a legal one. Courts are not going to decide these cases simply on partisan fairness. But it does highlight the larger inconsistency and the GOP effort to use redistricting to lock in power. In that sense, even losing could have value if Democrats can honestly say, “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election.” But going into this thinking they can win by forcing Virginia Supreme Court justices to retire would reflect very badly on them. That looks desperate and institutional, not persuasive. Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans. This moment should be used to show exactly that.

I don’t think any of this is likely to work for Democrats legally. But politically, if they are going to challenge it, the stronger message is not, “We’re going to force our way through.” It is: “We are trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us.” That probably works better as a political argument than a legal one. Courts are not going to decide these cases simply on partisan fairness. But it does highlight the larger inconsistency and the GOP effort to use redistricting to lock in power. In that sense, even losing could have value if Democrats can honestly say, “We did everything we could to stop Republicans from rigging the election.” But going into this thinking they can win by forcing Virginia Supreme Court justices to retire would reflect very badly on them. That looks desperate and institutional, not persuasive. Their real goal should be winning as many districts as they can by convincing independents that they can govern better than Republicans. This moment should be used to show exactly that.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza @ProfMJCleveland Other problem VA faces is that 45 dearly voting period When your GE starts Sept 19, there's not a lot of time to play games with the districts

@Boris1112NY @TheBigB3nny @EricLDaugh That’s right.

@TheBigB3nny @ProdigalSibling @EricLDaugh Yea its smaller then the 750k. Guess its just to split up the democrat control.

The SCOVA rulings would be moot if the original district map were found unconstitutional under the recent SCOTUS ruling. That would depend on whether race was actually considered in the map’s design. Race is mentioned in the statutes, but that does not automatically mean it drove the map-drawing. A court would have to decide that. If a long-shot appeal succeeded in arguing that the original map was unconstitutional, the remedy would be complicated. Apparently, Virginia law does not clearly specify what happens when a map is later found unconstitutional. That would likely leave the remedy to the courts. But then timing becomes an issue, because courts are often reluctant to intervene too close to an election. It would be a fascinating legal mess.

@ProdigalSibling @Fantine21 @ChrisCillizza You haven't read either the SCOTUS or SCOVA decisions. They have nothing to do with each other

Is there a specific “redo” process in the statute? From what I’ve read, Virginia law does not clearly specify what happens if a map is later found unconstitutional. I mean, who would even think of that? I understand, though, that given the timing, redistricting probably would not go back to the legislature but would be handled by the courts. It would be a very long shot. But politically and legally, it seems more palatable than trying to replace the whole state Supreme Court. They could simply argue that they are trying to do what other states have had to do in light of the new SCOTUS ruling.

@ProdigalSibling @LarrySabato @nytimes Nope. per our state constitution, any new map would be required to be drawn by a non-partisan committee.

@BetterScotus @ChrisCillizza @ProfMJCleveland Interesting that it was proposed and rejected. It seems better than trying to retire the whole Supreme Court bench. What happened in the states where people were already voting? How were they able to redistrict using the SCOTUS ruling.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza So @ProfMJCleveland has actually written that Jay Jones should try that argument, but won't because he "lacks the balls" The problem is that the Purcell principle won't let SCOTUS order districting change 2 weeks before candidate application for the primary closes

If the courts think it is acceptable to split up Memphis and Nashville in Tennessee in a way that dilutes Democratic representation, then why wouldn’t they also accept Richmond and the D.C. suburbs being divided in a way that dilutes Republican representation in Virginia? I’m not saying I agree with that. I’m against gerrymandering. But given where we are right now, it is an interesting legal argument the courts may eventually have to confront.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza Exactly how stupid do you think the Supreme Court justices are you don’t think they would see through this lie?

I don’t think so. There is no specific process if the districts would be declared unconstitutional. There is no redo. It would likely be determined by the courts. It’s a longshot for sure, but better than the one of trying to force retirement for all of the state Supreme Court justices.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza It would then have to be drawn by bipartisan commission, not the D legislature