The Politics of the Clock

Even the clock is political now. Everything is political. But oddly enough, it is not really Democrats vs. Republicans or city folks vs. rural folks. It's a weird hodge-podge depending on latitude and how close people are to a time zone boundary. It's the same old, same old issue: daylight saving time (which doesn't save any daylight, it just moves it around).

Yesterday, the country (except for Hawaii and most of Arizona) sprang forward. Today, most of the country is a bit groggy and sleep deprived. Donald Trump promised to eliminate daylight saving time, but has discovered that it is not so easy because his own supporters are badly divided, depending on where they live. The current dates for hacking the clock were set by George W. Bush. Extending DST by a month was his energy policy: more sunlight = less energy use, in theory.

The original DST idea was a 1918 wartime measure to save coal and avoid "wasting" precious sunlight very early in the morning. It also made beautiful summer evenings longer, which was very popular. One of us, (V), was once in northern Finland in June and people were strolling in the parks at midnight eating ice cream cones and having a wonderful time as though it were noon.

The main downside of the current spring forward, fall back scheme is that everyone gets 1 hour of jetlag twice a year and resetting the clock on everything from a clock radio to an oven is a pain, especially since the way to do it is different for every device and most residences now have something with a clock in it every 10 feet. Fortunately, smart phones do it automatically, but there is still a lot to do manually.

People who want to get rid of DST are equally divided between those who want standard time all year and those who want summer time (DST) all year. In 2022, the Senate passed a bill using summer time the entire year. Then everyone woke up. Lobbying from health groups, dubbed Big Sleep, managed to get the bill killed in the House.

Here's the problem: Health researchers believe that year-round standard time fits the human circadian rhythm best. Morning commutes would be in daylight all year in most places with standard time, resulting in fewer accidents. Children would wait for school buses in the light. However, it would get dark early, as early as 4 p.m. in some places in the winter, requiring more electric lighting and heating in the evening. People would miss the long summer evenings they could enjoy with all-year summer time.

On the other hand, permanent summer time not only gives long summer evenings, but allows people to go home from work in the light and this has been shown to reduce street crime (criminals like to work in the evening and in the dark, so less dark in the evening means less crime). With sunlight later, people shop more after work, which is good for the economy. Also they play more. The golf industry says DST is worth $200-400 million per year. More light in the evening promotes more outdoor recreation and less TV watching, which is a health benefit. Chambers of commerce like permanent summer time for the economic benefits. However, in northern states, many people would go to work in the dark and children would go to school in the dark. This could lead to more accidents in the morning.

Another factor—and this is what is confusing Trump—is that the effects of DST depend to a considerable amount where one is in the local time zone. Here is a map where the effects can be seen:

Bangor, ME, and Indianapolis, IN, are both in the Eastern Time Zone, but on Dec. 21 sunrise is at 7:10 a.m. in Bangor and at 8:02 a.m. in Indianapolis. That means that kids in Bangor will be going to school in the light in December but partly in the dark in Indianapolis. Bangor wins! But wait. Sunset is 3:57 p.m. in Bangor that day, so after-school hockey practice will be in the dark. In Indianapolis, hockey practice can be longer since the sun doesn't set there until 5:23 p.m. on Dec. 21.

There is also a north-south effect. Bismarck, ND, and San Antonio, TX, are at the same longitude but sunrise is at 8:25 a.m. in Bismarck Dec. 21 and 7:25 in San Antonio that day. Kids in Bismarck go to school in the dark in winter; kids in San Antonio don't. With year-round DST, add one hour to each of these times. This means that sunrise in Indianapolis would be at 9:02 a.m. on Dec. 21. Not everyone would be so keen on that.

These regional differences pit one group of people against another not depending on politics but largely on where one lives in one's time zone and one's latitude. This is why Trump can't stake out a position and stick to it. No matter what he says, some of his supporters will be very unhappy. (V)

The Politics of the Calendar

Ezra Klein had an interesting (and, for some people, scary) column in The New York Times yesterday. It is worth reading if you have a Times subscription. If you don't, in this video, Klein basically reads it out loud:

Here's the problem. People are fleeing blue states like New York, Illinois, and California. In 2023, they had a net loss of 179,000, 93,000, and 268,000 people, respectively. Many of the migrants went to red(dish) states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. When states lose population, they also lose House seats and electoral votes. If current trends hold until 2030, reapportionment will cost the states Kamala Harris won about 12 House seats and electoral votes. Put it this way: If the Democratic presidential candidate in 2032 wins all the states Harris won and Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, he or she will still lose the Electoral College and the presidency.

Will those transplants turn Texas, Florida, and Arizona blue? There is no evidence at all for Texas, and Florida is becoming redder by the year. If enough Californians move to Arizona, it could become a blue state, but that won't be enough. In 2032, the Harris states and the three blue wall states will probably have 252 electoral votes combined. Even if Arizona gets, say, 14 electoral votes and goes blue, that will still be only 264, six short of a majority. This is just demographics. The Democrats have a Texas-size problem.

At a fundamental level, Republicans are the party of scarcity. They don't believe there is enough stuff to go around, so they pit "Real Americans" against immigrants, white people against people of color, and men against women to get the lion's share of the pie (at least, for pie-eating lions).

Klein has a solution, though: the politics of abundance. He says Democrats have to make their states work so not only will people not leave, their prosperity will attract people from other states and give them more population and more electoral votes.

In surveys, the #1 reason people are fleeing the blue states is the cost of living, especially housing. And the reason is the Democrats' own fault. They have focused on a vast number of things, but cost of living for working-class people is not one of them. They need to change a lot of laws to make housing more affordable and redesign their cities so you don't need a car—and its huge expense. The average new car costs $48,000, not even counting operating costs. This transformation will not be easy because it will mean Democrats fighting other Democrats with different priorities. More houses probably won't work out so well for the spotted owl.

Klein makes an aside about public transportation, which could reduce the need for, and expense of, having a car, and thus make living in blue states more affordable. In 1982, then-governor of California Jerry Brown signed a bill to study what it would take to build high-speed rail from San Francisco to San Diego and elsewhere in the state. This was not science fiction. Japan actually broke ground for its first bullet train 23 years earlier and had many of them running in 1982. And Japan also has earthquakes, so that's not a dealbreaker. In 2008, California voters approved Prop. 1A that appropriated $10 billion to start construction of the infrastructure. The plan was SF to LA in 2 hours 40 minutes in 2020.

There is still no train or infrastructure and almost no track. What happened? Klein went to a place where once stood a run-down self-storage facility. It was blocking the tracks. It took four eminent domain requests and 2½ years of legal wrangling for the state to take that tiny bit of land. In the time since California started trying to build 500 miles of high-speed rail, China has built 23,000 miles of it. It works differently there. An appraiser appraises what your land is worth, the government gives you that amount of money and then takes the land by force—the next day. Maybe you can argue for more money in court later, but you lose the land immediately. Even if there is a spotted owl living there.

Houston has no zoning, so anyone can build anything anywhere. The median home price is just over $300,000. Los Angeles has very extensive zoning that protects all manner of things but the median house price there is $1 million. Many parts of the city are de facto off limits to working-class people. This means they have to live far from where they work—and spend hours commuting in (gas-guzzling) cars because public transit is so scarce.

Consider one concrete example. (V) lives in a newish apartment building with 21 apartments spread over 6 floors. It has two elevators. Does the traffic warrant two elevators? Of course not, not by a mile (or 1.6 km). So why two elevators? The building code requires that number in new buildings because if there were only one elevator and it was down for repairs for a couple of days, someone in a wheelchair on the 6th floor would be stuck there—literally. But elevators (and their maintenance) are very expensive, which is reflected in apartment prices and rents. Disability advocates will say having two elevators is crucial for people with disabilities, but the consequence is that they can't afford to live there in the first place. Democrats may need to start rethinking a lot of laws and rules that have some value for some group but collectively result in working-class people being unable to afford blue states so they move to Florida or Texas and take their electoral votes with them. Doing nothing is easy, but may result in a Republican takeover in 2032 and beyond just due to many people being priced out and moving south.

The problem for the Democrats is that they are a loose coalition of people with different priorities. The people who are passionate about the lovely spotted owl don't care about housing prices. The people who care about disabilities or gay rights or abortion or a dozen other things don't see the big picture that people are leaving blue states due to costs and in the long run, the South will rise again until the North (and California) make an all-hands-on-deck effort to stem the cost of living. But that will require abandoning some of the priorities that some Democrats see as their top priority. It won't be easy since it will require very unpleasant compromises.

As a final note, there is one hopeful thing for the blue team that Klein didn't mention. While the odds of turning Texas or Florida blue are poor, there is more hope of turning North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona blue. Democrats have won statewide offices there in the recent past. Two of the three governors and four of the six senators are Democrats, for example. Capturing these states should be a priority, along with taming the cost of living in the blue states. (V)

Indiana Will Soon Ban Student ID Cards for Voting

Republicans in Indiana don't want college students to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats. They have found a powerful new tool for achieving their goal: disallowing the use of student ID cards as proof for voting. Indiana has a strict voter ID law, but up until now, college students studying in the state, regardless of where they are from, could vote in Indiana using their student ID card as proof of identity. Having out-of-state students vote is not as strange as it seems. When the decennial census comes around, out-of-state students are counted and thus increase the number of House seats and electoral votes the state gets. They also pay higher tuition to the university.

The Indiana state Senate just passed a bill, SB 10, to ban the student ID cards on a vote of 39 to 11, with all but one Republican, and no Democrats, voting for the bill. The state House is expected to pass the bill soon and then Gov. Mike Braun (R-IN) will sign it in plenty of time before the 2026 midterms. Republicans haven't even bothered to make up some story about fraud or saving the taxpayers money. It is just a naked power grab.

Most students, except those with cars (and a driver's license) have no ID other than their student ID, so they will be effectively disenfranchised when SB 10 becomes law. In principle, they could go to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles and get an ID card there. However, the DMV is far from Indiana University in Bloomington and many students have no way to get there. Also, the DMV may require documents that the students don't have, and their office hours may conflict with classes.

Another issue that affects students is where they can vote. Some campuses have a precinct on campus, but others don't, which means those students are assigned a precinct, possibly far from where they study. If they don't have a car, getting there may be difficult. Some counties have adopted voting centers that allow anyone in the county to vote, rather than assigning people to precincts.

Cleta Mitchell, a conservative lawyer who helped Donald Trump with the 2021 attempted coup, is spearheading efforts to pass similar laws in other states. Currently, six other states already have laws banning student ID cards as proof of identity. She wants to expand this to all states where the Republicans have the trifecta. (V)

Trump Wants to Deport a Quarter of a Million White, Christian Immigrants

Maybe Donald Trump is not as racist as some people think. Yes, he wants to deport millions of brown-skinned people to Mexico, but he also wants to deport a quarter of a million white-skinned Christians to Europe. Take that! In particular, Joe Biden allowed in 240,000 Ukrainian refugees and now Trump wants to revoke their legal status and deport them back home to an active war zone.

Some Republican senators are not on board with that. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: "No, I want to keep these people here. We need to have the war come to an end before we talk about sending people back." Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said: "In almost every armed conflict, our country has always had a process in place to help those individuals that qualify. Clearly, Ukrainians trying to get away from this Russian aggression should qualify." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said: "We got to have a place for them to go, either here, or a close, safe country in Europe. We gotta provide for them or at least get them to a safe third country, whether or not they have to come here is a legitimate question." Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) voted for a large package that included refugee support last year.

Of course, speaking to the media is one thing. Actually pushing back on Donald Trump when he tries to do it is something else. We will see how these folks respond when the crunch comes. (V)

Slashing the VA Could Backfire

Elon Musk has ordered V.A. Secretary Doug Collins to fire 80,000 of the 480,000 people who work for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. Collins seems enthusiastic about it. But veterans are highly respected in America, so degrading the care they get could backfire spectacularly, especially since many veterans support Donald Trump.

Even though only a fraction of that number of people have already been fired, the ripple effects are already being felt. Studies of experimental treatments are being interrupted, supplies aren't being purchased at V.A. facilities because the people who do that have been fired, appointments can't be made because clerical staff is gone, rides can't be scheduled, therapists who work emergency hotlines can't be reached, and more. In addition, 875 contracts have been abruptly canceled although, in a few cases, they have been reinstated, since some of the canceled contracts were deemed mission critical. In short, there is chaos at some V.A. facilities already and it will only get worse as more people are terminated.

Although the V.A. is known for its 170 hospitals nationwide, doing scientific research that could help veterans is also part of its core mission. Much of that research relates to traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries that veterans may have sustained while in combat. This research is top-notch and not often duplicated at universities because the V.A. does it so well. Many of the cuts will doom research projects already in progress. At least 300 projects providing new treatments to 10,000 veterans are likely to be killed because Musk has decided that they are waste and fraud.

When 80,000 people are gone, the effects will be dramatic and veterans and their families will be furious. They will contact their representatives, senators, and the media with horror stories. Democrats will be happy to publicize cases where some veteran who was awarded medals for bravery and performing difficult missions in combat has been denied life-saving care due to Musk's cuts. There could be a lot of backlash among Trump supporters. (V)

What Members Think about Congress

Short answer: It's not pretty. People hate Congress. Probably the only institution even more corrupt and less popular is the Supreme Court. But what is life actually like in Congress? Politico sent reporters up to the Hill and interviewed 25 Congresscritters. They were allowed to be anonymous if they so chose, but most were willing to go on the record. The results are shocking. Here are a few of the comments in the article.

Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT): "Everybody thinks that we fly around on Air Force One and dine at the French embassy every night. But the reality is, I'm eating burritos and McDonald's more often than I'm dining in any embassies. It's also a lonely life. It's really hard to establish friendships, just because the pace is so breakneck."

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC): "If people knew the truth about the compensation of a congressman [$174,000], they would be shocked. I have people who land in the airport here and call me and ask, can I send my car for them. I mean, my first term up here I didn't even own a car."

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO): "When things are going bad or when things get ugly, I'll try to find me a thrift store. I'll hit a thrift store in a heartbeat, walk around in the midst of all the things in those places. It's soothing and quite comfortable."

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK): "It [Congress] is a sick puppy. And a bunch of this goes back to the way that the campaign finance laws have worked."

Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX): "I think the redistricting process is what has Congress so broken. When you have red states that draw districts 70 percent red and blue states that draw them 70 percent blue, you create a legislative body that has no incentive to work together."

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL): "[The solution is] decentralizing power and allowing the committee process to work. We've seen a power shift over the last 20 years or so, from individual members to it really being concentrated at the top. Instead of having 100 good, equal senators, you kind of had two super senators and 98 baby senators."

Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ): "We're human beings, right? We're all sinners, so to even put on the facade that we're not regular people that are tempted and do stupid things is laughable. It's ridiculous. So, don't act like your sh** doesn't stink."

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY): "I'm one of the few gay members. I do not inquire about the sex lives of my colleagues in general, especially my heterosexual colleagues. I can assure you though, as a gay man, I'm certainly not cheating on my wife."

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL): "If you are prone to substance abuse, everything about this job probably makes it worse."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA): "Well, I've seen one Republican who, unfortunately for you, has to go unnamed, show up drunk a number of times. There were one or two Dems I thought might be high on something but not drunk."

Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT) (again): "There's no question that somewhere between six and a dozen of my colleagues are at a point where they're ... I think they don't have the faculties to do their job."

A House Republican: "I have a difficult time sometimes telling between the deterioration of members and a handful who are just not very smart."

In short, many members enjoy their work but recognize that Congress is completely paralyzed by the current system and can't get anything done. In part it is due to gerrymandering, which means members are not afraid of the general election, only of being primaried from their fringe, which makes them unwilling to work with the other party. Also, bills to create multimember districts with ranked-choice voting have gotten nowhere. (V)

Court-Appointed Attorney: Drop the Case against Eric Adams

The DoJ wants to suspend the corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams in return for his helping to round up immigrants. He gleefully took the deal because the evidence against him is overwhelming and if the case goes forward he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Getting someone to sign the request to the judge was a bit of a problem, with multiple prosecutors resigning instead of doing so. In the end, Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove had to sign the order himself.

The DoJ wanted to drop the case without prejudice (so it could bring it back if Adams didn't come through) and Adams wanted it dropped any way possible. Normally, if both sides agree on a motion, the judge grants it. But Judge Dale Ho smelled a rat. He hired conservative attorney Paul Clement, who was solicitor general under George W. Bush, as an amicus and tasked him with writing a report on what he should do. Clement has now finished his work. His recommendation is to dismiss the charges against Adams with prejudice, which means the case is over and Adams can't be charged again (pity the poor law students who have to spend three years learning all these weird terms). This would remove all of Donald Trump's leverage over Adams.

Clement argued that judges have no authority to order prosecutors to prosecute a case if they don't want to. But they do have authority to decide how to dismiss a case. Clement argued that in this case the only possibility is permanent dismissal to prevent the DoJ from using the threat of reviving the case to effectively own an elected mayor. Basically, the DoJ wants to blackmail Adams and Clement sees that option as worse for the legal system than letting a guilty man go free, especially since he committed nonviolent crimes like taking foreign campaign donations and bribes. The judge is not obligated to take the advice of the man he hired, but Clement is a highly respected lawyer who argued many cases before the Supreme Court, and following his advice gives Ho plenty of cover if he wants to.

Adams' attorney, Alex Spiro, said: "The first-of-its-kind airline upgrade corruption case is now over" (one of the bribes was upgraded seats on Turkish Airlines in return for help on something the Turks wanted). This is truly embarrassing for New York State. Over in Jersey, they demand gold bars and fancy cars for helping out foreign governments. If you're going to sell out, at least have enough self-respect to charge the going rate.

The ball is now in Ho's court.

Adams is running for reelection in November. Even if his case is dismissed with prejudice, good luck with that. He has virtually no chance of being reelected. He has multiple problems. First, the voters know he is a crook. Second, there is a pack of candidates running against him. Third, New York City uses ranked-choice voting in the Democratic primary, so getting more votes on the first round in a splintered election doesn't do the job. Fourth, one of his opponents is a guy who also isn't clean as a hound's tooth himself, but has never been indicted: former governor Andrew Cuomo. He was forced out for sexually harassing 11 women but is now trying for a comeback.

While Adams was busy with his court case, Cuomo has been all over Brooklyn poaching Adams' supporters. In particular, Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, chair of the Brooklyn Democratic party, has told people that she is considering backing Cuomo. Henry Butler, the Brooklyn Party's vice chair, has already endorsed Cuomo. So has Frank Seddio, the former party leader. Some city council members have also endorsed Cuomo. Adams was born in Brooklyn and used his former job as Brooklyn borough president as a springboard to Gracie Mansion. If Adams loses Brooklyn, he is toast. Cuomo may be sleazy, but he is an extremely tough politician and understands Adams' dependence on Brooklyn very well. That is why he has basically moved there. If he can lock down all the main politicians in Brooklyn, he will be on his way. The primary is June 24. (V)

MAGAWorld Is Souring on Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a staunch conservative on most issues, on a few cases she has shown an independent streak. This has caused some Trumpers to go ballistic. What they want is that she simply votes the way Trump wants her to vote on every case, the Constitution and the law be damned. She is not doing that, so she is suddenly persona non grata in parts of Trumpworld.

Law professor Josh Blackman, of the South Texas College of Law, wrote that Barrett should step down from the court so Donald Trump can appoint someone better, even though he was the president who appointed her in the first place after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Blackman said Barrett's appointment was "bait and switch."

Laura Loomer tweeted "Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI appointee." She helpfully included a photo of Barrett with her husband and seven children, two of whom are Black children they adopted from Haiti. Here is her tweet:

Mike Davis, who once clerked at the Supreme Court for Justice Neil Gorsuch, tweeted: "She is a rattled law professor with her head up her a--." He added that she was "weak" and "timid," not great characteristics for people in TrumpWorld. Conspiracy theorist Jack Pozobiec also called her a "DEI judge," presumably because she is a woman.

There was also some complaining about how pained Barrett looked at the not-SOTU speech Trump gave last week. DC_Draino (Rogan O'Handley) tweeted: "Look at how Justice Amy Coney Barrett looks at our duly elected President, the man who put her on the Supreme Court. She looks very bitter." He also included a video of the encounter.

What many of these people ignore is that she has cast conservative votes on many cases. But that is not what they want. They want pro-Trump votes. Those are not always the same thing. Prof. Anthony Kreis, of the Georgia State University College of Law, summed this up by saying: "It seems to me there is this impulse where personal loyalty to Donald Trump in an unquestioned way is seen as a requirement for a sitting justice on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter how conservative that person might be." (V)

Thom Tillis Is Also Having a Dustup with Trumpworld

Some key people in Trumpworld have a beef with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). Trump adviser Arthur Schwartz saw that Tillis has an approval rating of 25% and tweeted: "We're going to need a new senate candidate in NC unless we want to hand the gavel back to Schumer." Tillis didn't take this too well and told reporters that Schwartz is a "political hack" and a "sh**ty consultant."

Tillis' remark led Andy Surabian, a top adviser to J.D. Vance, to tweet: "What kind of sh**ty campaign is Thom Tillis running that he attacks someone who no one in NC has ever heard of over a tweet?" Some Trumpers noted that the poll was run by PPP, which is based in North Carolina, but which usually works for Democrats and lefty NGOs. But it has a good track record.

Tillis' problem is that if Trump decides to dump him, either due to poor polling or due to attacking Trumpers, he might have trouble winning the Republican primary. However, the GOP's problem is that Tillis is far and away the strongest Republican candidate for his Senate seat in 2026. If popular former governor Roy Cooper (D) jumps in—and Democrats are trying to move heaven and earth to get him to do so—Tillis will have a tough race, but could still win. The PPP poll has Cooper beating Tillis 47-43. If Trump endorses some random-but-Trumpy state senator against Tillis in the Republican primary and he wins the primary, Cooper would probably become the overwhelming favorite in the general election. So a lot rides on what Trump does. (V)

DCCC Announces Frontline Members

The battle for control of the House will be furious. If Democrats can capture the House, they can block all of Donald Trump's budgets, refuse to pass any new laws that he wants, and make him the first president to have been impeached eight times. Republicans know this, too. The DCCC has now announced the list of "frontline members" whose House seats they will vigorously defend in 2026 by spending money there. Here is the list of vulnerable incumbent Democrats:

Incumbent	District	PVI	New?	2024 Margin	Notes on the district
Adam Gray	CA-13	D+4	Yes	0.1%	Majority Latino district in the Central Valley from Tracy to Fresno
Derek Tran	CA-45	D+2	Yes	0.2%	Wealthy district running from Yorba Linda to Huntington Beach
Jared Golden	ME-02	R+6	No	0.5%	Nearly all-white very large rural district covering 92% of Maine
Marcy Kaptur	OH-09	R+3	No	0.7%	"Snake by the Lake" south of Lake Erie running west to Indiana
Don Davis	NC-01	D+2	No	1.7%	Urban district running south from Virginia to almost the Research Triangle
Josh Riley	NY-19	EVEN	Yes	2.2%	White suburban district covering mid-Hudson Valley and west to Ithaca
Emilia Sykes	OH-13	R+1	No	2.2%	Mostly white district covering Stark and Summit Counties around Akron
Laura Gillen	NY- 04	D+5	Yes	2.3%	Very wealthy, urban, white and Latino district on western Long Island
Vicente Gonzalez	TX-34	D+9	No	2.6%	Poor urban Latino district on the Gulf of Mexico south of Corpus Christi
George Whitesides	CA-27	D+4	Yes	2.6%	Wealthy white and Latino district in northern L.A. County and eastward
Eugene Vindman	VA-07	D+1	Yes	2.7%	Wealthy white, Black, and Latino district between D.C. and Richmond
Janelle Bynum	OR-05	D+2	Yes	2.7%	White, urban district including a bit of Portland and southeast to Bend
Susie Lee	NV-03	D+1	No	2.8%	White, Asian, Latino district from south Las Vegas to Bullhead City
Dave Min	CA-47	D+3	Yes	2.8%	Wealthy white and Asian district from Long Beach to Orange County
Josh Harder	CA-09	D+5	No	3.6%	Latino and white district in the northern Central Valley
Tom Suozzi	NY-03	D+2	No	3.6%	Very, very wealthy urban, white and Asian district on northwest Long Island
Marie Perez	WA-03	R+5	No	3.8%	Predominantly white district in southwestern corner of Washington
Gabe Vasquez	NM-02	D+1	No	4.2%	Urban Latino and white district running from Albuquerque to Mexico
Nellie Pou	NJ-09	D+8	Yes	4.9%	Urban, well-off district from Fort Lee running northwest for 20 miles
Henry Cuellar	TX-28	D+3	No	5.6%	Heavily Latino district running southwest from San Antonio to Mexico
Kristen Rivet	MI-08	R+1	Yes	6.7%	Mostly white county running northwest from Flint to Bay City and north
Jahana Hayes	CT-05	D+3	No	6.8%	White and Latino urban district in northwestern Connecticut
Dina Titus	NV-01	D+3	No	7.5%	White and Latino urban district with eastern Las Vegas and going south
Steven Horsford	NV-04	D+3	No	8.0%	White and Latino district from northern Las Vegas halfway up the state
Frank Mrvan	IN-01	D+3	No	8.5%	Gary, IN, and its eastern suburbs, close to Chicago
John Mannion	NY-22	D+1	Yes	9.1%	Mostly white, mixed urban and rural district between Syracuse and Utica

DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) picked these people because she believes they are in danger. That could be due to a very small margin of victory in 2024, being in a district with a PVI close to EVEN, or some special circumstance specific to that member. Newly elected members (the column labeled "New") are always extra vulnerable since they are not as well known as someone who has been sitting in the seat for 10 years. Nineteen of the above members won by less than 5 points. Democratic turnout has historically been poor in midterms, so all of these could be in danger, unless there is a blue wave. The other seven are in closely divided districts with PVIs from R+1 to D+3. It should be noted that we are using the "old" PVIs, based on the 2020 and 2016 elections, as the new ones have not been released yet. New members who are in a district close to EVEN and who barely won are the most vulnerable, of course. Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA), Josh Riley (D-NY), Eugene Vindman (D-VA) and Janelle Bynum (D-OR) are especially vulnerable and will get extra money to help out.

In some cases, you have to look carefully to see why someone made the list. For example, John Mannion (D-NY) won by 9.1 points, so why is he considered endangered? The reason is that the district is only D+1. He won by such a large margin because he faced an exceptionally weak opponent in 2024. That might not happen in 2026.

The House will be bitterly fought over in 2026, with the Democrats needing to net only three seats to take over the chamber. But the first order of business for any party is to defend its own incumbents who are in iffy districts. That is what this list is all about. There will probably be a new list later giving the primary offensive targets—that is, which Republicans they are gunning for. Publishing the list doesn't tell the NRCC anything it can't find out trivially itself (PVIs and election results) but it encourages Democrats in these districts to donate to the candidates on the list as endangered. The NRCC will probably publish its own list soon, as well. (V)

---

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