logo
Power grab may energize Newsom and Democrats. But it won't fix their bigger problem

Power grab may energize Newsom and Democrats. But it won't fix their bigger problem

Today we discuss flora, fauna and self-gratification.
You've been away.
Yes, I was living in a tent for two weeks, communing with the pine trees and black bears of the Sierra.
You heard about California's likely special election?
I did.
It seems Gov. Gavin Newsom will have his way, with help from the Democratic-run Legislature, and voters will be asked in November to approve a partisan gerrymander aimed at offsetting a similar Republican power grab in Texas.
As many as five GOP House seats could be erased from the congressional map drawn by California's independent redistricting commission, which voters established more than a decade ago — expressly to take the line-drawing away from a bunch of self-interested politicians.
Fighting fire with fire!
Could we please retire that phrase.
Huh?
Also references to knife fights and Democrats showing up with pencils, rubber bands, butter knives and other wimpy implements. The campaign hasn't even started and already those metaphors have grown stale.
Fine. At least Democrats are showing some fight.
In an impulsive, shortsighted fashion.
Look, I get it. Donald Trump truly knows no bottom when it comes to undermining democratic norms, running a familial kleptocracy and, in the felicitous phrase of Gustavo Arellano, my fellow Times columnista, treating the Constitution like a pee pad.
Democrats are powerless in Washington, where a pliant Republican-controlled Congress and a supine right-wing Supreme Court have shown all the deference of a maître d' squiring Trump to his favorite table. So the idea of doing something to push back against the president is quite invigorating and, no doubt, gratifying for Democratic partisans.
It's also expedient and facile, sparing the party from looking inward and doing the truly hard work it faces. Taking on Republicans over redistricting — a fight among insiders, as far as many voters are concerned — does absolutely nothing to address the larger problem confronting Democrats, which is the absence of any broader message beyond: Trump, bad!
We saw how that worked for them in 2024.
But this is a 'break-the-glass' moment for our democracy. Gov. Newsom said so!
Please.
The only thing worse than a grasping and nakedly calculating politician is a politician who wraps his grasping and naked calculation in all sorts of red, white and blue bunting.
At bottom, this is all about Newsom's overweening presidential ambitions.
How so?
The whole episode started when our gallivanting governor went on a left-wing podcast during a Southern campaign swing and huffed and puffed about responding to Trump and Texas by executing a similar gerrymander in California. (He elided the fact that, under the state Constitution, he has no such authority. Hence the need for a special election to seek voter approval of new, slanted political lines.)
Soon enough, Newsom's threat took on a life of its own. Normally, redistricting is done once every 10 years, after the latest census. Suddenly, mid-decade redistricting became a new front in the ever-escalating war between red and blue; now several more states are talking about rejiggering their congressional maps for partisan gain.
The problem for Newsom and his fellow Democrats is that Republicans have a lot more gerrymandering opportunities than they do. So instead of those five Democratic-held seats in Texas, many more could be at risk for the party in 2026.
Golly.
Though, it should be said, at this point all that election handicapping is nothing more than speculation.
What do you mean?
Democrats need to flip three congressional districts to seize control of the House. That's why Trump prodded Texas Republicans to try to nab those five extra seats, to give the GOP some padding.
But there's no guarantee Republicans will win all five seats. They're counting on the same strong Latino support Trump received in 2024, and recent polling suggests some of that pro-GOP sentiment may be waning.
Beyond that, the ever-insightful Amy Walter, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, makes an important point.
'Even as the possibility of new maps in Texas and California may change the size and the shape of the 2026 playing field,' she wrote in a recent analysis, 'the fate of the Republican-controlled House is ultimately still going to be determined by two fundamental questions: how do voters feel about the state of the economy, and how do independent voters assess the party in power?'
It's a long way to November 2026. But at this point, neither of those factors augurs well for Trump and Republicans.
Well, they started it, by messing with Texas.
True. And none of this is meant to defend Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott or the president's other political henchmen.
But effectively disenfranchising millions of California Republicans isn't any better than effectively disenfranchising millions of Texas Democrats.
Huh?
If Democrats have their way, the GOP would hold just a handful of California's 52 House seats, or even less. How is that possibly fair, or representative, in a state that's home to millions of Republican voters — more, in fact, than any state other than Texas.
There are already countless residents, living outside Democrats' city and suburban strongholds, who feel ignored and politically impotent. That's not healthy for California, or democracy. It breeds anger, resentment, cynicism and a kind of political nihilism that, ultimately, helps lead to the election of a middle-finger president like Donald Trump.
Of course, Newsom may not care, since at this twilight point of his governorship it's all about his White House hopes and desire to pander to the Democrats' aggrieved political base.
By fighting fire with fire!
And potentially burning the whole place down.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

"South Park" Somehow Went Even Harder In On Trump, And This Time It's Raunchier
"South Park" Somehow Went Even Harder In On Trump, And This Time It's Raunchier

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

"South Park" Somehow Went Even Harder In On Trump, And This Time It's Raunchier

South Park returned on Wednesday to hit President Donald Trump below the belt with multiple depictions of his 'teeny tiny' penis. Warning: Spoilers below. The episode also skewered tech CEOs and government leaders for bribing Trump with golden 'gifts,' again depicted Trump's bedroom lover as none other than Satan himself, and reduced Vice President JD Vance to a miniature sidekick who offers to bring his boss a 'cumrag.' Related: That 'cumrag,' tragically, turns out to be longtime South Park fan-favorite character Towelie. Much of the episode focuses not on Trump, but on Randy Marsh ― Stan's dad ― and his marijuana farm, which struggles after his workers are hauled off in a federal raid. He sends Towelie to D.C. to lobby Trump for marijuana reclassification. Towelie finds the city overrun with military troops, as Trump has called in the National Guard, just as he has done in real life in a move critics have dismissed as a 'stunt.' Related: Towelie also finds a statue of Thomas Jefferson in the Capitol is now a statue of Trump, with a very small penis. Likewise, the statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial is also a statue of Trump, again with a tiny penis. When Towelie reaches the White House to meet Trump, an aide warns visitors to 'avoid staring directly into his penis.' There, Towelie joins a line of CEOs and officials who offer Trump 'gifts' and assure him that his penis isn't small. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, brings the president a gold-plated VR headset. Related: Trump dismisses him as 'a little bitch.' Apple CEO Tim Cook shows up to give Trump a small sculpture ― something he did for real earlier this month. Trump takes the gift and goes to his bedroom, where he promptly tears off all his clothes and hops into bed with Satan. 'Hey Satan! Look at what some dipshit tech CEO gave me,' he tells Satan. 'I was thinking maybe we could try to shove it up your ass.' Towelie is there to lobby Trump to reclassify marijuana, but ends up as a gift to Trump instead. By the end of the episode, Satan finds Towelie in a White House bathroom, covered in white stains, begging for help. 'Please,' Towelie pleads with Satan. 'I wanna get out of here.' 'So do I,' Satan replies. 'But there is no escape from this place.' Related: South Park has so far been biweekly since returning last month, and that pattern will continue ― at least for now ― as the next episode is set to air Sept. 3 on Comedy Central. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian
What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian

Axios

time6 minutes ago

  • Axios

What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian

Politics & Policy A White House official told Axios that President Trump intends to expand his review of American museums for "woke" ideology beyond the Smithsonian Institution. Why it matters: The size and scope of Trump's inquiries represents an unprecedented level of museum oversight in the nearly 250 years of American democracy, historians say. It also represents an escalation of the president's attack on cultural institutions. Here's what historians and curators fear could happen if Trump reframes museums through his perspective. What exactly does the president have in mind? Trump said that the "Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL" on Truth Social earlier this week. He then directed his attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the museum system, similar to the process officials have conducted at colleges and universities. What they're saying:"President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable," a White House official told Axios. "He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there," they continued. Reality check: The Smithsonian is not a federal agency under control of the president, according to the institution. It's an independent institution, governed by a Board of Regents, which is composed of seventeen members, including the Vice President. Trump has no authority over private museums. Yes, but: The president could freeze the federal funding that some private museums receive, the way he has for schools that don't align with his anti-diversity views on education. What does Trump's perception of American history look like? Trump claims that there has been a "widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" over the past decade. He insists that these efforts "undermine" America's achievements by casting its founding principles as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." Historians say the administration's singular, sanitized approach to the past, focusing solely on America's positive moments misses out on the nuance of American history and excludes the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and LGBTQ+ people. Friction point:"That is anti-democratic," Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians told Axios, referring to the administration's push to stifle and sanitize information, debate and historical facts. "It's not education, right?" English questioned. "It begins to kind of veer into the space of indoctrination, selecting, sort of a selective memory of what is and isn't going to be part of our national story." Why is Trump's push to install political appointees to review museums problematic? Curators said distilling history into accurate, engaging examples that the public can understand requires a level of expertise that an untrained political appointee likely lacks. The majority of curators at national museums have PhDs, or have been trained in museum studies through rigorous degree programs and research. "It's not like people are creating exhibitions to tell a story, to win a political agenda," Omar Eaton-Martinez, former board president of the Association of African American Museums said. "People are actually curating exhibitions based on scholarship that is supported by evidence," he continued. Don't museums reframe and reevaluate history all the time? Historians say museums expanding their collections isn't evidence of nefarious behavior, but rather, it's simply how the static nature of history grows. Zoom out: Collections have increasingly included the perspectives of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists over the past few decades, in addition to more thorough reviews of census records, genealogy, oral histories, archeology, objects, and images. "We're constantly building on prior scholarship to help ask more nuanced questions about a topic," Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association said. "We're always peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak." Black, Indigenous and Latin scholars have been digging into their respective histories for centuries, and those experiences have been recognized and incorporated into museums in recent decades. That includes history that was once ignored, such as the burning of records in thriving Black neighborhoods such as the massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma or Rosewood, Florida; the forced removal of Indigenous nations from one part of America to another during the " trail of tears"; and urban renewal projects to upgrade cities that ultimately gentrify communities of color. What funding and programs has Trump already taken aim at? The Trump administration has taken aggressive action to reduce the staffing and funding available for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS,) the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Stunning stat: IMLS's acting director testified in court that the administration cancelled roughly 92% of the agency's Grants to States. Only 100 grants remain out of the original 1,200 managed by the institute prior to Trump's executive order. The president also attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, earlier this year due to her support of diversity initiatives, despite not having the authority to do so. The Smithsonian has legal authority over personnel decisions, but Sajet eventually decided to step down in the weeks following Trump's announcement. What other times has an American museum pivoted after political influence? An exorbitant amount of debate goes into exhibit decision-making, so museums have already determined the best way to display potential controversies. When museums modify exhibits, it's typically due to public pressure, and has never been under significant force from the president. Case in point: The Smithsonian's 90s exhibit on Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb, sparked opposition from veterans and members of Congress on how to interpret the bomb's dropping and America's role in World War II. The bottom line:"These kinds of controversies exist frequently, and that's a good thing, because public debate about the nation's past is healthy," James Grossman, former executive director of the American Historical Association told Axios. "But the President of the United States has no business telling museums what to exhibit, telling teachers what to teach, and has no business telling Americans what to think," Grossman continued.

Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!
Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!

Boston Globe

time6 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!

It's time to thank the people involved in the millionaires tax — including the millionaires — without whom Massachusetts would not continue to be among the 'Our state thrives on eds and meds, and those are things particularly under the axe,' said Phineas Baxandall, research director at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. 'It's fortuitous that some counterbalance from the Fair Share income has been there.' For the second year in a row, revenues from the surtax have Advertisement The Fair Share Amendment specifies that revenues collected on taxable income — not assets — above $1 million be spent only on education and transportation. In the fiscal year just ended, revenues from the surtax Now other high-income states — which tend to be blue states — are A cautionary note: Proponents of the Fair Share Amendment intended that its benefits be used to enhance programs in education and transportation, not substitute for shortfalls. 'These investments have been life-changing for individuals and communities,' said Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, a central player in the Raise Up coalition that fought for the surtax. 'That's why I am concerned that it not become simply a way to backfill cuts by Trump.' Advertisement The idea, he said, 'was not just to prevent cuts; it was always to build a better society.' After voters in Massachusetts passed a hefty cigarette tax in 1992, legislators It's difficult to know whether the surtax is driving rich people from the state. But A state that invests in its future is a state that believes in itself. Despite serious headwinds from Trump's baneful policies, Massachusetts is working to stay a healthy, brainy, welcoming place, a place that values innovation, a clean environment, and world-class health care and education. A place where everybody — from multimillionaires on down – wants to live. Renée Loth's column appears regularly in the Globe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store