washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Political Strategy Notes

There is a pundit consensus that, absent any political earthquakes in the coming months, Democrats are favored to win a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives in the midterm elections, and with it, the speakership. The U.S. Senate, however, is a tougher call, with the smart money betting on Republicans holding their majority, according to Kyle Kondik at Sabato’s Crystal Ball. As Kondik, explains, “The 2026 midterm may once again be a “Blue Wave,” as we saw in 2018, Donald Trump’s first midterm as president…But that environment wasn’t enough for Democrats to win the Senate that year, and it may not be in 2026, either…While Democrats have made progress over the course of the last year in positioning themselves to compete in enough Republican-held seats to win the majority, the GOP nonetheless remains favored to hold that majority…The basic asset for Republicans, and problem for Democrats, is the structure of the Senate map. With Republicans having knocked out all of the remaining Democrats from states that voted for Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot—a group of 25 states that accounts for half of all the Senate seats—Democrats either have to start winning in redder states again or, over time, essentially sweep all of the Senate seats in blue and purple states…Despite Republicans defending 22 of the 35 seats being contested this November, only a pair of those are in states where Democrats are currently very competitive: Maine, which consistently votes Democratic for president but also has the only Republican senator from a Kamala Harris-won state, Susan Collins; and North Carolina, which consistently votes Republican for president but often elects Democrats in other statewide races. Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend a couple of Trump-won states, namely an open seat in Michigan and the Georgia seat held by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D). We are upgrading Ossoff’s race to Leans Democratic—more on that below—but these other three races remain Toss-ups. Holding Georgia along with all of their other seats and flipping Maine and North Carolina would get Democrats to 49 seats—still two short of the 51 they need for a majority. Democrats have attracted credible recruits in additional, Republican-held seats, most notably Alaska and Ohio, but they may just run into a red wall even if the political conditions are very favorable in November.”

Here’s the U.S. Senate race midterm map, according to Kondik:

Jennifer Rubin explains “Why Dems Should Force Kristi Noem Out: Keep the momentum going,” and writes at The Contrarian: “Creating a record, presenting the evidence through credible witnesses, and forcing Republicans to defend the indefensible (just as the original videos of the killings did) are part and parcel of rallying the people, throwing Republicans on defense, splitting the Republican cult, and, candidly, throwing Trump’s party and underlings into panic that others could also face Noem’s fate…From a purely political standpoint, the calls for her to quit are already sowing divisions among Republicans. “Sens. Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign Tuesday, making them the first Republicans in Congress to say she should step down,” NBC reported. And, to boot, Tillis called out Miller for the same treatment. (“GOP Sen. Thom Tillis on Stephen Miller: ‘Stephen Miller never fails to live up to my expectations of incompetence,’ he said, later adding, ‘I can tell you, if I were president, neither one of them would be in Washington right now,’ also referring to Noem.”) Squeeze Noem and watch her drop the dime on others, including other Cabinet members, Vice President JD Vance, and Trump…By making Noem’s ouster a necessary but not sufficient condition of dismantling Trump’s police state, Democrats should also force Republicans up for reelection (e.g., Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, John Husted of Ohio, and John Cornyn of Texas) to justify why they are covering for her (and Trump). That should make for some effective debate moments…Finally, without the White House or majorities in either chamber of Congress, Democrats do not have a surplus of “wins” to tout. To reassure the base that elected Democrats are fighting for them and to encourage protestors to achieve progress through nonviolent action, a win of this magnitude — knocking out a Cabinet secretary in charge of arguably the most important domestic initiative of Trump’s second term — would be an invaluable sign of momentum. And for a regime that survives on the aura of invincibility, each stumble, loss, and scandal should be treasured.” More here.

If Trump’s self-dealing and corruption is going to be a concern for midterm voters, then this article should be a must-read for Democratic campaigns. David D. Kirkpatrick reports that “Trump’s Profiteering Hits $4 Billion: In August, I reported that the President and his family had made $3.4 billion by leveraging his position. After his first year back in office, the number has ballooned” at The New Yorker. Here’s the lede: “At the start of Donald Trump’s first term, he promised that he and his family would never do anything that might even be “perceived to be exploitive of office of the Presidency.” By contrast, his second term looks rapacious. He and members of his family have signed a blitz of foreign mega-deals shadowed by conflicts of interest, and they’ve launched at least five different cryptocurrency enterprises, all of which leverage Trump’s status as President to lure buyers or investors. Ethics watchdogs say that no other President has ever so nakedly exploited his position, or on such a scale. Trump recently explained to the Times why he cast aside his former restraint: “I found out that nobody cared.” You can read the rest of the story by signing up for a free New Yorker newsletter right here.

One comment on “Political Strategy Notes

  1. Victor on

    The list of Democrats’ immigration related demands was basically written in bad faith.

    Democrats are demanding:

    1. Judicial warrants

    Why are Democrats not calling for the appointment of new judges for this purpose?

    2. No Masks

    Why are Democrats not calling for the further criminalization of doxxing?

    3. Protect sensitive locations

    Why are Democrats proposing an open ended list?

    How would this list work in practice in cities where these sensitive locations may turn whole neighborhoods into exempted areas?

    4. Racial profiling

    Why are Democrats demanding a ban for searches related to “presence at certain locations” which is not actual racial profiling?

    5. Use of force standards

    Why are Democrats demanding special standards? Universal standards couldn’t be agreed in the context of regular civilian/citizen policing. How are is an agreement supposed to be achievable in 2 weeks?

    6. State and local coordination

    Why are Democrats demanding consent of states and localities to enforce federal law? This is a terrible precedent.

    Why are “large scale operations” as opposed to “targeted” completely lacking in definitions?

    Not a single of the demands would facilitate cooperation with the federal government in order to get better enforcement.

    Democrats are also not proposing a single alternative method to increase deportations, either self-deportations or reforms to the asylum system.

    https://x.com/maxpcohen/status/2019237080908591461

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *