THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026
Are we sharp enough to do that? We were pleased to see Senator Wicker offer his opinion on the supposed Iran resolution.
For the record, that's Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. At Mediaite, Isaac Schorr provides an overview concerning what he said:
Top Republican Slams Trump Iran Agreement: $300 Billion Makes Obama Deal ‘Look Like a Pittance’
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) blasted the memorandum of understanding President Donald Trump has struck with the Iranian regime in a scathing statement issued on Thursday.
“Since day one, I have supported President Trump’s efforts to end Iran’s 47-year threat to the United States and our partners. I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals,” began Wicker, who continued:
"Specifically, the $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran—though not funded by U.S. taxpayers—would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison."
The Deep South solon continued from there. Let it be said that he didn't feel the need to refer to Barack Hussein Obama, as the sitting president, who's mentally ill, never fails to do.
We've noticed Senator Wicker's public sanity during these months of the mullahs. His congressional career has proceeded like this:
As we recently noted, Wicker entered the House of Representatives during the Republican sweep of November 1994—the landslide which created GOP control of the House for the first time in forty years. Since that time, the Democrats have never maintained control of the House for more than two consecutive terms.
As we also recently mentioned, five of that year's new Republican congressmen went to win seats in the Senate (Brownback, Burr, Chambliss, Graham, Wicker). Joe Scarborough even found his way into the House that year!
Senator Wicker is in his third term, but it's the future status of the House which we're thinking about today. Our first question would be this:
After the wave of future redistricting gets done, will Democrats ever be able to win House seats in states like Alabama and Mississippi?
There's another question we're wondering about. It's a bit of a second cousin:
After the wave of future redistricting gets done, will Democrats ever be able to win control of the House?
That may seem like a silly question. Unfortunately, we're gloomily thinking of what the very experienced Tom Edsall wrote in the New York Times back in March, before the second wave of mid-census redistricting got started.
Here's part of his lengthy guest essay:
The Democrats’ Looming 2032 Cliff
The Democratic Party’s short-term prospects look great. The party’s long-term prospects look dismal.
[...]
[T]he 2030 census will inflict two brutal body blows to the Democratic Party by putting the party in a significantly worse position in the contest to control the House and the presidential battle to win 270 votes in the Electoral College.
According to current estimates based on population trends, Republican states will gain and Democratic states will lose six to 12 House seats [due to the 2030 census] and, with them, the same number of Electoral College votes.
[...]
Not only does this make it much harder to retain or win control of the House, it also means that a Democratic presidential candidate in 2032 could sweep the Midwest battleground states and still lose the election.
It gets much worse as Edsall reports the low regard in which respondents in various surveys hold the Democratic Party. But aside from control of the House, just consider what Edsall said about future control of the White House:
A Democratic presidential candidate in 2032 could sweep the Midwest battleground states and still lose the election!
As far as we know, that's a standard assessment.
Assuming the madness with the current president actually comes to an actual end, are population trends moving future electoral politics away from the Democratic Party?
Also this:
In the short but also in the longer run, are there any things we Blues are doing which make it harder to win elections as a general matter?
Ever since 1992, newly created House districts which were majority Black have sent Democrats to the House from various Southern states. Given recent Supreme Court decisions, it looks like those majority Black / Majority Democrat districts may not be long for this world.
Regarding future control of the House, Dems will likely be losing seats as those districts are remapped. After that, the census will almost surely make matters worse.
Is there a way to emerge from this doom scenario? Is there some way the Democrats can dare to struggle, dare to win? Even in the Deep South state from which Senator Wicker's scathing takedown of President Trump has emerged?
We'll continue to ponder such questions as we consider the history of those Deep South Democratic seats—as we consider the fascinating history of subsection (b) of Section 2 of the important Voting Rights Act.
Dare to struggle, dare to win? Are we sharp enough to do that?
Roger Wicker hasn't been crazy this year. Is there any way a Democrat, white or Black, could win a House seat down there?
It would take a lot of smarts, a lot of skill. Is there any way we Blues could find a way to do something like that?
Tomorrow: What Maya Wiley said
Excuse me Bob, Democrats do not ask themselves if they are contributing to their own electoral difficulties. Any criticism whatsoever is not allowed. And those that offer it are all racists.
ReplyDeleteYou're dealing with a group of citizens that have gone completely mad with groupthink of the lowest logical quality imaginable.
This is silly given the ongoing infighting among Democrats over everything.
DeleteSqueal louder, loser at 4;15.
DeleteA MAGAt troll pontificating about the other party's behaviour as "groupthink" is priceless. Get a grip, dear. Your spineless party's lockstep adherence to everything Trump orders of them is as pathetically comical as your comment.
DeleteSomerby is so narrowly focused on redistricting that he fails to appreciate how deeply the public will blame the Republicans for Trump's manifest failures in office. When this happened to George W. Bush, who had the failures of 9/11 followed by the needless invasion of Iraq, then the disaster of Katrina, the public threw him out on his ear and elected Democrats who arguable could not have been elected otherwise, including most likely Obama himself. The same thing is going to happen to the Republicans after Trump leaves office, redistricting or not.
ReplyDeleteSomerby keeps asserting that if Democrats insist on equity for black voters, Republicans will redistrict Democrats out of existence in Southern states. That is more difficult to achieve than he thinks because of the high percentages of the opposite party even in states with the largest Democrat or Republican percentages, and because so many states do not register the party affiliations of voters at all. How do you gerrymander without knowing what the party affiliations of the voters are, by district or geographic area. Use of race as a proxy for party affiliation is occurring because there is no data on party preference in some states.
CA has 45% Democrats. The rest are Independent, Republican, or other parties or decline to state. In many states, Independent is the largest number of voters. How would a state decide which Independents are leaning Democratic and which leaning Republican? Maryland has the largest % of Democrats with 51%. That leaves too much of the state to completely gerrymander away. Then tendency of Democrats to live in urban areas while Republicans are rural complicates the task.
Somerby threat that Democrats could be gerrymandered out of existence strikes me as fanciful, and I find myself wondering why a supposed Democrat would create such a fantasy.
Oddly, Somerby ignores the corresponding trend for the New England states to become Democratic after being Republican for decades. As the South switched to Republican, the previously Republican states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine became Democratic, as did the formerly Republican areas of New Jersey, New York, California, Oregon, and Connecticut. It is bizarre that Somerby sees only the shift in the South without mentioning the corresponding shifts in other parts of the country.
If previous voting history were used to gerrymander certain voters out of representation, it seems likely the courts would prevent such maps.
DeleteSomerby is using Wicker as an example. He is from the same state as Bennie Thompson, who is black and from the 2nd District, which is more than 50% black uniformly throughout the district. It is the black belt of the state. Mississippi is itself 38% black as a state. How does Somerby think gerrymandering of Mississippi will happen given those stats? There is no way to create districts that will yield less than one black district, given that the black belt runs from top to bottom of the state along the entire left hand border, including part of the city of Jackson.
ReplyDeleteBut more importantly, why does Somerby never mention Bennie Thompson's name? Why is he fixated on Wicker? Even Wicker's former district (1) in the upper right corner of the state, was 30% black without including any of the black belt itself. Mississippi is the blackest state in the country. If a black representative is inevitable in Mississippi, how does Somerby expect there to be no Democrats in the South? Is he going to convince black people to become Republicans with these arguments about gerrymandering Democrats out of existence?
But we should perhaps thank Somerby for illustrating how Republicans think about politics. The goal is to win at all costs. Fairness is not a consideration. Adopting policies that might attract black voters is out of the question -- it is a matter of using political force to undermine the electoral process. And Somerby's familiarity with this way of thinking suggests he is not now and never has been any kind of Democrat, since he does not share any of the values or respect the democratic process, but suggests subverting the electoral system to gain a perpetual advantage.
Somerby (or Edsall) assumes that the midwest states will remain battleground states and not turn blue before 2030. Is that likely?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just Trump but all the other Republicans who have been behaving badly, so badly that people not normally involved in politics will have noticed and been repulsed by their acts. We have yet to see what a real investigation of Epstein will turn up, for example. Somerby is making self-serving predictions that only consider the good news for Republicans, without taking into account the forces that will help Democrats.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby, a supposed liberal, always have his thumb on the scale for Republicans?
"Why does Somerby, a supposed liberal, always have his thumb on the scale for Republicans?"
DeleteTo put one's thumb on the scale is to unfairly influence a process or outcome.
So your question makes no sense unless you believe:
a) that Somerby's predictions will influence the nation's electorate in favor of Republicans AND
b) that he intends them to have this effect.
a) of course is ridiculous, but that being the case, so is b).
Someone considers Somerby an influencer or they wouldn’t pay him to write shit.
DeleteWhat evidence is there that anyone pays him?
DeleteSomerby's nonsense DG.
DeleteIf someone is doing so, they are clearly paying him by the word.
DeleteImagine being so fucked-up you are influenced by the nonsense Somerby posts at TDH.
DeleteSMDH.
"We'll continue to ponder such questions as we consider the history of those Deep South Democratic seats—as we consider the fascinating history of subsection (b) of Section 2 of the important Voting Rights Act."
ReplyDeleteWhy would a topic like this capture Somerby's imagination so completely that he cannot talk about anything else? Or is this just his assignment from his handler, a distraction from Trump's failures this week, or a way of keeping race forefront coming into the midterms? It makes no sense that Somerby's two main hobbies are Gutfeld and redistricting Democrats out of existence in the South.
A key question for me is this: when black people had the ability to elect representatives under the VRA, did they try to create districts that white people could never win in, did they try to gerrymander whites out of existence, did they write rules that would make it extra special difficult for whites to meet voting requirements? And if they didn't, why are white Republicans carrying out this vendetta against black voters?
"Why would a topic like this capture Somerby's imagination so completely"
ReplyDeleteBecause, dear, it's a big wide world out there, filled with all sorts of people who get interested in all sorts of things, some of which (brace yourself), you may not find as interesting. as they do.
I suspect there is more too it…
DeleteSoo do I...
Delete5:32,
DeleteDo you mean like when bigots pretend to care about the federal deficit?
Because it sounds like you mean when bigots pretend to care about the federal deficit.
@9:27 I see what you did. Applause.
DeleteThis is why Mississippi needs black representatives:
ReplyDelete“ Mississippi Cop Kills One-Year-Old In Pursuit Of Allegedly Shoplifted Diapers
They shot into a car in hopes of preventing the alleged shoplifters from getting away, and now a child is dead.
ROBYN PENNACCHIA
JUN 18
In one of the most devastating examples of police brutality in recent memory, a police officer in Senatobia, Mississippi, shot and killed one-year-old Kohen Kartier Wiley in a Walmart parking lot this past weekend. Was it because the child was some kind of a threat to them? Was he wearing a hoodie? Did he refuse to “comply”?
No. It was because someone at Walmart thought that his mother might have stolen a box of diapers.
Rather than just letting it go once Wiley’s mother and another woman got into the car, because, you know, it’s a box of diapers and stores like Walmart have insurance to cover shrinkage, the officers actually shot into the silver sedan in an attempt to stop them from leaving with what was most likely about $39 worth of merchandise.
Was it a terrible mistake? Did they not know there was a literal baby in the car or that a box of diapers hardly ranks as grand larceny?
Well, we can’t be certain about the latter, but a statement released by the Senatobia police department acknowledges that the officers were well aware that Wiley was in the vehicle and shot anyway.
Because ACAB, they referred to the one-year-old as a “juvenile child.”
“Law enforcement officers responded to a shoplifting call at Walmart on U.S. 51. Upon arrival, officers encountered two subjects and a juvenile child fleeing from the store into a vehicle. Officers attempted to stop the vehicle, but the driver drove in the direction of the officers, almost striking one,” the statement read. “An officer then discharged their weapon and the vehicle fled the scene. The subjects arrived at a local hospital where one juvenile child in the vehicle was pronounced deceased, and another subject had critical injuries. No law enforcement officers received any serious physical injury.”
For the record, the family denies that any shoplifting took place.”
Do I understand correctly? The accused was headed out the door of the Walmart with a box of diapers they supposedly failed to pay for. Someone at Walmart called the cops to report this. Before the accused could get all the way to their car, the cops arrived?
DeleteThat doesn't sound right. Or possible.
And yet a baby is dead...
DeleteIt sounds like they were in the car and driving away when the police arrived and shot into the car.
DeleteWhat's your fucking problem, QB?
DeleteLike the saying goes, "Don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch."
DeleteInstead, charge the cop with murder, put them in prison, and bar them from having a job in law enforcement ever again.
Democrats lack a sensible, easy-to-understand program to improve the economy.
ReplyDeleteFuck off, troll boy
DeleteSince World War II, the U.S. economy has added significantly more jobs under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. Data shows that about 72% to 75% of all net nonfarm jobs created since 1945 emerged under Democratic administrations, with Democrats averaging roughly 188,000 jobs per month compared to 67,000 per month for Republicans.
DeleteYes, but Democrats lack a sensible, easy-to-understand program to improve the economy.
Delete11:03,
DeleteNot enough "Eat the rich", in your view?
Ever since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have had an easy to understand economic program that is entirely fictional.
DeleteYes, but Democrats lack a sensible, easy-to-understand program to improve the economy.
DeleteHeaded into an important election, Democrats lack a sensible, easy-to-understand program to improve the economy.
DeleteBe sure to not forget that.
From NYTimes via LGM:
ReplyDelete“A major flu outbreak has sickened nearly 160 troops at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas less than two months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that U.S. troops would no longer be required to be vaccinated for the flu, defense officials said.
The outbreak at the base in San Antonio raced through an Air Force Basic Military Training wing, where new recruits sleep on bunk beds in open bays and share meals at large communal tables.
A trainee in his sixth week of basic training died after falling ill on Friday and being taken to Brooke Army Medical Center, the Air Force said in a news release. It was not immediately clear whether the death of the trainee, Keon McDaniel, was related to the flu outbreak”
Are we sharp enough to not elect morons?
DeleteNo, we are not
DeleteHey, maggots. Why is the Washington reflecting pool peeling apart? Dickhead?
ReplyDeleteNo bid contracts- boy, I don’t know
DeleteBut the money laundering's working great.
DeleteTrump fucking over Israel and Netanyahu is not only fantastic, it’s Trump finally being Presidential.
ReplyDeleteHe’s fat.
ReplyDeleteHe’s old.
He likes his girlfriends 12-years old!
“Dare to struggle, dare to win?”
ReplyDeleteWhy not ask this of the GOP? It seems that southern republicans wouid rather take the easy road by wiping out those black districts than, say, trying to field candidates that can win in those districts.
Somerby is a douchebag.
Aussie boys are on a bender.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump is a sex offender!
It is nice to know that the 300 billion is going to be paid out by someone other than the US taxpayer. Although, come to think of it, that concept has a familiar ring to it.
ReplyDeleteIt is starting to look like President Trump is transitioning to a woman. Recent photos show a striking resemblance to his mother. Does anyone know anything about this?
ReplyDeleteWhy is Somerby promoting Republicans such as Wicker?
ReplyDeleteLooks like the peace process is going about as well as the reflecting pool makeover, thanks in large part to the cooperation of Israel.
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton famously said, "Who's the fucking superpower here?"
DeleteNetanyahu has the Orange Jesus on a short leash.
DeleteThe results are in:
DeleteElecting a fucking moron to be the President of the United States of America just because he's a gigantic bigot, is not working out in the country's favor.
Who would have thought that the unwavering support of a genocidal apartheid Zionist state could have led to this? Maybe allowing foreign entities to lobby and buy votes in Congress isn’t such a great idea.
DeleteA new study shows that conservatives have shorter lives because they don't believe science, even when it affects their health:
ReplyDelete"We suggest that these growing health gaps are consistent with a mechanism of politically rooted changes in engagement with the health system. Using a large public opinion survey, we find that people on the right, particularly Trump voters and Republicans, express less trust in their personal doctor and are less willing to seek care for non-COVID-19-related health problems18,19. We also find that people on the right with chronic illnesses are more sceptical than people on the left that medicines to treat those illnesses are safe and effective. This political divide in consumption of care may sustain or deepen the health divide that has emerged in recent decades. However, both these findings and those on health outcomes are purely descriptive; more work is needed to uncover causal relationships.
Our findings raise serious concerns about the equity of health outcomes between Americans of different political backgrounds: conservatives are becoming a less healthy population, and their growing disinclination towards seeking and following medical advice means that these differences may be difficult to address. Although many institutions have lost the trust of Americans in recent decades, the case of medicine is a particularly stark illustration of the consequences that can follow when politics leads people to divest from institutions that promote their welfare."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9
“Page not found”, but if true, a natural extension of the study showing higher COVID death rates in red counties.
DeleteCannot find online. Please repost the link.
Delete