Polymarket says 78 percent likely. Is there a good case for that estimate?
What’s the Basis?
That’s the collective wisdom, or lack thereof, of the betting markets.
It’s impossible to say, but we can make an independent case.
2026 House Ratings
The Center for Politics, an independent organization discusses the 2026 House Ratings seat by seat as of December 10, 2025.
- Safe GOP Pickups: 3
- Safe Republican: 188
- Safe, Likely, or Lean Republican: 208
- Safe DEM Pickups: 2
- Safe DEM: 170
- Safe, Likely, or Lean DEM: 211
That does not tell us much.
If anything, it appears to tilt GOP. Republicans have 18 more safe seats, and only 3 fewer Safe, Likely, or Lean seats.
But check out the tossups.
Tossup Seats
- GOP Held Tossups: 14
- DEM Held Tossups: 2
Incumbent Party Curse
It is a consistent historical trend that the incumbent president’s party tends to lose seats during midterm elections. This phenomenon, sometimes called the “midterm curse,” is observed in the vast majority of cases in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Historical Trends
- House of Representatives: Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House. In fact, the president’s party has lost House seats in 20 of the past 22 midterm elections.
- Senate: The pattern is slightly less consistent in the Senate, but the incumbent party still tends to lose seats, with an average loss of four seats since WWII.
Explanations for the Losses
Two primary theories attempt to explain why the incumbent party typically struggles in midterms:
- Referendum Theory: This is the most common explanation, suggesting that midterm elections act as a referendum on the sitting president’s performance and the state of the economy. A president’s job approval rating is strongly correlated with the number of seats their party loses; those with approval ratings below 50% see significantly higher average seat losses.
- Surge-and-Decline Theory: This theory posits that the high voter turnout in a presidential election year is absent during midterms, and the core voters of the opposition party are more motivated to show up, leading to losses for the president’s party.
Notable Exceptions
- 1934: President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democratic party gained seats in both the House and the Senate during his first midterm, largely due to the widespread acceptance of his New Deal policies during the Great Depression.
- 1998: President Bill Clinton’s Democratic party gained House seats during his second midterm, which was unusual as he was facing impeachment at the time, but potentially due to high public approval ratings and a strong economy.
- 2002: President George W. Bush’s Republican party gained seats in both chambers in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a period of national unity and high presidential approval.
Gerrymandering Impact
Trump egged Texas to gerrymander Texas. At the time, I saw nonsensical posts that Republicans would never lose again.
However, California and Utah offset any Republican gains in Texas. The Republican gerrymander in Ohio might not accomplish anything.
Virginia and Maryland Democrats are pondering mid-cycle redistricting to counter GOP gains in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina.
Illinois backed off after Indiana backed off, the latter to the extreme consternation of Trump.
Politico reported Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map in major blow to his gerrymandering push
Indiana Republicans withstood immense pressure from President Donald Trump, ignoring anonymous threats on their lives as they defeated his plan to redraw the state’s congressional map and dealt him one of his most significant political setbacks since his return to the White House.
The GOP-controlled state Senate on Thursday voted down 31 to 19 the map that would have gerrymandered two more safe red seats, imperiling the party’s chances at holding control of Congress next November.
The failed vote is the culmination of a brass-knuckled, four-month pressure campaign from the White House on recalcitrant Indiana Republicans that included private meetings and public shaming from Trump, multiple visits to the Hoosier State from Vice President JD Vance, whip calls from Speaker Mike Johnson and veiled threats of withheld federal funds. The hesitant local lawmakers held out in spite of pipe bomb threats, unsolicited pizza deliveries to their personal addresses and swattings of their homes.
Speaking Thursday night from the Oval Office, Trump lambasted [Indiana State Senator Rod] Bray, who oversaw the defeat of the remapping push.
“Bray, whatever his name is,” Trump said, threatening to “certainly support anybody that wants to go against him,” and reasoning that he had “done a tremendous disservice.”
Top MAGA allies sounded far more concerned.
“We have a huge problem,” said former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who simulcasted The War Room show live from a suburban Indianapolis hotel to boost support for redistricting. “People have to realize that we only have a couple opportunities. We’ve got a net five to 10 seats. If we don’t get a net 10 pickup in the redistricting wars, it’s going to be enormously hard, if not impossible, to hold the House.”
Democrats need only net three House seats next year in order to seize control of Congress’ lower chamber, and their party already neutralized a five-seat advantage Texas Republicans gave themselves by similarly redrawing California’s congressional lines.
Indiana officials whispered for weeks about fears that rejecting redistricting could result in a loss of federal funding—a fear that Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, made explicit in an X post Thursday. “President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state,” it read. “Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”
Following the vote, Bray told reporters the state was not in danger. “I’ve had lots of conversations with folks in Washington, D.C.,” he said, when asked about those threats. “Indiana will continue to function.”
Net Zero
Total the redistricting wars up and it looks like somewhere between 0 and 2 Republican pickups, if that.
And if Virginia or Maryland get in the fight it might be a Republican loss.
Spotlight Virginia
On December 8, Cardinal News reported Virginia Democrats move toward a 10-1 map that would eliminate all but one Republican House seat
The immediate question is the state’s impending mid-decade congressional redistricting — gerrymandering, if you will.
Two things have happened in the past week to elevate this question.
We’ve known since October that Virginia Democrats intend to push to amend the state’s constitution to set aside the bipartisan commission that voters approved in 2020 to allow the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to draw lines more favorable to their party in time for the November 2026 congressional midterms — this in response to Texas Republicans setting off a nationwide tit-for-tat gerrymandering spree as each party tries to squeeze out some advantage.
Virginia’s congressional delegation is currently six Democrats, five Republicans, which generally matches the state’s overall politics in most statewide elections. The original chatter was that Democrats were looking at new maps that could produce a 9-2 split, although some maps showed that 10-1 was possible.
When former Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia Beach announced in November that she’d like to return to Congress, Lucas endorsed her and signed off her post on X with this: “Stay tuned next year for some new district lines as well which may be helpful. 10-1.”
That maximalist approach seemed to be in the minority until last week when House Speaker Don Scott told an audience at the University of Virginia: “10-1 is not out of realm to be able to draw the maps in a succinct, community-based way, but we’re going to take a look at it.” Scott is not one to speak lightly, so this seems a clear sign that 10-1 is very much a live possibility.
How to Start a War and Lose It
From 6DEM 5GOP to 10DEM 1GOP would be a loss of 4 Republican seats. From 6DEM 5GOP to 9DEM 2GOP would be a loss of 3 Republican seats.
If either happens, Trump will have lost the gerrymander war he started.
Texas Irony
This story is incredibly funny (or sad or both).
Please note After Trump Pardons Cuellar, TX-28 Moves to Leans Democratic
In what was a surprising bipartisan move last week, President Donald Trump pardoned Rep. Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28), who was indicted on corruption and money laundering charges.
Though the state’s new GOP-drawn House map faced some legal hurdles, the Supreme Court recently greenlit the mid-decade gerrymander for 2026.
Republicans will very likely net seats under the new Texas map, though Cuellar may have actually gotten a more favorable district.
Considering his pardon and the new lines, we are moving Cuellar from Toss-up to Leans Democratic.
After Trump pardoned Cuellar, Trump expected him to switch parties. But Cuellar stayed Democrat.
As a result, The Center for Politics switched the seat to Leans Democratic.
Trump may only get 4 pickups in Texas. Democrats get 5 in California. And as a result of a bipartisan commission, Democrats get a pickup in Utah.
Dave Wasserman
Dave Wasserman is the editor of the widely respected Cook Political report.
Indiana has opted out. The winner of the war (if any) will be determined by what Florida and Virginia do.
Nate Silver Chimes In
Nate Silver asks Is redistricting backfiring on Republicans?
In August, I outlined what was basically a Game Theory 101 take on the redistricting wars. I argued that it was a race to the bottom — or more formally, a prisoner’s dilemma. Even if Republicans “started it”, Democrats were only hurting themselves by failing to reciprocate. But now that Democrats have shown a willingness to fight back, especially with the passage of Prop 50 in California, we’re even closer to the inevitable-seeming equilibrium. Given the lack of constraints on districting likely to be enforced by the current Supreme Court, you might predict this involves a maximalist approach from both parties.
I also contended in that story, in contrast to the conventional wisdom at the time, that this equilibrium does not inherently favor Republicans. And I guess that looks smart, because even after the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s redistricting plan last week, the 2026 redistricting wars have pretty much been fought to a draw so far.
Furthermore, Republicans don’t necessarily hold an advantage in the long run either. Once Abigail Spanberger is sworn in as governor in Virginia next month, Democrats will hold state government “trifectas” (control of the governorship and all legislative chambers) in states commanding more U.S. House seats than Republicans have. While Republicans hold trifectas in more states, the Dem trifecta states tend to have higher populations. (To be fair, you could probably add North Carolina to the GOP side of the ledger because the governor doesn’t play any role in redistricting there.)
But that August article left out some of the complications you’re getting at, Scott; let’s address them here in SBSQ. One is that redistricting is not actually a zero-sum game. For one thing, excessively partisan gerrymandering is bad for democracy. But more self-interestedly, redistricting can threaten an incumbent’s job or force him to defend a district that spiders out to places beyond his home base where voters are less familiar with him, reducing his incumbency advantage.
Partly for these reasons, the state senate in Indiana has so far resisted Trump’s calls to redistrict, even as the state house has approved a 9-0 Republican map. Even in an era of exceedingly high partisanship, incumbents are generally pretty risk-averse when it comes to their own jobs. And last month’s elections, which went very well for Democrats, raise the possibility that next year’s midterms could be contested in something like a D +8 national environment in which even relatively safe Republican seats could be in play.
Indeed, the parties are not taking a truly maximalist approach. Indiana has been one example, but also consider California. Democrats are expected to gain an additional 4-5 seats as a result of their new Gavin Newsom-backed, voter-approved map. But that will still leave 4-5 Republicans in California’s congressional delegation, when in theory it would be possible to draw a legally-compliant 52-0 Democratic map.
In California, Prop 50 was framed by Gavin Newsom as a response to unfair treatment — it is formally named the Election Rigging Response Act. That framing was smart; the referendum passed by almost 30 points.
At some point between now and the midterms, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that courts have interpreted as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts. The Roberts court has already weakened the Voting Rights Act, and considering the court’s dislike for race-based requirements of any kind, Democrats are understandably nervous about the outcome. However, it’s not clear whether any ruling would come in time to affect the 2026 midterms.
So the mechanics of how these majority-minority districts fit into the redistricting math are tricky. On the one hand, they effectively guarantee Democrats at least some representation in states like Alabama or Mississippi, where they could otherwise be entirely gerrymandered out. On the other hand, they can also act as vote sinks for Democrats. If you have a D +65 district, like on the South Side of Chicago, that produces a lot of wasted Democratic votes that could, in principle, be spread out throughout the rest of the state, especially in a legal environment with few other constraints on partisan gerrymandering.
Republicans Control More States, Democrats More Seats
If the Supreme Court blasts the Voting Rights act out of the water, then expect to see California, Illinois, and New York to eliminate all Republican seats.
Is that what you want?
Personally, I find this all disgusting. So does Senator Rand Paul.
Gerrymandering Might Lead to Violence
Politico reports Rand Paul says partisan gerrymandering ‘might lead to violence in our country’
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that partisan gerrymandering will “lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,” urging restraint in the ongoing redistricting wars playing out in more than a dozen states.
“I think there is the potential that when people have no representation, that they feel disenfranchised, that it can lead, it might lead to violence in our country,” Paul said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Paul’s warning comes as state lawmakers across the country consider redrawing congressional lines at the insistence of President Donald Trump, with Democratic-led states like Virginia and Maryland weighing mid-cycle redistricting to counter GOP gains in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina.
The Kentucky Republican predicted that eliminating minority seats in Congress could lead to voters feeling disenfranchised and empowering them to “resort to other means.”
“I’m concerned if there are no representatives, like no Republican representatives in California or no Democrats in Texas, that it will be so thoroughly one-sided that people will feel like their vote isn’t counting,” Paul said, adding: “It’s a mistake of both parties.”
A Mistake or a Plan?
Is polarization a mistake or a plan?
Unfortunately, many want this war, and they want it now.
For now, it all roughly evened out. Depending on Florida and Virginia, it could tilt either way.
Back to Election 2026
In light of Trump’s popularity, special elections we have seen so far, political history, health care, and most importantly the economy, Republicans rate to lose the House in 2026.
Congressionally speaking, Trump would be an immediate lame duck. Presidentially, Trump is already a lame duck (meaning he cannot run again).
Loss of the House accompanied by impeachment could potentially result in god only knows what kind of executive orders by Trump hoping to get even.
Related Posts
December 3, 2025 : Small Businesses Drop 120,000 Jobs in November, ADP Total Down 32,000
It’s another grim month according to ADP.
December 4, 2025: Challenger Reports Employers Announced 71,321 Job Cuts in November
Announcements imply future, not immediate, layoffs and unemployment claims.
December 8, 2025: Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible
Let’s discuss 2026 health care premiums and what they mean to the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.
December 21, 2025: House Reps Massie and Ro Khanna Announce Inherent Contempt Against Pam Bondi
I expect a majority will vote for this without compliance.
December 21, 2025: Republican Chip Roy Blasts Republicans on Health Care Plans
Chip Roy does not think much of Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan.
Meanwhile, please note Only 56 Percent of Republicans Say the Economy Is Good
If you don’t understand why, please click on some of the preceding links.
There is no solution for the Fed or the Administration.
Unless the economy drastically improves, the Dems are gonna win easily. Trump already lost a lot of his base, the departure of MTG is emblematic of that. What would then follow is impeachment in the house, and perhaps even a conviction in the senate if republican losses are too great.
Trump has hinted at stimulus checks, but it doesn’t seem he is serious about it. He may try to get an easy win via new wars, but that will just turn off his base even more.
It will be interesting to see how the republicans fare. For them to control congress it has taken operation red map. And several southern states where maps were redrawn but courts said illegal. The tactic has been to stall in court till it to late to change to a fair map. Oh well run this one this time then figure out a fair map after elections.
I think they are running out of options
I would not view “lean R” as very safe at this time. A situation where disgusted Rs stay home and angry Ds show up can flip a lot of those.
It is sad that a so called democracy spends so much time in undermining the concepts of democracy. The electoral boundaries should be determined so that the number of seats a group wins in an elections reflects there overall vote or at least their preferred two party vote. And they are adjusted regularly to ensure ongoing alignment
Funnily enough other countries that don’t claim to be the bastions of democracy do this.
Or just go proportional representation by state/nation… NOTE: this is really hard to to gerrymander and corrupt, hence why it will never be used in the USA
Interesting that there are 435 members of congress serving 330,000,000 Americans that’s over 758,000 per congress critter. Wouldn’t something like 55,000 citizens per member be much more representative? So we really need a congress of 6,000 for actually decent representation.
Trump comfortably won the 2024 election due to picking up the youth vote at the very end of his campaign.
But since then he’s completely alienated this demographic with his economic policy widening the gulf between the “have” and “have nots”, not to mention his bending over backwards for Israel.
This group — whose polling is under-represented during legislative-only election cycles — will either not show up come November 2026, or worse, show up just to vote the opposite of what the Republicans want because they’re pissed off.
Not just that, Trump’s support of the Gaza genocide – plus his stonewalling and gas lighting of his base with regard to the Epstein files/lack of prosecutions – has made him pretty much a TRAITOR in their eyes (very likely a guilty party himself). I voted for Trump all three times that he won, but I am 100% sure, barring any black swan occurrence, that the Republicans are going to get clobbered in 2026 AND 2028. That is, unless Massie can make a good case for himself in 28, which I am praying he does at this point.
Not just the youth vote but a significant move towards the Republicans by 1.Hispanics, 2.Asians { Indians, Filipinos ,Chinese]. These groups concentrated in key large states will swing back massively to the Democrats. Remember the California swing to Democrats in the late 90s.
This , This right here. Basically Cali in the 90s basically permanently shifted the vote to the Dems due to really harsh immigration policies. Surprised someone caught this, Hispanics are naturally conservative but this time it will be Abortion vs Deportation.
I’ll never forget those poor souls on the top floors of the World Trade Center on 9-11-01, faced with the “choice” of being burned alive by jet fuel or fleeing the fire by jumping to their death. It’s like being a voter in the U.S. That’s why Dems will take the House easily. Voters threw out the Genocide Joe administration and replaced him with the same only worse. One party wastes money on every cockamamie scheme under the sun. The other one is the democrats. Catch on fire or jump out the window. Some choice.
The Democrats have no platform, other than the United States of illegal immigrants. They are bending over backwards to reward illegal immigrants over the needs of their constituents. Despite what Polymarket says, the odds are closer to 50-50.
Democrats have a long-standing platform that is rooted in non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and an effective and robust social safety net. Economically, a fairer tax code that does not exacerbate the wealth and income gap, improved and modernized transportation infrastructure, and continued investment in public education are needed. Environmentally, the Democrats support a well-funded, incentivized transition to clean, renewable energy sources. Democrats are not against legal gun ownership, but Democrats recognize that our extremely liberal gun ownership laws, combined with little to no public investment in treating mental health conditions, have led to the United States having, by far, the worst gun-related homicides of any advanced nation in the world. Therefore, Democrats want to strengthen gun purchase and township laws, in addition to making it more difficult or banning guns that incorporate features and designs that are almost indistinguishable from military-grade weapons. On immigration, Democrats appreciate how immigration strengthens us from both a societal and economic standpoint and have tried for nearly 20 years to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would both reduce illegal immigration and streamline and increase legal immigration, as well as deal with the so-called dreamers and give them a path to citizenship.
Yeah, Dems have been working hard for nearly 20 years to reduce illegal immigration. GTFOH.
Over the last 20 years, Democrats in Congress have introduced or co-sponsored five major comprehensive immigration reform bills in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2013. The split between Democrats and Republicans on immigration legislation has been a broad approach (security & legal immigration reforms) and a narrow approach focused almost entirely on border security.
whoever runs on medicare for all, will win. it’s that easy. the red v blue team hooey is just that. in a blind test, no one could tell the difference in blue or red in power over the past 50 years.
I agree. The American health insurance scheme is such a clusterfuck of epic proportions that most people are ready to ditch it. If Canada can manage Single Payer, we should be able to, since we’re not all wasted on Windsor, doing curling. You can’t say we can’t afford it when we’re giving $40b to Argentina and spending a trillion dollars on the Department of Offense.
bully bully. exactly correct. medicaide and medicare are easy. how about the trillion per annum we spend on our bases all over the globe trying to police the world for coca cola and exxon and the amerikan way of life……..we all know the 8 billion human primates are yearning to be amerikans. /sarc
They need to provide EXACT details on who will pay for medicare for all.
Same people that pay for moronic wars and moronic ballrooms.
Hey I resemble that remark
The White House ballroom work is privately funded.
LOL yeah the checks in the mail.
The Democrats tax the middle class to give to the poor, illegals, lazy and irresponsible.
I would like to see you flush that statement out. Over my politically aware lifetime, I do not recall any Democratic administration proposing, let alone passing legislation that increases taxes on the middle class. Increase taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy, yes, but on the middle class, no.
“Democrats … have tried for nearly 20 years to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would both reduce illegal immigration …”
And yet somehow Trump accomplished it in about four months.
Furthermore, The black Democrats in Chicago have been loudly disagreeing that illegal immigrants are strengthening Chicago. In fact, they are pissed that illegal immigrants do exactly the opposite. In fact, most places are pissed about how the needs of illegal immigrants are being prioritized over the needs of both legal immigrants and US citizens.
All Trump did was resort to scare tactics to stem the migration numbers coming to the border for a better life. He has not durably solved anything, and he has certainly not tackled the problems with the legal immigration system.
In contrast to Kamala being in charge of ramping up illegal immigration as high as it could go.
It doesn’t matter if Trump used scare tactics to get rid of illegals. The important thing is he’s getting rid of them.
I’ll get down on my knees for a platform of nothing vs a platform of grudges, egoistic renaming (that DoD rename may cost up to 2 billion btw), dismantling everything in sight, and slashing social programs while somehow massively increasing deficits and eviscerating the earning potential of the middle class
Most people would. And since Democrats have also done everything you mention when they were in power, now we have to figure out how “voting for a platform of nothing” can be achieved.
Yes, they have no platform and are detested by a large chunk of the country now. BUT Trump has upset his base so much that it is very likely that Democrats win in 2026 and 2028 simply by “default”.
The current ruling party usually loses the midterms, however, I think we won’t have a good idea about the 2026 elections until the middle of summer. Everything depends on the economy. Will Trump be able to pull off $2,000 refund for non high earning Americans with the tarriff money and will he be able to get interest rates down? I think both of these things will affect the 2026 elections.
You’re right that 10 months is a long time and Dems might not prevail (thought they probably will). I don’t think Trump will be able to pass $2,000 rebate checks, and even if he did, it would be laughed off as insignificant and craven. Fed cuts in short term rates are unlikely to result in lower rates on longer terms – like mortgages. Only a big drop in inflation would do that.
Congress would need to pass a law for the $2,000 rebate checks. Over 25% of Americans don’t have $500 for an emergency so getting a check for $2,000 for EACH tax payer would be considered a lot of money to them.
American democracy is all about open rational public debate of issues.
Key word “rational”, mostly gone from America’s political debate.
The Republicans represent the far right and the Democrats represent the far left.
Who will represent the moderates in the middle of both parties?
That is who I want to see running for office!
Screw these bi-polar parties!!!
The last Democratic Party platform, adopted at the 2024 convention, focuses on lowering costs, tackling climate change, protecting reproductive rights (restoring Roe v. Wade), enhancing gun safety, strengthening the economy for working families, securing the border, and promoting equity, while contrasting sharply with Republican proposals by emphasizing investments in clean energy, fair taxation on corporations, and social safety nets. Key areas include universal healthcare access, climate action (net-zero goals), immigration reform with a path to citizenship, and criminal justice reform.
If that’s extreme leftist, I’m in.
The Republican Party did not release a new platform in the 2020 election cycle, instead issuing a resolution that simply expressed support for then-President Trump’s agenda and essentially rolling over the 2016 platform. The 2024 platform, therefore, represents a significant update and the party’s current official stance on key issues, closely reflecting Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.
So that’s not extreme? Sure why not, “we’ll go with the King”.
There’s a big issue that none of the “experts” are discussing. In many areas, most voters have given up on this rigged, corrupt political system. This means that elections can be decided by a minority of a minority. The NYC election triggered headlines of the biggest voter turnout in years, burying the fact that it was maybe 35%. Miami was similar with maybe 13% of eligible voters producing a victory. This means radicals, communists, and utter fools can win. It creates instability and ‘anything goes’.
“This means radicals, communists, and utter fools can win”.
Or right wing nuts.
Excellent analysis. I would give this a 2 star Mishelin award however it misses a key point and that’s what does it matter?
Democrats taking the House won’t fix anything, not the debt, not healthcare, not inflation, not wages, not the demographic death spiral, nor anything that matters. Adding back subsidies for healthcare is pouring discounted gasoline on a raging fire and calling it good.
It won’t get much better if democrats win the presidency in 2028, it’s all a spiral into the abyss now, only prudent thing to do is get out, save yourself, diversify out of a dying empire and get a nice remote seat view to watch it all unfold.
There’s a new documentary on Netflix called “Breakdown: 1975” that gives a good preview of what’s to come for anyone that wants a sneak peak of the future. Yes, it’s déjà vu all over again.
While I understand the cyncism and embedded fatalism, I choose to see it somewhat differently. The dems have been inching away from the ‘corporatism’ that infected H.Clinton’s bias and maybe, just maybe, recognizing that DJT and the Maga movement pounced on the disaffection and alienation felt by the rural and rural/conservative class. The challenge, should the dems actually win the midterms, is whether they will capitalize on their recent momentum by listening instead of lecturing. Ro Khanna and Tom Massie demonstrated with the Epstein Act that it was possible to maintain their individual preferences on economic futures, but work together in response to what they jointly felt was an important issue (in this case, transparency and justice for the victims). As Trump further slides into lame duck irrelevance, other self-serving representatives will step forward to advocate for their own constituencies, even if by doing so they may be stepping outside the dictat’s defined boundaries. Too hopeful?
Don’t know if it’s too hopeful. There is too much damage to this country even before Trump came into office the first time and second time. The only way not to default on $40 trillion in debt is to inflate it away so massive inflation is coming. It was going to come anyway with the demographic death spiral but combine that with the debt and growing unemployment, insatiable appetite for electricity for AI, and a growing healthcare crisis and I see all of it as insurmountable and inflation will go from bad to hellscape.
There’s a reason Great Depressions happen and this country is headed in that direction and that’s the best case scenario in my view. The worst case is what happens after Weimer Republic.
trump will default on the foreign owned Tbills is my bet. great depressions are not always so bad for all. prices plunge. i lived in a city where the property in my hood went down 75% from 2006 to 2012. it was ugly but i picked up cap rate multi family at 20%. young folks starting out were lucky to buy properties so cheap, too. i also was in russia in the 90s doing business. a complete collapse of an evil empire. it was NOT all bad. lots of great things occurred. i think your plan is great. have a plan. whether you do it or not is not that important. i have had an escape plan for decades. passports of quality countries, and offshore assets etc………the basics. great comfort. i think this empire crumbling will be great for many. especially the younger folks, who i will help out.
How about a debt jubilee for the entire nation, a start over.
i remember being in HS when nyc almost went bust. when the investment bankers boycotted the nyc muni auctions………
Instead of running like SOS Rubio’s family did in Cuba why not stay and fight?
The Democrats were blindsided by candidate Trump in 2015 as he and his alt-right team tore the rural, non-college-educated white working class from the Democratic Party base. After two years of the Trump presidency, Republicans got trounced in the 2017 mid-term elections, and his chaotic approach to the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, voters turned on him and elected Joe Biden by a wide margin. The first year of the second Trump presidency has been far more chaotic and cruel than the first time around. There is no reason that the midterm results will be different this time around. Plus, I would argue that the Democratic Party is beginning to learn how to compete in the age of Trump. Expect health care to be a central issue again, and this time the Democrats are likely to get some real traction with a “Medicare for all” message and other proposals that will appeal to struggling Gen Zs and Millennials on affordability, especially when it comes to housing. If things do not change dramatically in terms of health insurance, housing, and other life necessities costs by 2027, I fully expect the message of Democratic Presidential hopefuls such as AOC and Newsom to resonate strongly.
I can see Newsome resonating a bit, but AOC? No way, that one is too far out there!
Actually, I am not a fan of any Democrat that Bernie Sanders would enthusiastically support, but don’t sell AOC short. She is by far the best and most authentic messenger on the affordability issues overall, and she is credible on single-payer healthcare.
A woman will not be elected President anytime soon. AOC should shoot for the job of Senator, acquire some centric exp.
Gosh, I’m surprised to hear that Bernie is such an anathema… what particular perspective of his do you find most appalling? (I’m particularly confused since AOC is clearly his acolyte, often amplifying his very ideas.) BTW, I was like others concerned for AOC being ‘too extreme’ but I have listened to her proposals/policy preferences (as opposed to simply taking the establishment Dems’ word for it, which is basically a sophisticated tar and feathering of her before her momentum threatens the E-dems further). The issues she lists are valid; she is a bit short on ‘how’ to fix them, at least so far.
Here is what I know about Bernie, having watched and listened to him for over 30 years and having a friend who knew him when he was the Mayor of Burlington, VT. He is an ideologue to his core. He does not have a pragmatic bone in his body. I have to respect him for his convictions. In a way, I am glad that he has a voice in the Senate, but to be President, you should have beliefs and principles, but you need to be flexible. You need to be President for all Americans, so you need to be pragmatic if you want to get anything accomplished, so that we survive your Presidency. I think that AOC got elected because of her sheer political skills. She was an ideologue in the beginning because she did not know any better. However, she has spent enough time in the House under Nancy Pelosi’s tutelage, and I do believe she has become more pragmatic and less of an ideologue. When you combine that pragmatism and her exceptional political skills, I would not bet against her becoming the first woman President.
bernie is pragmatic. he is an independent but gets a ton of money…….from Dems. he just does not campaign for Ds. he’s good but deep down he’s a scoundrel and a phoney. yang gang was real. imho.
Nader was real.
Bernie’s age is appalling
she’s dead on middle of the road for urban folks of all ages, but mostly the younger generation of 20 and 30 somethings. she’s a great politician. much more real than dreamy gavin. trump is a cult figure aka mussolini and hitler……….i saw him 2 weeks after he announced in 2015. he had the 500 business folks at conference i attended in palm of his hand. a real cult quality magnetism. like he hypnotizes people like some preacher in tent revival. something i also attended in a homeless park in AZ in depths of the 2008 panic and depression……..
nice ass-t
I wonder if MAGA have considered what the new dictatorial presidency created by Trump and this supreme court will mean in 2029. A democratic president could unilaterally fire every ICE agent, reveal all their names, and refuse to pay them a single cent in benefits. That would be a nice opener. Then they could direct the justice department to go after every single one of them for civil rights violations. There will likely be candidates promising this kind of action in the primaries, and a lot of Democrats will like these ideas that Republicans have normalized. There certainly could be war crimes trials for the leadership at the department of war. I think numerous cases could be made for bribery from ceos of large American corporations. And many in the trump admin would be in great legal peril.
All good. Then nobody would need an “exit strategy”, right?
Only until repubs get back in office and double down on idiocy then you’re back at square one. What needs to happen is the boomer generation needs to die off as quickly as possible, things may start getting better around 2036 when about half have died off.
Then young people will get their democratic socialism they’ve been yearning for but then again by then they will start becoming boomers themselves so who knows.
You are probably onto something. Trump is likely the last attempt to forestall the inevitable: moving past our survival-of-the-fittest societal delusion toward a more mature society that looks more like Northern Europe. In a way, Trump has actually paved the way with his Public/Private partnerships on AI, his flirtation with price controls, and his love of protectionist policies.
Every one of the Scandinavian countries scores higher than the US on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. I don’t get the sense that the Party of AOC and Mamdami is looking to move in that direction. A society that looks more like Southern Europe I can definitely see.
The northeast region of the US where AOC and Mamdani come from compares favorably with Scandinavia. The hdi (human development index) of several New England states is equal to or higher than that of some Scandinavian nations. People from other parts the US may not understand how high quality of life is here.
crowded+expensive=quality
It’s “almost as if” law and order and decorum were murdered by King Donald John I.
Proving, in fact, that the United States really has devolved into a Banana Republic. I can’t wait until this happens, exposing the “Banana Repubic Conspiracy Theory” as undeniable conspiracy fact. No wonder the dollar is taking a nose dive.
A better question is: What are the odds that Trump attempts to fix the mid term elections?
look at what he what he did in 2020?
I doubt that dictator Trump is prepared to let voters decide what his last? two years will look like.
I think he’s too demented to manage a project like that. And the quality of the people around him is abysmal. I think Marco Rubio is basically the only thing keeping the ship from sinking at this point. And he doesn’t look like he can handle the strain for long.
Agreed. Sometimes the news seems like an old Saturday night Live skit.
I guess Rubio sold out thinking SOS was a step to POTUS.
I hope trump is no longer POTUS by Nov 2026.
86/47 by any legal means.
bet a few pals, in 2018, that by jan 20, 2029, one or more states will EFFECTIVELY secede back to a pre 1860 era confederation of chipping in for us navy, highways and courts. but it will be the beginning of the end of the world wide warmongerin imperial presidency and power being concentrated in the imperial twin cities of DC / NYC. i’m very confident i’ll be collecting the steaks at Durant’s in downtown phoenix. my favorite steakhouse this side of tokyo.
Effectivly – what a laugher, my money is on that bet not paying out either way.
What are the odds the lie that the United States has become continues like this for much longer? We are staring into the abyss and the abyss is staring into us. We are violating our Constitution every second of our lives. The Drmocrats and the Republicans are depraved psychopaths. We’ve seen the enemy and it’s US.
The Dilemma for the Democrats in 2026 is … the Democrats
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5663802-democratic-leadership-fraud-scandal/
Wow Robby Rob, you seem to be a fan of the Kool-aid! McKinnon is a shill in my opinion, and he blows his argument apart with the sentence describing the far left members of the Dem party as the “apparent leaderships” [they are definitely not] and that they are “(anti-rule-of-law, pro-open-borders, “defund the police” and wreck the economy via “universal income,” etc.) to ensure tens of millions of “common sense” Americans will come out to vote against their policies in 2026 and 2028. Here’s one at at time debunking: They are not “anti-rule-of-law” in any degree close to the current administration, and I’d like to hear more than mere assertions to explain away the overwhelming judicial success so far acheived by those challenging the administration’s extra-legal efforts (i.e., the adminiistration’s attempts to go around prescriptions in the law, and in the Constitution). Pro-open borders? Really? That is a far right canard; even Bernie Sanders is advocating for managed immigration. “Defund the police”? Nope. The argument, as I recall was primarily a question of resource allocation, meaning should the police be tasked with and trained for maintaining public safety AND be trained for social worker expertise (necessary when dealing with the mentally impaired, or in domestic violence situations where de-escalation is acheivable without loss of life). Total budgets may have been somewhat reduced as the need or preference for military level equipment (think SWAT vans with machine guns and 6 inch armor) would be cut, despite the aspirations of the most militarized leaders of police forces. Reducing funds for those expenditures and re-allocating towards community policing was the goal that became, in the mouths of the rabid right “defunding the police”. Finally, “universal income” will not ‘crash the economy’; depending on who you read/listen to, AI and GAI may do that without any assistance at all. The argument towards universal income is to some extent an extension of Lord Keynes theory that liquidity and economic activity is what sustains an economy. His famous example was pay half the men to dig holes and pay the other half to fill them back up again. The money received would then circulate through the system and voila, a functioning economy. I look forward to your thoughtful reply.
thoughtful reply to a two screen paragraph. Let’s see the responses FLOOD in.
The word “liberty” had a different meaning at the time of the founding than it has today. It was the opposite of tyranny. Liberty meant a seat at the decision making table. It meant that the others at the table would be forced to compromise with you to ensure that your interests weren’t harmed, but if they had to be, then you would be compensated. Liberty is what the founding fathers celebrated in the Constitution: the compromises made to ensure all parties needs were met (and yes, that included slavery). Tyranny was the act of the King or Parliament making decisions that were harmful to the inhabitants of the colonies in order to enrich themselves.
This type of maximalist redistricting is just tyranny in action, and will eventually lead to rebellion in some form. And it will be supported by those who put party and personal ideology before nation and liberty.
I agree but the Tyranny we are seeing is only because the rest of the government provides no leadership or does anything useful! America has been dumb down and follows the “team” concept when it comes to voting. The two party system once a strength has become a noose we are hanging our sleeves with!
Stop printing money and we will have a chance!
One hundred percent.
I suspect that the redistricting wars will work against Trump or will be a wash at best. But, given his shockingly low approval ratings, there’s little hope the Republicans will hold the House.
The economy is surprisingly strong, given Trump’s deliberate vandalism, if unemployment gets above 5%, I’d predict a Democratic pickup of more than the average twenty-eight seats.