July 24, 2025 • 42 mins
In this episode, Ryan and Jake Sherman discuss the complexities of redistricting in the United States, focusing on Texas and California. They explore the implications of redistricting for both parties, the challenges faced by Democrats in states with independent commissions, and the strategic maneuvers of politicians like Gavin Newsom. The discussion highlights the shifting demographics and political landscapes that influence congressional elections and the broader implications for democracy. It's a Numbers Game is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Read Jake Sherman's Latest Articles on Punchbowl News
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome back to a numbers game with Brian Gerduski. Thank
you all for being here. I am excited that late
last week I was on Fox News. I got to
go on for my first time in a few years
to talk about Congressman Maria Salazar's Dignity Act, which was introduced.
She introduced it with ten Democratic colleagues and nine other Republicans,
and it is the soft launch of an amnesty for
(00:23):
illegal aliens. She has said it's the beginning to get
citizenship for more than ten million illegal aliens. So the
bill received co sponsorship of ten Republicans. Half of witch,
including Salas, are in safe seats that Trump won by
large margins. If you are displeased with the idea of
rewarding illegal immigrants and your congressman is representative is Mike
(00:44):
Lawler from New York, Maria Salazar from Florida, David Valdeo
from California, Dan Neuhouse from Washington, Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania,
Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Gabe Evans from Colorado, Marlon Stutsman
from Indiana, Don Bacon from Nebraska, or Young Kim from California.
You can call them at two two two two five
(01:07):
three one two one and tell them that you will
not support them in their reelection because they are supporting
amnesty for illegal immigrants. I think that people should speak
up from their base. All right, funny enough about Oh wait,
this is actually some good gossip before I get to
my main topic. An elected official from Marlon Stutsman, that's
(01:28):
one of the congressmen supporting the Dignity Act Dignity Act
District email me. I never met this person before, and
the elected said, I need to show you some text
messages that Marlin has been sending people. This is this
Indiana Republican who ran on a very maga campaign and
last year when he won his old house seedback, he
(01:50):
had been there many years prior and then came back
and he ran this big I love Trump Trump Trump campaign. Well,
he was texting other people who pushing back on the
Dignity Act saying that this is the Christian thing to do,
that they he doesn't support mass deportation despite campaigning to
voters on that, and that he it wouldn't give illegal
(02:13):
immigrants amnesty, which Salazar says it is the beginning of it.
And in the bill, by the way, it says it's
the beginning of it, and that the nineteen eighty six
Reagan amnesty didn't give citizenship, which is a bald face lie,
a complete bald face lie. He is openly lying to
people like he lied when he campaigned on a Trump
(02:33):
agenda in twenty twenty four. I hope so much that
people attend his town halls or wherever they possibly can
and voice support for a primary candidate, because if there's
anyone who deserves to be run out of town, it
is people who openly sit there and say what I
(02:54):
campaign on is not true. Those are the worst kinds
of politicians. Anyway. It was great going on the ingrim Mangle.
Very excited to be back on the network. It's been
a while since I've been on cable news since a
certain joke. I'm a banned from a network. Now, let's
talk to the main subject of today's podcast, which is
we are in the middle of summer, but it is
(03:15):
a cold war brewing in this country, an electoral cold war.
The twenty twenty six midterm elections are already hot underway,
but it's not being done at the ballot box, at
least not yet. It's being done in state legislatures, as
multiple states are already threatening to redistrict their congressional districts
to give their respective party an upper hand in the
midterm elections. It all started when Texas Governor Greg Abbott
(03:39):
announced a mid decade redistricting to give Republicans the chance
every drawing five to seven seats in favor of their
party in the lone Star state. According to the Texas Tribune,
Abbott didn't want to do it at first, but received
a call from President Trump, and the legislature is putting
it on their Special Sessions agenda. This came at the
reluctancy of many how Republicans in the state, who are
(04:01):
worried that they could draw what's called a dummy mander. Basically,
they spread themselves far too thin and end up putting
their own incumbency in danger. Now, Democrats in Texas are
already facing tough challenges. Two members been sent to Gonzales
and Henry Quaar represent districts that Trump won by sizeable
margins in twenty twenty four and are quickly moving to
(04:21):
the right. It spurred off conversations in a number of
other Republican states, like Ohio, for example, but if they
could do redistricting to give Republicans more favorable seats in
their state. Democrats, like California Governor Gavin Newsom immediately struck
back by announcing he'd be willing to redistrict California to
take out six House Republicans in that state. Other Democratic
(04:43):
governors in New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington
say they are prepared to do the same. Essentially, it's
like the old Cold War, a race to see who
will blow up each other first, and then they're all
going to blow up each other. Now, this is honestly
a lot more talk by some peopleeople who are trying
to eye a run for the White House in twenty
twenty eight and look like they're trying to take on Trump,
(05:05):
especially on the Democratic side. For example, Governor Gavima Newsom
and the Democratic legislature don't have the power to just
redraw maps to become more partisan, like Greig Gabba does
In Texas. Voters in that state passing law on two
thousand and eight stripping them of that power and giving
it to an independent commission made up of five Republicans,
five Democrats, and four unaffiliated citizens, and they still usually
(05:29):
come up with a pretty partisanly democratic map to begin with,
but it's not overtly partisan. It's not overtly districts drawn
up to favor Democrats. For Newsom to be able to redistrict,
he'd have to get a constitutional amendment pass by voters
to reinstate the legislature's power. That would be a long
and costly process that likely wouldn't happen in time for
(05:50):
twenty twenty six. Now there's no telling even if that
amendment would pass. New York Democrats tried to overturn their
commission with a constitutional amendment, and it failed spectacle, voters
rejected by double digits. Even Democrats in the California Legislature
are saying that they will not support Newsom's push for
redistricting and gerrymandering. But Newsom wants to run for president,
(06:11):
and he has to look like he's willing to fight Trump,
which is the thing that Democrats want the most from
their elected officials Right now. The other state Democrats are
mentioning New Jersey, New York, and Washington all also have
independent redistricting. Kathy Hochel has tried a number of times
to redistrict New York into a state where there's only
two or three Republicans, and the Democratic appointed Supreme Court
(06:37):
and Court appeals have struck her down every time. For
any of these states to do exactly what they want,
they'd have to get voters to change the constitution. That's
not easy. Minnesota the other state that being mentioned by Democrats.
The Democrats they don't even control the state House, making
the point moot. Even if Newsom were to change the
redistricting laws, he faces a problem that Republican Congression districts
(06:58):
in his state are growing by an average up ten
six hundred voters from twenty twenty to twenty twenty three,
according to the San Francisco Enquirer, while Democrats in the
deepest blue areas, their districts are shrinking, and the blue
are the district the more the people are leaving. Districts
that voted for Harris by more than twenty points lost
about twenty six point six thousand people over the same
(07:21):
three year period. Among the states that Democrats have full
control over the redistrict process, there are forty nine House seats.
They are in Oregon, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
New Mexico. Democrats have basically redistricted every Republican out of
those states to begin with. Out of those forty five seats,
Republicans hold just five House seats, and the only place
(07:43):
I could see them even being able to wipe out
another seat is in Maryland. There's one seat, and the
Maryland Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans because or it's
all Republican appointed because of Larry Hogan. Republicans, on the
other hand, have full redistricting and control in nineteen states
and one hundred and ninety three House seats. Republicans can
easily take out a dozen Democrats without blinking an eye
(08:03):
in most of them. I mean, there's a real easy
path to patting the Republican majority in all those states.
But I need to caution there's really some concern. Trump
had a stellar performance in twenty twenty four an he
won in Texas, the state that they're eyeing this mass redistricting,
by thirteen point five points, up from five point five
points in twenty twenty. The worry if Democrats have electoral
(08:27):
surge and perform well in the state, as they did
in twenty eighteen, when Senator Ted Cruz won reelection by
just two point six percent means many of those seats
would be endangered, and you'd have incumbents having very tough
chances at holding and winning a reelection. The worry if
Democrats have this electoral surge and perform well in the state,
as they did in twenty eighteen when Senator Ted Cruse
(08:49):
won reelection by just two point six points, then they
may endanger a number of safe seats and safe incumbent
seats in the midterms. It's a very very risky tape
tests they're taking one with no certainty of success. Ultimately,
it diminishes part of the core belief behind our democratic
process too, that voters choose their politicians. Running around trying
(09:11):
to redistrict ourselves into oblivion creates the process where politicians
choose their voters. Drawing congressional districts should be a process
where the overall number of congressional seats reflect the partisan
breakdown of the state and how they vote in the
presidential election, while keeping communities of common interest together. So
hypothetically New England should have four or five Trump seats
(09:33):
in it, and they just have one right now. Texas,
North Carolina, and Florida they should have about ten more
Democratic districts in them. New York, California, and Illinois should
about sixteen more Republican seats in them. This kind of
process would also create a Congress that's more balance. Single
states wouldn't hold all the sway in their party's caucus,
and it would give more of a balance and equal
representation to the people living in those states. I know
(09:56):
where I was raised in Queens, New York. I live
in a very, very Republican are Yet we never had
an elected Republican assemimen, nor did we even have a
competitive race for a Republican assemblymen because the district was
broken up four different directions. Once again, both parties do this.
It's not about you know who does and who's to blame,
and it's not fair and it's not right, and seeing
(10:17):
how independent commissions protecting combents and lean in partisan directions,
there's really no easy answer to fix it. But I
can do the part to at least explain it. My
next guest coming up is the leading reporter covering this
redistricting fight. He'll be on next. Jake Sherman is the
(10:37):
co founder of punch Bowl News, a website I read
every morning, and he's covering the redistricting fight better than
almost any other journalist. Jake's thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Let's talk about Texas first, because that seems to be
where the whole fight began, what I'm calling a cold
war between the states. Governor Greg Abbott is looking to
redistrict between two to five seats, depending on which story
you're reading. I favor Republicans. Some reporting and say that
Texas Republicans are actually worried about that he may be
overstepping and drawing them into competitive districts, including a long
(11:11):
time incumbents in safe districts.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Can you speak to that, Yeah, there should be concern
if you're a Texas Republican. That's a concern I've heard
a ton about here. Is so, yes, I think they
are going to when the dust settles, they're going to go.
They're going to try to get five the districts that
we've reported is UH and these are the most likely
at this point, and with the caution that this could
(11:34):
all change and is I don't. I don't think it's
likely to change, but let's just get the baseline here.
I do think UH a district in Houston. So there's
Lizzie Fletcher, who's in the west part of Houston, West
View and some of the area around Rice University all
the way to River Oaks, which is the the kind
of tony area of Houston.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I assume they leave her without a district. That's one.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
And then you have Henry Quaar and Vissena Gonzales two
districts in South Texas. That would make three. You have
Julie Johnson in Dallas that's another one. And then uh,
there's a question about the about the last seat, whether
it's going to be in Austin or it's going to
be Veronica Escobar in El Paso. My money is on Austin,
(12:22):
where you have Greg Kassar, which is a very very
thin meaning geographically thin district that runs kind of the
east side of Austin north south. And then you have
Lloyd Doggett, who represents the bulk of the city of Austin. Now,
(12:43):
the concern would be if you're a Texas Republican, let's
just let's just play Devil's advocate here. Let's say Ken
Paxton wins the Senate primary. I'm not saying he will
or he won't, but it's certainly a possibility that will
be a could be a billion dollar race. I'm not
(13:05):
trying to be facetious. It could be just hundreds of
millions of dollars in that race. Democrats will try to
knock Passton off, and Democratic turnout will presumably again we're
presuming a lot here, will probably be through the roof,
and then those districts that go from R plus twenty
to R plus ten become not winnable for Democrats but
(13:27):
more difficult for Republicans, especially in and around cities.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Now, well, it also may supposes that the Hispanic shift
maintains election cycles. To an election cycle Texas was R
plus five point five and twenty twenty thirteen point five
and twenty twenty four, you need to maintain that coalition
to keep it into a double digit state. It wasn't
that long ago that Texas went two and a half
points for a Ted Cruz, and it could easily go
(13:52):
to and a half point if the state of Texas
only two and a half points for Republicans. Again, how
many of those seats are actually competitive?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
So yes, this is the big issue here. The big
question is what numbers they're basing these off of. How
are they are they basing this is off of twenty
twenty four numbers. Are they basing it off twenty twenty
numbers the redrawing of the map, And I think that's
a big question. I completely agree with you, and I
think the interesting thing will be is Republicans are saying
(14:26):
privately that they're going to make every Republican district in
the state an average of an R plus ten. So
we'll see how this all shakes out. I mean, I
assume there's going to be a ton of lawsuits. I
don't know how this is going to work. And I
think the interesting thing will be is Democrats will say
that they've broken up a bunch of majority minority districts,
(14:47):
but Republicans say that actually, they're not going to do that,
but a lot of these districts will. There will be
an equal, if not greater number of majority minority districts.
But that is again, as you note, very smartly, posing
that the Latino vote goes for Republicans with the same
strength it went for Republicans in twenty twenty four. So
(15:10):
it's just this is just I think people are not you,
But I think the general, the general coverage of this
is actually, in my estimation underestimating how big of a
shift this will be in the national political landscape, especially
in the House of Representatives, which again every two years
up for reelection. It's just one of the most fascinating
(15:34):
stories right now in congressional politics.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, and the biggest irony right now is that VINCENTA.
Gonzales and Henry Klar are in Trump districts and they
could very well lose it without even redistricting, just by
how much that district Those districts are shifted and continue
to shift, and have shifted over the course of the last
sixty years, not just two. What does this speak to
(15:58):
how the White House House Republicans feel about the twenty
twenty sixth election, the fact that they are so desperate to,
you know, make these changes rather than trying to win
these twelve seats that Trump won in twenty twenty four
the Democrats won in the House.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
You're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
This is a hedge, right, this is a hedge against
losses elsewhere, and it absolutely does speak to that reality.
I know we're on Texas right now only, but if
you look at well.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
My next question was what other states are doing it?
So go ahead, you can.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Well, let's talk about let's talk.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Let's just shift to California quickly, which is what democrats
and if you're open to that, Ryan, I don't want to.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
I don't want to take control of your show.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
No, no, no.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
But you bring up an interesting point, which is a
lot of these seats that Republicans that either party is
withdraw is redrawing, is they are doing so to win
seats that they ultimately might win anyway. Right, And you
make that point with Quaar and Vicente in Texas, But
in California, Democrats would look at a young Kim in
(17:02):
Orange County, a seat that they could win in a
good year. For Democrats, they are going to look at
and Calvert in Palm Springs, which is again a seat
that they could win in a good year. So they
are doing this again to win seats that they could
otherwise win. And those are the two big Those are
the two big states, right, the two big states that
(17:23):
are redistricting Republicans in Texas, Democrats in California. But then
Republicans are looking all over the map. They're looking at
states like Missouri where they want to crack Kansas City,
a seat that Emmanuel Cleaver has represented for a very
long time, not a vra district. And then you get
into dicey territory. Can you redistrict in a state like Kentucky?
(17:48):
Can you redistrict in a state like New Hampshire If
you're Republicans where the governor last time around was against
a redis against the map that was much stronger for Republicans.
Could Kelly IoT be be uh more favorable to a
to a mid mid mid decade redistricting. The answer to
(18:11):
that is, I don't know, but there are opportunities across
the country. I mean, in my conversations with the Trump
administration and and allied entities, let's say the uh they
even hope for somewhere in for some more seats in Florida, Florida.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Do that? I mean Florida has the opportunity to redistrict
more seats at this point.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
They could, right, they could go after some of those
South Florida seats. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz. They could, Yes,
they could, but you are really at the ear, you've
really squeezed this towel, as you're really trying to squeeze
this towel as much as you humanly can, and and
of course there are risks with that. But but listen,
we're in an era of Ryan of just bare knuckle politics.
(18:56):
We are, and and that's and both parties are are
seeming to get to get accustomed to that.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, I mean, politicians are much more prone to pick
their voters and voters are to pick their politicians.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Let me ask Let me ask about Gavin Newsom. So,
Gavin Newsom, you know, bucked up and decided that he
was going to go against Trump and Abbott and say
that he would redistrict his state if Abbot redistrict his
That Newsom does not have the same powers that Abbot
has because there's an independent redistricting. How much is about
(19:32):
practically what Newsom can do and what he's trying to
do in the eyes of the public ahead of a
twenty twenty eight presidential race.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
It's a very good question. So let's start with this.
The constitutional amendment that does that put the Redistricting Commission
in place does not say that. It basically says the commission.
I'm not quoting it directly, but the commission in the
once in the in the in the in the desennial
(20:06):
redistricting must use the Commission it is silent on mid
decade redistricting, and how you would do that? Now, you
would probably have to do a constitutional excuse me, amendment
or ballot initiative to get buy in. So that's the
first hurdle. The second hurdle is how you fund this,
(20:28):
because if you were going to do a ballot initiative,
the congressional delegation would have to pony up. And the
congressional delegation, in my many, many many conversations with many
of the Democrats in that delegation, say well, if you
want us to pony up, we're okay with that, but
let us draw the map, right, let us have our
(20:48):
say in the map.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
And so here's what I would say about this.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I want to I want to get to your question
on Gavin in a second, but I want to put
this point out there first. There are opportunit unities in
California for Democrats. There's no question about that. We could
talk about that. But if you are a Democrat in
California and you have been raising two hundred thousand dollars
a quarter to win by you know, twenty points, are
(21:13):
you really going to want to raise four or five, six,
seven hundred thousand dollars a quarter in a more competitive seat.
And the answer to that is, these guys say yes.
These Democrats say yes. So now let's talk about Gavin.
This is what Democrats want right now, right. They want
somebody who's going to take it to the Republicans and
(21:34):
go bare knuckle and pind people to the mat and
all those violent, you know, violent imagery. Right. So it
plays for him well politically. He just as you note,
has a much more difficult functional task than Greg abb
it does in Texas, and there's no getting around that.
I think that Newsom does it. I think he spends
(21:58):
his political capital and tries to get it through. Now,
he has a lot of other stuff going on. California
is a big and complicated state to.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Govern. He also has been asking for wild for money
for the wildfires from Congress. I mean, does this interfere
with that? I don't know the answer to that. Probably
in some way.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
If they do a disaster package for Texas, do they
have to do one for California?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Does it become more difficult?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
All of these are legitimate questions to ask, but they
do feel like they have opportunity with Young Kim, with
Ken Calvert, with David Valadeo with darryl Issa in San Diego,
a seat that is surrounded by two other Democrats Scott Peters,
actually three, Mike Levin and Sarah Jacobs all are comfortable
Democratic districts. But again, you're talking about seats Ryan that
(22:48):
Democrats should be able to win even if they don't
readistrict in at least Calvert, Young Kim and David Valadeo.
So is the juice worth to squeeze on a practical
On a practical standpoint, I don't know the answer to that.
You could make the argument either way. Is it worth
the squeeze in a political standpoint? I you know, probably
(23:08):
for Newsome if he sees a future in national.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Politics, right, And I mean Democrats want a fighter or where
they perceied to be a fighter. And Newsomb has definitely
one of the biggest soapboxes in the country as far
as Democrats go, in a very tough field where congressional
Democrats are trying to look very strong. The interesting thing
about this in hindsight is we can go back in
(23:30):
a couple of years and look back and say, Wow,
this was either genius or this was very very stupid.
There was this huge shift among his banks nationwide, especially
in Texas and California, and a bunch of districts like
David Aldeo. He's been there I think for quite some time.
I think twenty fourteen or twenty sixteen, he used to
be in a Democrat district. He was the Republican who
(23:50):
win a Democratic district. Now his district Trump won, I
think by seven points, because that whole Central Valley area
is becoming more and more Republican. If they stretch these
lines too thin, even in the case of and and
Hispanics move back to where they were pre twenty twenty
four then Texas Republicans have egg on their face. If
they continue to move forward, If that working class momentum
(24:12):
continues to happen, then a lot of California Democrats sit
there and have to panic because all of a sudden
they were in a competitive seat when they've never really
dealt with that outside of a primary. I want to
talk with the other Democratic states. New York has talked
about this. New York now Counthy Oakle has tried many,
many times at this point to try to get a redistricting.
The Democratic Court of Appeals has struck her down every time.
(24:34):
It's especially with the Staaten Island seat, which she can't
seem to just let Nicole Malletacas go. She has to
try to get rid of her any which way she can,
even though malle Talcus would have won the redistricted super
democratic area last time. There's Washington state they're talking about
also a commission state. They mentioned Minnesota, which Republicans control
the state House. I don't even know why they brought
(24:54):
that state up for and they talked about New Jersey,
which is all also a commission state. Can all these
governors get past these commission independent commissions in order to
get some kind of redistricting. I mean, this is a
lot of work on democratic side.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
So New Jersey I actually have notes in front of
me because we've been talking about this so much internally.
Ali Muttnick, who covers this for us, is just tremendous,
great reporter. The New Jersey Constitution says the establishment of
congressional districts shall be used thereafter for the election of
members of the House, and shall remain unaltered through the
next year, ending in zero, in which a federal census
(25:28):
for the state is taken.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Don't know how you get around that. Washington State very similar.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
If a commission has ceased to exist, the legislature may,
upon affirmative vote in each of the House and each
House of two thirds and the members elected or appointed,
adopt legislation reconvening the commission for the purpose of modifying
the redistricting plan. Democrats don't have two thirds in the
House or the Senate. New York bans mid decade redistricting
in the New York State Constitution, Article three, Section four E.
(25:57):
I think there is a lot of wish casting here
from Democrats.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
And again.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I'm not saying like again every both parties need to
do what they need to do to get their voters
riled up. But I understand the I understand the politics here,
but there are just some major hurdles to get around
in some of these states, including New York, Democrats just
don't have a lot of opportunity as much opportunity as
(26:29):
Republicans do. I don't see outside of California.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
A lot of these states, Looking at Missouri, Indiana, New Hampshire,
you mentioned before, Kentucky. Why didn't Republicans in twenty twenty
two try to crack these sole Democratic seats? Like why
are we why are that at a position right now
where they're freaking out.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Well, I mean the governors and a lot of they
were complicated by internal state politics in New Hampshire specifically
Indiana also, and by the way, I don't think that
Republicans can do Indiana right now. I've been told that
they are, that the state party is against that in Indiana.
I'm not sure if that stretches all the way up
to Mike Braun, but I but that's been hinted to me. Again,
(27:10):
I don't know that I probably shouldn't even say that,
but that's what's been told to me, that Indiana is
not a live option. So and also, remember, like some
a lot of this is relationship based, right, A lot
of this is that they a lot of these states
benefit from having a you know, a democrat, a democratic seat.
(27:34):
A lot of Republican state from democratic states benefit from
having a Republican seat. Like this is not it's not
just like a pure power grab A lot of the times. Again,
you're right, there are opportunities in Indiana, there are opportunities
in New Hampshire. But you know, listen, it's not it's
not as cut and dry as I mean, Governor Sannu.
(27:56):
Remember he vetoed a map. He vetoed a map that
was that was stronger. So a lot of internal state politics.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
There, gotcha. Last question, which states? Which state do you
would you bet if you were betting on the most
likely to redistrict before the next election.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Well, Texas for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Really you think it's going to go through.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Don't you think so? You don't think so.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
I heard there's a lot of pushback from Texas Republicans
even in the state legislature, who are very nervous about this.
And some of these maps I've seen thrown around are
are just ridiculous. I mean that not that that will
stop them, but they are truly ridiculous. I mean, I
know there's a lot of pressure in the White House.
I could the two seats in the South Texas very
(28:41):
easy redistrict. It's easy to get to two like you
could do. I could do it. Give me a crayon,
I could do two extra Republican seats in South Texas. Five.
You have to get really creative, and you're bringing a
lot of Texas incumbents do not like to be even
in remotely competitive places. They like to be in super
safe seats and they got them in twenty twenty two,
(29:03):
and I don't know if they're really really willing to
deal with that in twenty twenty six in a Democratic
year and a couple of them having to actually really
campaign and fundraise hard. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Let me let me make a couple quick points here,
if you don't mind. I think Houston is relatively easy
the way it's been put to me. Remember Lizzie Fletcher
in it was given that district, she ran in a
more competitive seat against Wesley Hunt. When and she beat
Wesley Hunt. Then they made a seat for Wesley Hunt,
(29:36):
and they gave Lizzie Fletcher a very blue seat. But
she's surrounded by a lot of strong Republican seats in
that west part of Houston, stretching into the suburbs and
the exerbs. So if you could just sink some of
those Democratic votes into those strong Republican seats, then you're
in good shape if you're a Republican, and puts.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Lizzie Fletcher in a bind.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
And and.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
So that's another one. And Dallas appears to be just
a little bit harder. And then if you get to Austin,
my guess, just based on his fundraising is that McCall
is not going to run again. I think he raised
like ninety thousand dollars or something like that. He was
denied the Homeland Security chair. He tried to run for it.
(30:22):
It was a big mess in the Capitol. We're going to,
by the way, talk about all this on our new
punch Bowl News show Flyout Day, which you should all
subscribe to.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
All about Congress all the time. Subscribe to punch Bowl
News YouTube.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
So I think that Austin is not easy, but it's
not as hard Dallas is. Dallas could be difficult. And
Al Paso, I mean, I think l Passo was the hardest.
If I had to guess, they don't go after El Paso.
Veronica Escobar. You know, Tony Gonzalez's seat was drawn by
(30:59):
the court O. You get and and and Tony is
a very headstrong, smart and.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
He's a very hated member by his own caucus, though
he has.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Some complicated relationships.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
But he did call a few of them a racist,
like three years he did.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
But I don't think they're going to want to mess
with that district. And although that that Ryan, that seat
for for Escobar shifted nineteen points toward Trump.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Yeah, they all, they all these Hispanic districts. Did I
think there's a possibility for them there? What I I
the political consultant me looks at the opportunity for short
term games versus long term games. I think the Hispanic
boat is going to continue to move just because minority
voats are moving throughout the higher Western world, however, and
suburban college educated areas like the Austin area is going
(31:50):
to grow even furthertle left. It's very very narrowing. I
don't know, but the it's a midterm.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
It's a mid term.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
I mean, as much as c L says they want
to go out and change the mid term electorate, like
I want to be, you know, a six foot four
point guard for the Knicks, you know, like I want
to be a scratch golfer.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
None of those things are going to happen, you know
what I mean?
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Like what you mentioned the wildfires before the bandon, like
the political consulting part of it, it would be a
lot easier for California to get those wildfire money if
there were eight more Republicans in California, and if there
were five, if there was a lot more Southern Democrats
and Northeast Republicans and California Republicans. You would have a
(32:36):
lot healthier balance in our Congress because there'd be regional representation.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Dude, I say this to people all the time.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
People ask me about what I think is broken about Congress,
and I try to have zero opinions about most things
because I hate everyone equally. But redistricting is the root
of all evil. It just is, and I love covering it.
I love these stories. But as you said before, when
you pick your voters, you are not incentivized. Most people
(33:05):
go home and their principal political hurdle is a primary
challenge that does not lead to good governing. I don't
care what you say. I don't not use specifically, I
don't know what anyone says. But if you go home
and people are saying you can you should go further
to the right or further to the left. I just
think that's it's not great for democracy.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
That's all well, Jake, Where can people go to read
more about your work and punch Bowl News.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Launchbowl Dot News. They should go to.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
They should follow me on Twitter, Jake Sherman, pretty easy.
I got that name early, I suppose, and we are
launching the show which will be really exciting in September,
Flyout Day, a show about or all about Congress and
legislative politics, which we're very very excited for, and so
(33:51):
they should. Everyone should subscribe to Punchball News on YouTube
and on the Daily Punch on Spotify, all those things.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
We have a lot of a lot of things on
email box every day and I I love it. I
think you guys do right work. So thanks you for
being on this podcast. I appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Thanks man.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Hey, We'll be right back after this, and now it's
time for the Ask Me Anything segment. My first question
comes from Robin Eskenberg. She writes many legitimate reasons have
been given for Democrats opening border policies, including increased legislative
represent representation, desire for cheap labor, and in general, more voters.
(34:27):
Has anyone talked with a trend of birth rates, specifically
conservative versus liberal birth rates. I know in general the
birth rates are declining, but it's declining quicker for Democrats.
I think she's asking that question. If so, could it
be explaining why they need more voters? That is a
great question, Robin. So there's no official breakdown of fertility
rates and birth rates by a political party, but they
(34:50):
have studied fertility rates by county. Our report from the
Family Studies found that the most Republican counties in twenty
twenty four had a fertility rate of one point seven
six children per woman. Areas that leaned Republican had one
point sixty seven. Swing counties had one point five to
nine children per woman, which was very similar to Democratic
lean counties that had one point five to six, and
(35:12):
the most Democratic counties in the country had a fertility
of just one point three seven children per woman. So yeah,
there is a big difference. One point seven six on
the far right and one point three seven on the
far left. This is a very, very big gap. That's
basically the difference between you know, France and not Italy,
but close to it when it comes to birth rates. Now,
(35:33):
there's not a single state with a fertility rate above
the two point one children per woman that you need
that a society needs to replace itself from one generation
to another. South Dakota which is two point zero three,
Nebraska has one point nine six. Idaho and Alaska at
one point eight six are the closest when you compare
it to twenty fifteen When you look at fertility trends
(35:55):
in the states over the course of the last decade,
they have declined, you know, you know, across the board
in every single state. The states that they've declined them most,
and ironically actually have been mostly red states. Utah had
the biggest decline of any state, but that's because Mormons
are continually leaving their church in droves. Overall, the fertility
(36:15):
rate went from one point eight four in twenty fifteen
to one point sixty two in twenty twenty five, and
the states that had a declining fertility rate above the
national average were Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
(36:36):
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin. I know there's a lot, but I don't
know flag the state that you live in. If you're there,
that's because of a mixture of things. It's because there's
a mixture of religious affiliation among Mormon communities. In the
states like Utah and Idaho. It's a massive decline among
(36:59):
the black popular in some areas. Decline of fertility in
the black populations, the decline of Hispanic birth rate has
definitely hit the Southwest and huge numbers. That was a
big part of the twenty fifteen to twenty twenty five
change that we saw. When it comes to fertility, the
change in fertility among Red states is the declining religiousity.
(37:20):
When you look at states that are in super low region,
super low fertility levels, levels that are far below replacement,
where the population has almost no way of leaving itself
of like one point four children per woman and below
all of them voted for Kamwal Harris. So yeah, there
is a correlation of needing voters because their voters are
(37:42):
not having children. It's obviously between the state data and
the county data from twenty twenty four. But I think
a big part of it also is internal net migration
of our own country. You have to supplement bad policies
and loss of voters who are just moving to either
red district or red states. And I think that is
(38:02):
the bigger thing. It's not so much fertility, although I
find it interesting and I gave you all that data,
I think that a bigger part of it is just
net migration more than even just fertility rates. I don't
think they don't think so far ahead to fertility rates.
All right, Second question and last for the podcast. This
comes from Chris from San Francisco. This email is rather long,
(38:23):
but it's when I summarize it, but it says, you know,
is the failure of California as a state on Arnold
Schwartzenegger and the fact that he was just a Democrat
in Republican clothing and he was the final blow to
turn California permanently blow and he asked for the data
on this. So the question is hard to summarize with data,
but I'm going to give it my best shot. People
forget that despite being a blue state from nineteen eighty
(38:45):
three to twenty eleven, Republicans control the governorship of California
for all but four years of that entire span of time.
While they control the governor's mansion, however, they never control
the state legislature. The state Senate was never Republican. The
State Assembly was Republican for two years during that entire
time period. Now it's not as bad as it is
(39:08):
now as far as the makeup goes, but Republican governors
could never really act in a conservative fashion, and Arnold
was the worst of that because he didn't really campaign
hard for Republicans in the state to win the state legislature.
Which is very interesting. It's a phenomenon. You see a
blue state governor, some blue state governors blue state Republican
(39:32):
governors when they are in charge. Either some use their
political capital when they're very popular to win legislative seats,
and others use it to increase their own profile out
of a possible presidential run. I'll give you four perfect examples. Arnold,
Schwarzenegger and Chris Christy did very little to nothing to
(39:53):
help Republicans in New Jersey and California when they were governor.
Phil Scott and Larry Hogan in Vermont and Maryland campaign
extremely hard for their Republicans and the state legislature, and
they grew their numbers. I think Maryland was the only
state in the country in twenty eighteen where Republicans increased
their representation in the legislature in no part to Larry
(40:16):
Hogard's efforts. And in Vermont, a state that Trump lost
big time in twenty twenty four, Phil Scott won reelection
and he almost took out the Democratic State Senate majority
for the first time in decades. So that's like the
difference of the actions. But back to Schwarzenger, he never
did that, and he made the campaign about him, and
(40:36):
by the end of his term, his popularity was somewhere
in the mid twenty percent, while two thirds of California
residents had a negative opinion about him. So I think
ultimately Schwarzeneger definitely did not help Republicans either below him
win more seats, and secondly did not win anyone who
was going to campaign as a Republican in his place
(40:57):
after he was retired, because he was so unpopus there.
But ultimately, what changed California was in the actions of
one particular person or particular party. It's just massive demographic changes.
As white voters fled the state and Hispanics and Asians
grew up became registered voters and voted more Democrat on
average than whites did, Democrats just got this huge spike
(41:22):
in surge in registration. I couldn't find voter registration data
that predates twenty eighteen, but I think this still is
a good example. In January twenty eighteen, Democrats had one
point five million more registered people than Republicans did in
the state. It was like six point seven million to
five point two million over sixteen years. Though Republicans gained
(41:44):
one hundred and sixty thousand new registered voters in California,
mostly coming post twenty twenty, Democrats gained three point five
million in that same time period. Demographics are what changed
that state. It really was in the actions of a
single governor, despite the fact that Schwartzenegger wasn't very good
by most people's accounts. Anyway, that's the show. If you
(42:06):
want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment
in the future, please email me ryanat numbers gamepodcast dot com.
That's ryanat numbers gamepodcast dot com. I read every one
of these emails. I try to get to every one
of them, either on the show or privately. So email
me if you like, and please like and subscribe this
podcast in the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast wherever you get
your podcasts. If you're feeling very generous and you like
(42:28):
this data, I give you give me a five star review.
It does make a big difference and I notice. Thank
you so much. See you guys next week.
Welcome back to a numbers game with Brian Gerduski. Thank
you all for being here. I am excited that late
last week I was on Fox News. I got to
go on for my first time in a few years
to talk about Congressman Maria Salazar's Dignity Act, which was introduced.
She introduced it with ten Democratic colleagues and nine other Republicans,
and it is the soft launch of an amnesty for
(00:23):
illegal aliens. She has said it's the beginning to get
citizenship for more than ten million illegal aliens. So the
bill received co sponsorship of ten Republicans. Half of witch,
including Salas, are in safe seats that Trump won by
large margins. If you are displeased with the idea of
rewarding illegal immigrants and your congressman is representative is Mike
(00:44):
Lawler from New York, Maria Salazar from Florida, David Valdeo
from California, Dan Neuhouse from Washington, Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania,
Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Gabe Evans from Colorado, Marlon Stutsman
from Indiana, Don Bacon from Nebraska, or Young Kim from California.
You can call them at two two two two five
(01:07):
three one two one and tell them that you will
not support them in their reelection because they are supporting
amnesty for illegal immigrants. I think that people should speak
up from their base. All right, funny enough about Oh wait,
this is actually some good gossip before I get to
my main topic. An elected official from Marlon Stutsman, that's
(01:28):
one of the congressmen supporting the Dignity Act Dignity Act
District email me. I never met this person before, and
the elected said, I need to show you some text
messages that Marlin has been sending people. This is this
Indiana Republican who ran on a very maga campaign and
last year when he won his old house seedback, he
(01:50):
had been there many years prior and then came back
and he ran this big I love Trump Trump Trump campaign. Well,
he was texting other people who pushing back on the
Dignity Act saying that this is the Christian thing to do,
that they he doesn't support mass deportation despite campaigning to
voters on that, and that he it wouldn't give illegal
(02:13):
immigrants amnesty, which Salazar says it is the beginning of it.
And in the bill, by the way, it says it's
the beginning of it, and that the nineteen eighty six
Reagan amnesty didn't give citizenship, which is a bald face lie,
a complete bald face lie. He is openly lying to
people like he lied when he campaigned on a Trump
(02:33):
agenda in twenty twenty four. I hope so much that
people attend his town halls or wherever they possibly can
and voice support for a primary candidate, because if there's
anyone who deserves to be run out of town, it
is people who openly sit there and say what I
(02:54):
campaign on is not true. Those are the worst kinds
of politicians. Anyway. It was great going on the ingrim Mangle.
Very excited to be back on the network. It's been
a while since I've been on cable news since a
certain joke. I'm a banned from a network. Now, let's
talk to the main subject of today's podcast, which is
we are in the middle of summer, but it is
(03:15):
a cold war brewing in this country, an electoral cold war.
The twenty twenty six midterm elections are already hot underway,
but it's not being done at the ballot box, at
least not yet. It's being done in state legislatures, as
multiple states are already threatening to redistrict their congressional districts
to give their respective party an upper hand in the
midterm elections. It all started when Texas Governor Greg Abbott
(03:39):
announced a mid decade redistricting to give Republicans the chance
every drawing five to seven seats in favor of their
party in the lone Star state. According to the Texas Tribune,
Abbott didn't want to do it at first, but received
a call from President Trump, and the legislature is putting
it on their Special Sessions agenda. This came at the
reluctancy of many how Republicans in the state, who are
(04:01):
worried that they could draw what's called a dummy mander. Basically,
they spread themselves far too thin and end up putting
their own incumbency in danger. Now, Democrats in Texas are
already facing tough challenges. Two members been sent to Gonzales
and Henry Quaar represent districts that Trump won by sizeable
margins in twenty twenty four and are quickly moving to
(04:21):
the right. It spurred off conversations in a number of
other Republican states, like Ohio, for example, but if they
could do redistricting to give Republicans more favorable seats in
their state. Democrats, like California Governor Gavin Newsom immediately struck
back by announcing he'd be willing to redistrict California to
take out six House Republicans in that state. Other Democratic
(04:43):
governors in New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington
say they are prepared to do the same. Essentially, it's
like the old Cold War, a race to see who
will blow up each other first, and then they're all
going to blow up each other. Now, this is honestly
a lot more talk by some peopleeople who are trying
to eye a run for the White House in twenty
twenty eight and look like they're trying to take on Trump,
(05:05):
especially on the Democratic side. For example, Governor Gavima Newsom
and the Democratic legislature don't have the power to just
redraw maps to become more partisan, like Greig Gabba does
In Texas. Voters in that state passing law on two
thousand and eight stripping them of that power and giving
it to an independent commission made up of five Republicans,
five Democrats, and four unaffiliated citizens, and they still usually
(05:29):
come up with a pretty partisanly democratic map to begin with,
but it's not overtly partisan. It's not overtly districts drawn
up to favor Democrats. For Newsom to be able to redistrict,
he'd have to get a constitutional amendment pass by voters
to reinstate the legislature's power. That would be a long
and costly process that likely wouldn't happen in time for
(05:50):
twenty twenty six. Now there's no telling even if that
amendment would pass. New York Democrats tried to overturn their
commission with a constitutional amendment, and it failed spectacle, voters
rejected by double digits. Even Democrats in the California Legislature
are saying that they will not support Newsom's push for
redistricting and gerrymandering. But Newsom wants to run for president,
(06:11):
and he has to look like he's willing to fight Trump,
which is the thing that Democrats want the most from
their elected officials Right now. The other state Democrats are
mentioning New Jersey, New York, and Washington all also have
independent redistricting. Kathy Hochel has tried a number of times
to redistrict New York into a state where there's only
two or three Republicans, and the Democratic appointed Supreme Court
(06:37):
and Court appeals have struck her down every time. For
any of these states to do exactly what they want,
they'd have to get voters to change the constitution. That's
not easy. Minnesota the other state that being mentioned by Democrats.
The Democrats they don't even control the state House, making
the point moot. Even if Newsom were to change the
redistricting laws, he faces a problem that Republican Congression districts
(06:58):
in his state are growing by an average up ten
six hundred voters from twenty twenty to twenty twenty three,
according to the San Francisco Enquirer, while Democrats in the
deepest blue areas, their districts are shrinking, and the blue
are the district the more the people are leaving. Districts
that voted for Harris by more than twenty points lost
about twenty six point six thousand people over the same
(07:21):
three year period. Among the states that Democrats have full
control over the redistrict process, there are forty nine House seats.
They are in Oregon, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
New Mexico. Democrats have basically redistricted every Republican out of
those states to begin with. Out of those forty five seats,
Republicans hold just five House seats, and the only place
(07:43):
I could see them even being able to wipe out
another seat is in Maryland. There's one seat, and the
Maryland Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans because or it's
all Republican appointed because of Larry Hogan. Republicans, on the
other hand, have full redistricting and control in nineteen states
and one hundred and ninety three House seats. Republicans can
easily take out a dozen Democrats without blinking an eye
(08:03):
in most of them. I mean, there's a real easy
path to patting the Republican majority in all those states.
But I need to caution there's really some concern. Trump
had a stellar performance in twenty twenty four an he
won in Texas, the state that they're eyeing this mass redistricting,
by thirteen point five points, up from five point five
points in twenty twenty. The worry if Democrats have electoral
(08:27):
surge and perform well in the state, as they did
in twenty eighteen, when Senator Ted Cruz won reelection by
just two point six percent means many of those seats
would be endangered, and you'd have incumbents having very tough
chances at holding and winning a reelection. The worry if
Democrats have this electoral surge and perform well in the state,
as they did in twenty eighteen when Senator Ted Cruse
(08:49):
won reelection by just two point six points, then they
may endanger a number of safe seats and safe incumbent
seats in the midterms. It's a very very risky tape
tests they're taking one with no certainty of success. Ultimately,
it diminishes part of the core belief behind our democratic
process too, that voters choose their politicians. Running around trying
(09:11):
to redistrict ourselves into oblivion creates the process where politicians
choose their voters. Drawing congressional districts should be a process
where the overall number of congressional seats reflect the partisan
breakdown of the state and how they vote in the
presidential election, while keeping communities of common interest together. So
hypothetically New England should have four or five Trump seats
(09:33):
in it, and they just have one right now. Texas,
North Carolina, and Florida they should have about ten more
Democratic districts in them. New York, California, and Illinois should
about sixteen more Republican seats in them. This kind of
process would also create a Congress that's more balance. Single
states wouldn't hold all the sway in their party's caucus,
and it would give more of a balance and equal
representation to the people living in those states. I know
(09:56):
where I was raised in Queens, New York. I live
in a very, very Republican are Yet we never had
an elected Republican assemimen, nor did we even have a
competitive race for a Republican assemblymen because the district was
broken up four different directions. Once again, both parties do this.
It's not about you know who does and who's to blame,
and it's not fair and it's not right, and seeing
(10:17):
how independent commissions protecting combents and lean in partisan directions,
there's really no easy answer to fix it. But I
can do the part to at least explain it. My
next guest coming up is the leading reporter covering this
redistricting fight. He'll be on next. Jake Sherman is the
(10:37):
co founder of punch Bowl News, a website I read
every morning, and he's covering the redistricting fight better than
almost any other journalist. Jake's thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Let's talk about Texas first, because that seems to be
where the whole fight began, what I'm calling a cold
war between the states. Governor Greg Abbott is looking to
redistrict between two to five seats, depending on which story
you're reading. I favor Republicans. Some reporting and say that
Texas Republicans are actually worried about that he may be
overstepping and drawing them into competitive districts, including a long
(11:11):
time incumbents in safe districts.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Can you speak to that, Yeah, there should be concern
if you're a Texas Republican. That's a concern I've heard
a ton about here. Is so, yes, I think they
are going to when the dust settles, they're going to go.
They're going to try to get five the districts that
we've reported is UH and these are the most likely
at this point, and with the caution that this could
(11:34):
all change and is I don't. I don't think it's
likely to change, but let's just get the baseline here.
I do think UH a district in Houston. So there's
Lizzie Fletcher, who's in the west part of Houston, West
View and some of the area around Rice University all
the way to River Oaks, which is the the kind
of tony area of Houston.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I assume they leave her without a district. That's one.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
And then you have Henry Quaar and Vissena Gonzales two
districts in South Texas. That would make three. You have
Julie Johnson in Dallas that's another one. And then uh,
there's a question about the about the last seat, whether
it's going to be in Austin or it's going to
be Veronica Escobar in El Paso. My money is on Austin,
(12:22):
where you have Greg Kassar, which is a very very
thin meaning geographically thin district that runs kind of the
east side of Austin north south. And then you have
Lloyd Doggett, who represents the bulk of the city of Austin. Now,
(12:43):
the concern would be if you're a Texas Republican, let's
just let's just play Devil's advocate here. Let's say Ken
Paxton wins the Senate primary. I'm not saying he will
or he won't, but it's certainly a possibility that will
be a could be a billion dollar race. I'm not
(13:05):
trying to be facetious. It could be just hundreds of
millions of dollars in that race. Democrats will try to
knock Passton off, and Democratic turnout will presumably again we're
presuming a lot here, will probably be through the roof,
and then those districts that go from R plus twenty
to R plus ten become not winnable for Democrats but
(13:27):
more difficult for Republicans, especially in and around cities.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Now, well, it also may supposes that the Hispanic shift
maintains election cycles. To an election cycle Texas was R
plus five point five and twenty twenty thirteen point five
and twenty twenty four, you need to maintain that coalition
to keep it into a double digit state. It wasn't
that long ago that Texas went two and a half
points for a Ted Cruz, and it could easily go
(13:52):
to and a half point if the state of Texas
only two and a half points for Republicans. Again, how
many of those seats are actually competitive?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
So yes, this is the big issue here. The big
question is what numbers they're basing these off of. How
are they are they basing this is off of twenty
twenty four numbers. Are they basing it off twenty twenty
numbers the redrawing of the map, And I think that's
a big question. I completely agree with you, and I
think the interesting thing will be is Republicans are saying
(14:26):
privately that they're going to make every Republican district in
the state an average of an R plus ten. So
we'll see how this all shakes out. I mean, I
assume there's going to be a ton of lawsuits. I
don't know how this is going to work. And I
think the interesting thing will be is Democrats will say
that they've broken up a bunch of majority minority districts,
(14:47):
but Republicans say that actually, they're not going to do that,
but a lot of these districts will. There will be
an equal, if not greater number of majority minority districts.
But that is again, as you note, very smartly, posing
that the Latino vote goes for Republicans with the same
strength it went for Republicans in twenty twenty four. So
(15:10):
it's just this is just I think people are not you,
But I think the general, the general coverage of this
is actually, in my estimation underestimating how big of a
shift this will be in the national political landscape, especially
in the House of Representatives, which again every two years
up for reelection. It's just one of the most fascinating
(15:34):
stories right now in congressional politics.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, and the biggest irony right now is that VINCENTA.
Gonzales and Henry Klar are in Trump districts and they
could very well lose it without even redistricting, just by
how much that district Those districts are shifted and continue
to shift, and have shifted over the course of the last
sixty years, not just two. What does this speak to
(15:58):
how the White House House Republicans feel about the twenty
twenty sixth election, the fact that they are so desperate to,
you know, make these changes rather than trying to win
these twelve seats that Trump won in twenty twenty four
the Democrats won in the House.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
You're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
This is a hedge, right, this is a hedge against
losses elsewhere, and it absolutely does speak to that reality.
I know we're on Texas right now only, but if
you look at well.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
My next question was what other states are doing it?
So go ahead, you can.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Well, let's talk about let's talk.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Let's just shift to California quickly, which is what democrats
and if you're open to that, Ryan, I don't want to.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
I don't want to take control of your show.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
No, no, no.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
But you bring up an interesting point, which is a
lot of these seats that Republicans that either party is
withdraw is redrawing, is they are doing so to win
seats that they ultimately might win anyway. Right, And you
make that point with Quaar and Vicente in Texas, But
in California, Democrats would look at a young Kim in
(17:02):
Orange County, a seat that they could win in a
good year. For Democrats, they are going to look at
and Calvert in Palm Springs, which is again a seat
that they could win in a good year. So they
are doing this again to win seats that they could
otherwise win. And those are the two big Those are
the two big states, right, the two big states that
(17:23):
are redistricting Republicans in Texas, Democrats in California. But then
Republicans are looking all over the map. They're looking at
states like Missouri where they want to crack Kansas City,
a seat that Emmanuel Cleaver has represented for a very
long time, not a vra district. And then you get
into dicey territory. Can you redistrict in a state like Kentucky?
(17:48):
Can you redistrict in a state like New Hampshire If
you're Republicans where the governor last time around was against
a redis against the map that was much stronger for Republicans.
Could Kelly IoT be be uh more favorable to a
to a mid mid mid decade redistricting. The answer to
(18:11):
that is, I don't know, but there are opportunities across
the country. I mean, in my conversations with the Trump
administration and and allied entities, let's say the uh they
even hope for somewhere in for some more seats in Florida, Florida.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Do that? I mean Florida has the opportunity to redistrict
more seats at this point.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
They could, right, they could go after some of those
South Florida seats. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz. They could, Yes,
they could, but you are really at the ear, you've
really squeezed this towel, as you're really trying to squeeze
this towel as much as you humanly can, and and
of course there are risks with that. But but listen,
we're in an era of Ryan of just bare knuckle politics.
(18:56):
We are, and and that's and both parties are are
seeming to get to get accustomed to that.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, I mean, politicians are much more prone to pick
their voters and voters are to pick their politicians.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Let me ask Let me ask about Gavin Newsom. So,
Gavin Newsom, you know, bucked up and decided that he
was going to go against Trump and Abbott and say
that he would redistrict his state if Abbot redistrict his
That Newsom does not have the same powers that Abbot
has because there's an independent redistricting. How much is about
(19:32):
practically what Newsom can do and what he's trying to
do in the eyes of the public ahead of a
twenty twenty eight presidential race.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
It's a very good question. So let's start with this.
The constitutional amendment that does that put the Redistricting Commission
in place does not say that. It basically says the commission.
I'm not quoting it directly, but the commission in the
once in the in the in the in the desennial
(20:06):
redistricting must use the Commission it is silent on mid
decade redistricting, and how you would do that? Now, you
would probably have to do a constitutional excuse me, amendment
or ballot initiative to get buy in. So that's the
first hurdle. The second hurdle is how you fund this,
(20:28):
because if you were going to do a ballot initiative,
the congressional delegation would have to pony up. And the
congressional delegation, in my many, many many conversations with many
of the Democrats in that delegation, say well, if you
want us to pony up, we're okay with that, but
let us draw the map, right, let us have our
(20:48):
say in the map.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
And so here's what I would say about this.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I want to I want to get to your question
on Gavin in a second, but I want to put
this point out there first. There are opportunit unities in
California for Democrats. There's no question about that. We could
talk about that. But if you are a Democrat in
California and you have been raising two hundred thousand dollars
a quarter to win by you know, twenty points, are
(21:13):
you really going to want to raise four or five, six,
seven hundred thousand dollars a quarter in a more competitive seat.
And the answer to that is, these guys say yes.
These Democrats say yes. So now let's talk about Gavin.
This is what Democrats want right now, right. They want
somebody who's going to take it to the Republicans and
(21:34):
go bare knuckle and pind people to the mat and
all those violent, you know, violent imagery. Right. So it
plays for him well politically. He just as you note,
has a much more difficult functional task than Greg abb
it does in Texas, and there's no getting around that.
I think that Newsom does it. I think he spends
(21:58):
his political capital and tries to get it through. Now,
he has a lot of other stuff going on. California
is a big and complicated state to.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Govern. He also has been asking for wild for money
for the wildfires from Congress. I mean, does this interfere
with that? I don't know the answer to that. Probably
in some way.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
If they do a disaster package for Texas, do they
have to do one for California?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Does it become more difficult?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
All of these are legitimate questions to ask, but they
do feel like they have opportunity with Young Kim, with
Ken Calvert, with David Valadeo with darryl Issa in San Diego,
a seat that is surrounded by two other Democrats Scott Peters,
actually three, Mike Levin and Sarah Jacobs all are comfortable
Democratic districts. But again, you're talking about seats Ryan that
(22:48):
Democrats should be able to win even if they don't
readistrict in at least Calvert, Young Kim and David Valadeo.
So is the juice worth to squeeze on a practical
On a practical standpoint, I don't know the answer to that.
You could make the argument either way. Is it worth
the squeeze in a political standpoint? I you know, probably
(23:08):
for Newsome if he sees a future in national.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Politics, right, And I mean Democrats want a fighter or where
they perceied to be a fighter. And Newsomb has definitely
one of the biggest soapboxes in the country as far
as Democrats go, in a very tough field where congressional
Democrats are trying to look very strong. The interesting thing
about this in hindsight is we can go back in
(23:30):
a couple of years and look back and say, Wow,
this was either genius or this was very very stupid.
There was this huge shift among his banks nationwide, especially
in Texas and California, and a bunch of districts like
David Aldeo. He's been there I think for quite some time.
I think twenty fourteen or twenty sixteen, he used to
be in a Democrat district. He was the Republican who
(23:50):
win a Democratic district. Now his district Trump won, I
think by seven points, because that whole Central Valley area
is becoming more and more Republican. If they stretch these
lines too thin, even in the case of and and
Hispanics move back to where they were pre twenty twenty
four then Texas Republicans have egg on their face. If
they continue to move forward, If that working class momentum
(24:12):
continues to happen, then a lot of California Democrats sit
there and have to panic because all of a sudden
they were in a competitive seat when they've never really
dealt with that outside of a primary. I want to
talk with the other Democratic states. New York has talked
about this. New York now Counthy Oakle has tried many,
many times at this point to try to get a redistricting.
The Democratic Court of Appeals has struck her down every time.
(24:34):
It's especially with the Staaten Island seat, which she can't
seem to just let Nicole Malletacas go. She has to
try to get rid of her any which way she can,
even though malle Talcus would have won the redistricted super
democratic area last time. There's Washington state they're talking about
also a commission state. They mentioned Minnesota, which Republicans control
the state House. I don't even know why they brought
(24:54):
that state up for and they talked about New Jersey,
which is all also a commission state. Can all these
governors get past these commission independent commissions in order to
get some kind of redistricting. I mean, this is a
lot of work on democratic side.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
So New Jersey I actually have notes in front of
me because we've been talking about this so much internally.
Ali Muttnick, who covers this for us, is just tremendous,
great reporter. The New Jersey Constitution says the establishment of
congressional districts shall be used thereafter for the election of
members of the House, and shall remain unaltered through the
next year, ending in zero, in which a federal census
(25:28):
for the state is taken.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Don't know how you get around that. Washington State very similar.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
If a commission has ceased to exist, the legislature may,
upon affirmative vote in each of the House and each
House of two thirds and the members elected or appointed,
adopt legislation reconvening the commission for the purpose of modifying
the redistricting plan. Democrats don't have two thirds in the
House or the Senate. New York bans mid decade redistricting
in the New York State Constitution, Article three, Section four E.
(25:57):
I think there is a lot of wish casting here
from Democrats.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
And again.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I'm not saying like again every both parties need to
do what they need to do to get their voters
riled up. But I understand the I understand the politics here,
but there are just some major hurdles to get around
in some of these states, including New York, Democrats just
don't have a lot of opportunity as much opportunity as
(26:29):
Republicans do. I don't see outside of California.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
A lot of these states, Looking at Missouri, Indiana, New Hampshire,
you mentioned before, Kentucky. Why didn't Republicans in twenty twenty
two try to crack these sole Democratic seats? Like why
are we why are that at a position right now
where they're freaking out.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Well, I mean the governors and a lot of they
were complicated by internal state politics in New Hampshire specifically
Indiana also, and by the way, I don't think that
Republicans can do Indiana right now. I've been told that
they are, that the state party is against that in Indiana.
I'm not sure if that stretches all the way up
to Mike Braun, but I but that's been hinted to me. Again,
(27:10):
I don't know that I probably shouldn't even say that,
but that's what's been told to me, that Indiana is
not a live option. So and also, remember, like some
a lot of this is relationship based, right, A lot
of this is that they a lot of these states
benefit from having a you know, a democrat, a democratic seat.
(27:34):
A lot of Republican state from democratic states benefit from
having a Republican seat. Like this is not it's not
just like a pure power grab A lot of the times. Again,
you're right, there are opportunities in Indiana, there are opportunities
in New Hampshire. But you know, listen, it's not it's
not as cut and dry as I mean, Governor Sannu.
(27:56):
Remember he vetoed a map. He vetoed a map that
was that was stronger. So a lot of internal state politics.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
There, gotcha. Last question, which states? Which state do you
would you bet if you were betting on the most
likely to redistrict before the next election.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Well, Texas for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Really you think it's going to go through.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Don't you think so? You don't think so.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
I heard there's a lot of pushback from Texas Republicans
even in the state legislature, who are very nervous about this.
And some of these maps I've seen thrown around are
are just ridiculous. I mean that not that that will
stop them, but they are truly ridiculous. I mean, I
know there's a lot of pressure in the White House.
I could the two seats in the South Texas very
(28:41):
easy redistrict. It's easy to get to two like you
could do. I could do it. Give me a crayon,
I could do two extra Republican seats in South Texas. Five.
You have to get really creative, and you're bringing a
lot of Texas incumbents do not like to be even
in remotely competitive places. They like to be in super
safe seats and they got them in twenty twenty two,
(29:03):
and I don't know if they're really really willing to
deal with that in twenty twenty six in a Democratic
year and a couple of them having to actually really
campaign and fundraise hard. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Let me let me make a couple quick points here,
if you don't mind. I think Houston is relatively easy
the way it's been put to me. Remember Lizzie Fletcher
in it was given that district, she ran in a
more competitive seat against Wesley Hunt. When and she beat
Wesley Hunt. Then they made a seat for Wesley Hunt,
(29:36):
and they gave Lizzie Fletcher a very blue seat. But
she's surrounded by a lot of strong Republican seats in
that west part of Houston, stretching into the suburbs and
the exerbs. So if you could just sink some of
those Democratic votes into those strong Republican seats, then you're
in good shape if you're a Republican, and puts.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Lizzie Fletcher in a bind.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
And and.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
So that's another one. And Dallas appears to be just
a little bit harder. And then if you get to Austin,
my guess, just based on his fundraising is that McCall
is not going to run again. I think he raised
like ninety thousand dollars or something like that. He was
denied the Homeland Security chair. He tried to run for it.
(30:22):
It was a big mess in the Capitol. We're going to,
by the way, talk about all this on our new
punch Bowl News show Flyout Day, which you should all
subscribe to.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
All about Congress all the time. Subscribe to punch Bowl
News YouTube.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
So I think that Austin is not easy, but it's
not as hard Dallas is. Dallas could be difficult. And
Al Paso, I mean, I think l Passo was the hardest.
If I had to guess, they don't go after El Paso.
Veronica Escobar. You know, Tony Gonzalez's seat was drawn by
(30:59):
the court O. You get and and and Tony is
a very headstrong, smart and.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
He's a very hated member by his own caucus, though
he has.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Some complicated relationships.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
But he did call a few of them a racist,
like three years he did.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
But I don't think they're going to want to mess
with that district. And although that that Ryan, that seat
for for Escobar shifted nineteen points toward Trump.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Yeah, they all, they all these Hispanic districts. Did I
think there's a possibility for them there? What I I
the political consultant me looks at the opportunity for short
term games versus long term games. I think the Hispanic
boat is going to continue to move just because minority
voats are moving throughout the higher Western world, however, and
suburban college educated areas like the Austin area is going
(31:50):
to grow even furthertle left. It's very very narrowing. I
don't know, but the it's a midterm.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
It's a mid term.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
I mean, as much as c L says they want
to go out and change the mid term electorate, like
I want to be, you know, a six foot four
point guard for the Knicks, you know, like I want
to be a scratch golfer.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
None of those things are going to happen, you know
what I mean?
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Like what you mentioned the wildfires before the bandon, like
the political consulting part of it, it would be a
lot easier for California to get those wildfire money if
there were eight more Republicans in California, and if there
were five, if there was a lot more Southern Democrats
and Northeast Republicans and California Republicans. You would have a
(32:36):
lot healthier balance in our Congress because there'd be regional representation.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Dude, I say this to people all the time.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
People ask me about what I think is broken about Congress,
and I try to have zero opinions about most things
because I hate everyone equally. But redistricting is the root
of all evil. It just is, and I love covering it.
I love these stories. But as you said before, when
you pick your voters, you are not incentivized. Most people
(33:05):
go home and their principal political hurdle is a primary
challenge that does not lead to good governing. I don't
care what you say. I don't not use specifically, I
don't know what anyone says. But if you go home
and people are saying you can you should go further
to the right or further to the left. I just
think that's it's not great for democracy.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
That's all well, Jake, Where can people go to read
more about your work and punch Bowl News.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Launchbowl Dot News. They should go to.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
They should follow me on Twitter, Jake Sherman, pretty easy.
I got that name early, I suppose, and we are
launching the show which will be really exciting in September,
Flyout Day, a show about or all about Congress and
legislative politics, which we're very very excited for, and so
(33:51):
they should. Everyone should subscribe to Punchball News on YouTube
and on the Daily Punch on Spotify, all those things.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
We have a lot of a lot of things on
email box every day and I I love it. I
think you guys do right work. So thanks you for
being on this podcast. I appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Thanks man.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Hey, We'll be right back after this, and now it's
time for the Ask Me Anything segment. My first question
comes from Robin Eskenberg. She writes many legitimate reasons have
been given for Democrats opening border policies, including increased legislative
represent representation, desire for cheap labor, and in general, more voters.
(34:27):
Has anyone talked with a trend of birth rates, specifically
conservative versus liberal birth rates. I know in general the
birth rates are declining, but it's declining quicker for Democrats.
I think she's asking that question. If so, could it
be explaining why they need more voters? That is a
great question, Robin. So there's no official breakdown of fertility
rates and birth rates by a political party, but they
(34:50):
have studied fertility rates by county. Our report from the
Family Studies found that the most Republican counties in twenty
twenty four had a fertility rate of one point seven
six children per woman. Areas that leaned Republican had one
point sixty seven. Swing counties had one point five to
nine children per woman, which was very similar to Democratic
lean counties that had one point five to six, and
(35:12):
the most Democratic counties in the country had a fertility
of just one point three seven children per woman. So yeah,
there is a big difference. One point seven six on
the far right and one point three seven on the
far left. This is a very, very big gap. That's
basically the difference between you know, France and not Italy,
but close to it when it comes to birth rates. Now,
(35:33):
there's not a single state with a fertility rate above
the two point one children per woman that you need
that a society needs to replace itself from one generation
to another. South Dakota which is two point zero three,
Nebraska has one point nine six. Idaho and Alaska at
one point eight six are the closest when you compare
it to twenty fifteen When you look at fertility trends
(35:55):
in the states over the course of the last decade,
they have declined, you know, you know, across the board
in every single state. The states that they've declined them most,
and ironically actually have been mostly red states. Utah had
the biggest decline of any state, but that's because Mormons
are continually leaving their church in droves. Overall, the fertility
(36:15):
rate went from one point eight four in twenty fifteen
to one point sixty two in twenty twenty five, and
the states that had a declining fertility rate above the
national average were Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
(36:36):
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin. I know there's a lot, but I don't
know flag the state that you live in. If you're there,
that's because of a mixture of things. It's because there's
a mixture of religious affiliation among Mormon communities. In the
states like Utah and Idaho. It's a massive decline among
(36:59):
the black popular in some areas. Decline of fertility in
the black populations, the decline of Hispanic birth rate has
definitely hit the Southwest and huge numbers. That was a
big part of the twenty fifteen to twenty twenty five
change that we saw. When it comes to fertility, the
change in fertility among Red states is the declining religiousity.
(37:20):
When you look at states that are in super low region,
super low fertility levels, levels that are far below replacement,
where the population has almost no way of leaving itself
of like one point four children per woman and below
all of them voted for Kamwal Harris. So yeah, there
is a correlation of needing voters because their voters are
(37:42):
not having children. It's obviously between the state data and
the county data from twenty twenty four. But I think
a big part of it also is internal net migration
of our own country. You have to supplement bad policies
and loss of voters who are just moving to either
red district or red states. And I think that is
(38:02):
the bigger thing. It's not so much fertility, although I
find it interesting and I gave you all that data,
I think that a bigger part of it is just
net migration more than even just fertility rates. I don't
think they don't think so far ahead to fertility rates.
All right, Second question and last for the podcast. This
comes from Chris from San Francisco. This email is rather long,
(38:23):
but it's when I summarize it, but it says, you know,
is the failure of California as a state on Arnold
Schwartzenegger and the fact that he was just a Democrat
in Republican clothing and he was the final blow to
turn California permanently blow and he asked for the data
on this. So the question is hard to summarize with data,
but I'm going to give it my best shot. People
forget that despite being a blue state from nineteen eighty
(38:45):
three to twenty eleven, Republicans control the governorship of California
for all but four years of that entire span of time.
While they control the governor's mansion, however, they never control
the state legislature. The state Senate was never Republican. The
State Assembly was Republican for two years during that entire
time period. Now it's not as bad as it is
(39:08):
now as far as the makeup goes, but Republican governors
could never really act in a conservative fashion, and Arnold
was the worst of that because he didn't really campaign
hard for Republicans in the state to win the state legislature.
Which is very interesting. It's a phenomenon. You see a
blue state governor, some blue state governors blue state Republican
(39:32):
governors when they are in charge. Either some use their
political capital when they're very popular to win legislative seats,
and others use it to increase their own profile out
of a possible presidential run. I'll give you four perfect examples. Arnold,
Schwarzenegger and Chris Christy did very little to nothing to
(39:53):
help Republicans in New Jersey and California when they were governor.
Phil Scott and Larry Hogan in Vermont and Maryland campaign
extremely hard for their Republicans and the state legislature, and
they grew their numbers. I think Maryland was the only
state in the country in twenty eighteen where Republicans increased
their representation in the legislature in no part to Larry
(40:16):
Hogard's efforts. And in Vermont, a state that Trump lost
big time in twenty twenty four, Phil Scott won reelection
and he almost took out the Democratic State Senate majority
for the first time in decades. So that's like the
difference of the actions. But back to Schwarzenger, he never
did that, and he made the campaign about him, and
(40:36):
by the end of his term, his popularity was somewhere
in the mid twenty percent, while two thirds of California
residents had a negative opinion about him. So I think
ultimately Schwarzeneger definitely did not help Republicans either below him
win more seats, and secondly did not win anyone who
was going to campaign as a Republican in his place
(40:57):
after he was retired, because he was so unpopus there.
But ultimately, what changed California was in the actions of
one particular person or particular party. It's just massive demographic changes.
As white voters fled the state and Hispanics and Asians
grew up became registered voters and voted more Democrat on
average than whites did, Democrats just got this huge spike
(41:22):
in surge in registration. I couldn't find voter registration data
that predates twenty eighteen, but I think this still is
a good example. In January twenty eighteen, Democrats had one
point five million more registered people than Republicans did in
the state. It was like six point seven million to
five point two million over sixteen years. Though Republicans gained
(41:44):
one hundred and sixty thousand new registered voters in California,
mostly coming post twenty twenty, Democrats gained three point five
million in that same time period. Demographics are what changed
that state. It really was in the actions of a
single governor, despite the fact that Schwartzenegger wasn't very good
by most people's accounts. Anyway, that's the show. If you
(42:06):
want to be part of the ask Me Anything segment
in the future, please email me ryanat numbers gamepodcast dot com.
That's ryanat numbers gamepodcast dot com. I read every one
of these emails. I try to get to every one
of them, either on the show or privately. So email
me if you like, and please like and subscribe this
podcast in the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast wherever you get
your podcasts. If you're feeling very generous and you like
(42:28):
this data, I give you give me a five star review.
It does make a big difference and I notice. Thank
you so much. See you guys next week.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com