The Future of the Great Blue Dot Is Up Tomorrow

Two states are holding primaries tomorrow: Nebraska and West Virginia. Normally, both would be snoozers, since Republicans are going to win nearly all the marbles in both. But there is one race that has national implications: the blue dot. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) is retiring from NE-02, which is Omaha and its suburbs. What makes this race interesting is that the district is D+3, so a Democrat has an actual chance of flipping the seat, more so in a blue wave. Locals call it the "blue dot" in the map of red, red, red Nebraska. Look:

But there is a complicated backstory here. Given the PVI and open seat, multiple Democrats filed, naturally—seven in all. The most prominent ones are state Sen. John Cavanaugh and local businesswoman Denise Powell. So, who cares? A lot of people. The key problem is that the Republican state senators want to change the state's method of awarding electoral votes from a district-based one to winner-take-all. At the moment, they are one vote short. If Cavanaugh wins the primary and then the general election, he will have to vacate his seat in the state Senate. Then Gov. Jim Pillen (R-NE) will appoint a Republican to it and the unicameral legislature will change the law. That will give the Republicans an extra electoral vote in 2028.

Outside groups have poured millions of dollars into the race to stop Cavanaugh and nominate Powell. No one has any particular gripe against how Cavanaugh votes in the state Senate. The complaint is that he is not a team player. In one ad, the announcer solemnly intones: "Don't let John Cavanaugh give away our blue dot." Cavanaugh's response is that Democrats are sure to pick up at least one seat in the state Senate in November, so when he resigns in Jan. 2027, it won't matter. Others are much less sure of picking up another seat somewhere. That is really the only issue in the campaign.

Cavanaugh is not doing this entirely because he is an egomaniac. Politics is a family tradition with him. His father represented the blue dot in Congress once and his sister is in the state Senate. It should be noted that if Cavanaugh wins the Democratic nomination, there is sure to be a campaign by some Democrats urging Democrats to vote for Omaha City Councilman Brinker Harding (R) in the general election. If Cavanaugh loses, he will presumably stay in the Senate and the dot will survive. So, better to give up a House seat than lose an electoral vote.

There is a complicating factor, though. Democrats have the trifecta in Maine. If Cavanaugh is elected to Congress and the Democrats still have the trifecta in January, they could simply change the rules in Maine and also make it winner-take-all, canceling out Nebraska's power play. We are secretly hoping that happens because congressional districts are rarely polled in presidential years, so our procedure of adding up the states isn't quite right. On the other hand, if all states used the Nebraska-Maine rule, that would mean candidates would campaign all over the country instead of only in seven states. Democrats could win electoral votes in Texas and Republicans could win electoral votes in California. (V)

Trump Is Shaking Down TikTok to Build His Arc de Trump

Donald Trump is definitely the first socialist president. He demonstrates that over and over. All the other presidents have left companies to make their own decisions based on what is best for them. Occasionally, something gets out of hand—like health insurance—and then the government tries to patch it up—for example by offering subsidies, as in the ACA, not by buying up health insurance companies. The government has never told companies how to run their businesses. Well, until Trump showed up. Here is a list of companies Trump has had the government partially buy.

Another area where Trump has deeply immersed the government in private companies' decisions is by "encouraging" them to do something he wants, with an implicit understanding that Bad Things will happen if they don't. Nice company you got there. It would be a pity if something happened to it. Getting the Ellisons to buy CNN is the poster child here. And now, Trump is back at it again. This time he wants TikTok to fork over $400 million for D.C. "beautification," including construction of the Arc de Trump, which he—alone—thinks is beautiful. His "argument" to TikTok is that if it ponies up, he will drop the lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit is about TikTok's pushing inappropriate content to young children. Normally, when the government wins a lawsuit of that type, the proceeds go to trying to right the wrong, not to building a giant monument to the Dear Leader.

This is not the first time Trump tried to get something from TikTok. When he took office in Jan. 2025, a federal law required TikTok to sell its American operations to some American firm or consortium. Trump ultimately brokered a deal in which the Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sold part of its U.S. operations to a consortium led by Oracle and also including other investors. ByteDance will have about 20% of the stock in the joint venture. Trump's interest in the deal had nothing to do with protecting children. It was all about who gets the profits from TikTok's U.S. operations. Now much of it will go to his cronies in the U.S. and some foreign investors, including the U.A.E. The model here is Russia. Vladimir Putin doesn't have a personal stake in all the companies his wholly owned oligarchs run, but the oligarchs are well aware that the deal is this: They support Putin and in return he arranges for them to become very rich. Friends help friends. It's natural. (V)

State Dept. Sanctions Chinese Companies on Eve of Trump-Xi Summit

Donald Trump is heading to China Thursday to make deals with China's leader, Xi Jinping. Xi has no doubt been prepping for the meeting for weeks, talking to Chinese experts in every area that might come up. Trump has been busy figuring out how to lose the war in Iran in a way that he can blame someone else for it.

What seems a bit odd here is that last week the State Dept. sanctioned three Chinese companies for helping Iran in the war. This adds a new wrinkle to the meeting. Unfortunately, Trump cannot remember more than one thing at a time, so if all he cares about are these three companies, Xi might give Trump what he wants with respect to them and spend the rest of the day eating Trump's lunch.

Another disturbing issue about the meeting is the small herd of American CEOs who will accompany him. They (and maybe Trump) will be focused on making deals that help their companies. If China agrees to buy more Boeing airplanes that will be nice, but it will distract Trump from issues of geopolitical importance, such as safeguarding Taiwan, limiting China's expansion into the South China Sea, using the sale of rare earths for blackmail, China's buying advanced AI chips from Nvidia, Chinese investments in major U.S. companies, Chinese spying on the U.S. government and companies, and much more. Xi will be fully briefed on all these issues and have his position carefully worked out in advance and will not budge. Fundamentally, Trump does not understand that China is America's mortal enemy. It is not a friend or even a neutral business partner.

Xi is sure to dangle lucrative deals for Trump's cronies in front of him and Trump is sure to be dazzled into dropping the tariffs and forgetting about all the key geopolitical issues. If China offers to build factories in the U.S. to make cars and create jobs, Trump will be jubilant, not realizing that China's goal is not to make money on the cars, which it might sell at a loss, but to destroy the U.S. auto industry. Xi's advisers have surely told him that he needs to get in the mindset of dealing with a young child who will give away everything he has got in return for a big bowl of ice cream right now.

Republican senators are well aware of this threat but are powerless to influence Trump. Half a dozen of them and some Democrats signed onto a resolution sponsored by Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) warning Trump about China's threats to U.S. national security and economic security. Trump will just ignore Ricketts and focus on getting some good trade deals for his cronies. (V)

Will Cheapskate Trump Spend His $300 Million War Chest in the Midterms?

Donald Trump has two tools for enforcing his will on members of Congress: endorsements and money. Endorsements are free and there is a potentially unlimited supply of them. Money is finite. Trump is famously tightfisted with money and some Republican donors are now worrying that Trump will not use all of the $300 million he has socked away for the midterms. For people who donated large sums to win the midterms, having Trump save a substantial chunk of the money to help his favorite in the 2028 Republican primary is not part of the program.

MAGA Inc. spokesman Alex Pfeiffer described the rumors as "whining from anonymous detractors." In other words, if someone donated tens of millions of dollars to hold the Senate and Trump decides to use the money in the 2028 primary, the donor is expected to just shut up and fall in line. The frustration from donors is that Trump is misreading the political landscape and does not realize how energized Democrats are and how blasé Republicans are. The donors see this and want Trump to start spending big on key House and Senate races right now, which he is not doing. Worse yet, many of them suspect he won't spend more than 10% of his hoard this year at all.

RNC spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said: "donors are energized and all-in." Of course, if they see that Trump is just hoarding the money either for some future campaign, the presidential library, or to somehow keep for himself, the flood of donations is going to become a trickle.

Trump's firm hold on the money isn't the only reason donors are edgy. One of them said: "For so many other reasons that people have their hair on fire right now—ending the war in Iran is so much more important for numbers than what to do with this money. Their [the candidates'] concern is first and foremost not, 'Am I going to get $2 million in my race?' but 'Is gas $6?'" However, a more optimistic donor noted that it is only May. If June comes and goes with no plan, then it becomes a real problem. A former Trump adviser was less optimistic that Trump will spend the money on key races this year. He said: "My strong inclination is no—he's not going to. He's Trump. He's going to build a skyscraper in Miami and call it his library. I hope I'm wrong."

Trump's super PAC isn't the only source of money, though. The RNC has $117 million in the bank and it is highly disciplined and will spend the money where it has the most impact. In contrast, the DNC has about $15 million in the bank and $17 million in debt. Many DNC members are distraught about DNC Chairman Ken Martin, whose primary job is raising money for Democrats. So far, he has failed miserably and many members want to replace him. However, replacing the chairman in the middle of an election year is fraught with problems, so Martin is probably safe until after the midterms.

In comparison to spending money, Trump has used his other superpower—endorsements—furiously. He has picked favorites in more primaries than any president in history. Many of his picks have been behind the scenes. Sometimes, rather than endorsing a candidate, he offers his favorite's main opponent a "favor" to drop out. For example, wealthy businessman Nate Morris filed to run for the open Senate seat in Kentucky, but Trump preferred the fire-breathing Trumpist Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). So Trump offered an ambassadorship to Morris if he would drop out and he did. In another example, Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) wanted to run for the open Senate seat in Michigan, but Trump "talked" him out of it so Trump's favorite, Mike Rogers, would not have a primary. Whether Trump did more than merely "talk" to Huizenga is not public. Trump might have used a carrot, a stick, both, or something else. Most of this stuff happens quietly and generally doesn't come out except when something visible happens, like a candidate who has already filed dropping out. (V)

Judge Shoots DOGEys

As you might remember, when Elon Musk and his DOGEys were trying to destroy run the government early in Trump v2.0, one of the areas where hundreds of grants were axed was those from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Many of the groups that lost their grants sued. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that those cuts were illegal and unconstitutional.

The judge didn't rely primarily on the Watergate-era anti-impoundment law that states a president may not refuse to spend funds that Congress has appropriated just because he or people in his administration don't like Congress' goals. Instead, she ruled based on the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment, calling the case "a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination."

She also revealed how the DOGEys picked grants to kill. They asked ChatGPT which grants would promote diversity, equity, and inclusion and let it bring down the axe. Needless to say, letting some AI bot make decisions to kill programs Congress has mandated has no basis in law or anything else. In most cases, the 20-something kids who dreamed up this scheme knew nothing about the humanities and certainly had no authority to let some bot decide which programs lived and which ones died. Some of the grants that the bot killed were ones to provide education about the Holocaust at Seton Hall University, a virtual reality demonstration of Indigenous culture at the Mesa Verde National Park, and a book about HIV in prisons. ChatGPT didn't like them, so poof! Gone!

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said of the ruling: "The district court's ruling is egregiously wrong. It conflicts with clear Supreme Court precedent, and provides yet another example of liberal judges trying to reinstate wasteful federal spending at the expense of the American taxpayer." However, in 1975, in Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court held that the president cannot withhold funds Congress has mandated for spending. Trump wants to get that overturned, but that hasn't happened yet. The case may end up in the Supreme Court, which of course would give the Court a chance at throwing away another 50-year-old precedent in order to placate Trump. (V)

Fetterman: Become a Republican? I'd Be Terrible

When Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) first won his Senate seat in 2022, many Democrats were proclaiming him to be the great white hope who could win over working-class white men. Now they are worried that their (former) hero might decide to switch sides and become a Republican, because sometimes he doesn't vote the party line. The junior senator from Pennsylvania, Dave McCormick (R-PA), has been actively trying to lure Fetterman to join the red team.

Fetterman apparently had enough of these stories and the Republicans' trying to get him to switch, so he wrote an op-ed and had it published in The Washington Post.

The piece discusses Fetterman's goals. Fundamentally, he says he wants to do what is good for the country and doesn't care whose idea it was. He noted that his job is to serve all Pennsylvanians, not just the ones who voted for him. He rejects the idea that he should oppose everything Donald Trump says or does as a general principle. He said that if Trump came out in favor of ice cream and lazy Sundays, Democrats would immediately denounce them. Fetterman wouldn't do that automatically. He said his refusal to denounce Trump on everything all the time does not make him a Republican. He gives many examples. One issue that clearly separates him from progressive Democrats is his stand on Israel, which he strongly supports.

The Senator notes several examples where he has worked with Republicans. He worked with Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) to protect kids' mental health. He worked with Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) on a bill to help older Americans stay in their homes. He worked with Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) on the "Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act," which would allow people to use their SNAP benefits to buy hot rotisserie chicken (which some Republicans feel is wasteful). Many Democrats reject the concept of working with Republicans on anything. Fetterman says he doesn't buy into that idea.

As to switching parties, in the op-ed he noted that he is "strongly pro-choice, pro-weed, pro-LGBT, pro-SNAP, pro-labor," even if he is pro-rib-eye over bio slop. He ends with: "Plus, I'd be a terrible Republican who still votes overwhelmingly with Democrats." After writing this piece, it seems very unlikely that he will switch teams. More likely is that he will decline to run for reelection in 2028. He doesn't really like being in the Senate. (V)

Redistricting Rundown

A number of states have drawn new district lines this year and a number of others are still planning to do so later this year, although time is running out. Here is a quick summary of where things stand now:

• Alabama: The current map in Alabama is 2B, 5W. Face it. It was imposed by a court to force the state to have two majority-minority districts. Alabama AG Steve Marshall has now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to release it from the court-ordered map and let it draw its own map. This could give the Republicans one extra seat. The argument parallels a recent case in Louisiana, in which the Court struck down a map with two intentionally gerrymandered majority-minority districts. There is a good chance the Court will agree that the situation is similar in both states and so strike the court-ordered map and let the legislature make their own gerrymandered map.
  
  
• California: When Texas started this round, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) took the initiative to organize a referendum bypassing the independent commission until 2032 and letting the legislature draw its own map. The referendum passed. The 2020 map was 43D, 9R but Democrats might win as many as five extra seats with the new map.
  
  
• Florida: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) will do anything to get back in Donald Trump's good graces, so he called the legislature back into session and it approved the map he drew. This is very contentious because DeSantis has openly said the whole point of the new map is to give the Republicans 3-5 new seats. Smart guy. He knew the Supreme Court has approved partisan gerrymandering. The only problem is that partisan gerrymandering is explicitly forbidden by the Florida Constitution. The only question now is what alibi the courts will use to get around the state Constitution. Maybe something like: "If the Supreme Court says partisan gerrymandering is good, then states can't override it." There is a detailed article in Wikipedia about the whole process. The current delegation is 8D, 20R. In the maximal case, this could become 3D, 25R but in a blue wave, some districts that were thought to be safe could fall.
  
  
• Indiana: Trump ordered the Indiana state legislature to redraw the map but the votes weren't there. To fix that problem, Trump endorsed challengers to seven state senators who were against a new map. Trump's endorsement and $12 million from outside groups resulted in five of the seven senators being ousted. Indiana could try again to pick up another Republican seat for 2028.
  
  
• Kansas: Republicans tried for a new map but in Kansas, unlike North Carolina, approving a new map follows the regular order and the governor has veto power over the map. Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) would certainly do that and the Republicans don't have the votes to override her veto. So the plan is dead.
  
  
• Louisiana: In its Louisiana v. Callais decision, the Supreme Court struck down the remaining meat of the Voting Rights Act and ruled that the state could not have a map that intentionally created two majority-minority districts out of the six districts. Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) cheered and ordered that the primaries be postponed to give the legislature time to draw a new map with no more than one Black majority district. There are so many Black voters in Louisiana, they have to go somewhere, so the new map will probably be 1D, 5R.
  
  
• Mississippi: Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS) has called the state legislature back into session May 20 for the purpose of redrawing the congressional map to get rid of Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and have a congressional delegation consisting of four white Republicans. The House will meet in the historic Old Capitol, which witnessed some of the state's most racist history from 1839 to 1903, including the vote to secede from the Union as well as passing laws about poll taxes, literacy tests, and a raft of Jim Crow laws. This is basically a done deal that will make it impossible for the 39% of Mississippians who are Black to elect a Black representative.
  
  
• Missouri: Following Texas' lead, Missouri re-did its maps. The new maps were signed into law on Sept. 28, 2025. The current map is 2D, 6R. Once the new map is in effect for an election cycle, the hoped-for result is 1D, 7R However, it has not yet been in effect, since—obviously—it was only implemented late last year. A court case is now pending and so is a potential referendum that would undo the new map.
  
  
• North Carolina: Last October, the North Carolina General Assembly approved a new 3D, 11R map to replace the old 4D, 10R map, for a new gain of one seat for the Republicans. Although the governor is a Democrat, state law gives the governor no role in redistricting. On Nov. 26, a three-judge panel approved the new map. For a state as balanced as North Carolina, having Republicans hold 79% of the House delegation is an extreme gerrymander.
  
  
• Ohio: The state Constitution actually required a new map because it requires a bipartisan majority for a map to last for 10 years after a census. Otherwise the map is good for only 5 years. The old map resulted in a 5D, 9R delegation. The new one is likely to be 3D, 11R. It won't be challenged in court because the state Constitution mandated that the legislature draw a new map and it did.
  
  
• South Carolina: The Palmetto Bug state has only one Black Representative, Jim Clyburn (D). The legislature wants to get rid of him—and not because it wants a younger Black Democrat. The state House just approved postponing the congressional primaries by 2 months to give the legislature time to redo the map. The primaries for everything except the House will go forward in June as scheduled. The House primaries will be in August. It is a mess since absentee ballots for the June House primaries have already gone out. They cannot be saved for August because the districts will be different then. This stunt will cost the taxpayers of South Carolina over $2 million.
  
  
• Tennessee: Gov. Bill Lee (R-TN) called a special session of the state legislature, which dutifully drew a new map to get rid of the state's only House Democrat. Lee signed the bill last week. Legislators are proud of the fact that they are not "racist"—the one Democrat was white. Now the House delegation is going to be nine white Republicans. But even in Tennessee, DEI lives on. One of the members is a woman, Diana Harshbarger.
  
  
• Texas: This is where it all started. The new map is intended to give the Republicans five additional House seats, but in a blue wave the districts with narrow Republican majorities and many Latinos could end up making it a dummymander.
  
  
• Utah: Utah has an independent commission for drawing maps but the legislature has to approve them. The former did but the latter didn't. The legislature then drew a map dividing Salt Lake County into four pieces. A judge ruled that the map was illegal. The court then hired a special master, who drew a map with 1D, 3R, so Democrats picked up a seat here.
  
  
• Virginia: Virginia Democrats drew a new map giving them 10 of the 11 seats, but in a split decision along partisan lines, the state Supreme Court tossed the map on technical grounds. In principle, state Democrats can try again for 2028, but that would require a new referendum in 2027. It is possible, though.

An analysis by the Cook Political Report has a best-case scenario for the Republicans as R+13. Best case for the Democrats is a wash, with no net change. And again, remember, the final result depends on whether there is a blue wave, a red wave, or no wave at all. If the Republicans created a district with 52% working-class Latinos and 48% wine-sipping tofu-eating, white Democrats with postgraduate degrees, their model is that the Latinos are all for them. We won't know until Nov. 4 if that assumption is right. (V)

Democrats Will Aggressively Gerrymander the Maps in Blue States for 2028

For various reasons, mostly good-government Democrats hamstringing themselves, blue states haven't been able to aggressively respond to the Texas challenge and Callais in 2026. That could well change for 2028, with Democrats throwing caution to the wind and going for maximum gerrymanders in states where they control the process. The motto here would be: "To hell with good government. What's good for the goose is good for the gander." We could see very aggressive new maps in 2028 in a number of states, including these (with the current breakdown):

• Colorado (4D, 4R): Colorado has an independent commission, so a constitutional amendment is needed to pull off a gerrymander. A proposed ballot measure this November would give the legislature the power to draw the 2028 and 2030 maps. Signature gathering is already underway. If it happens and passes, state Democrats already have a map ready that would give them three more House seats.
  
  
• Illinois (14D, 3R): The Illinois House has already approved a ballot measure for November to give the legislature the power to draw a new map. If the state Senate approves, it will go to the voters. A really aggressive map might pick up two new seats, but that would really be pushing it. One is more likely.
  
  
• Maryland (7D, 1R): Maryland Democrats drew a truly weird map that would knock out the last Republican and give Democrats a sweep. It passed the House, but Senate President Bill Ferguson (D) refused to bring it up for a vote. That could change in January when the state Senate elects a new president. It could also require a change to the state's Constitution, but there is plenty of time in 2027 to do that if needed.
  
  
• New Jersey (9D, 3R): Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) is in favor of a new map. Two of the Republican representatives are already vulnerable: Jeff Van Drew (R+5 district) and Thomas Kean Jr. (EVEN district). Making those unwinnable would be easy but it would take a referendum to bypass the independent commission first.
  
  
• New York (19D, 7R): New York Democrats are already pushing hard for a new map. They think that could knock off four of the Republicans. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) is all in favor of a full-fledged gerrymander. She said: "I don't feel like I should be handcuffed in a fight for our democracy. I'll not be handicapped in that fight." Also, here the voters would have to approve.
  
  
• Oregon (5D, 1R): There hasn't been a lot of discussion here and there is the problem of what to do with all the Republicans in the eastern half of the state. Move them to Idaho? This seems to us one of the less likely states to draw a new map, but as they say, where there is a will, there is a corpse way.
  
  
• Virginia (6D, 5R): Virginia almost pulled it off this time but a partisan split decision in the state Supreme Court foiled the Democrats. But the decision was about a technicality involving the timing. Democrats could try again in 2027 and get the timing right. However, this would require another referendum and it is not certain it would pass. It was close this time.
  
  
• Washington (8D, 2R): If the Democrats get supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature in November, they could embark on a plan to redo the map and flip one House seat. But getting supermajorities will be a tough hill to climb and even then, the voters would have to approve. This is not one of the Democrats' best prospects.
  

Republicans started this whole process and are probably going to win Round 1, but Round 2, in 2028, could easily go the other way. If all the stars align, the Democrats could conceivably flip up to 16 seats in 2028. That would pretty much eliminate all the swing districts and House elections would become something of a formality. If Democrats went for broke, that might be able to produce a House with more than 218 solidly-blue districts that would make Elbridge Gerry roll over in his grave. That could highly motivate the Republicans to get behind legislation to permanently eliminate all gerrymandering. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger