John Regan

@nicksortor Absolutely a longshot, but I’m trying to see if you were as vociferous with criticisms of the long shots that Trump’s team were throwing into courts in 2020. All of them failed, but that didn’t stop Trump and his allies from bellyaching about it.

🚨 JUST IN: In an act of TOTAL DESPERATION, Virginia Democrats just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to STEP IN and put the VA Supreme Court's ruling, which threw out their maps, on hold This is COMICAL, and will never work 🤣 “The Virginia Supreme Court is the FINAL AUTHORITY on Virginia constitutional questions,” Former VA AG Ken Cuccinelli said. “This is the end, folks. You will have the same map in 2026 for the congressional elections that existed in 2024. That is now UNCHANGEABLE and IMMUTABLE.”

Here is what I would propose: THE AMERICAN RESET “We’re offering a simple deal: Secure the border and prioritize enforcement of real threats. Lower everyday costs without growing the deficit. Make health care affordable and easier to use. And restore competence and accountability in government. No extremes. No chaos. Just results.”

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza That would be a good idea, but the underlying policies need to be sound. What are the top 3 policy proposals you think they should include in that platform?

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/…

@BradleyRHaywood What will the reaction be when Trump pressures Thomas and possibly Alito to “retire” this year so he can appoint their replacements?

How reckless was it for Virginia’s congressional delegation to utter a single peep about removing SCOVA justices, when there’s a normal reappointment process next year for 1 of them? That process will now be politicized to the extreme, on a nat’l level. Just mind-numbingly stupid

@Jaaavis @guypbenson I do hope Democrats come up with something like Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” from decades ago — something clear, focused, and understandable.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell tells me that the rumors yesterday that Democrats are considering drastic measures to implement new maps are not going anywhere. They would not have time under the current system used at the Dept. of Elections to make the changes, he says. He also says forcing the retirement of Supreme Court justices would be extreme and he wants to work within the current legal system to do these kind of things.

@The_Real_Solyad @ChrisCillizza I do hope Democrats come up with something like Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” from decades ago — something clear, focused, and understandable.

The premise that they are "trying to play by the same rules Republicans are using elsewhere, and the courts are stopping us” is flawed. The republicans are redrawing districts that were specifically, and intentionally, drawn to carve out race based representation. That is unconstitutional and is seperate from what they are trying to do in Virginia. In Virginia, they are violating the State constitution by ramrodding through a gerrymandered map 6 months before an election. They violated the State process for proposing district changes and the question itself was determined to be misleading. Trying to force the State Supreme Court justices to retire because of age is laughably ridiculous and reeks of desperation. I am ashamed for them. Yes, democrats need to win more elections based on the quality of their policies; however, they can't do so because their policies are based on these. Their track record speaks for itself. Dems are forced to try to steal districts because their policies are being rejected by the voters, particularly the independents, they need to win.

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.

The problem is it wasn't a racially gerrymandered map. The bipartisan, independent redistricting commission went by the book and that's how they came up with 6-5. Nice try!! They can try to gerrymander the map again for 2028, but I highly recommend they follow the rules next time.

@bennyjohnson Here is how the Republicans similarly shut out 37% of the democratic voters in this part of the country.

Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines. Result: 🔴 — 0 🔵 — 27

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.

This may sound naive but I'm genuinely trusting that Abigail Spanberger is not only decent but intelligent enough to not do this. I'm trusting that she won't destroy the institutions of Virginia just for a map that they could legally get enacted before 2028.

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.

🚨 HUGE DEVELOPMENT: Now BOTH New York and Virginia Democrat redistricting was BLOCKED, Republicans are full steam ahead in the South and Hakeem Jeffries is livid As many as: OHIO: R+2 MISSOURI: R+1 TENNESSEE: R+1 NORTH CAROLINA: R+1 FLORIDA: R+4 TEXAS: R+5 Meanwhile, Dems getting 5 in CA and 1 in UT But Republicans still have South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and possibly Mississippi! KEEP FIGHTING 🔥

No, but most democrats don’t support those either? I’m not the one dividing up the Republican base, the pollsters do. Here is what recent polls have shown, and they seem quite believable: 27% of voters identify as MAGA with ~95% approval of Trump For all GOP (including MAGA) there is ~84 support ~40% of voters identify as Independent with about 30% approval of Trump.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza No. That’s among all registered republicans. You’re making up statistics and dividing up republicans into 2 parties & pitting 2 halves against a unified D party Do u think independents support the violence, destruction of property, & the threats to upend the SCOTUS?

@Real_RobN Biden also had 0. The Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014) limited when recess appointments are valid. Facts matter.

BREAKING: For the first time in modern American history, the President of the United States is blocked from making any recess appointments. Ronald Reagan: 240 George H. W. Bush: 77 Bill Clinton: 139 George W. Bush: 171 Barack Obama: 32 Donald Trump: 0 By whom? By a Democrat, @LeaderJohnThune

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.

The Virginia constitution provides one means for removing judges: impeachment by the House of Delegates, followed by conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. The idea that the Virginia legislature could remove state supreme court justices by lowering the mandatory retirement age and applying that lower retirement age to *existing* justices is bonkers. And a majority (perhaps all) of the Virginia supreme court justices would rule that such a measure violates the state constitution.

That’s among MAGA, which is at most 33% of voters, so 27%. There is hardly any Independent voter support, like he had in 2024. In the Presidential election, many Independent voters chose Trump over Harris. She’s not on the ticket, and true Trump fans already have their President. There are no fired up Independent voters for Trump. They are either fired up anti-Trump or they won’t vote. Either way I predict only representatives in the most Red of districts will win.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza I’m not seeing much buyers remorse. I think you’re hearing that from democrats. Trumps approval rating among Republican voters is quite high… 90+%

@atom_jarvis @ChrisCillizza Trump is not running against any congressional candidates either, but MAGA will certainly be on the ballot everywhere, and currently there is a lot of buyers remorse and anger amongst all but the most diehard MAGA.

@ProdigalSibling @ChrisCillizza Also, Obama never ran against Trump. Trump ran against Hillary Clinton He won because he had better policy & Hillary ran a pretty lazy campaign. She never visited the upper swing states.

@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”

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