Ask Us Anything
Ending the Iran War, filibusters, gerrymandering, and Democratic midterm prospects after Callais
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Wolves and Sheep and Bowers News Media for $8 per month or $80 per year. You will receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and gain the ability to post comments on our articles.
Do you think a new President would actually get America out of the Iranian conflict as soon as possible, assuming it continues until the Trump administration ends? There were hopes Obama would pull the military out of Afghanistan and Iraq during his tenure, and when he didn’t, that became part of the backlash against his administration. I would hope new leadership would take the hint if the Democrats win big in 2028.
(Chris) Yes, I think a Democratic president would stop hostilities with Iran. This is because there are important differences between the war against Iran and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For one thing, there were tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan propping up provisional governments. By contrast, in Iran there are zero troops on the ground and the opposing government is still in charge. So, there are no troops to leave there.
Second, roughly half of Democrats in Congress, and a strong majority of the public, started off supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By contrast, the war against Iran has always been unpopular and opposed nearly unanimously by Democrats in Congress.
Third, if the war in Iran is somehow still going on in two years and eight months, it will be so incredibly unpopular and expensive that no one would ever get elected president unless they pledged to immediately end it. In that regard, I wouldn’t be surprised if this point is informing Iranian strategy, as it has been repeated so many times since World War II as to become the basic, standard strategy for weaker opponents in conflicts against stronger ones everywhere in the world.
Fourth, it is worth remembering what actually happened to United States troops levels in Iraq and Afghanistan under the last two Democratic presidents. In 2008, there were 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and despite Obama’s initial surge there were 5,000 at the end of 2016. Also, as we know, President Biden did, in fact, pull all troops out of Afghanistan early in his term.
In short, yes, I would expect a Democratic president to end hostilities with Iran.
Lately, I’ve read discussions that pertain to what the fate of the filibuster should be if Democrats can usher in a national governing trifecta after the 2028 elections. Some have mentioned utilizing a “carveout” of the filibuster to pass something like a national ban on gerrymandering, for example, while others suggest simply eliminating it. My question is this: what exactly is meant by a “carveout” or exception to the filibuster (NOT a reconciliation bill)? Would it actually work in practice and, if so, what is to stop the GOP from doing a similar thing to pass something like the SAVE Act or a national abortion ban?
(Matt) Changing the filibuster rules has been a tricky matter for both Democrats and Republicans when they have held the Senate majority, because both parties understand that any changes they make to advance their agenda can be used by the other side to advance their agenda should they become the majority party. So—to answer your last question first—nothing would stand in the way of a future Republican majority advancing something like the SAVE Act should Democrats relax or eliminate the filibuster. In fact, the primary reason why the Senate Republican leadership resisted Donald Trump’s call for them to eliminate the filibuster now in order to pass the SAVE Act is because they want to maintain the ability to block Democrats from passing their agenda the next time leadership of the Senate changes hands.
However, this hasn’t stopped both parties from nibbling at the edges of the filibuster. “Carveouts” are one way Republicans and Democrats have limited the reach of institutionalized obstruction. You mentioned reconciliation—that’s a great example of a carveout. Within very specific boundaries, spending and revenue matters are protected from the filibuster and can pass the Senate with a majority vote. Democrats approved a carveout for ratification of executive branch and most judicial appointees in 2013, in response to Republicans obstructing Barack Obama’s appointees. Republicans extended the carveout to include Supreme Court justices in 2017, which allowed them to shape today’s Court. In each case, the side advancing the carveout calculated that the advantages of changing the rules to help them now were greater than the risks of helping the other side later.
But there are many ways to reform the filibuster other than through carveouts. My favorite proposals would preserve the ability of the minority to highlight legislation they find objectionable while making it difficult if not impossible for them to prevent its passage. I discuss these reform ideas at some length in my Project Democracy series, in a post called Keep Talking about envisioning a post-Trump constitutional revival.
What are Democrats doing to offset the impact of gerrymandering?
(Chris) In the context of 2026, there does not appear to be any time for additional blue states to redraw their maps. So, in the coming weeks and months, the focus will be on public messaging denouncing Republican gerrymandering, and lawsuits against any new maps they draw. The hope is that the public messaging will bring some voters over to the Democratic side, and that the lawsuits may block Republican maps in a couple of states, such as Alabama, Florida or Missouri.
It should also be noted that Democrats are still considered the heavy favorites to win control of the House of Representatives in 2026 despite the Republican gerrymandering advantage.
By 2028, expect blue states like New York, Illinois, Colorado and maybe others to redraw their maps, with the aim of cancelling out any new maps that Republicans draw in red states in the South.
After 2028, the goal is that with control of the White House, House of Representatives and Senate, Democrats can pass a federal law outlawing partisan gerrymandering in 2029, before the 2030 elections. In order to pull that off, not only will Democrats have to do well in the 2026 and 2028 elections, but they will also have to pass a carveout to the filibuster rules in the Senate, or modify the filibuster like Matt was saying in his answer to the previous question, in order to allow such a bill to pass with a simple majority vote.
That last item may seem far-fetched, but it is worth noting that in 2021, it came within only two votes in the Senate of actually happening. Back then, 21 Democratic and independent senators supported eliminating the filibuster to pass H.R. 1, which included a ban on partisan gerrymandering, while 27 others supported a carve-out to pass the bill.
So, that is the basic roadmap going forward.
Could the Republican advantages gained by the Callais decision be cancelled out if some purple states became blue states?
(Matt) Yes, to some extent. Setting aside for the moment the damage Callais inflicted on Black representation in Congress, the most long-lasting way to undermine the Republican gerrymandering gambit that the Supreme Court supercharged is to convert Republican voters and compete in states that Democrats have long abandoned. This means engaging in a concerted effort to turn purple states blue and red states purple as part of a broad political realignment that should be within reach in the aftermath of MAGA governance. The damage Trump is doing to the economy should give Democrats an opening to attract voters in white working class and rural areas, especially in the South and agricultural Midwest. In fact—more than just a response to Callais—forging a broad coalition will be essential for Democrats to get the kind of deep mandate that will be necessary to construct a multicultural democracy for the 21st century.
We need to be sober about how long this will take. It is a multi-year project that will require a sustained effort—even after the immediate threat of Trumpism has passed. It means gradually winning power at the state level in places where Democrats stopped showing up long ago, and consolidating power at the national level in order to have the clout needed to reform the Supreme Court and enact a new voting rights act. Only then will the full impact of Callais be reversed.
The good news is we can take a huge step forward this year, because even with the Court’s best efforts, Democrats are poised to take a big bite out of Republican rule this November.
Chris’ Special Report: The Consequences of Democratic Defeat in the Virginia Supreme Court, sent last Friday, seemed to downgrade the Blue Wave: “It does start to seem possible, though still not at all probable, that Republicans could hold onto the House of Representatives in the 2026 elections.” If what once (only a week ago) seemed impossible is now merely improbable, what are the chances of the Rs holding onto the House or (worse-case scenario) a Red Tide becoming probable in the next six months?
(Chris) You know, fair enough. I admit that I will not always get everything right, and there is an inherent element of unpredictably about the future.
It is important for a political commenter to own up to their mistakes, so I will do that right now. First, I thought that any Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act would come later in the term—so late, in fact, as to not impact 2026. Additionally, I did not think there was any real chance the Virginia Supreme Court would toss the new, pro-Democratic map. I was wrong on both of those counts. In the future, I will try to qualify my language a little more so as not to lead on either my readers or myself.
That said, every forecaster I have seen still thinks that Democrats are favorites to win the House, even after what appears to be the worst case scenario on redistricting unfolding for them over the past two weeks. Most of them still think, like I do, that Democrats are the heavy favorites. It will be a somewhat smaller majority, of course.
Could things get worse for Democrats between now and November, even to the point where 2026 turns into a red wave? It is not impossible, but it would require some sort of extremely rare, earth shattering event of historic proportions that results in Americans rallying around the administration in large numbers. The 9/11 attacks are just about the only example in American history of this happening. Even the 1942 midterms elections went poorly for Democrats outside of the South, despite Pearl Harbor.
So let me put it like this: yes, the situation might improve for Republicans between now and Election Day. What are the odds of that happening? While I do not have an exact number, I believe they are quite low.
(Matt) I agree with the core of what Chris is saying but I’ll employ a slightly different perspective to reach a slightly stronger conclusion. While the courts have gutted the opportunity for Democrats to play Republicans to a draw (or slightly better) in this year’s redistricting wars, nothing has changed about the fundamentals of the election cycle, which means there is no reason to alter our expectations about the outcome significantly. Donald Trump is still polling in the 30s, his disapproval is now routinely above 60%, and it’s difficult to see how this gets any better over the next six months. If anything, unfortunately, the economy is likely to get worse.
Much of the country has given up on Trump. Even if there were to be a situation that in normal times would lead people to rally around their leader, Trump has lost so much legitimacy that it’s hard to see how he wouldn’t end up being blamed for anything that may befall us between now and November (to use a counterfactual, an alternative reaction to 9/11 would have been to blame George W. Bush for failing to prevent the attack, rather than rallying around him). The only earth shattering change I could imagine that might potentially accrue to the Republicans’ benefit would involve successfully invoking the 25th Amendment between now and the election, and that possibility resides in the realm of fantasy. As long as Trump is at the helm, blue wave conditions should hold.
In an environment like the one we are in, Democrats should be able to win more than enough seats to take the House. Evidence of this is that the Senate—which is unaffected by redistricting—remains in play. If Democrats are in the running for Senate seats in North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Alaska and Texas—and they are—then they are certainly competitive for the red seats they will need for a House majority.
So I would say that the odds of Republicans holding the House in this environment are exceptionally unfavorable and the odds of a red wave materializing are next to zero.