The redistricting wars are in full swing. Somewhat implausibly, Democrats claim they will match Republicans’ redistricting moves, as in Texas, with moves of their own that will cancel them out. But Democrats just have fewer places than the GOP to pull off these maneuvers and, even where they are in control of state government, are more likely to face institutional obstacles like nonpartisan commissions specifically designed to prevent gerrymandering. Therefore, the net results of these moves and counter-moves is likely to favor the GOP.
How badly could all this hurt the Democrats in 2026? In all likelihood, not very. As Nate Cohn has pointed out, other factors that make the midterm environment favorable to the Democrats will likely swamp the effects of any pro-GOP redistricting. As he notes, even with a Texas redistricting, the 2026 midterm map will still be less pro-GOP than the 2018 map—and we know what happened then.
So does that mean Democrats shouldn’t worry at all about redistricting shenanigans? No, but it does mean they shouldn’t hit the panic button about it. Their problems lie far deeper than that and go way beyond the marginal House seat in the 2026 election. Indeed the garment-rending about the GOP’s redistricting efforts misses the harm done to Democrats by the continuing concentration of their partisans in ever-less competitive districts, under the press of both redistricting and population sorting.
In the 21st century, the number of Democratic-held districts that are considered competitive has declined steadily to only about a quarter of seats. The Democrats’ median district now has a double-digit partisan lean of +13D, meaning it is 13 points more Democratic than the nation as a whole. This means that Democratic Congressional representatives are under less and less pressure to deviate from party orthodoxy and take account of sentiment outside of their highly partisan supporters.
The significance of this is reinforced by ideological trends among Democrats. The simple fact is that today’s Democrats are remarkably different from the Democrats of yesteryear: they are far more liberal. Few people know today or would believe that moderates and conservatives used to far outnumber liberals among Democratic identifiers. As recently as 2008, moderates and liberals were evenly balanced among Democrats and conservatives were still over a fifth of the total. But today, those saying they are liberal or very liberal are by far the largest group among Democrats (55 percent to 34 percent for moderates) and conservatives have become an endangered species.
Put all this together and the incentive structure for today’s Democratic politicians comes into focus. They are far more likely to be rewarded by their voters for no-holds-barred liberalism than to be punished for their lack of moderation or willingness to compromise. This has left the Democrats in poor shape to course correct against the loss of moderate-to-conservative working-class voters in the age of Trump. Even if individual Democratic politicians wish to do so, the pressures to stay within the bounds of Democratic orthodoxy are enormous. Sticking with the true faith generates adulation from activists, favorable media coverage, and gushers of donations. Breaking ranks risks unhinged attacks on social media and accusations of helping the Right and undermining “democracy.” Not too many Democratic politicians want to take that risk.
This dynamic has led to what I call “the paradox of Trumpian overreach”: that the more Trump overreaches, the more Democrats, ensconced in their partisan bubbles, are pressured into the most histrionic, radical, ineffective responses to Trump, thereby enabling Trump to overreach some more and crippling the effectiveness of his opposition. In other words, the very scale of his overreach, which should make it easier to defeat him, actually makes it harder.
This is not a healthy dynamic and presents a far greater obstacle to future Democratic fortunes than aggressive GOP redistricting efforts. Consider how little Democrats have changed since having their hat handed to them in the 2024 election. After a brief flirtation with the idea that the Democratic brand must be profoundly transformed in response and move dramatically to the center, Trump’s over-the-top actions and rhetoric have inflamed Democratic partisans against any change in Democratic commitments. Democratic politicians, dependent as they are on these partisans, have duly responded and the momentum is now clearly on the side of those in the party who reject compromise of any kind.
Take immigration. Trump successfully shut down the border but has also been very aggressive in using ICE for deportations within the country, some of them with questionable justification. Democrats have responded with fury and denunciations of the Trump administration for turning America into a police state. In the process, any attempt by Democrats to portray themselves as having a new, tougher (but fair!) policy on immigration has been completely submerged. Aside from being against Trump’s deportations, is the Democrats’ current immigration policy at all different from what they stood for before (and what helped them lose the 2024 election)? Most voters would have no idea.
Or how about trans issues. The Trump administration has taken decisive action to get biological males out of female sports and to shut down pediatric medicalization for gender dysphoria. The abrupt nature of these changes has triggered Democrats into intransigent opposition, despite how lopsided public support tends to be for these changes and how much rigid support for the trans activist agenda cost the Democrats in 2024. Democratic politicians, in thrall to their liberal partisan supporters who want no change whatsoever, have been powerless to change the party’s image in this area. Very few have even tried.
Then there’s racial preferences and DEI. Trump has taken a draconian approach to eliminating DEI programs and rooting out racial preferences of any kind. The very lack of nuance in Trump’s approach has provoked Democrats into frenzied denunciations of white supremacy and a blanket defense of everything that Trump is attacking. Any attempt to dissociate Democrats from racial preferences and rebrand the party as a vehicle for universal uplift has been lost. Woe betide the Democratic politician who hints that there was anything wrong with the previous Democratic approach to these issues.
The same dynamic has affected Democrats’ response to Trump administration cuts to government and to university funding. The very intemperate and throwing-out-the-baby-with-the bathwater nature of the administration cuts has infuriated Democrats to the point where they deny these institutions need any reform at all and characterize Republican actions as strictly arbitrary and unneeded. If Democrats have any ideas for reform of government bureaucracies and universities, voters are completely unaware of them.
Finally, consider the Democrats’ energy and climate policy commitments, which defined their approach to economic policy under the Biden administration. Trump has taken a meat axe to the Democrats’ “green” agenda, gutting the renewable energy and electric vehicle subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and, through a flurry of executive orders and other actions, firmly committing the U.S. to using its massive endowment of fossil fuels to achieve energy dominance. This is fully in tune with public opinion but outrage in Democratic ranks has prevented Democratic politicians from recalibrating their approach and admitting some of this needed to happen. These politicians have strayed far from the all-of-the-above policies of the Obama years, which were more popular, but imprisoned as they are by their ever-more-fervent, ever-more-concentrated partisans, they can’t find their way back.
This is the fundamental problem then, not GOP redistricting skullduggery undermining Democratic House seats. Because structural trends, including but not limited to ongoing redistricting, have made Democratic politicians ever more insulated from the median voter, the more radical forces in the party now hold the whip hand. They are determined to prevent the Democrats from pursuing an effective reform course that could truly isolate Trump. And, by and large, they are succeeding.
Editor’s note: This is a longer version of an essay that originally appeared in The Free Press, where Ruy is a contributing writer.
"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."
Pretty easy to imagine this quote coming from Trump but it is actually from FDR. The problem with the Democrats is not so much the urban bubble they are in but it is that they have become The Establishment. This is especially hard for Boomers (and their Millennial children) to come to terms with.
Spot on. Dems have not amended their energy, immigration or child social engineering policies. A recent demonstration at Stanford Hospital, in Palo Alto, seemed to sum up Dem immigration policy quite clearly.
A 40 something year old wife, her husband and 2 kids entered the US from Mexico 3 years ago, utilizing Tourist Visas. Then they simply never went home. They enrolled the kids in school. The parents took jobs as a housekeeper and landscaper. When ICE recently arrived at their home, the otherwise healthy woman, appeared to be have a heart issue, and was taken to Stanford Hospital.
After extensive testing, and finding no serious health issues, the hospital kept her for observation. As she was in ICE custody, ICE barred all visitors, and posted a guard at the door. This led to a demonstration with protesters vilifying ICE and the Trump administration.
Like many, I feel for the family, especially the children, forced to leave a school they have attended for 3 years. However, the woman was not brought to the US as a child or trafficked against her will. By all accounts, she executed paperwork stating her family intended to visit the US, and then return to Mexico. The family chose not return. So 3 years later, with Tourist Visas long expired and illegally dwelling in the US, Trump and Americans who expect them to leave, as promised, are the villains? The issue becomes even more profound when one realizes the US issues some 8 -11 miillion tourist visas a year, or more.
Trump's election seemed to make clear, Americans believe we should control our borders. The parade at the border has ended, but current Dem policy is obviously, anyone nonviolent on US soil should be allowed to remain permanently, regardless of a lack of a valid asylum claim or the lack of economic self sufficiency.
Dems have avoided admitting the above, but their actions make the policy clear. If Reps are smart they will not only inform voters, but loudly and repeatedly, quantify the costs to American taxpayers. If Reps can accomplish that, Dems are going to have an even higher hill to climb, long before anyone discusses Green fantasies and children with male genitalia, occupying formally exclusive female spaces.