By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California and New York are considering redrawing congressional lines as a response to Texas Republicans’ proposed redistricting plan, which could result in the GOP gaining more seats. California is planning a mid-decade redistricting plan, which would be triggered by Texas’ actions. New York is also exploring options to redraw lines. Both states face challenges in implementing these changes before the next midterm elections, but are motivated to counter potential Republican gains.
Read the original article here
California, New York signal they’re moving forward with redistricting, and this development is stirring up a lot of discussion and a palpable shift in the political landscape. It seems like a collective realization has dawned: the old rules of engagement are out the window.
For years, one side has been playing a different game, and the other has been sticking to the “high road.” But now, the sentiment is that the only way to survive is to adapt and fight fire with fire. There’s a feeling that waiting until 2025 to react to the situation has contributed to the current state of affairs. The urgency is now palpable.
The general consensus appears to be, “It’s about time.” People seem to be tired of the perceived hypocrisy and the imbalance. The Supreme Court, viewed by many as a flawed referee, is seen as likely to enable further moves by one side while potentially striking down efforts by the other, highlighting a perceived lack of consistency and ethical considerations.
The conversation suggests a growing acceptance, or even endorsement, of using the same tactics as those currently in power. The argument is essentially, if you don’t play the game the way it’s being played, you lose. There’s a sense of, “win or die,” a real “game of thrones” mentality taking hold.
Many express a willingness to go all-in, irrespective of what other states do, especially those with contrasting political affiliations. It’s about securing as many seats as possible, with the hope of making a significant impact. The idea is to “pack and crack” the opposition out of existence.
Of course, there’s a recognition that any efforts will likely be challenged in court. The expectation, and the frustration, is that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in favor of the other side. However, even in the face of this possibility, the calls to action remain strong.
The key takeaway is the need to fight back, and the willingness to do what’s necessary. There’s a push to move from “signaling” to actually “doing,” to stop playing nice and to respond to aggression with equal force.
This is, of course, not without its internal struggles. Many people clearly hate this turn of events, but the idea that doing nothing is not an option is widespread. The desire to swing the pendulum back from what’s perceived as an imbalance of power is obvious.
It’s all about adapting to the new reality and fighting back with the same tactics. The common sentiment is that the other side is not playing by the rules, and the time for playing nice is over.