We’ll have more on the C.D.C. fallout next week. Meanwhile, as Washington awaits Friday’s first B.L.S. jobs report since Trump fired the head of the agency, I reached out to Puck’s own Ian Krietzberg for a preview of how A.I. may or may not be impacting employment numbers. Here’s the latest from The Hidden Layer, his essential newsletter on the industry…

And now, here’s Abby…

Washington is roaring back to life this week as members return from a tumultuous recess to an even more chaotic fall session, opening with this week’s Epstein showdown, the ongoing implosion of the C.D.C., and a looming shutdown fight. But the post–Labor Day window also marks the beginning of a midterm cycle that’s unlike anything most political operatives have ever seen.

Earlier this summer, the conventional wisdom held that Democrats were increasingly likely to retake the House, while the Senate would be a longshot. But that thinking has since shifted. Thanks to Trump’s redistricting push, Republicans now have a better chance at holding the House, while Democrats have somewhat improved their odds at achieving a slim Senate majority. Democrats started this cycle with a miserable Senate map, tasked with defending Georgia, Michigan, and New Hampshire, but it’s become a bit less miserable thanks to the retirements of Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis. And, as my partner Leigh Ann Caldwell reported last night, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is under immense pressure to keep other disillusioned incumbents, especially Susan Collins, from following them out the door.

Instead, it’s now the lack of clarity surrounding the House map that’s truly agonizing Democrats. The reliable historical pattern for every midterm is that the out-of-power party almost always picks up seats. But because Trump has torched so many political precedents—having orchestrated a blatantly self-serving pre-midterm gerrymander in Texas, and now pushing a second one in Missouri—nobody wants to put their faith in the pendulum. “Even in years where redistricting happened, the timelines, processes, and expectations were clear. People knew what was going to happen and when, and could plan accordingly,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic consultant. “Now you can be a member of Congress in any given state and find out that Donald Trump has ordered up new seats in your state, and your entire political reality shifts overnight.”

Of course, members of both parties have more to worry about than just the immediate consequences of redistricting, including retirements, more difficult primaries, and districts being spread too thin. There are also the second-order effects: Democratic Texas Rep. Marc Veasey, for example, recently suggested that the state’s March primary and May runoffs could be delayed due to the Democratic challenges to the new map. I’ve heard the same concern in some Texas Republican circles. After all, this precise dynamic helped Ted Cruz pull off his shocking underdog primary win in 2012: Redistricting delayed the primary, leading to a low-turnout runoff election in the oppressive heat of a Texas summer. This cycle, it could end up prolonging the knock-down, drag-out Cornyn-Paxton brawl, consuming G.O.P. dollars that would be better spent elsewhere.

For now, the parties are still finding confidence in polling, although the data can be read a half-dozen ways. Republicans mostly shrug off Trump’s unfavorables, given internal polling that shows their incumbents still hanging on. More encouragingly, they say, the Democratic brand is in the toilet.

Democrats, for their part, are reassured by generic ballot numbers—the polling that shows they have a low-single-digit advantage in “generic Democratic candidate versus generic Republican” matchups—which is broadly indicative of the national mood. “I would be perplexed if Democrats didn’t win the House and do well in the Senate, but it’s a wild and crazy time,” said a Democratic lobbyist.

For the next few months, both parties will be focused on fundraising and recruitment. “Dems have some serious self-created headwinds,” said longtime Republican operative Doug Heye. “But Republicans were still D.O.A. at this point in 2010, and it all turned around for them with the House vote on Obamacare.” Indeed, many Democratic members and operatives I’ve spoken to remain unfazed by state redistricting, arguing that a blue wave should be strong enough to withstand any gerrymandering hijinks. They also point to Republican retirements in the Senate, and Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon’s in the House, as encouraging signs, along with the fact that the D.C.C.C. has nearly kept pace with the N.R.C.C.’s fundraising this year while House Democrats have the cash-on-hand advantage.

Democrats are encouraged by their recruitment drive, too. (Among the top announcements this week were Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti, who’s challenging Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan.) In fact, recruitment has gone possibly too well: Several Republican-held seats are jammed with Democratic challengers, which makes them far more unpredictable for a party that prefers to keep a tight leash on primaries in competitive seats. (Pennsylvania’s Ryan Mackenzie has five such challengers, New York’s Mike Lawler has eight, and Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey faces 10.) On the other hand, crowded primary fields are usually good for party-building; they reach more voters, and sharpen candidates’ skills well before the general election.

Still, much depends on California. As the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman put it: If the state’s Democrat-led redistricting initiative passes, Republicans will be underdogs to hold the House; if Democrats fail, the result will be “a very close fight” for the House. In the meantime, red states beyond Texas are at various stages of joining the redistricting fray.

Missouri, for one, has just kicked off a special legislative session to draw new maps that would dismantle the Kansas City–based district of Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. Ohio is looking at a court-mandated redraw that could jeopardize the careers of Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes. Indiana has yet to commit to a redraw, but Republicans would presumably target the district of Rep. Frank Mrvan. Florida Republicans may also redraw their state lines, possibly putting as many as five Democrats—Reps. Kathy Castor, Jared Moskowitz, Darren Soto, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Frederica Wilson—into tougher districts.

As for the Democrats’ defense against these redraws, California might end up being the easy part, along with Utah, where a court-ordered redraw may give Democrats a shot at a competitive seat. In Maryland, where Gov. Wes Moore has been raising his profile in recent weeks, a potential redraw is possibly on the table—Moore has sent subtle signals that he might go after Republican Rep. Andy Harris’s Eastern Shore district—but local Democrats have avoided something like this for years, for fear of spreading their districts too thin. There are similar worries in Illinois, where the bigger concern is that the legal barriers are simply too significant for a redraw this cycle.

Of course, hovering in the background is New York, which will not redraw this cycle. But if Democrats torpedo their fair maps ahead of the 2028 cycle, it could lead to a bloodbath for the state’s Republicans—an outcome dependent on Gov. Kathy Hochul winning reelection. (She appears to be on track to face Rep. Elise Stefanik next year.)

High candidate turnout is a positive sign that Democrats are on offense, but it also presents perils—particularly in California, with its treacherous jungle primary system. It’s possible that so many Democrats run for a House seat that they spread the vote among themselves thinly enough for two Republican candidates to advance to the general, locking Dems out of competing for a winnable seat. Should the new district map pass in California, these open primaries will be closely watched, and could get messy.

Meanwhile, the party’s endorsement process could be equally unruly. Democrats concede that a formal endorsement from one of the party committees could do more harm than good. There have been moments of overt Democratic ruthlessness on this front: In 2018, the D.C.C.C. dumped an opposition research file of a Democratic candidate who party leaders believed could have jeopardized a House seat, which they ultimately won that fall. But this is a much more anti-establishment moment, with Dems more often wielding an invisible hand to support preferred candidates (or quietly tamping down problem candidates they believe could blow the general election). This usually comes by word of mouth, by telegraphing to donors which candidates should be supported; party leaders have pushed back against interest groups like Emily’s List for boosting candidates, specifically in California, to avoid a lockout situation.

This level of chaos isn’t present on the Republican side. Yes, primaries are brewing in major Senate races, like in Georgia and Texas, but they’re generally far quieter for a simple reason: Trump. As recently as the late 2010s, Republican primaries were rollicking affairs, pitting the Tea Party against the establishment. But now that Trump has consolidated control, all’s quiet on this front. The entire Republican primary apparatus—from Senate seats down to the state legislatures—is organized around winning the Trump endorsement. After that ruling comes down, most Republican primary races are effectively over. Even when he was out of office, Trump had a 96 percent win rate in primary endorsements in 2024. He’s only cemented his power since returning to office.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006