John Regan

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?

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/…

@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

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.