Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.
Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:
- California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
- Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
- Other states in play:
- Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
- Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
- New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
- National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.
Implications for 2026
- Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
- Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
- The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.