The Redistricting Loss Means Democrats Must Moderate to Win

The way to compensate for a less-favorable map is by winning a larger share of the vote, so Democrats must move closer to the median voter.

Dear readers,

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for Democrats in the redistricting war. Instead of producing a near-draw, it’s now clear that Republicans have gained a significant advantage; they are now likely to win something like nine more House seats than if no maps had been redrawn this year. This is because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Callais and the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of that state’s voter-approved congressional remap.

This is unfortunate. But Democrats already faced an obligation to shift rightward to win a majority in the Senate, the legislative body where the lines are durably drawn unfavorably to us, because the median state (Georgia or Arizona) has voting preferences several points to the right of the country as a whole.

To win a majority in the Senate, we have to consistently win states like Georgia and be competitive in even more conservative states like Ohio and Iowa. It is a high and unfair hurdle, but we’re already working on an effective strategy to clear it: picking locally strong candidates who demonstrate overperformance in Republican-leaning jurisdictions due to their more moderate issue positioning. We have candidates like former Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola, who has already shown she can win statewide, and state Rep. Josh Turek, who represents an Iowa legislative district that Donald Trump won by eight points in 2024. But to maximize our chances of winning back the Senate, it’s not enough to pick moderate candidates. We also need to give voters confidence that these candidates’ views will carry sway within a Democratic legislative majority — that Democratic Senate leadership will let a Sen. Peltola lead on issues related to Alaska’s natural resources, for example.

What we need to win on an unfavorable House map is similar: We must give voters in red-leaning districts confidence that when their candidates break with unpopular Democratic positions on issues like immigration, crime, fossil fuels, racial preferences, and trans participation in women’s sports, that will matter for lawmaking.

Democrats do not need to move to the center on every issue. There are important policy areas where the progressive position is the popular one: abortion rights, protecting Medicare and Social Security, enhancing ACA subsidies, taxing the wealthy, opposing the war in Iran and more. But the unfavorable map makes it more important than ever for Democrats to get out of a mindset driven by wealthy progressive donors and the NGOs they fund and into the head of a typical swing voter who is angry about inflation and war under Trump, regretful of the end of Roe v. Wade, upset the rich are not paying their fair share, and concerned about the cost of healthcare and the security of old-age benefits; but also skeptical of Democrats’ willingness to fight crime and enforce immigration law, and seeing us as too obsessed with “identity” issues, too hostile to cheap energy, and nearly as disreputable as Republicans on inflation.

These are the voters we need to win over to build a vote majority big enough to win on an unfavorable map.

Very seriously,

Josh