Based on current population trends, they scream that if Democrats win the "Blue Wall" states of MI, WI, and PA in 2032, and win Nevada too, they... still lose. The base red states will have enough electoral votes to put Vance (or whoever) over the 271 electoral votes needed to win.

The year is 2032. Studying the Electoral College map, a Democratic presidential candidate can no longer plan to sweep New Hampshire, Minnesota and the "blue wall" battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and win the White House. A victory in the swing state of Nevada would not help, either.

That is the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party insiders see playing out if current U.S. population projections hold. After every decennial census, like the one coming up in 2030, congressional seats are reallocated among the states based on population shifts. Those seats in turn affect how big a prize each state is within the Electoral College -- or how a candidate actually wins the presidency.

In the next decade, the Electoral College will tilt significantly away from Democrats.

Deeply conservative Texas and Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats, and the red states of Utah and Idaho are each expected to add a seat.
...

Those gains will come at the expense of major Democratic states like New York and California, according to a New York Times analysis of population projections by Esri, a nonpartisan company whose mapping software and demographic data are widely used by businesses and governments across the world.

New York will lose one electoral vote and the once-mighty California will lose three.

...

Across all of the possible scenarios in the nine states that would be considered battlegrounds in the 2032 election, Democrats would see about a third of their current winning Electoral College combinations disappear if population projections hold. However, when looking only at the most feasible winning combinations based on voting behaviors in the 2024 election, the outlook is far worse. Of Democrats' 25 most plausible paths to victory in 2024, only five would remain.

Some groups have arrived at an even more challenging outlook for Democrats in 2032. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan organization, projected Republicans to have three more safe seats from Texas and Florida, and New York to lose one more seat than The Times's projection.

The Times looked at nine swing states -- the Classic 7 from 2024, plus bubble-swing states NH and Minnesota -- and they found that sixty six of the combinations that would win the WH for Democrats in 2024 will lose it for them in 2032. (Or result in a tie, which would favor the GOP in the state-by-state congressional delegation tiebreaker vote.)

Here are the first dozen of so of those win-in-2024, lose-in-2032 combinations:

Meanwhile, red states seem to be ready to redistrict in time for the 2026 midterms. Reportedly, Missouri is ready to redistrict. It's currently a 7-2 split in MO, and they hope to add red areas to Eldridge Cleaver's district to make it a Republican pick-up.

Florida, Ohio, and Indiana may also redistrict:

I saw someone claim that the GOP might wind up being +13 through redistricting, so that even if CA forces through a constitutional amendment to let Newsom draw the districts, we'd still wind up +8. I don't know about that, though. Seems high.

NBC's DEI Dum-Dum is mad: