It would appear that God is calling Mike Johnson to start a landscaping business back home; in spite of the GOP gerrymanders, the Democrats only have to win a handful of about twenty toss-up seats in order to gain control of the House. It would take the political equivalent of a miracle to prevent that from happening.
Fortunately for Johnson, he believes passionately in miracles and in Donald Trump. For him, they’re the same thing. For us, not so much.
Michael Whatley is off the air in North Carolina. His laser focus on crime didn’t pay, to the relief of those of us who despised his nasty commercials. Cooper is going to win the vacant seat here fairly easily, as I predicted months ago.
That leaves eight competitive races, which is an exceptional number, based on recent history: Maine; Michigan; New Hampshire; Ohio; Alaska; Texas; Kansas; and Iowa. The Democrats need to hold Michigan (with a poor candidate) and New Hampshire (with a strong Republican challenger) and split the rest to gain control of the Senate. Can they do it?
It will be a coin flip. A 50-50 split is a real possibility, which would mean J.D. will have to spend precious campaign time running the Senate in 2028. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
The interesting development here is the movement away from the GOP in the Midwest. The farmers–at least some of them–have finally figured out that Trump’s wars and tariffs are bad for their business, and that culture war victories don’t pay the rent. Does that mean we are seeing a significant shift which could give the left more of a chance to win the Senate in the future? I doubt it, but TBD.
Six Republican senators out of 53–the usual suspects, with little to lose–have now signed a letter demanding answers about the loss of Ukrainian intelligence access. Together with the Democrats, they represent a majority of the Senate. Will they actually use their power to do something if they don’t get an appropriate answer, or will they, as usual, just settle for wringing their hands?
Based on the last two years, I would bet heavily on Option 2.
As I’ve noted innumerable times, the foundation of the Republican Party is a bargain in which the PDP faction gets tax cuts and business deregulation and the Reactionaries receive official support for the war on wokeness. The election of Trump did not fundamentally change this dynamic, although it did change the balance of power between the two factions and permit him to toggle back and forth without repercussions. But what happens after Trump leaves the scene? Will the GOP revert back to a party in which the PDPs hold the reins and the Reactionaries just provide the votes?
I don’t think so. I suspect there will be an effort on the part of at least one of the GOP presidential wannabes to return the party back to its Reaganite glory days. If the economy is struggling in 2028, there may even be substantial public support for a candidate who prioritizes the economy over culture war. I don’t think it will work, however. I believe the Reactionaries will maintain the ultimate control over the party for at least one more election cycle, largely due to the lingering influence of Trump, who isn’t really going anywhere.
While the military version of Starlink upon which Ukraine relies was developed by Elon Musk, and Musk has attempted to exert influence on foreign governments for years, the system is operated by the US government, so it is unlikely that Musk is primarily responsible for the decision to limit Ukrainian access to it. Trump can take credit for that development if he has the nerve to do so.
But what will happen in the future if the interests of Musk and the US government are no longer aligned? Who controls in that situation: the man with the tech and the money, or the guy with the law and the guns on his side?
Musk will have more power than any single private individual in my lifetime to dictate policy after 2028, particularly if Grok becomes more capable than its competitors. More than anyone since J.P. Morgan, and possibly more than him. It is a scary thought for the future.
Apparently angered by Zelensky’s display of insolence, Trump is limiting Ukrainian access to American intelligence and communications technology. No one in D.C. is admitting it, but there is no other obvious rationale for this development. Trump is using his last and best card to prove to Ukraine that he’s the boss.
And how are the GOP Russia hawks responding to this? By saying nothing, of course. They’re far more afraid of Trump than Putin, even with the polls indicating the public has had enough of the man on golf cart.
Lindsey Graham would be proud.
C: I’ve gathered you together one last time before the midterms. How are you feeling today?
M: Depressed.
S: Anxious.
C: Mark, why are you depressed?
M: Trump’s war and tariffs are seriously damaging my business. I can’t sell SUVs when the price of gas is over $4 per gallon. The tariffs are driving up our costs and screwing up our supply chains. We don’t know whether we should be trying to build and sell EVs or gas-powered cars. And now, the Democrats, with their taxes and regulations, might win back Congress, which would mean one constitutional crisis after another for the next two years. If that isn’t good reason to be depressed, I don’t know what is.
C: Will you vote for Republicans this year in spite of Trump’s record?
M: Not for MAGA types who support him when he goes off the rails. For more moderate types, yes.
S: I always said you were a RINO. The Republican Party is all about Trump. Nobody else matters. If you’re not with him, you’re against him.
C: Why are you anxious?
S: The polls are bad, the war isn’t going well, and gas is too expensive. Trump could lose. That would be a problem.
C: You always said you trusted Trump. He said the war would be over in a few weeks. That didn’t happen. Do you still trust him?
S: I don’t like the war. I never did. I think someone gave him some bad advice. He needs to get rid of the fools around him and put an end to the war. It’s the source of all of his problems.
C: Trump has also given unqualified support to AI and data centers. How do you feel about that?
S: I’m concerned about data centers, and I hate AI. It could take away my job. It could even wipe out humanity. And for what? It only means more bad customer service and higher profits for businessmen like my RINO friend.
M: Nothing wrong with that! AI is awesome! I’m already planning to lay off most of my accounting staff.
C: Sebastian, are you concerned that most of the AI profits will wind up in the pockets of tech oligarchs?
S: Absolutely! I can’t stand those guys. They’re the global elite that Trump has been fighting all of his life.
C: But they’re all friends of Trump now. Especially Musk, of course.
S: They’re not really his friends. They’ll turn on him when it suits them. Right now, it doesn’t, but wait until 2028. They’ll be back on the blue team.
C: How can you continue to support Trump when you hate his closest allies? He claims to be a populist, but he gives the tech barons everything they want, even if you don’t like it.
S: Trump will figure out who his real friends are soon enough. Just you wait.
C: That’s enough for now. I’ll see you again after the election.
Desperate to show that he is doing something to mitigate the war’s impact on diesel prices, Trump made a deal with Putin to release more product into the world market. This did not go over well with the Europeans or a number of members of Congress. Even Thom Tillis has argued that the deal violates American law and should be terminated.
Zelensky, as you would expect, isn’t a fan, either. He made his opposition very clear. Trump responded by insisting that Ukraine needed a new president. His comments were not received favorably even by the opposition in Ukraine.
Zelensky has done his best under difficult circumstances to avoid provoking Trump for the last two years. Why does he think he can afford to be candid at this point in time?
Because Ukraine has largely weaned itself off American help, and he knows he has more cards to play against Trump than he did last year.
Assume, for purposes of argument, that the Democrats win control of the Senate, at least on paper. Can they rely on Fetterman to support them against Trump?
On issues relating to Israel, no. Otherwise, I would say yes. Fetterman is a contrarian, to be sure, but you would have to be a really passionate contrarian to support an unpopular and unsuccessful autocrat who had just lost his majorities against your own party.
Susan Collins prides herself on being independent, which means that when it comes to opposing Trump, she picks her spots. She voted against the BBB and Hegseth, but she supported Trump on RFK, Bondi, Patel, and the attempt to force changes in ICE tactics. Is that a more effective way to keep Trump within the guardrails than consistent opposition?
Based on the record, probably not. A Senate in which Collins is the decisive vote would most likely stand aside and wring its collective hands ineffectually in the face of creeping autocracy.
New law school students are quickly taught that the text of a document controls when it is clear, and that the remainder of the document and its historical background can be used to establish intent when it is not. This approach works perfectly well with contracts and statutes. Does it make sense as applied to the Constitution?
As far as it goes, absolutely. The problem is that a 200+ year old document with lots of very general language is rarely clear, and that establishing intent through historical research, if done honestly and correctly, is an extremely complex task. As a result, some other source must be used to fill in the gaps in the record.
Thomas gets over this hurdle by cherry-picking history in an unprincipled way in order to get the reactionary outcome he desires. Alito, for his part, apparently gives indications in his new book that he will be using “common good constitutionalism” to fill in the gaps in the historical record. That means medieval Catholic theologians whose influence on the drafting of the Constitution was minimal will be playing a large role in his jurisprudence for the foreseeable future.
Right-leaning lawyers have complained that the Warren Court simply made up new constitutional rights in order to further the ideology of a majority of the justices for decades. The New Right is turning originalism into a Trojan Horse to do the exact same thing in the opposite direction.
With every passing day, the quacking from the lame duck in the White House gets louder. As of today, there is a better than average chance that his successor will be a Democrat. He will enjoy the use of all of the new powers that SCOTUS has granted him over formerly independent agencies and the executive branch, not to mention the immunities provided from criminal prosecution. How will SCOTUS respond over the next two years?
The justices claim they don’t pay any attention to polls or election returns. There is every reason to believe that Thomas, Alito, and the three liberals will follow their own advice. For the others, however, the next two years will be a minefield. Gorsuch and Roberts in particular would be wise to make a display of their independence from Trump’s agenda if they want to avoid allegations of hypocrisy when they inevitably vote to restrain executive power during the next Democratic administration.
I use a PC that runs on Windows, so I understand the contribution that Bill Gates made to my life. I occasionally buy items on Amazon, and I watch documentaries on Amazon Prime, so I don’t resent the fortune accumulated by Jeff Bezos. I’m not on Facebook, but I know plenty of people who rely on it, so I don’t ask why Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire many times over. But what about Elon Musk? What has he ever done for me, or anyone around me?
I don’t drive a Tesla. In any event, Chinese electric cars are better and cheaper than his. I don’t use Starlink or X, either. I don’t see how Musk has made any positive contribution to my life. What, then, justifies his status as a trillionaire? Why should the American political system continue to treat him as a demigod whose whims and weird ideology will define the future?
Beats me.
Recent history tells us that undecided voters break against the party in power in presidential elections when the administration is unpopular, as it is today. It happened in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Does that provide a guide for the midterms?
Not exactly. The outcome of the midterms will revolve less around swing voters and more around the willingness of less engaged 2024 Trump voters to go to the polls to support lackluster Republicans. Angry Democrats and independents will make sure their voices are heard; will waves of commercials attacking the left for being weak and woke do the same for the right?
The outcome of several key Senate races, particularly in the Midwest, will depend on the answer to that question. The polls suggest that those races could go either way. I make no predictions at this point.
Trump says he should have won about eight Nobel Prizes by now. He’s right, but only if they awarded Nobel Prizes for greed, ignorance, narcissism, bad taste, autocracy, bullying, incoherent speeches, and bad hair and makeup.
Until then, I’m afraid he’ll just have to wait.