THURSDAY: O'Donnell walked the cognition beat!

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026

We're sorry we (almost) missed it: We're sorry we missed Lawrence O'Donnell's presentation on last evening's Last Word. We're going to attribute it to an "On Demand malfunction."

Walking the "possible cognitive decline" beat, O'Donnell recalled a report in the Washington Post from March 2024. Headline included, the Post's report started like this:   

Shadowing Trump’s attacks on mental fitness—his own father’s dementia   

Donald Trump invited his extended family to Mar-a-Lago in the mid-1990s. As the clan gathered at the palatial Florida estate, though, his father was badly struggling, according to Mary L. Trump, Donald’s niece.

Fred Trump Sr., the pugnacious developer then in his late 80s, didn’t recognize two of his children at the party, recalled Mary L. Trump, who attended the gathering. And when he did recognize Donald, the family patriarch approached his son with a picture of a Cadillac that he wanted to buy—as if he needed his son’s permission.

The incident, Mary L. Trump said, left Donald Trump visibly upset at his father’s descent into dementia, which medical records show had been diagnosed several years earlier. Trump reflected his anguish in an interview around that time, with Playboy in 1997 reporting that seeing his father “addled with Alzheimer’s” had left him wondering “out loud about the senselessness of life.”   

“Turning 50 does make you think about mortality, or immortality, or whatever,” Trump, who had recently reached that milestone, told the magazine. “It does hit you.”  

[...]  

Trump’s long fixation on mental fitness followed years of watching his father’s worsening dementia—a formative period that some associates said has been a defining and little-mentioned factor in his life, and which left him with an abiding concern that he might someday inherit the condition. While much remains unknown about Alzheimer’s, experts say there is an increased risk of inheriting a gene associated with the disease from a parent.   

Last night, O'Donnell spent a bit of time discussing the possibility, or perhaps the likelihood, that the sitting president is indeed in the grip of a cognitive decline, not unlike the dementia which afflicted his father. We know of few other topics that are more worth discussing at this point in time, but the people we accept as journalists simply aren't going to do that.  

Nor would they know how to approach the situation if they chose to take the journalistic leap.  

We don't recall seeing the piece, by Michael Kranish, back in 2024. In retrospect, Kranish stumbled a bit out of the gate, throwing shade at Trump's assertions, at that time, that President Biden was experiencing a cognitive decline.  

A few months later, everyone saw the meltdown which occurred during the June 2024 Trump-Biden debate. Even in the wake of that experience, our journalists agree that President Trump's mental health and cognitive state must not be discussed.  

It's intriguing to see Mary Trump cited at the start of the Kranish piece. She has recently said, once again, that her uncle is experiencing an "obvious" cognitive decline, layered atop decades of untreated (and serious) mental health issues.  

Our journos agree that this can't be discussed. We're a young nation saddled with an immature discourse. That isn't going to change.   

To see O'Donnell's brief discussion of this highly significant topic, you can start by clicking here.


DEMOS / DEMOCRATIZATION: Eric Holder states his view!

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026

But what did he actually say? Friend, it's very much as we told you all the way back on May 2: 

We tend to admire Eric Holder on this sprawling campus. 

In that original admission, we said we wouldn't mention the principal reason for our admiration. It involves Holder's contradiction, when he was serving as attorney general, of a key piece of Blue American agitprop, and so we fear that it might make the occasional reader dislike him.    

For that reason, we'll skip that bit of behavior again. But who the heck is Eric Holder? The moving finger writes, but still can't quite move on:  

Eric Holder

Eric Himpton Holder Jr. (born January 21, 1951) is an American lawyer who served as the 82nd United States attorney general from 2009 to 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, Holder was the first African American to hold the position.

Born in New York City to a middle-class family of Bajan origin, Holder graduated from Stuyvesant High School, Columbia College, and Columbia Law School. Following law school, he worked for the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice for twelve years. He next served as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia before being appointed by President Bill Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and subsequently U.S. deputy attorney general.  

And so on from there, with distinction. We regard the person in question as decent and highly sane.

(For the record, "Bajan" is a reference to Barbados, where Holder's father and maternal grandparents were born.)

We like this guy around here. That said, we ask a basic question again, the same question we asked on May 2:   

What does Holder think we Blues should do in response to the Supreme Court's Callais decision?   

What should we angry Blues do? Yesterday, print editions of the New York Times included a guest essay by Holder concerning that very question. Headline included, here's where his proposal begins:   

This Redistricting Chaos Must End 

[...]   

When Democrats eventually take control of Congress and the White House, top of their list should be banning partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting, along with reviving protections against racial gerrymandering and guarding against other forms of voter suppression. Democratic senators should exempt such a bill from being filibustered, preventing Republicans from blocking it. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema prevented this from happening in 2021 when Democrats had the power to do it, which is one reason the country is in its current mess.   

We agree with the general thrust of Holder's essay, as signaled in that headline. Ideally, the current rush toward "partisan gerrymandering" should be brought to an end.  

That said, will normal elections take place this fall? Will Democrats ever control the White House and the Congress again?  

We can't necessarily say that normal elections will proceed. But Holder assumes that Democrats will achieve full control at some point, and he says this again and again:

He says that Democrats should pass legislation which outlaws "partisan gerrymandering." 

Partisan gerrymanders have to gobut what is Holder's stance with respect to "racial gerrymandering?" We've read his essay more than once. And yet, just as it was at the start of the month, we still aren't able to say.

Citizens, listen up! Holder uses the term "partisan gerrymandering" six separate times in his essay. He leaves no doubt about his viewit's time for that practice to go.  

On the other hand, he refers to "racial gerrymandering" only once, in the passage we've posted above, and he does so somewhat murkily. Indeed, what's his prescription concerning that practice?

We can guess, but we can't really say.

We need "protections against racial gerrymandering," Holder explicitly says. It sounds like racial gerrymandering is an undesirable practice. 

But does that mean that states should be forbidden from creating the weirdly shaped "majority Black" congressional districts under review in Callais? We're going to guess that it possibly doesn'tbut Holder, who is perfectly capable, is never quite willing to say.

In such ways, our floundering discourse constantly fails. We can't be sure, but we'll guess that Holder's view about "racial gerrymandering" may go like this:

Friend, there are two different practices which get described as "racial gerrymandering." We refer to the equal-but-opposite rhyming practices known as "packing" and "cracking."

In the practice known as "packing," a state legislature creates a sprawling, weirdly shaped congressional district for the purpose of making the district majority Black. 

In the practice known as "cracking," a state legislature splits a pre-existing majority Black area into two or more different congressional districts. Or it disassembles a gerrymandered majority Black district which its predecessors may have created in the past.

"Packing" creates congressional districts which are majority Black. "Cracking" splits such districts apart. 

Each practice has been described as "racial gerrymandering" down through the years. Our guess would be this:

We'll guess that Holder would seek protections against "cracking," but might let "packing" proceed, as it's been done in the past.

That would be our own best guess, but we don't actually know. Even in his lengthy guest essay, Holder fails to clarify this matterand then too, we find this largely incoherent effort by Ezra Klein and a specialist guest:

THE EZRA KLEIN SHOW
How to End the Gerrymandering Doom Loop Forever

The piece appears at the New York Times site. Klein is understood to be one of the paper's brightest players, as he most probably is.

That said, the lengthy transcript goes on forever. If you listen to the audiotape of the discussion, you'll spend an hour and fourteen minutesand we can't say that any part of this confusing topic gets clarified along the way. 

With that in mind, we offer this warning: 

When we the people can't speak with clarity, the agitprop tends to take over.

Is our nation in decline? Could it be that we've already became a failed state, but we just don't know it yet?

Our answer to that second question is a provisional yes. In our view, it's a form of "democratization" which has brought us to this low place. 

We'll continue from there on the morrow. For today, we'll leave you with this:

We the people have very limited cognitive skills. We routinely get lost in the mist as we try to explain elementary concepts, and at such times we may be inclined to move to the memorized agitprop.

Bajan refers to sun-splashed Barbados. Demos is (or was) a Greek term referring to us the people, an eternally challenged group.

We admire Holder at this site. With respect to this fascinatingly complex matter, we'd like to see him speak with greater clarity. We'd like to see him do better.

Tomorrow: Lord Russell's ginormous IQ?


WEDNESDAY: How many seats could the Democrats win?

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026

New districts beneath the palmettos: South Carolina is known as the Palmetto State, thanks to the sabal palmettos.

Now that state is involved in a great civil war. Before too long, there may be new congressional districts beneath the stately palmettos.

Rep. Clyburn, look out! The New York Times starts to explain:   

South Carolina House Passes New Map Aimed at Forcing Out Clyburn

The South Carolina House of Representatives passed a new congressional map early Wednesday morning aimed at eliminating the state’s only Democratic seat at the urging of President Trump.

Among the proposed changes is a significant, Republican-leaning shift of the Sixth Congressional District, which is currently represented by James E. Clyburn, a powerful Black Democrat.

The map now heads to the State Senate, where some conservative members have been more hesitant to jump into the nation’s redistricting battles. Republicans already hold six of the state’s seven congressional seats, and some lawmakers have expressed skepticism about possibly unseating Mr. Clyburn, a power broker who has funneled vast resources into South Carolina over the years.   

Long story short:   

At first, it looked like the state's GOP planned to leave Rep. Clyburn's district alone. At present, the state elects six Republicans to the House, along with the venerable Clyburn as the only Dem. 

At first, it looked like the state's map would be left that way. Then, President Trump insisted on getting his way, and Rep. Clyburn's district may now get broken up, in the hope that the state GOP can capture all seven House seats.  

That said, a problem may exist. Let's start with a quick description of Rep. Clyburn's district. At present, the scorecard looks like this:   

South Carolina's 6th congressional district
Black: 46.8%
White: 41.6%
Hispanic: 6.2%
D+13 

According to the leading authority, it's a fairly common story:

"The district's current configuration dates from a deal struck in the early 1990s between state Republicans and Democrats in the South Carolina General Assembly to create a majority-black district," the leading authority says.  

In the early 1990s! That was the time when various states, reacting to 1982 amendments to the original Voting Rights Act, moved to create majority Black districts, with the two major parties generally working together on the project.

Today, Rep. Clyburn's 6th Congressional District is a "majority minority" district. (For the record, no other district in South Carolina is more than 25% Black.)

Also this, for future reference:

Following the 2020 census, the state moved 30,000 Black voters from Rep. Nancy Mace's neighboring district into Rep. Clyburn's district, thereby making it easier for Mace to hold onto her seat.   

Rep. Clyburn is a giant in South Carolina. Under current configurations, he serves the state's only plus-Democrat district. 

Now, the state GOP, bowing to Trump, is on the verge of breaking his district upbut uh-oh! Look what Rep. Clyburn said when this idea hit the fan

‘Careful What You Pray For’: Jim Clyburn Warns GOP Redistricting Could Blow Up In Their Faces and Help Democrats

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) cautioned House Republicans should “be very careful” what they “pray for” as he claimed redistricting efforts in his state of South Carolina had opened the opportunity for three Democratic candidates to get elected.

The congressman appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to speak with anchor Jake Tapper who raised the “gerrymandering wars” that had begun across multiple states ahead of the midterms, “kicked off” by President Donald Trump’s push for Texas redistricting in 2024.  

[...]

“All I’m going to say to that is be very careful what you pray for,” [Clyburn] added. “Because what I do believe is that when they finish with the redistricting, there will be the possibilities of at least three Democrats getting elected here in South Carolina to the United States Congress.”

Say what? According to Clyburn, if the state's Republican poohbahs remove a bunch of Democratic voters from some new version of District 6, they could end up flipping election outcomes in two of the neighboring districts to which they had been moved. 

The state could end up with three Democratic House members, not the current one!   

Did Rep. Clyburn really mean that? Did he really believe that could happen?   

We don't know the answer to that. But soon thereafter, the Republican majority leader of the South Carolina Senate warned his colleagues that South Carolina Democrats could end up winning two House seats if Clyburn's district was reconfigured.

Disappointingly, David French wrote a column praising that solon as a type of "good government" hero. He failed to mention the stated partisan reason behind the solon's rejection of the redistricting proposal.  

What will happen if redistricting proceeds in the Palmetto State, as now seems possible? Especially in the current environment, is it possible that Palmetto Democrats could win two or three House seats, instead of the current one? 

We don't know the answer to that, but this turn of events helps lead to the not-so-secret political history of the way the two major parties cooperated in the 1990s, creating new majority Black districts and thereby increasing the number of Black congressional reps.   

People, why did Republicans want to cooperate in that historic undertaking? That's the not-so-secret story Carl Hulse told in a recent retrospective in the New York Times

We've seen no one else recall this part of our recent history in this convoluted, confusing area. 

Back in the 1990s, why did Republicans want to create those districts?  Tomorrow, we'll visit what Hulse wrote about this long, winding road. 


DEMISE: "I tremble for my country," he said!

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026

He managed to get that one right: Does President Xi believe that our nation is in decline? As he huddles in his Moscow safe rooms, does President Putin believe the same thing?   

As we noted yesterday, President Trump explained Xi's suggestion away during his recent sleepover. But are we merely in decline? Might we already be a "failed state?"   

Are we still a functioning nation state? Pew has started to wonder about that! As of last October 1, Pew had long since noticed such oddities as this:

Congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time  

Large chunks of the federal government, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to the National Archives, are shut down because there’s no money to keep them open, and federal workers are facing possible mass layoffs. The new federal fiscal year began on Oct. 1, but Congress didn’t pass any of the dozen annual appropriations bills it’s supposed to enact. Nor did lawmakers pass a stopgap spending law to buy themselves more time.   

Congress’ chronic inability to follow its own appropriations process is hardly new. In the nearly five decades that the current system for budgeting and spending tax dollars has been in place, Congress has passed all its required appropriations measures on time only four times: fiscal 1977 (the first full fiscal year under the current system), 1989, 1995 and 1997. And even those last three times, Congress was late in passing the budget blueprint that, in theory at least, precedes the actual spending bills.  

Say what? Congress hasn't managed to pass a budget in time since 1997? But then again, whatever! And then again, also this, from a different source:

 It is an attack by white people against the very concept of Black representation. It is Jim Crow 2.0.

That was Elie Mystal, appearing on Velshi, speaking about that recent court decision. Mystal went to say this:

Unless white people get over themselves, unless they reverse themselves and their ancestors and their voting habits since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they will get exactly the racist country that they have long desired.

These White People Today! They need to get over themselves, he said, and then again they also need to reverse their ancestors.

On the Fox News Channel, they luv/luv/loved those remarks! When you wonder how the sitting president's approvals can possibly stay in the mid-30s (or may be even higher than that), we'd advise you to think about many possible explanations, not excluding the vague but deliciously righteous suggestion that it may be 1892 all over again.  

Full disclosure:  

It isn't 1892, and we haven't exactly found our way back to Jim Crow again. That doesn't mean that we haven't already become a failed state, because it may be that we have.   

With respect to that possibility, a question must be asked:

Does anyone think that our current rolling collapse is going to end right here? Does anyone think that it's going to end with the $1.8 billion "compensation fund," or with the agreement by the Justice Department that the sitting presidentwith all his peculiar financial behaviorswill of course never be audited?  

("No Kings?" That's what millions of protesters perfectly sensibly said.)

Stumblebums, please! Is anyone sure that we're going to have a normal set of elections this fall? Why would anyone doubt the possibility that schemes might already be in placeschemes which flow from ancient human desires, ugly schemes which have been designed to undermine our normal election procedures?  

Are we already in a state of demise, but we just don't know it yet? Is it possible that we just can't see or possibly say it yet? 

In this Best Picture-nominated 1999 film, Bruce Willis plays a character who doesn't know that he has already died. Might it be that way with us, in our state of demise or decline? 

In Camus' famous novel, The Plague, that's pretty much the way it was for the good and decent citizens of the fictional sun-splashed seaside city, Oran. As a plague invaded their city, here's how they didn't respond:

Camus, La Peste (The Plague)

Our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves. In other words, they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions. 

Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague, which rules out any future, cancels journeys, silences the exchange of views? They fancied themselves free, and no one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences. 

Is that the way it is with us? Are we forgetting that ancient dreams of conquest and overthrow still lurk in the hearts of some modern women and men?

Is that the way it is with us when we rant and yell about Jim Crow 2.0? Or when a couple of white guys sittin' around talking, while getting drunk or getting stoned, come up with a groaner like this:  

‘Couch Money’: Bill Maher and John Fetterman Defend the Cost of Trump’s Ballroom   

Bill Maher and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) took turns defending the White House ballroom that President Donald Trump is building, with Maher saying it doesn’t make sense to get angry about it when the project will cost the equivalent of “couch money” to taxpayers.

The comic and senator talked about the ballroom at the start of Monday’s latest episode of Club Random.

“This thing won’t even be finished by the time he’s done!” Fetterman said. He then quipped Trump wasn’t building a “Dave and Buster[s],” which Maher got a kick out of.   

“Meanwhile the money is like one angstrom unit of a percentage point of what our budget is. So it doesn’t matter anyway,” Maher said. “It’s couch money.”

He added the price tag for the ballroom doesn’t sound outlandish to him. “$330 million is about what a ballroom costs,” Maher said. 

Bill has been pricing ballrooms! What in the world have they done with the highly perceptive Bill Maher?  

Motherfrumpers, please! Building a ballroom may (or may not) have been a good idea. Beyond that, the original (stated) cost of the ballroom may (or may not) have been completely OK.  

The warning signal in this event was not the idea-in-itself! It was the lunatic way the sitting president went about his treasured projectdemolishing the East Wing of the White House on a series of weekday afternoons, after swearing that he'd do no such thing and after checking with no one.  

The pair of randos sat around saying a ballroom might be nicebut like many such denizens of our own Oran, they'd blown right past the main point. It was the remarkably peculiar way our president chose to blow the house downthe disturbing way he'd elected to do so without notice and no questions asked!

Ladies and gentlemen, might we speak? The sitting president seems to be mentally ill, and that's a dangerous state of affairs.

The sitting president is mentally ill? Like so many other savants, the stoners blew right past it! It's very hard to miss that fact, and yet the thought leaders of our declining society all seem to be eager to do it! 

Test scores are falling in our own Oran, but we the humans were never built to perform the task of spotting such things in the first place.   

The sitting president is mentally ill? We won't attempt to count the ways, but let us say this about that: 

People who are (severely) mentally ill didn't choose to be mentally ill.

People who are (severely) mentally ill quite often don't know that they are. Also, a mental illness is an actual illness, much as a physical illness is.   

In fact, a mental illness often is a physical illness, linked to genetics and to human physiology.

A mental illness frequently is a physical illness? As we've noted, the leading authority on this matter limns it as shown:

Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder," while "illness" is also common. It has been noted that using the term "mental" (i.e., of the mind) is not necessarily meant to imply separateness from the brain or body.

And so on from there. We should also mention this:

Mental illness ("mental disorder") should not be cause for insult. But our American journalistic culture is quite underdeveloped with respect to this complex topic, and insult is where we typically go when mental illness is colloquially implied.

"I tremble for my country," a president once said.

He seemed to think that a just God wouldn't tolerate our nation's misconduct forever. In our view, he pretty much got the ethics of that one right, adjusting for religious belief and for historical context.

No one living today engaged in the conduct to which he referred. But isn't there ample reason to tremble for our country today? To tremble for the fate of a nation which may already be a failed state? Which may already be The United States of the Bruce Willis Character?

Citoyens, a very important figure seems to be mentally illand that is always a personal tragedy. 

We'll guess that President Xi is aware of that factthat he has factored it in.

Tomorrow: The late Barney Frank's lament?

TUESDAY: Dare to struggle, dare to win?

TUESDAY, MAY 19. 2026

Could Democrats win in the South? Yesterday afternoon, Harold Ford sat in the (one) Democratic seat on the "cable news" confection, The Five.

The first topic under review was our struggling nation's redistricting wars. As happenstance happened to have it, we can tell you this:

From 1997 through 2007, Ford served as the congressman from the majority Black Memphis House district which is now being split apart. His father, Rep. Harold Ford Sr., had been the Memphis district's congressman for 22 years before that.

Before the district was marked for splitting, it was heavily majority Blackand it was strongly pro-Democratic. Before the district was split, the Cook Report scored it like this:

Tennessee 9th congressional district
Black: 60.2%
White: 25.2%
Hispanic: 9.2%
D+23

As constituted, it was hard to lose that district as a Democrat. For that reason, the district is now being sliced apart as part of our flailing nation's ongoing redistricting war.

Please note this:

From the Democratic Party perspective, there were also a lot of "wasted votes" in that district. (In 2024, the long-time incumbent, Rep. Steve Cohen, won re-election by a walloping 46 points.) 

All those Democrats crammed into that one district made it easier for Tennessee Republicans to win neighboring congressional seats. That widely understood political pattern seems to have played a significant role in the history of these majority Black House districtsa phenomenon which came into being in the wake of an addition to the Voting Rights Act in 1982.

We'll hope to return to that key point on some bright and beautiful day.

At any rate, Harold Ford Jr, knows Memphis! He also understands the workings of majority Black congressional districts. 

Indeed, Harold Ford Jr, knows rivers! In part for that reason, we were struck by what he said on yesterday's The Five when The Pro-MAGA Four let him speak.

The segment had started with very brief bits of tape from last weekend's voting rights rally in Selma. Some Democrats were shown railing against the Callais decisionagainst the Supreme Court's ruling that the deliberate creation of majority Black districts was constitutionally impermissible.

As is common on The Five, some of the statements had been edited down so far that you really couldn't tell what the Dem officeholders were saying. By way of contrast, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) was shown saying this:

There are people in this hostile, anti-Black administration that would rather Black Americans pick cotton than pick the president, than pick their congressman... 

We suppose that could always be true. But when it came time for Ford to speak on The Five, he said that he has a different type of reaction to the redistricting turmoil:

FORD (5/18/26): I think about this differently than my friends and former colleagues in Congress... 

Now, interestingly, on the Democratic side, I've heard Senator Warnock and a few others talk about this. Senator Warnock is African American. He represents a state that is majority white and yet he was elected a United States Senator.

You have four Republican Black members of Congress who represent districts that are predominantly whiteByron Donald, Wesley Hunt, John James and Burgess Owens.

You also have a senator from Delaware, Black woman senator from Delaware, who represents a predominantly white state, and a [Black woman] senator from Maryland. And obviously Tim Scott, who represents South CarolinaRepublican.

I understand what [my friends and former colleagues] are trying to say, but I think it's important we put all of this in context...

Intriguing! To our ear, Ford seemed to be making a radical suggestion. He seemed to be suggesting that, under current arrangements, Black candidates can win their way into the House, and into the Senate, in jurisdictions which aren't majority Black.

He specifically mentioned four Republican congressmen who were elected in districts which are heavily white. But there's a good number of Black Democrats in the House who have also won their seats in districts which weren't and aren't majority Black.

Uh-oh! When Ford went on to state his main point, his main point had nothing to do with the examples he had cited. (His work on this show can be like that.) But we were struck by his original drift, in which he almost seemed to be saying this:

Maybe it's time for Black candidates to shock the world in a new, post-Obama way. Maybe it's time for Black Democrats to go out and win House seats, including in states like Louisiana, in what a person might call the old-fashioned way.

He mentioned Senator Scott, someone we ourselves wouldn't vote for. But let the word go forth to the nations:

Scott was elected to the House from a South Carolina district which wasn't majority Black. And good God! In the Republican primary for that seat, he defeated a pair of famous (white) names:

One of those names was Paul Thurmond. Republican voters in South Carolina had decided they liked the black guy more than they liked Strom Thurmond's son!  

We're going to go ahead and admit it. It's one of our favorite political stories.

Did the Supreme Court rule correctly in Callais? We don't have the slightest idea, and we've seen none of our greatest Blue thought leaders stoop to the tedious task of trying to reason it out.

Instead, we Blues have been hurried off to the agitprop warsto excited cries about Jim Crow 2.0, with the chaser of stirring remarks about the picking of cotton. We're going all the way back to 1892, one major voice hotly said.

Then too, there's what Rep. Jim Clayburn said, again in South Carolina. It's possible that he didn't mean what he said, but we'll show you his statement tomorrow.

Even more disclosure! Several years after he lost that race to Tim Scott, Paul Thurmond delivered one of our favorite political speeches. It's even better the way we remember it, as opposed to the way it was said.

We'll show you what Thurmond the younger said that day before our efforts are done. But in the wake of the Callais ruling, we Blues have been riding the agitprop train. The agitprop is easy to memorize, amazingly easy to say. 

They love such statements on The Five. They plainly feel that our agitprop kelps keeps MAGA hope alive!   

That's what they seem to believe on The Five. We can't swear that they're wrong.

Tomorrow: What Rep. Clyburn (and one state senator) said

DECLINE: When you won't say what's staring you right in the face...

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026

...have you moved past the point of decline? As we noted yesterday, President Xi may think that the United States is in a state of decline. 

President Trump seems to think that he heard Xi say something like that. As we noted yesterday, he soon set the record straight in this typically silly Truth Social post:   

Truth Details   

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

When President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration, and on that score, he was 100% correct. Our Country suffered immeasurably with open borders, high taxes, transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, DEI, horrible trade deals, rampant crime, and so much more! 

President Xi was not referring to the incredible rise that the United States has displayed to the world during the 16 spectacular months of the Trump Administration, which includes all-time high stock markets and 401K’s, military victory and thriving relationship in Venezuela, the military decimation of Iran (to be continued!)—Strongest military on earth by far, economic powerhouse again, with a record 18 trillion dollars being invested into the United States by others, best U.S. job market in history, with more people working in the United States right now than ever before, ending country destroying DEI, and so many other things that it would be impossible to readily list. In fact, President Xi congratulated me on so many tremendous successes in such a short period of time.

Two years ago, we were, in fact, a Nation in decline. On that, I fully agree with President Xi! But now, the United States is the hottest Nation anywhere in the world, and hopefully our relationship with China will be stronger and better than ever before!   

Sad.

His friend had spoken "very elegantly," the sitting president said. But he'd of course been referring to the decline we suffered under Sleepy Joe Biden!  

Xi wasn't referring to the incredible rise we've enjoyed under President Trump!  That's what the president quickly said, in typically childish fashion.

Does President Xi believe that we're in a state of decline? As best we can tell, he didn't explicitly say so, though he may have dropped a suggestion to that effect, or he possibly floated a jibe.  

That said, it's hard to believe that he doesn't think something to that effect. And if he does believe that we're in decline, he can pretty much join the club. 

It's long been said that that's the view of the sitting president's other friendthe one who's the master of Russia. The age of "government of the people" is gone, Vladimir Putin is said to believe. The age of the strongman is now upon us.

Setting the views of the satraps aside, we're left to restate our own assessment. We'd say a nationa peoplehas moved well past the point of decline when it can't bring itself to discuss what's sitting right there before it. 

When a nation can't bring itself to perform that task, that nation has moved past the point of decline. It's striving to be a failed state. 

Are we in a state of decline? Let's take a look at the basics:  

Our sitting president is almost surely mentally illand Blue thought leaders have all agreed that we must never discuss that. 

His behavior becomes more transparently phony by the daybut also, perhaps, more menacing. Yesterday, he offered a set of ridiculous claims in this transparently ludicrous post:
Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump


I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place, and that, in their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond. This Deal will include, importantly, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN! Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP  
He was all set to launch his attack! And then, a group of leaders he greatly respects persuaded him to hold off.  

(He is, of course, making that up. The claim that he "respects" three people is the claim which tips us off.)

In the past, we've stated several points about the nature of (severe) mental illness. We won't bother restating them now.  

That said, Blue cognitive failure is also playing a major role in our nation's headlong decline.

All in all, it seems to us that Lincoln's gamble may have been lost. He prayed that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" would never "perish from the earth."

That gamble is in major trouble. President Trump is mentally illand we'd have to assume that his instincts and impulses make him potentially dangerous.  

That's the push from Red America. We'll try, in the next few days, to speak in frank ways about us Bluesto speak, for example, about the unimpressive ways we're reacted to the redistricting war.

In truth, our human species was never built for this line of work. Red America is making that clear, but we Blues are a part of this too.

MONDAY: Numbers look better for congressional Dems!

MONDAY, MAY 18, 2026

Or so one survey says: Does the venerable Cook Political Report know what it's talking about?   

We can't necessarily answer your question! In Saturday's report, we came close to flipping our lid, noting that Amy Walter had told the New York Times the following, gruesome headline included:

The Midterms Ground Has Shifted

[...] 

Amy Walter: Before the court rulings, our Political Report rated 217 House districts as solidly Democratic or leaning toward Democrats and 16 seats that were tossups. In these tossup districts, each side had a 50-50 chance to win. They are seats that are the most vulnerable. Under that scenario, Democrats would need to win just one of those 16 tossups to reach a majority in the House.

Today we rate 207 districts as solidly Democratic or leaning toward Democrats and 18 as tossups. To win a majority, Democrats need to win at least 11 of the 50-50 contests (and hold all those leaning their way) in order to get a majority.   

According to Walter, the recent pair of high-profile court decisions had caused the ground to shift. Given the realities of Gerrymandering Past, and allowing for the likely shape of post-Callais Gerrymandering Future, the Cook Report found itself forced to slice the dogmeat remarkably thin.

Sad! Cook said the gerrymandering would leave only 18 seatsout of 435!that they would rate as toss-ups. And yikes:

To squeak by with control of the House, Dems would have to win 11 of those seats in the fall.   

Does that assessment make sense? We ask because a new survey by the New York Times / Siena seems to be more optimistic. 

According to the new Times / Siena survey, the president's approvals are down to the lowest point yet. And then too, there's also this:  

A Crack in the Polling Floor Puts Trump in New Territory 

[...]

The most immediate political consequence is that Democrats appear increasingly well positioned for the midterm elections in November. The poll shows Democrats have a double-digit lead, 50 percent to 39 percent, when registered voters are asked which party’s candidate they’ll support for Congress. That’s a notable shift from Times/Siena polls earlier this cycle—which showed Democrats up two to five points.  

The Times is reporting a major advance in that statistic. Does that mean that Cook somehow has it wrong? 

At this site, we have no ideaand as we mentioned on Saturday, no one knows what kinds of schemes the White House may drag out if November is approaching and the numbers look bad. Beyond that, our guess would be this:

As a society, we've largely skated past the point where it can be assumed that traditional patterns will obtain in matters like this. We'll guess that no one can really say what's will happen this fall.

Dems have been winning special elections. But November's elections will involve incumbents, and that may help Republicans hold on to Republican-friendly seats. 

Or not!  We wish that Walter, who is perfectly sharp, had been questioned a bit more about the fundamentals behind Cook's gloomy findings.

For what it's worth, polling outfits have recently reported some gloomy numbers in the "which party do you favor" sweepstakes. Here was Harry Enten reporting a "Big Time Reality Check:"    

CNN’s Harry Enten Serves ‘Big Time Reality Check for Democrats’–Even Amid Trump’s Falling Poll Numbers

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten presented numbers that may worry Democrats, even amid President Donald Trump’s sinking approval ratings.

On Tuesday’s CNN News Central, John Berman cited a CNN survey where more than 70% blamed the president for increased costs, and asked Enten if Democrats were benefiting from such numbers. According to the poll, 77% of Americans blame Trump for higher costs of living.

“I think this poll serves as a big time reality check for Democrats, and that is it ain’t over yet, especially with the redistricting when we look ahead to the 2026 race for Congress. You would have thought that the Democrats’ lead would expand on the generic congressional ballot. It didn’t happen,” Enten reported.   

And so on from there. 

The Dems' lead on the generic congressional ballot had slipped from six points all the way down to three! As its report continued, Mediaite reported more of what Enten had gloomily said:   

[John] Berman later asked why Democrats aren’t “benefitting” if Trump’s numbers are falling amid the Iran war and high costs.

Enten reported that Trump’s approval rating is 36 points underwater on average, but Democrats are tying him in their own approval rating in surveys.

“There’s no way! There’s no way Republicans could possibly hold onto the House! But look at this: Which party is trusted more in the economy? It’s a tie among registered voters. Just because Donald Trump is unpopular doesn’t make Democrats popular. And when you match Democrats against Republicans, all of a sudden it is a dead heat [on the economy],” Enten said.  

Every poll is just one poll, and every poll is inaccurate to greater or lesser degree. Also, Enten can be a bit excitablebut in late April, a voluminous Harvard-Harris survey even came out saying this:   

Support for Democratic, Republican candidates tied among likely voters ahead of midterms: Poll   

Support for Democratic and Republican candidates is evenly split among likely midterm voters, according to a new poll. 

The Harvard-Harris poll found that 50 percent of likely voters said they would support a Democratic candidate and 50 percent said they would support a Republican.  

And so on from there. Harvard does it again!

This is a very challenging time. We only bring this up today because we reported what Walter said over the weekend. (Walter is perfectly sharp.)

For reasons we've mentioned in the past, this is a very dangerous time. We'd tend to offer this advice:   

Blue Americans, do no harm!


DECLINE: The president thinks we're in decline!

MONDAY, MAY 18, 2026

President Xi, that is: A finding has emerged from the sitting president's recent trip to China:   

A very tall man named Xi Jinping apparently thinks the United States is in a state of decline!

Aside from his friendship with President Trumpit's a friendship our president surely imagineswho is the real Xi Jinping? 

You rarely see his background described. The leading authority speaks:

Xi Jinping

Xi Jinping (born 15 June 1953) is a Chinese statesman and politician who is the fifth paramount leader of the People's Republic of China. He has served as the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and chairman of the Party Central Military Commission (CMC) since 2012, the president of China and chairman of the State Central Military Commission since 2013.

The elder son of Xi Zhongxun's second marriage to Qi Xin, Xi is considered a princeling but kept a low-key image in his early career. As a teenager, his father was purged, and he was sent down to the rural village of Liangjiahe, Shaanxi, during the Cultural Revolution. He lived in a yaodong there, joined the CCP after several failed attempts, and served as the local party secretary. After studying chemical engineering at Tsinghua University as a worker-peasant-soldier student, Xi rose through the party ranks.

He has more jobs than Rubio does! He's president, chairman and paramount leader all rolled into one!

(Meanwhile, what's a "yaodong?" President Xi once lived in one. To examine that matter, click here.)

On his recent trip to China, our sitting president spent a fair amount of time pretending that he and President Xi share a deep personal friendship. In muted fashion, this echoes the sitting president's odd first-term behavior with respect to Kim Jong Un, supreme leader of North Korea. 

AI Overview, citing Reuters, recalls the madness into which our nation, now in headlong decline, has unmistakably fallen:   

The Trump-Kim "love letters" refer to a series of 27 personal, back-and-forth letters exchanged between Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during their unprecedented diplomatic engagements in 2018 and 2019. Trump famously declared that he and Kim "fell in love" after receiving the messages, which Kim reportedly filled with poetic flattery and referred to their friendship as a magical force.   

With respect to the question of decline, let the word go forth to the nations: 

Almost surely, our sitting president seems to be suffering from some form of "mental illness." Some degree of cognitive decline may now be layered atop that long-standing medical problem.

Also, our high-end press corps has sworn an oath according to which these blindingly obvious possibilities cannot be reported, explored or discussed.  Let it also be said that our high-end journalists wouldn't know how to discuss the topic of "mental illness" in this delicate context, even if they wanted to try. 

Let it further be said that our high-end journalists aren't especially sharp as a group, and they never have been. With respect to the question of decline, let it be said that no "decline" is involved in this part of our national affliction since there was no earlier lofty standard from which we were able to fall.

Back to President Xi! Did he really have the temerity to say, as our sitting president sat and watched, that our nation is in some form of decline?  

You can teach it flat or round! President Xi seems to have cited the so-called Thucydides Trap, which the leading authority discusses at some length, as you can see by clicking here

As for our sitting president, he later revealedin his latest set of pitiful commentswhat he apparently believes he heard his counterpart say. Headline included, here's the report by ABC News:  

Trump responds to Xi's 'Thucydides Trap' comment about America's decline   

President Donald Trump on Thursday responded to Chinese President Xi Jinping's comment about the "Thucydides Trap" during their state visit, in which Xi appeared to reference the political theory that a dominant power's fear of a rising power could lead to war.

Trump claimed his counterpart was not saying that the U.S. is currently a "declining nation," but that it was during former President Joe Biden's term.   

Xi, during his opening remarks on Wednesday, according to a live translation, said, "The world has come to a new crossroads. Can China and the U.S. overcome the 'Thucydides Trap' and create a new paradigm of major country relations?"

In his post to Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said, "When President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration, and on that score, he was 100% correct."

Pathetic? Pitiful? Childish? Sad? When the sitting president heard Xi say that our nation is in decline, he scurried away, then pretended that Xi had been talking about the way we were under "Sleepy Joe Biden."  

Sad! He played his pitiful nickname game as he interpreted the comments made by his imagined friend. He continued to kowtow to President Xi, praising the elegance of his remarks even as he bravely pretended that Xi hadn't said what he said.

"There was no apparent indication that Xi was referring to Biden in his statement," the ABC report mildly says. Here's the way the Wall Street Journal reported this same global embarrassment:

Trump Plays Down Xi’s View That U.S. Is in Decline   

President Trump sought to paper over differences of opinion with Xi Jinping, playing down the Chinese leader’s prior comments that the West is in decline.

“When President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration, and on that score, he was 100% correct,” Trump wrote on social media ahead of the second day of his summit in Beijing.

Xi has in recent years said, “The East is rising and the West is declining.” Though the wording broadly references “the West,” Chinese leadership, state-controlled media and political analysts specifically apply the phrase to the U.S. Beijing views American political polarization, societal divisions and economic shifts as clear markers of long-term American decline.

Beijing thinks our nation is in decline? Vladimir has given voice to that assessment too!

Indeed, given the mess into which we've proceeded, is there a sane person on the face of the earth who doesn't hold some such view? Meanwhile, concerning the mental health of the older president, now he's gone off and done this:

Trump Posts Bonkers Image of Himself Firing Missiles at Earth From Space  

President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself firing missiles at Earth from space on Sunday in a post promoting the U.S. Space Force.

In the image, simply titled “Space Force,” Trump could be seen in a spaceship or station pressing a big red button.

In the background, five monitor screens showed lasers hitting the Earth below and creating a huge, nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud, seemingly large enough to eradicate all human life on the planet, as the monitors read, “TARGET DESTROYED.”

The president also posted another Space Force image that showed him operating satellite weapons to destroy other satellite weapons in Earth’s orbit, next to a flag that read, “STACEBS SPACE FORCE.”
And so on from there. This sort of thing goes on and on, and then it continues from there.

Our president pictures himself as Jesus. Our president angrily says that David Sanger (the New York Times) has engaged in treason by asking a question our president doesn't like.

Everyone gets an insulting nickname. Everybody else is a traitorand President Obama's middle name is "Hussein."

Still, our journalists refuse to describe what's sitting right there before them. Is some such country possibly in something like a state of decline? 

We'll agree with that assessmentbut only if you throw "headlong" in. Only if you're willing to say that we're trapped in a (very dangerous) form of astonishing headlong decline.

A mental illness is an illness. That's even true of a serious mental illness. As with physical illness, it isn't the ill person's fault.

That said, mental illness can be very dangerous. And what sane person can fail to see that our roiling, flailing nation may be in a dangerous state of decline?

In Red America, tribal certainty continues to hold that the sitting president is a deal-maker of great genius. In fairness, over here in Blue America, we have our own unhelpful beliefs:

We have our own agitprop. We can be wrong at times too.

Are we a nation in decline? Perhaps more to the point, do we remain a nation at allor have we instead become two?

We Blues keep churning Blue agitprop as the redistricting / gerrymandering wars grind on. It's 1892 all over again, or at least so we've been told, in this case by Stacey Abrams

(You may feel that that isn't what she said. We'd say that it pretty much is.)

Does it make sense to keep saying such things? We'll be exploring such questions all week as the American declineaccompanied by our own tribe's Blue declinecontinue to grind on and on.

Tomorrow: The 1892 files

Update: We forgot to include this additional report from Mediaite:
Trump Mocks Political Rivals in Social Media Flurry, Including Pic of Gavin Newsom in a Mental Asylum

President Donald Trump digitally whacked a number of familiar political rivals on Sunday during a social media posting spree that included posting a picture of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) looking terrified inside a mental institution.

The president shared that post—and several others—on his Truth Social platform. Newsom—whom Trump often calls “Newscum”—is surrounded by the president’s name while huddled in a padded room in the fake picture
And so on from there. 

(For the record, he's known as "Newscum" on Truth Social. On The Five, he's known as "Greasy.") 

This goes on and on and on, as does the attendant high-end silence. To see the posts, click here.




ALL AGAINST ALL: Will Democrats take the House this fall?

SATURDAY, MAY 16, 2026

Not so fast, Cook says: A funny thing happened to Black representation in the House on our way back to the summer of the year 1965.

Full disclosure! Based on current estimates, we actually aren't on our way back to that distant time. But before we revisit that fact, let's review a disastrous new prognostication from the Cook Political Report. 

The prognostication concerns the likely outcome of the great civil war in which we're now engaged. We refer to the current mid-census redistricting warthe current embarrassing, dumb but ongoing war of the all against all. 

Amy Walter delivered Cook's prognostication in an interview for the New York Times. The news she delivered was very bad, as the headline itself suggested:

The Midterms Ground Has Shifted

What are we to make of the midterms? Republicans are in a jam; inflation has jumped; the war in Iran is not going well. President Trump’s approval numbers are abysmal.

This year is different. Decisions from the Supreme Court have set off a wave of extreme partisan gerrymandering in G.O.P.-controlled Southern states — in some cases, like Alabama, while primary voting was already underway.

Amy Walter, the publisher and editor of The Cook Political Report, assessed the normal and unusual aspects of the 2026 midterms in a written conversation with John Guida, an editor in Times Opinion. It has been edited for length and clarity.  

John Guida: What have the redistricting struggle and the past two weeks done to change your sense of what we might expect from the midterms?

[...] 

Amy Walter: Before the court rulings, our Political Report rated 217 House districts as solidly Democratic or leaning toward Democrats and 16 seats that were tossups. In these tossup districts, each side had a 50-50 chance to win. They are seats that are the most vulnerable. Under that scenario, Democrats would need to win just one of those 16 tossups to reach a majority in the House.

Today we rate 207 districts as solidly Democratic or leaning toward Democrats and 18 as tossups. To win a majority, Democrats need to win at least 11 of the 50-50 contests (and hold all those leaning their way) in order to get a majority.

Good God! According to Walter, Democrats will have to win 11 of the 18 toss-up seats, without losing a single "solid or leaning Democratic" seat! 

That strikes us as a disastrous prognostication, especially since no one knows what sorts of election-tilting schemes the White House may put in effect. 

In a nod to lingering sanity, let us quickly add this:  

No one knows what else the sitting president may do to make himself even less popular. He may create a political environment in which it will be impossible for the Dems to fail to win.

That said, the sitting president won't be on the ballot this year. Hundreds of Democrats will be, and the Democratic Party is almost as unpopular as the sitting president is.

"We still see Democrats as the favorites for House control next year," Walter went on to say. "But they are no longer overwhelmingly favored," she felt she had to add, 

That strikes us as horrible news. And those predictions, however fallible, are coming from the Cook Report, the mother of all down-the-line, not crazy political think tanks.   

In the wake of recent court decisions, the Democrats may not retake the House! And of course, even if they retake the House and the Senate, the sitting president will remain in the Oval Office until early 2029, with all the uncertainty and all the danger that state of affairs suggests.  

But so it now seems, according to Cook, as the current war of the all against all continues to unfold. Dems are still favored to win, but 

Does President Xi see the United States as a nation in decline?  Please! We've suggested to you, for quite a few years, that we may already have attained the status of "failed state."  

Others see that as inanely alarmistas a silly idea. It could always turn out that those people are rightor it could be that they're unable to see the situation which has slowly crept upon us, just as the fictional denizens of Camus' Oran were unable to see the signs of the plague which had invaded their seaside town as normal life sputtered along.

“We're going to look back in ten years and call this about the dumbest time in American history," Adam Kinzinger has recently said. You can see the video of his statement here

He quickly added these words: "I hope, at least." We're going to call him a dreamer.

That returns us to the funny thing that happened on our way back to the summer of 65. We refer to an overstatement by a high-profile Democrat, but also to a bit of news about a quartet of Republican members of the House.

As we noted yesterday, NBC News filed the report:

Democrats warn a third of the Congressional Black Caucus could be wiped out by redistricting wars

The Congressional Black Caucus, a power center in the Democratic Party for decades, saw its membership rise this Congress to an all-time high of 58 House members.

 Now, thanks to a Supreme Court redistricting ruling that’s expected to dramatically diminish Black representation on Capitol Hill, the CBC is fighting a five-alarm fire that could devastate its membership.

CBC Chair Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said as many as 19 of the caucus’ members could be affected by the redistricting wars in a worst-case scenario, though she noted it’s still fluid given that states are still drawing new maps in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. 

[...]   

“It’s Jim Crow 2.0,” said longtime Rep. Bennie Thompson, who as the only Democrat in the Mississippi delegation is being targeted by Republicans. The court decision “potentially takes us back 60 years.”

[...]

Black representation isn’t dwindling on just the Democratic side of the aisle. All four Black GOP House members are either retiring or running for higher office, possibly leaving the Republican Conference with zero Black members next year.

Rep. Byron Donalds, a close Trump ally, is running for governor of Florida, while Rep. John James is running for governor of Michigan. Rep. Wesley Hunt lost his primary race for the Senate in Texas. And Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah is retiring.  

Rep. Thompson is a good, decent personbut he's also a person person, just like everyone else. Meanwhile, for the record:

Whatever you may think of the current warfare, there's no sign that we're on our way back to 1965, when there were only six Black members in the 435-member House of Representatives.  

"Jim Crow 2.0" or not, we won't be going back to that. That said:   

Several of the original 58 Black Democrats will, in fact, be losing their seats when their majority Black districts get dismantled in the coming weeks. For ourselves, we'll admit that we were struck by that additional passage about the career profiles of the four (4) Black Republicans currently in the House.  

It's hard to miss those numbers. There are way more Black Democrats serving in the House. In the House, Black Democrats outnumbered Black Republicans by 58-4 at the start of the current Congress.

That shouldn't be hugely surprising. Dating back into the 1960s, African Americans have much more commonly been Democrats, as everyone already knows. Still and all, this:

As is true of quite a few of the 58 Black Democrats, all four of the Black Republicans were elected to the House in majority white districts. For starters, here's the Cook Report's profile of Florida's 19th congressional district, the district which elected Rep. Donalds:   

Florida's 19th congressional district
69.7% White
19.1% Hispanic
5.9% Black

R+14

It's a solidly Republican district. But it's also heavily white, and it elected Donalds. 

By the same token, here's Cook's profile of the Michigan district which elected Rep. James:  

Michigan's 10th congressional district
72.8% White
13.3% Black
6.1% Asian
3.0% Hispanic

R+3

That's closer to a toss-up district. But like Donalds, James got elected in a district which is heavily whiteand each man is now the likely GOP nominee for governor in his state.

(Rep. Hunt was elected from the Texas 38th congressional district; it's 9.6% Black. This year, he sought the GOP nomination for the Texas Senate seat; he gave it a shot and he lost. Rep. Owens, who is retiring, was elected from Utah's 4th district. According to Cook, the district is 74.2% white, 1.2% Black.)

We ourselves wouldn't have voted for any of those candidates. But Rep. Donalds will likely be the next governor of the Sunshine Stateand given the uncertainty of the time, we'd give Rep. James a chance in Michigan. Through whatever acts of legerdemain, they seem to be movin' on up!

Is a lesson possibly lurking there for us, the frequently hapless Blues? For the political tribe which may not be able to retake the House this year, even in the face of the madness surrounding the GOP?

Xi thinks our nation is "in decline?" We'd float the term "failed state."

At any rate, the dumbness is general over the nation, much as Kinzinger says. But does some of that lack of insight come from us, the infallible Blues?

There's much more to be said about this war of the all against allabout this current redistricting war, a war we Dems may end up losing.  Different aspects of this situation seem to pile up as the days move along.

For that reason, we'll continue with this topic next week. We assume that the discussions, or in some cases the pseudo-discussions, will continue through the week.

Down in Memphis, Justin Pearson is staying in the race. Could he be the first since Gary Hart to come up with a new idea? 

Next week: Among quite a few other things, what the professors said.

Also, what Carl Hulse wrote about the way we got here. Also, have you seen a single discussion of the Callais ruling itself? Or have you seen nothing but agitpropscripted cries all the way down?

We may even review the fuzzy judicial and journalistic language of the last quite a few years!

ALL AGAINST ALL: Black membership will be reduced next year!

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2026

But it won't be reduced like that: What will happen to Black membership in the House in the wake of Louisiana v. Callais?   

Before we offer a current estimate, let's recall where membership stood at the start of the current Congress. This report, from Spectrum News, appeared in January 2025

A record 67 Black lawmakers are serving in the 119th Congress—a four-fold increase since 1975.

The number represents a historic milestone since the first Black member of Congress, Sen. Hiram Revels of Mississippi, was elected in 1869. Black representation in Congress rose during Reconstruction, fell during the Jim Crow era, then grew through the 20th century due in part to the civil rights movement and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  

The 67 total Black members of Congress in 2025 include 62 Democrats and five Republicans.

The five Republicans serving on Capitol Hill—four in the House and one in the Senate—match the number in the last session of Congress and also represent the most since Reconstruction.  

Let's be clear on the overall numbers. Five of those 67 members were (and still are) members of the Senate. As the current Congress started, there were 62 Black members of the House58 Democrats, but also four Republicans.  

How will those numbers be affected by the scramble to eliminate majority Black congressional districts in the wake of the Callais decision? In this recent news report, NBC News reported a current estimate:

Democrats warn a third of the Congressional Black Caucus could be wiped out by redistricting wars

The Congressional Black Caucus, a power center in the Democratic Party for decades, saw its membership rise this Congress to an all-time high of 58 House members.

 Now, thanks to a Supreme Court redistricting ruling that’s expected to dramatically diminish Black representation on Capitol Hill, the CBC is fighting a five-alarm fire that could devastate its membership.

CBC Chair Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said as many as 19 of the caucus’ members could be affected by the redistricting wars in a worst-case scenario, though she noted it’s still fluid given that states are still drawing new maps in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. 

“It’s devastating. People have sacrificed so much to make this a more perfect union. And here we are, in 2026, seeing this massive regression in all the gains that have been made. It’s painful,” Clarke told NBC News on Tuesday.

So goes that early estimate. "As many as 19 Democratic members could be affected," Rep. Clarke said.

For the record, several of the original Democratic 58 have died or have resigned. Three more have announced that they'll be retiring at the end of their current terms. 

(Two of the Republican membersReps. Donalds and Jamesare the likely GOP nominees in gubernatorial races in Florida and Michigan. Throw in a retirement and an unsuccessful Senate run in Texas and none of the four Republican members will be back next year.)  

Almost surely, there will be fewer Black members in the House next year. As is almost always the rule, overstatements have followed.

“It’s Jim Crow 2.0,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) is quoted saying in the NBC News report. Thompson is quoted saying that the Callais decision “potentially takes us back 60 years.” 

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, is also quoted calling the situation "a new form of Jim Crow." 

For the record, Rep. Thompson's calculation is almost surely wrong. Sixty years ago, there were only six Black members in the House!

Whatever you think of the Callais ruling, it won't be taking those numbers back to where they stood in 1965, or to anything close to that number. But that's the way the discourse routinely goes within our rapidly failing nation, even among us Blues.   

The number won't be that small, but the number will almost surely be smaller. As to how we got from there to hereas to how we got from six Black House members up to 62we'll refer you to Carl Hulse's recent retrospective piece in the New York Times.  

How did we ever get this far? Also, what explains the way those numbers grew in the aftermath of the Voting Rights Act? 

As we noted yesterday, Jamelle Bouie laid out the numbers, and the timeline recording their growth, in this recent New York Times column:

John Roberts Believes in an America That Doesn’t Exist

[...]  

[I]t took a major amendment to the Voting Rights Act and a Supreme Court decision to give Black Americans the opportunity to win more than token representation in Congress. In 1982, Congress reauthorized and amended the V.R.A. to combat disparate impact in voting and electoral outcomes. Four years later, in 1986, a unanimous Supreme Court declared that the Voting Rights Act forbade voting schemes that impaired the ability of “cohesive” groups of language or minority groups to “participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.” Following this decision, states across the country—especially in the South—used the 1990 census and redistricting to create majority-minority state legislative and congressional districts where Black voters could elevate Black lawmakers and officials to federal office.

At the 10th anniversary of the [Voting Rights Act] in 1975, there were 17 Black members of Congress, up from six in 1965. All but one of them served in the House of Representatives. At the 20th anniversary in 1985, there were still only 20 Black Americans in the House (and none in the Senate). By 1995, however, there were 43 Black Americans serving as voting members of Congress, including one senator, Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois. This, even after the Democratic Party suffered its largest congressional defeat of the postwar era. 

After that major amendment to the VRA, the numbers substantially grew. More specifically, majority- minority House districts were formed in the redistricting which followed the 1990 census. 

This raises a bit of a question:

Who was responsible for the creation of those new districts? Were Democratic legislatures creating those districts Were Republicans joining in?

Was this some sort of different age? Was this the dawning of an age in which the two parties chose to link hands to let a thousand flowers bloom?   

In this recent report in the New York Times, Carl Hulse explores that general questionand as was understood at the time, it wasn't quite as simple as that! In his recent retrospective, Hulse describes the political trade-offs which were involved as this remarkable change occurred. 

It's hard to imagine the current era without that impressive growth in Black congressional membershipa change which made the House of Representatives "look [much] more like America."

It's hard to imagine the current era without that significant change. We ourselves have always lived in a (naturally occurring) majority minority districta district in which we've been represented by Kweisi Mfume and the late Elijah Cummings, with an earlier tenure by Rep. Parren J. Mitchell added in.

(They were "princes and princesses." That's what the late Rep. Mitchell would always tell the children at the Baltimore City elementary school where we were teaching fifth graders back at the start of the era. Unfailingly, he would deliver those words of affirmation, during a challenging time.)

As these things go, we've been lucky in the quality of the people we've been able to vote for. That said, Hulse describes the political complexities involved in the creation of those majority minority districts in places where "racial gerrymandering" was required to create such congressional maps.

He also describes the long, slow, steady political change in which the Republican Party took political control of the "Solid South" and seems to have acquired substantial control over the electoral map. 

There were tradeoffs involved in the gerrymandering which produced the larger numbers we have described. Based on an unusual comment Rep. Clyburn recently made, such tradeoffs may even live on today!

We want to walk you through the political history recalled in Hulse's report. We also want to tell you what we saw and heard on Velshi last weekendwhat we saw and heard when the Harvard professor and the Princeton professor spoke with the (highly capable) rising star Harvard grad.  

All three of those people are good, decent people. Rep. Thompson is a good, decent person as well.

That said, we aren't going back to 1965, and this isn't Jim Crow all over again. The numbers will be down next year. But they won't be down like that

We aren't going back to 1965, and this isn't Jim Crow again! We Blues! Do we know how we look to other people when we refuse to stop making such claims?

Tomorrow: We'll have to move fast to cram it all in. 

On Monday morning, we expect to move on to the annals of headlong decline.


THURSDAY: Solon thinks Trump is "seriously ill!"

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026

And yet he doesn't speak: Is something wrong with President Trump? We would assume that there is.   

The unfortunate stigma associated with "mental illness" makes it a difficult topic to discuss. But Jonathan Chait has made the latest attempt to describe the president's recent bizarre behaviorthe bizarre behavior in which he engaged, at great length, overnight this past Monday night.

Chait's piece was written for The Atlantic. He's describing only one small part of the president's overnight meltdown:

Big Brother Is ReTruthing You

[...]

Trump's strange, symbiotic relationship with the world of lies was in evidence last night, when he experienced one of his periodic social-media crashouts. From 10:15 to 10:53 p.m. EST, he shared more than two dozen posts on his Truth Social account alleging a blizzard of conspiracies. Roughly half of them centered on Barack Obama, whom the posts accused of having committed treason, having attempted a coup, having personally used Hillary Clinton’s email server under a pseudonym, and having personally collected $120 million from the Affordable Care Act.

The rest of the messages contained attacks on various targets—such as Mark Kelly, James Comey, Jack Smith, and Hillary Clinton—whom Trump wishes to be arrested, including demands that the Justice Department move more quickly to apprehend these or other targets, as well as a handful of random videos that appear to show Black people misbehaving in public.

These messages, collectively, do not alter our understanding of Trump’s mindset. His accusations against Obama, as is typical, seem like reflected confessions. Obama never ordered investigations of his rivals, tried to overturn an election, or used the presidency as a vehicle of profit (the ACA charge, which appears new, seems to originate from a satirical website). Trump has done all of these things.   

Chait is describing only part of the president's behavior that night. Later that night, to cite a further example, the sitting president reposted an image of Presidents Obama and Biden, accompanied by Nancy Pelosi, swimming in human feces in the Reflecting Pool.  

The stigma associated with mental illness seems to have made it impossible to conduct a serious discussion of this fairly apparentand presumably dangerousstate of affairs. Of the current situation, two things can be said:

Almost surely, the sitting president is indeed "mentally ill." And also, without a shred of doubt, the rest of us are just a bunch of kids.

We'll add an example of what we mean. We take our example from a news report at Mediaite which starts like this, intriguing headline included:

‘Trump Needs Medical Attention’: Congressman Says President’s Family Should Stage ‘Intervention’

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said President Donald Trump’s call to arrest former President Barack Obama should trigger a medical “intervention.”

On Wednesday, Pablo Manríquez of MeidasTouch caught up with McGovern at the Capitol and first asked about the president’s obsession with the construction of the White House ballroom. 

[...]   

“Is Donald Trump’s ballroom a national emergency?” Manríquez asked.

“You gotta be kidding me,” McGovern responded. “It’s a vanity project..."  

The report continues from there. Eventually, Rep. McGovern is quoted saying this, just like the headline said:  

“I think he’s seriously ill. I think Trump needs medical attention, and there needs to be an intervention. I mean, you know, his family or someone in his cabinet, you know, or I would say maybe some Republicans here, but they don’t have the balls to confront him on anything. So he’s not well.”

“I think he’s seriously ill," McGovern said. “I think [the sitting president] needs medical attention." Mediaite provides the videotape of his statement.   

McGovern is a good, decent person. There's no lack of smarts to the guy. For such reasons, our question is this: 

Under the circumstances, what do you think of a member of Congress who won't call a press conference in order to make a statement lack that in a serious setting?   

We'd say it teaches an anthropology lesson:  

We human beings simply weren't built for this line of work.   

As we've noted in the past, this doesn't mean that we're bad people. Anthropologically, it simply means that we're people people! 

We don't know how to talk about matters like "mental illness." This is the best we can do!

While we're at it: Yevtushenko, in translation:
Not people die but worlds die in them.
Whom we knew as faulty, the earth’s creatures...