“What appeals to voters can shift from one election cycle to the next,” Elaine Kamarck writes in “Assessing the role of candidate quality in the 2026 midterms” at Brookings. “In recent years, Democrats have struggled with working-class male voters. Some 2026 candidates are adopting the approach of Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who campaigned in sweatshirts and athletic shorts and leaned into a working-class image distinct from the party’s college-educated base. This year, Fight Agency, a political consulting firm, is producing ads for a group of Democrats it calls the “Rugged Guys”—veterans with blue-collar backgrounds. One Senate candidate in Maine is an oyster farmer, another in Iowa is a former mechanic, and a third in Nebraska is a steamfitter. “Every cycle, there is a different hot candidate profile that everybody’s trying to be,” Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha said. “This year, it seems like it’s these blue-collar workers…No matter how effectively a party recruits strong candidates, primary voters ultimately decide who advances, and sometimes the winner is weaker for the general election. In many districts, this has little impact—of the 435 congressional districts, only about 40 are rated as “toss-up” or leaning toward one party. But control of the House can hinge on these contests, making candidate quality crucial. A candidate who draws national attention for unusual reasons can lose a winnable race, while a relatable working-class contender can prevail in a district that might otherwise have favored the other party. Recruiting candidates turns out to be both an art and a science.”

According to a Pew Research Poll taken in September 2024, a majority of Americans support replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, which would require a Constitutional Amendment. The poll found that 63% of Americans favor a national popular vote for president, while 35% prefer keeping the current Electoral College system. The Pew survey found 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favored replacing the Electoral College. But 53% of Republicans and Republican leaners favored keeping the Electoral College, while 46% preferred a popular vote. Under the current partisan line-up of the Senate and House of Representatives, it would be all but impossible to ditch the Electoral College for direct, popular election. So, how about a compromise reform which specifies that the winner of the popular vote would be awarded a bonus of 50 Electoral Votes and whichever candidate gets the most Electoral votes wins. Under such a reform, Al Gore would have been awarded the 50 bonus electoral votes in 2000 for a total of 316 electoral votes, with George Bush II getting 271 electoral votes and Gore would have won the presidency. In 2016, Hillary Clinton would have the bonus 50 electoral votes for a total of 277 electoral votes. But Trump would have still won the presidency with 304 electoral votes. So the reform would have benefitted Republicans and Democrats equally in the two most recent elections in which the Electoral College winner got fewer popular votes. The proposed reform would keep the Electoral College, but weaken it to benefit the winner of the popular vote, but not always enough to change the outcome. Yes, the President could veto the proposed amendment, and his veto could only be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will win a veto-proof majority of both houses in the midterm elections. But if Democrats win the presidency in 2028, and have majorities of both Houses of Congress, such a reform could become possible, if abolishing the Electoral College is not politically feasible. However, any constitutional amendment has to win a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of the states, a daunting challenge in our polarized politics.

All of the unnecessary mobilizing and quartering of troops in American cities, along with Secretary Hegseth’s flying in generals and admirals from their posts around the world for a non-emergency is going to cost the taxpayer plenty when the expenses are tallied and all of the bills are paid. Worse, none of it is going to solve any of the serious problems facing American cities or the military. Instead, we are left wondering about the opportunity costs of not having our defense personnel doing what they should be doing instead. With respect to the military occupation of American cities, anyone who has been to Portland recently knows that it has a homeless problem and could use some federal help to address it in a responsible way, such as helping to fund temporary and longer-term housing for impoverished  people. Sending troops there who have no training in crime prevention and placing them at high visibility tourist sites is a performative distraction which is not going to reduce crime. Nor is flying military brass in from around the world for a pep talk that could be quickly delivered via zoom or secure military communications a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars. Paul Mcleary described the event this way at Politico: “President Donald Trump on Thursday framed the event as a friendly meetup, even as some defense officials called it little more than a photo op.” The common denominator of both actions is the Administration’s proclivity for squandering taxes of hard-working Americans on producing a big, empty show. At a certain point taxpayers want to know, “Where’s the beef?” The GOP, once the party of lower taxes and responsible stewardship of the federal budget, is now the party of profligate poseurs.

I hoped Trump would negotiate with Democratic leaders to avoid the shutdown, since the public knows Republicans control all branches of government and blaming the shutdown entirely on Democrats is a very tough sell. But it now appears I may have overestimated Trump’s capacity for common sense negotiation. The first day of meetings should have yielded a “we are making progress” message from the White House, instead of a “we failed to agree on anything” outcome. As Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick report in “Congressional leaders leave White House meeting without deal to avoid government shutdown” at AP, “A government shutdown fast approaching, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders left a White House meeting with President Donald Trump Monday afternoon showing no sign of compromising from their entrenched positions in order to avoid a lapse in funding…If government funding legislation isn’t passed by Congress and signed by Trump on Tuesday night, many government offices across the nation will be temporarily shuttered and nonexempt federal employees will be furloughed, adding to the strain on workers and the nation’s economy…But lawmakers were locked in an impasse Monday. Democrats are using one of their few points of leverage to demand legislation to extend health care benefits. But Republicans are refusing to compromise and daring Democrats to vote against legislation that would keep government funding mostly at current levels.” Democrats may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, if they can’t get their messaging act together. But sweet reason ought to tell Democratic leaders that they are holding better cards and patiently sticking to principle will serve them – and America – well. Read more here.