310
'Bleak picture' for Republicans as Democrats make gains in deep-red districts: report
(www.rawstory.com)
Bleak for Republicans = good for america
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
310 points (98.1% liked)
politics
29286 readers
1969 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
= Good for the world
And Canada
As is tradition
After so much has been lost or damaged, while good and necessary, it seems very late. We've got Israel destroying its neighbor and Trump about to give Putin everything he wants. I don't know how things will actually go, but it seems like any victory now will be among the ruins.
Edit: Not to mention all the problems at home, like the travesty ICE is.
If we get trump out, and the Dems don't prosecute like mad, it will never be ok. Justice needs to be so strong no one tries this shit again. Major overhauls need to happen at all levels of government.
I have very little hope for any of this
yay for liberal democracy!
One point that I don't think gets enough attention: gerrymandering gets more districts for a party by chipping into districts usually held by opposing parties. That dilutes the strength a party has in each district.
Can you imagine if the R's gerrymandering drive ends up gaining Democratic districts because they stretched their leads too thin? ~~That may have been part of the reason Indiana didn't move forward with it.~~
It took me awhile to understand what you were saying. So basically, you're watering down any leads in existing locations because there are more democrats in the places the republicans are trying to take over. They might lose a bigger area. I hope this happens over and over again.
Exactly that. Sorry if my wording sucked!
It wasn't your fault, thanks for talking about it. I just didn't understand the implications that it could go wrong for either side.
Correct. Gerrymandering means several different specific ways to cheat by drawing the districts, but one way is taking a district that's going to be a blowout for you—say, you're expected to reliably get 88% of the vote—and sharing that 88% with a nearby district, where you're expected to get maybe 37%. If you draw the lines right, you can get two districts where you win with 66% of the vote, instead of winning one and losing one.
But why stop there? 88% is a huge lead, and in first past the post it doesn't matter how much of the vote you get, so long as you get more than the next most popular candidate. It may require some truly unhinged district drawing, but what if you could get, say, five districts where you're going to win with 46% of the vote, due to a strong (but not strong enough) third party spoiler candidate? Now you've spread out the voters in that 88% area and used them to bolster four other districts that you were going to lose (or were going to be competitive) into solid and reliable wins, or at least turn solid victory for the opposition into a competitive contest.
Except, oops, the guy at the top of the ticket is a literal supervillain except without any superpowers, and now it's starting to weaken that original 88%. Now, instead of one blowout district, and instead of five solid wins, you've got, maybe, two competitive contests and three solid losses. If you'd left well enough alone, you might've still been able to win that blowout district with 58%, but because you got greedy you've lost everything.
You've got a point for sure but that's not what gerrymandering means.. that is one example of gerrymandering. You could just as well have gerrymandering where a district is constituted by areas which did not previously form a majority of the now-winning party.
True, and I guess I'm not sure which one is more prevalent, but this one is the one I hear most often.
Well I hope Democrats give it an honest try in all these red districts.
That's called a dummymander and it has happened in the past.
This already occurs.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"What, our policies that screw the majority of Americans and favor the extremely wealthy and corporations are unpopular? Unthinkable!"
Being the worst president in US history with sycophants comitting impeachable offenses and war crimes daily does that.
I’m sure I’ve heard this song before. These kinds of stories can make people think “well, that’s okay then” and not vote when the time comes.
Keep it quiet until the democrats win, otherwise they start more propaganda to sway kids
I absolutely hate these polls. People will just think its fine and not vote because Americans are idiots.
Was north of Nashville at the inlaws for Thanksgiving. The anti-aftyn propaganda on television was amazing. So much money being dumped into that Tennessee district. Rs have to be terrified.
I saw it here in North Carolina this week. We can't even vote for her. They are scared.
So light-red is replacing deep-red… I’m not really very excited about that.
This is partially why the world is so fucked. People who care, often utterly refuse to be pragmatic, and expect change to always be sweeping, and happen in an instant.
This is what is responsible for the US getting to where it is. They repeatedly allow democrats to lose, and therefore pull the same cycle of losing, having everyone see how much worse republicans are, and then having the democrats walk back some of the damage the republicans did.
People are so naive and angsty, they feel they need to punish the democrats for not doing what they'd like, and only end up punishing themselves, over and over and over again.
The obvious, only pragmatic way to look at this, is that you need them to keep winning so that they cannot backslide, and then you need to use primaries and state and local politics to actually shift them leftward.
Literally nothing else is practical or will work, but people on this site would rather rant about issues than fix them.
If the only solution is democrats never losing then it’s not a workable solution.
They will lose at some point, and we need to be prepared for that and not let it completely undo any changes they’ve managed to squeak through with only the presidency and a supermajority in both houses.
I think significant progress could be seen if they could win 4 times in a row with at least one senate super majority and house simple majority stretch near the end.
Republicans made sure we can never have another FDR
load more comments
(4 replies)
Oh, I whole-heartedly agree - pink is better than red, and it is moving the dial in the correct direction. But still I can’t bring myself to be happy about corporatist victories. Only relieved that they’re gaining ground.
I'm sorry but it is naive to think that misinformed voters will learn the right lesson and vote blue no matter who. It is more practical to ask for better candidates.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah, deep red districts aren't the first place to look. They're too unlikely to go blue no matter how disgusting and incompetent the president.
I’ll believe it when I see it. There’s all manner of illegal voter suppression happening that has unknown implications. Given millions of Dem votes were illegally thrown out or suppressed last time, we can’t expect that reality on the ground to match the outcome.
Don’t get excited. This is temporary. Martial Law is coming—believe me or not idgaf—and the rest of the world intends to move away from US relations, so expect a lot of panic voting going to the right wing.
We are about 1% into the collapse of the US. Strap in.
Doomers are bad people
Just because you don’t agree with me and because you don’t see what I see doesn’t mean I’m wrong and it doesn’t mean I’m bad. Bad people call other people bad people because they don’t agree with them
Being a doomer is bad if you're stating theories as facts while giving no supporting evidence. For example:
- Why would withdrawn international relations result in right wing voting? Isn't it more likely to fuel populist voting (not strongly attached to regressive or progressive policies)? What historical trends are you looking at? Just pasting the American flag onto the Weimar Republic based on vibes?
- What makes you think the polling is temporary? Putting aside the topic of fair elections, voters who have been subjected to this administration's chaos and are consistently polling negatively will turn on their heads and lick boots because of... Saber rattling? A weak passport? An (even more) destroyed economy? 300 million cases of Stockholm Syndrome? I'm really scratching my head here...
- 1% by what metric? The collapse will drag out for 100 years? Wealth? The USA will be using stone age tools by the end of it? Population? Deaths? Quality of life? Deportations?... It surely can get worse but 99% in almost any metric is absurd.
I can't even agree or disagree with you because your comments are so shallow that they can't hold up to a discussion; ergo bad.
Honestly this is a good response because it is asking good questions.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Well if you have the chance to vote I hope you at least take it
I vote every time. Even if I don’t like them. I vote for the closest thing to socialism or… the thing that means fascism won’t win.
Ok, let me ask you something: when is the last time you volunteered to do something for your local community/communities?
load more comments
(27 replies)
view more: next ›