If you are a free subscriber and you like what you’re reading, maybe it’s time to upgrade to a paid subscription.
This newsletter is 100% reader-supported, and your subscription helps me continue publishing.
Truth and Consequences is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
When you become a paid subscriber, you receive access to all my posts, the ability to comment on posts and engage in the Truth and Consequences community, and, above all, you get the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with supporting independent journalism
For reasons that aren’t immediately clear, Substack did not send out the video of yesterday’s episode of “Two Bearded Jews Talk Politics” … so here ya go!
Bringing Guns to a Knife Fight
Earlier this week, forecasters at Carnegie Mellon University dropped this map about the 2030 census — and the potential impact on House representation.
If this map is correct (and I suspect it’s a bit exaggerated), states won by Donald Trump in 2024 would add 14 seats, and states won by Kamala Harris would lose 10 seats. Keep in mind that GA, AZ, WI, and PA were won by Biden in 2020, and just because Texas and Florida add seats doesn’t necessarily mean Republicans will win them. But still, this is a pretty bad map for Democrats. If this projection holds, it could net Republicans 8-9 electoral votes and potentially a similar number of House seats.
What I found striking, however, is how many Democratic pundits and activists looked at this map and immediately responded, “blue states need to build more housing” to counteract these population shifts.
I fully agree that blue states need to build more affordable housing (FFS, I live in New York City. I get this point quite well).
But building more housing is not going to save Democrats.
First of all, the migration of Americans from north to south, particularly Florida and Texas, has been happening for quite some time — and will likely continue even if blue states build more housing. Take a look, for example, at the electoral map in 2000 and then in 2024.
In a 24-year period, Texas added 8 electoral votes (EVs), Florida 5 EVs, Georgia and Arizona 3 EVs, and North Carolina and Nevada 2 EVs. These migration patterns haven’t necessarily been a net negative for Democrats. It’s one of the reasons why Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona are more competitive politically.
But on the flip side, New York has lost 5 EVs, Pennsylvania and Ohio, 4 EVs, and Michigan and Illinois, 3 EVs. In other words, migration from the Rust Belt (and New York) to the Sun Belt is a thing and likely will continue to be a thing for the foreseeable future. That’s particularly true for states like Florida and Arizona, which will likely always attract large numbers of senior citizens.
Moreover, according to this report from the Public Policy Institute of California, housing is definitely one of the primary reasons people are leaving the Golden State, but it’s hardly the sole reason. Politics plays a role. The report notes that “conservatives are much more likely than liberals to say they have considered leaving the state.” California, unlike Texas, also has a very low fertility rate. In addition, the decrease in immigration from COVID and now with Trump’s, in effect, closing of the Mexican border has further reduced California’s population.
In addition, a lack of affordable housing has a greater impact on the poor and middle class. But in California, the highest proportion of people leaving the state are the wealthiest.
So yes, affordable housing is an issue that has contributed to increased migration. Still, it’s hardly the only issue, and building more housing — which could take years to get constructed — is an indirect solution to the Democrats’ direct and urgent political problem. There’s simply no guarantee that building more housing in New York or California will stop people from leaving or increase migration.
“When They Go Low, We Also Go Low”
“Build more housing” is emblematic of a larger dilemma for Democrats: namely, the party’s predisposition to view a political problem and propose a policy solution.
Indeed, when I look at the map above, my thought is: how can Democrats change the political map to create more blue-leaning House seats? For example:
* Make DC and Puerto Rico states, creating potentially 4-5 new (likely) House seats and potentially 6-7 EVs that would lean Democratic.
* Expand the size of the House from its current 435 members.
* End partisan gerrymandering.
The latter two proposals would likely benefit Democrats in the House.
When Republicans see a problem like the map above, they don’t think about a policy response.
With it looking like the GOP will lose seats in the 2026 midterm, they came up with a political solution — mid-decade redistricting. That hasn’t exactly worked as planned because Democrats, unexpectedly, in California and Virginia, took the unusual course of fighting fire with fire. But the GOP’s instincts were correct — a political problem requires a political solution.
Another key difference with Republicans is that mid-decade redistricting is a rather ostentious violation of long-standing political norms and not small “d” democratic.
Expanding the size of the House is not only long overdue (the House of Representatives hasn’t been expanded in more than a century) but would lead to better and more responsive legislative representation. Ending partisan gerrymandering is also a small “d” democratic solution that would make the House more competitive and more representative. As for DC and Puerto Rico, both have voted in support of referenda granting statehood. Granting the residents of these two locales is the ultimate small “d” democratic policy.
Now I’ll grant that making DC and Puerto Rico states and expanding the size of the House will be a heavy political lift and would require scrapping the filibuster. But with a governing trifecta in 2029, which is quite possible and, considering the recent anti-incumbent trajectory of modern politics, even somewhat likely, Democrats would have the votes to do it. Making DC and Puerto Rico states would also protect a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, by potentially adding four Democratic Senate seats. Doing that would also make it easier for Democrats to enact their policy agenda and potentially insulate it from political backlash. In short, these moves are major political winners for Democrats. But, they also require the party to ruthlessly wield power in pursuit of partisan advantage, something modern Democrats have generally avoided.
But make no mistake, if Democrats don’t take these steps — and don’t learn to play political hardball — they will pay. a hefty price and, in allowing Republicans to amass greater electoral power, so too will the country.
Democrats can’t keep complaining about the malevolence of MAGA and the cynicism of congressional Republicans and then eschew the political solutions that will keep them out of power.
Musical Interlude
