Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention, but I never saw the DCCC publicly announce going into a general election that they are ceding districts to the Republicans. But today-- largely because of redistricting-- the DCCC announced that Andrew Garbarino (NY-02, R+20), Chris Jacobs (NY-24, R+25), Victoria Spartz (IN-05, R+22), Burgess Owens (UT-04, R+31), Tony Gonzalez (TX-23, R+13) and Beth Van Duyne (TX-24, R+22) are safe and will not be DCCC targets. If they harbored any at all, the hopes of Democratic candidates Muzzib Huq (NY-02), Mike Sax (NY-02), Shelley Skellington (NY-24), Matt Hall (IN-05), Jeanine Lake (IN-05), Darlene Marshall (UT-04), John Lira (TX-23), Derrik Gay (TX-24) and Jan McDowell (TX-24) were certainly dashed this morning.
But also largely-- but not entirely-- because of redistricting, the DCCC added 8 districts to its targeting list:
NY-01 (Zeldin, D+6)
NY-11 (Malliotakis, D+7)
PA-17 (Lamb, D+1)
RI-02 (Langevin, D+17)
WI-03 (Kind, R+9)
There are Blue America-endorsed candidates 2 races-- Brittany DeBarros (NY-11) and Chris Deluzio (PA-17)-- and almost-endorsed (vetting not done yet) in 2 more-- David Segal (RI-02) and Mark Neumann (WI-03).
The DCCC also endorsed a dozen candidates-- mostly pure shit and not worth supporting. Not remembering what happens when you recruit and support the worst member of a chamber-- like Jeff Van Drew and Kyrsten Sinema-- the DCCC was crowing about corrupt conservative Rudy Salas today. He's the worst member of the California state Assembly-- exactly what the DCCC is looking for. Another horrible DCCC picked is failed one-term Blue Dog congressman, right-of-center jackass Max Rose, who is running against progressive Brittany DeBarros, the candidate in the best position to beat Malliotakis (who already shredded Rose when he was a sitting congressman ands able to cobble together enough sewer money to outspend her $9,499,242 to $3,447,052. And that doesn't even include the $11.5 million the DCCC and its allies wasted on the race.)
Many of the DCCC endorsements aren't just endorsements of excruciatingly bad candidates, but also in races where there are hot primaries, with the DCCC weighing in on the side of conservatives and corrupt corporatists against progressives and against the kind of ethical candidates that are despised by Pelosi and Hoyer, whose political careers are entirely based on corruption.
And just when Nate Cohn announces some good electoral news-- that this year the two parties have a relatively "fair" election map. This morning, he wrote that "In a departure from a decades-long pattern in American politics, this year’s national congressional map is poised to be balanced between the two parties, with a nearly equal number of districts that are expected to lean Democratic and Republican for the first time in more than 50 years. Despite the persistence of partisan gerrymandering, between 216 and 219 congressional districts, out of the 435 nationwide, appear likely to tilt toward the Democrats, according to a New York Times analysis based on recent presidential election results. An identical 216 to 219 districts appear likely to tilt toward Republicans, if the maps enacted so far withstand legal challenges. To reach a majority, a party needs to secure 218 districts."
As recently as a few months ago, it had seemed likely that Republicans could flip the six seats they needed to retake the House through redistricting alone. Instead, the number of Republican-tilting districts that voted for Trump at a higher rate than the nation is poised to decline significantly, from 228 to a figure that could amount to fewer than the 218 seats needed for a majority.
Democrats could claim their first such advantage since the 1960s, when the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” ruling and the enactment of the Voting Rights Act inaugurated the modern era of redistricting.
The relatively fair map is something of an accident. Democrats and Republicans again drew extreme gerrymanders with twisting and turning district lines, denying many communities representation in Congress. Dozens of incumbents were shielded from serious challenges. The number of competitive districts declined.
But, unlike in previous cycles, both parties’ extreme gerrymanders have effectively canceled each other out-- in no small part because Democratic lawmakers went to greater lengths to maximize their advantage. And more states are having maps drawn by courts or by nonpartisan and bipartisan commissions than in previous decades, reducing the number of districts drawn to intentionally advantage one party.
...Overall, Democrats eliminated 12 seats that leaned Republican in the last presidential election in New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon. No state courts have acted to weaken Democratic gerrymanders in those states.
Republicans, on the other hand, have faced a string of adverse court rulings.
In Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, the courts either limited Republican gerrymanders or selected surprisingly Democratic-leaning maps. In the end, Republicans may only eliminate a handful of Democratic districts, like those in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, Nashville and, perhaps soon, eastern New Hampshire.
There was also some bad news from The Times this afternoon, Maria Cramer's report that the census was skewered against Black and Latino voters, an advantage that will give Republicans tremendous sectoral benefits for a decade-- unless Biden does something about it... which he won't, because... well, Biden.
Did anyone not think for a second that Trump would make sure the census was crooked? Cramer wrote that "The 2020 census undercounted the country’s population by 18.8 million people, the Census Bureau said on Thursday, acknowledging that the count had underrepresented Black, Latino and Indigenous residents. At the same time, the census overcounted the number of white and Asian residents, the bureau said."