At The New Republic, Michael Tomasky explains”What the Democrats Need to Do Now: To win back working-class voters, they need to signal more clearly to working people that they are on their side. That means picking fights on their behalf with the bad actors who are making their lives harder—and the democracy-hating billionaires.” As Tomasky writes, “Democrats, by and large, are not insurgents. They don’t come to Washington to topple any establishment. They come to pass some legislation, help make people’s lives better. These are worthy motivations, but over the years they’ve left Democrats bringing a lot of knives to a lot of gunfights…There are signs that Democrats are finally understanding that they need to do more fighting, and that things are not mostly working well. Many—I still wouldn’t say most, but many—congressional Democrats now get just how angry people are. Their electoral losses among working-class voters in 2024 surely taught them a lesson about that. And, after a very confused first few months during Trump’s second term, many seem to grasp now that they need to fight harder. They did a good job during last fall’s government shutdown. True, eight of them eventually decided to end the shutdown. But the party basically won the argument about the importance of the Obamacare premium subsidies, and polls showed that the public blamed Trump and the Republicans more for the shutdown than the Democrats…They stood their ground by enough to win the PR battle in that episode. They’ve become better at defending their position against GOP attacks. They’re better at responding to Trump. But one thing they still don’t do well is play offense—create preemptive lines of attack against Trump and the Republicans that put them on the defensive. California Governor Gavin Newsom has done a pretty good job of this for a few months, using his social media account to mock Trump and goad him into responding. But most Democrats still don’t understand the attention economy—the fact that people’s time is a scarce commodity, and a politician is only going to get so much of it—and the hideous but unavoidable rules social media has imposed on political communication…Passing legislation and improving people’s lives are great things. But politics in this age is constant rhetorical war. And not only, or even chiefly, about issues. Today’s war is more over character and values, and it requires not just staking out positions but taking stands.” More here.

In the middle of Black History Month, we can celebrate a victory for historical truth, as reported by CBS News Philadelphia staff Laura Fay, Eva Andersen and Dan Snyder at cbsnews.com: “A judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstall an exhibit about slavery at the President’s House Site in Philadelphia… In a ruling issued Monday, Senior Judge Cynthia M. Rufe ordered the defendants in the case — Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the Department of the Interior, National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron and the National Park Service — to restore the site to the way it was on Jan. 21, the day before the signage was removed. They also must keep all of the items safe, secure and undamaged, and cannot install any “replacement materials” without mutual agreement with the city of Philadelphia while the litigation is ongoing or before another order from the judge…The order also says officials must continue to properly maintain the site, including the grounds, video monitors, recordings and exhibits. The order does not give NPS a deadline for restoring the site…Monday’s order grants the city’s latest motion for a preliminary injunction and will be in effect until the judge issues another ruling…The exhibits in question provide information about enslaved people who lived at the site with Presidents George Washington and John Adams. After Park Service workers removed the signs in January, the city of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have the displays put back. The suit argues that the city has prior agreements with NPS that require any disputes to be resolved through communication and compromise between the two parties…Rufe begins her memo about the opinion with a quote from the George Orwell novel “1984” and says the court has been asked “to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims— to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts.”…She continues: “It does not.” Of course, the Administration will appeal the decision as part of its ongoing war against ‘D.E.I.’ and the pesky resurgence of historical truth. President Washington rotated his slaves from Mt. Vernon, VA to Philadelphia to get around a Pennsylvania law that freed slaves who lived in the state for six months. In fairness to President Adams, however, it should be noted that he never owned slaves, although he was a stalwart defender of the aristocracy.

Diversity, equity and inclusion are good values, although reasonable Democrats can disagree about how much to emphasize them in particular political campaigns. But there is a strong case for broadening understanding of the values to include low-income whites, who have also been denied opportunities.  As Richard D. Kahlenberg noted at The Liberal Patriot, “In 2023, after years of waffling, the U.S. Supreme Court acted decisively on the matter. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the justices upended 45 years of precedent and struck down racial preferences in college admissions. While Democrats expressed outrage at the time, the Court indirectly liberated them from their political confines. Democrats could tell interest groups privately that they supported racial preferences, but their hands were tied. The courts had ruled. A political albatross having been removed, Democrats could instead champion the broadly popular idea of affirmative action based on economic need, for which Clinton and Obama had articulated support but been unable to deliver…Today, there is a vibrant black elite, equipped with college educations and making six and seven figures. Research shows the economically privileged offspring of these families are the very ones who tend to benefit from preferences to elite colleges. At Harvard, for example, the litigation revealed that 71 percent of the black, Hispanic, and Native American students on campus were from the top socioeconomic 20 percent of the black, Hispanic, and Native American populations nationally…Dr. Martin Luther King called for reparations in the form of a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged” of all races, a disproportionate share of whom would be black.” Kahlenberg notes further, “Under a system of racial preferences, Harvard’s student body was racially integrated but had 23 times as many students who were wealthy as low-income. At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the subject of a parallel lawsuit, the ratio of rich to poor was 16 to 1.” Kahlenberg closes his article by citing “King’s bracing vision of policies that advance low-income and working people of all races. That is the only path to King’s dream of a multiracial coalition that puts hard-working low-income and working-class Americans at the very center.”

In “Taylor Rehmet Shows Working-Class Politics Can Win Everywhere,” Davis Griscom writes at Jacobin: “A union machinist just won a Texas State Senate seat Trump carried by 17 points. He was outspent four to one. How did he do it? By tossing out the Democrats’ playbook and running a grassroots economic populist campaign with a strong pro-labor message…“No one is coming to save labor, so we might as well do it ourselves,” said Taylor Rehmet in a video shared by the Texas AFL-CIO. This one sentence sums up Rehmet’s campaign for state senate in Texas’s Ninth District, which covers a large swath of Fort Worth and its northern suburbs. Rehmet, a union machinist and the president of his local, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Local 776B, ditched the Democratic Party’s typical political playbook to laser-focus on material issues affecting all working-class people…Taylor Rehmet was not recruited by the Texas Democratic Party, which has suffered defeat after defeat and has been bleeding support from working-class and Hispanic voters. Nevertheless, his campaign achieved the unthinkable: it flipped a Trump +17 district…His victory is likely part of a larger swing away from the Republican Party, fueled by discomfort with Trumpism — but notably, Rehmet didn’t campaign against Trump. And while mainstream pundits are quick to chalk his victory up to a repudiation of MAGA, they are missing the real lesson: people are hungry for a politics that addresses their everyday needs. Rehmet’s victory vindicates a deeply held left-populist belief: that working-class politics can win anywhere.” More here.

“Fundraising is a critical part of winning reelection, but sometimes incumbents have political problems that money can’t fix, Nathan Gonzales writes in “House: Money Isn’t Enough to Save Incumbents in Wave Elections” at Inside Elections. “When voter sentiment is against you, outspending your opponent isn’t sufficient to survive an electoral wave. This is important context when analyzing campaign fundraising reports…While there can be confusion over what constitutes a wave election, 2010 certainly qualifies. Republicans gained a net of 63 House seats in President Barack Obama’s first midterm election, with health care at the top of people’s minds. And 2006 fits the description as well, considering Democrats gained 31 House seats during George W. Bush’s second midterm when the president had lost much of his credibility after the war in Iraq and the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina…Under adverse political conditions, smart members gird themselves for the storm by raising money and leveraging that financial advantage most incumbents enjoy. But sometimes it doesn’t matter… Of the combined 74 House incumbents who didn’t win reelection in 2006 and 2010, 84 percent of them (62 members) outspent their challenger and still lost… Southeast Pennsylvania offers one of the best examples of this dynamic, which can plague both parties. In 2006, Democrat Patrick Murphy knocked off GOP Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, even though he spent only three-quarters of what the incumbent did ($2.4 million to $3.2 million) in a suburban Philadelphia seat. Four years later, Fitzpatrick toppled Murphy while spending less than half of his opponent’s outlays ($2.1 million to $4.3 million)…This year’s financial dynamic in House races might look closer to 2006 or 2010 than to 2018… Yes, there’s mounting evidence that a Democratic House majority is within reach due to historical midterm trends. Trump’s job approval rating stands at 41 percent, according to Nate Silver’s latest average. And Democrats have been consistently overperforming in races across the country over the past 10 months… But there are signs of fatigue among Democratic donors. Losing yet another race to Trump isn’t great for morale… Still, as history tells us, underfunded challengers can defeat incumbents under the right political conditions. And, maybe most importantly, Democrats don’t need an electoral wave to win the House majority. They don’t need to gain 63 seats, 41 seats or 31 seats or topple dozens of incumbents as we saw in previous cycles… They need a net gain of three seats.”

In “Is Trump Losing Rural America? Jess Piper foretells the growing blue wave across the country,” The Contrarian’s Jennifer Rubin interviews Jess Piper, Executive Director for Blue Missouri, a grassroots fundraising organization that supports Democratic nominees for Missouri state legislature.  In the introiduction to the interview, The Contrarian writes that “Trump’s policies seem to have done nothing but negatively impact the people that voted him into power—especially in rural America. From farmers in Iowa to small business owners, people across the nation are feeling the effects of the Trump administration’s broken promises and inaction. In response, a growing number of Democratic candidates across traditionally Republican held areas are running for election…Jess Piper, Executive Director of Blue Missouri, joins Jen to give us an update on the growing blue wave forming in the South and the Midwest. The pair also discuss the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) pushback against Trump’s claim that Alex Pretti’s murder was justified because he was carrying a gun, and how Democrats need to run for office in uncontested districts. Video and transcript link  here.

U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) explains “What My Party needs to Do” at Democracy: A journal of Ideas: “Democrats need to stop telling Americans how to be and what to feel and believe. Instead, we need to listen. Then we need to solve the problems they’ve shared with us. In the last few years, it’s not just our message that was wrong—it was some of our policies, too. People didn’t recognize the impacts of the bills we wrote and the votes we took. That’s why Americans don’t believe us when we preach at them from auditorium stages, cable news desks, and social media posts…We have to get back to the values and ideas that draw people to be Democrats to begin with…Ever since the shattering loss of the White House and the Senate majority in 2024, Americans have been asking about the direction of the party. What do we stand for? Where will we take the country if voters give us the chance to lead again? We should have run better campaigns in 2024, but more than a year later, we also need better answers to those questions than what we offered on Election Day…Democrats did very well in the off-year 2025 elections, but success in larger elections in 2026 and especially 2028 will require a more affirmative vision. If we want to win again, we need to offer voters a concise, accessible framework that rests on the ideas that drew me and so many others to the party in the first place: opportunity, security, justice…The Democratic Party has to build things again, and we need to make sure that Americans are trained for the future that these technologies will bring. It’s a perspective that would reestablish us as a pro-growth party, not solely a pro-regulation party. We are a party that sees exciting and positive opportunities ahead for all of us—and will work to make them come true…We should fight for the right of all Americans to be secure in their homes, their communities, and their bodies—safe from violence, supported by effective policing that partners with communities, surrounded by secure borders and immigration policies that respect humanity, and assured of responsible gun ownership and safe schools…”

Coons continues, “Security also means financial security. Democrats should help Americans keep more of what they earn and save for the future. That means making our economy a fair playing field, so that a day’s work lets you provide for your family, put some money aside for a rainy day, and build wealth…We should ensure the government is fair and free of corruption. Americans should be confident that they’re playing by the same rules as everyone else, no matter how wealthy or well connected…Security also has global dimensions. It means we partner with allies, lead with our values, and defend liberty to secure our place in the world. We should build a foreign policy that keeps Americans safe—and understands that diplomacy, development, and aid, along with a strong military, are key parts of that equation…Democrats must speak to and act on legitimate concerns starting with opportunity and followed by security before they can be heard on justice. Focusing principally on security leads to a velvet prison—a nanny state where you can get by but never have the incentive or ability to thrive, where you will always be safe so long as you never step out of your proverbial front door. If we focus on justice when folks don’t feel they have security and opportunity, they will think we are out of touch and tone-deaf. But if we see justice as the means by which we work on opportunity and security, then we can pursue a pro-growth agenda and a pro-security agenda…Another source of opportunity are the immigrants who do work Americans can’t or won’t do in sectors like agriculture and construction. There simply aren’t enough Americans to do these jobs without making our homes and groceries so expensive that they would be out of reach. If immigrants don’t fill these roles, food rots in fields, prices go up, jobs disappear—and everyone suffers. So, if we apply the principle of opportunity, we end up with an immigration policy that brings in highly skilled immigrants and immigrants willing to work in sectors that desperately need them even as it ensures that our borders are secure, so we don’t let in more people than our economy can absorb…Americans feel our borders are endlessly porous, and that our broken system makes it easy for people to cut the line, skirt vetting, and dodge supervision. We need to ensure they know our goal is their safety, a secure border, and laws that apply equally to everyone…We keep Americans safe by deporting the violent criminals who are most likely to commit crimes again. When deporting everyone is your priority, you don’t actually have priorities. It is not possible to humanely deport the more than 14 million people in this country without legal status or documentation. So, we should focus on those who have committed serious crimes…A just immigration policy ensures due process, including the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, so that we don’t accidentally deport American citizens or those legally allowed to live in this country. A just policy doesn’t force undocumented immigrants who have been here almost their entire lives to remain in the shadows, nor does it ignore international law on issues such as asylum. None of these principles detract from Americans’ security and opportunity. Instead, they add to them, ensuring the systems we put in place protect Americans and immigrants alike, reflect our values, and drive us toward a future of growth and freedom.”

Bill Scher addresses a question of growing concern, “How Worried Should Democrats Be About Trump Stealing the Next Election?” at Washington Monthly: “President Donald Trump betrayed his panic about the 2026 midterm elections when he vented at Dan Bongino, formerly the number two official at the FBI and now a podcaster, about his baseless conspiratorial thoughts about immigrants and voting. After glazing his “landslide” 2024 victory (in which he defeated Kamala Harris by a 1.5 percent popular vote margin), he asserted: “You’re never going to have that again if you don’t get these people out. These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegaly.”…He complained about his party’s handling of election laws: “Amazing that the Republicans aren’t tougher on it. The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over.’ We should take over the voting in at least—many—15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” …Trump’s call for a partisan takeover of the electoral apparatus understandably triggered reciprocal panic in Democratic circles about voter suppression and outright vote stealing. Considering how far Trump was willing to go to steal the 2020 election—from disparaging mail ballots to pursuing dubious litigation to egging on an unruly mob hellbent on obstructing the Electoral College count—every American committed to free and fair elections must remain on the highest alert until Trump has fully left the political sphere….”

Scher continues, “Last March, the president issued an executive order imposing restrictive voting rules on states. The Justice Department has been trying to piece together a national voter database from unredacted state voter roll data, which the Brennan Center says is an “attempt to force states to remove voters from the rolls based on incomplete and likely inaccurate information.” Last week, FBI agents, with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard creepily looking over their shoulders, seized 2020 voting records from Fulton County, Georgia. Trump, based on what he told Bongino (“you’re going to see something in Georgia”), is planning to use the records to further his gaslighting claims that Joe Biden stole the election in Georgia when we have plenty of evidence that Trump was plotting the theft. And considering how Trump has already abused his power with National Guard and ICE deployments designed to punish Democratic-run cities, we can’t discount the possibility that he will try to send armed agents to election sites with the intent of intimidating voters…  But, as with any bully, these real and potential acts of force and intimidation mask underlying weakness. A president simply doesn’t have the power to take over a Constitutionally designed, decentralized, 50-state managed election system. And as with any bully, the way to respond is to have your eyes wide open, but also have no fear…  That’s what we’ve been seeing. Most states aren’t turning over their unredacted voter data. Trump’s Justice Department has sued 24 of them, and last month, federal judges dismissed the cases involving California and Oregon. Also, last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to pressure Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to turn over the data, suggesting that compliance would end ICE’s Operation Metro Surge, but Walz has not budged. In Georgia, the Fulton County government has sued to recover its voting records.” More here.

Greg Sargent and the New Republic report that “Trump’s New “Prison Camp” Threat Unleashes Fury Even in MAGA Country.” An excerpt: “Right now, more than 70,000 migrants are languishing in detention—a record—but the administration is running out of space. Add another 80,000 beds, and it would supercharge expulsion capacity…Yet these detention dreams are hitting stiff opposition. ICE wants to buy a warehouse in Virginia’s Hanover County, which went for Trump by 26 points in 2024 and combines rural territory with Richmond’s northern suburbs. Residents recently turned out in force and angrily condemned the proposed sale, with local reports suggestingonly a “handful” backed it. The GOP-heavy Board of Supervisors opposed the transaction. The warehouse owner canceled the sale…Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the Republican-dominated Roxbury Township Council, in slightly-Trump-leaning Morris County, recently voted unanimously to oppose ICE’s plans to buy a warehouse there, with some locals sharply protesting the scheme for humanitarian reasons. The Republican mayor of Oklahoma City came out against a proposed ICE warehouse, with the owner also nixing the sale. Officials in places like Kansas City, Missouri, and Salt Lake City, Utah, are also dead set against plans for ICE camps in their locales…Guess what: The opposition is only getting started. As MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow noted in a useful overview of the opposition Monday night, we’re already seeing mass protests outside existing facilities. Those are smaller than some of the gargantuan new camps ICE hopes to create, yet migrant deaths are already soaring in the current facilities, and the bigger ones will be even worse. “If they build them, they will fill them,” Maddow said, labeling them “prison camps.” She added: “How do you think those facilities are going to be run?”…The pushback has come together surprisingly quickly. What explains this? A bizarrely overlooked finding in a recent Pew Research poll sheds some light: It finds that a huge majority of Americans oppose mass immigrant detention. The wording is critical here:…Do you favor or oppose keeping large numbers of immigrants in detention centers while their cases are decided?…Favor: 35 percent…Oppose: 64 percent…Trump’s overall approval on the issue is in the toilet, and ICE has become a pariah agency. Majorities oppose deporting longtime residents with jobs and no criminal record and view immigration as a positive good for the country. In that Pew poll, 60 percent of Americans oppose pausing visa applications for the 75 countries Trump has singled out, apparently in keeping with his hatred for “shithole countries,” and two-thirds oppose ending asylum applications for people fleeing horrors abroad.” More here.

Carroll Doherty, former director of political research at Pew Research Center, writes in “Is the Time Finally Right for Real Immigration Reform?” at The Dispatch that “Americans are making a distinction between the stability at the border and the chaos and violence they have seen on the streets of Minneapolis, Chicago, and other cities where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has surged its enforcement agents. Thus, a New York Times/Siena University poll last month found that Trump’s approval rating for handling the U.S.-Mexico border was 50 percent, 10 points higher than his rating for immigration overall… What do Americans want from immigration policy?…  Recent national polls have focused mostly on the two killings of American citizens in the past month at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents and their heavy-handed tactics more generally. The movement to rein in ICE—or even “abolish” the agency, in the dreams of some liberals—has spread from the halls of Congress to the citadels of American popular culture…Yet there has been less attention paid to the complex, unresolved question that has long been at the heart of America’s immigration predicament: what to do about the estimated 14 million people living in the United States illegally… Trump’s maximalist approach—the “largest deportation in the history of our country,” as he put it during the 2024 campaign—has retained a fair amount of popular support, despite the backlash over the tactics employed by ICE and Border Patrol agents…The same January New York Times/Siena poll that showed that Trump was underwater on immigration policy, and ICE even further underwater at 36 percent approval, found an almost even split on the administration’s mass deportation policy: Fifty percent of respondents supported it, and 47 percent opposed it…That’s consistent with other recent polls that ask respondents only about their views of the current deportation policy. Yet it’s often overlooked that, when given the opportunity, consistent majorities of Americans express a preference for finding a way to deal with illegal immigrants in the U.S. without resorting to mass deportations.” More here.

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.

From “A closer look at Americans’ views on ICE” by Aaron Blake at CNN Politics: “The White House and Congress have begun what appear to be earnest negotiations over reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the aftermath of Alex Pretti’s killing in Minneapolis…And a couple new surveys conducted both before and after Pretti’s death add some interesting data points to the debate…It’s well-established by now that Americans have largely turned against ICE, with about 6 in 10 disapproving of it and saying it’s gone “too far” or been “too tough.”…But a Fox News poll and a Pew Research Center poll dig a little deeper on a few key points…1. Independents don’t agree with Trump on local police helping ICE..For one, the Fox poll released this week suggests an argument made by Trump and others – that local officials are to blame for the chaos because of their lack of cooperation with ICE – is unlikely to fly with Americans…Trump warned Wednesday that Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was “playing with fire” by not using local police to enforce federal immigration laws…White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz have “shamefully blocked local and state police from cooperating with ICE, actively inhibiting efforts to arrest violent criminals.”…Vice President JD Vance added last week: “If we have a little cooperation from local and state officials, I think the chaos would go way down in this community.” But Americans aren’t sure this is what’s called for…The Fox poll asked registered voters whether they favored or opposed “requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE.”…Voters were about evenly split, with 49% in favor and 50% opposed. But independents opposed this idea by a wide margin, 64%-34%…(And that’s to say nothing of the fact that Minneapolis police are actually legally barred from doing what Trump wants.)…”

Blake continues, “2. Americans seem to misunderstand the scope of ICE’s actions…There is one aspect of Trump’s messaging that does appear to be breaking through, though…The Fox poll shows a majority of registered voters think that ICE’s actions reflect Trump’s promises to target people with criminal records either “almost always” (29%) or “most of the time” (25%)…That suggests that most Americans think this is indeed mostly about criminals…But it’s not – or at least, not anymore…The most recent data from the Deportation Data Project at the University of California Berkeley shows that the vast majority of non-citizens arrested by ICE had no criminal convictions, as of data through mid-October. (The percentage of non-criminals targeted has generally increased over Trump’s second term.)…Many others had pending charges. But a New York Times analysis last month found that major enforcement operations focused on specific areas tended to key on people who hadn’t even faced charges. In Washington, DC, 84% had never been charged with a crime. That percentage was 57% in Los Angeles; 63% in Massachusetts; and 66% in Illinois…We don’t have data on Minneapolis yet, but it stands to reason that the numbers look somewhat similar there…The difference between Americans’ perception of the immigration crackdown and what the statistics bear out suggests their already- negative opinions of ICE could worsen further…After all, Americans’ support for deportations drops significantly when the person in question hasn’t committed a crime.”

Blake adds, “3. Americans are good with recording ICE; they don’t like ICE wearing masks…Pew, meanwhile, tested how people feel about some of the things they’re seeing from both federal agents and the protesters in Minneapolis…Americans, by and large, seem to be okay with many of the protesters’ tactics. About three-quarters (74%) said it’s acceptable to record video of agents making arrests. And 59% said it’s even okay to share information on where arrests are happening, which protesters often signal through whistles…As for ICE’s tactics, Americans don’t like them as much…Nearly three-quarters (72%) said it’s unacceptable to use a person’s looks or the language they speak as a reason to check their immigration status. (Some videos from Minneapolis show agents mentioning the accent of the person they’re stopping.) And Americans say 61%-38% that it’s unacceptable for immigration agents to wear face covering to hide their identities on the job…The latter issue is one area where Democrats are demanding reform in the current negotiations. Trump and administration officials have said it’s necessary to avoid the agents being doxxed…Expect that to be one of the major flashpoints in this debate.” More here.

Alex Nguyễn reports that “Texas Democrat Flips State Senate District That Trump Won by 17 Points” at Mother Jones: “A Democrat and union leader won a special election on Saturday to represent a Texas state Senate district that Donald Trump carried by 17 points in 2024… GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called the result, a 57-43 victory for Taylor Rehmet, “a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas” in an early Sunday post on X. Republicans currently hold every statewide elected office in Texas…“Our voters cannot take anything for granted,” Patrick continued, calling out low voter turnout in special elections…Rehmet, an Air Force veteran and the leader of his local machinist’s union, spent $242,174—nearly 10 times less than Wambsganss—according to campaign finance reports reviewed by Fort Worth Report…“It’s clear as day that this disastrous Republican agenda is hurting working families in Texas and across the country, which is why voters in red, blue, and purple districts are putting their faith in candidates like Taylor Rehmet,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “This overperformance is a warning sign to Republicans across the country.”…According to the Texas Tribune, Patrick gave $300,000 to the campaign of Rehmet’s opponent, Leigh Wambsganss, through his PAC, Texas Senate Leadership Fund. Trump also posted multiple get-out-the-vote messages on behalf of Wambsganss on Truth Social in the days leading up to the election… Rehmet, an Air Force veteran and the leader of his local machinist’s union, spent $242,174—nearly 10 times less than Wambsganss—according to campaign finance reports reviewed by Fort Worth Report… “It’s clear as day that this disastrous Republican agenda is hurting working families in Texas and across the country, which is why voters in red, blue, and purple districts are putting their faith in candidates like Taylor Rehmet,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “This overperformance is a warning sign to Republicans across the country.” More here.

At Axios, Kate Santaliz reports that “House Republicans fume at Kristi Noem as impeachment push looms,” and writes: “Frustration with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is mounting among House Republicans over her response to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti. Why it matters: They soon could soon be forced to go on the record about whether they still support Noem if Democrats move to force a vote on impeachment…For vulnerable Republicans, the prospect of an impeachment vote tied to immigration enforcement efforts would be particularly painful…Driving the news: Dozens of House Republicans are publicly pushing for more oversight and answers about Pretti’s shooting. Privately, frustration with Noem has been building for months…Saturday’s killing, and the botched messaging that followed, was a breaking point for some lawmakers, multiple aides told Axios…When President Trump dispatched White House Border Czar Tom Homan to Minnesota on Monday, droves of Republicans went out of their way to praise the move — a subtle rebuke of Noem…While no House Republicans have publicly called for her resignation, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called on Noem to resign on Tuesday…Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another vulnerable member, wrote that the shootings of Pretti and Renee Good “show that what the country has been doing is not working,” in a sharply worded op-ed Tuesday. Lawler also called for immigration reform…”Hispanics are leaving the GOP in large numbers, and pretending otherwise won’t fix it. As Republicans, we must reverse course and act now,” Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) said Wednesday. She has long been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform…The intrigue: Democrats see an opening with Republicans who have been critical of the administration’s handling of the shooting…”

“In a battle over how to carry out Trump’s immigration agenda, one faction has triumphed — for now,” Julia Ainsley reports at nbcnews.com: “President Donald Trump’s decision to shake up the leadership of his immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota is the latest twist in a monthslong power struggle inside his administration over one of his top policy priorities, according to two law enforcement officials, one administration official and a person familiar with the situation…It marks a triumph for one camp of immigration enforcement officials — namely border czar Tom Homan and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — who have publicly advocated for a targeted approach focused on arresting criminals who are in the country illegally…And it is a comedown for the other faction, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, her top adviser Corey Lewandowski and Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino, who pushed for large sweeps of immigrants and aggressive tactics such as using chemical agents and rappelling into apartment buildings from Black Hawk helicopters…How long the shift in fortunes will last is unclear. Trump’s shake-up in Minnesota suggests he’s cooling to the enforcement tactics that have shaped Americans’ view of his immigration agenda for most of his term, with polls showing many voters think it’s gone too far…At the same time, the president’s aides have said he’s still committed to his deportations policy — Trump polls better on the question of border security — even if he’s for now pivoting away from the strategy led by Bovino following the deadly shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti on Saturday and of Renee Good earlier this month.” More here.

In “The Main Driver of Trump’s Bad Polling,” Ian Ward interviews conservative pollster/strategist  Patrick Ruffini at Politico. Here are some of Ruffini’s observations: “However you want to define the swing voter electorate in 2024, cost of living was far and away the number one issue among the Biden-to-Trump voters in 2024. It is still the number one issue. And that’s because of demographically who they are. The profile of the voter who swung in ‘24 was not just minority, but young, low-income, who tends to be less college-educated, less married and more exposed to affordability concerns…So I think that’s obviously their north star right now. The core Democratic voter is concerned about the erosion of norms and democracy. The core Republican voter is concerned about immigration and border security. But this swing vote is very, very much concerned about the cost of living…what really matters is this cost-of-living issue, which people don’t view as having been solved by Trump coming into office…I would say the ICE actions are probably a bit negative, but I think Latino voters primarily share the same concerns as other voters in the electorate. They’re primarily focused on cost of living, jobs and health care…I would say 2026 is perhaps a false indicator. In the midterms, you’re really talking about an electorate that is going to be much older, much whiter, much more college-educated. I think you really have to have a presidential campaign to test how these voters are going to behave.” More here.

Some notes from Louis Jacobson’ “Handicapping The 2026 State Legislative Map: A First Look” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball: “In our first handicapping of state legislature control for the 2026 cycle, we find 15 chambers that are competitive—either Leans Republican, Toss-up, or Leans Democratic. That’s slightly higher than the number we found at a similar point in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles… At this point in the 2026 cycle, the Republicans are playing defense in more chambers than the Democrats are. The GOP currently holds 8 of the competitive chambers, while the Democrats hold 4 of them. Meanwhile, both Alaska chambers are controlled by a cross-partisan alliance that is favored to continue, and Minnesota’s House chamber should revert to being tied once vacancies are filled by special elections later this month…Among the chambers we rate as competitive, 9 are Toss-ups. This category includes 6 Republican-held chambers (the Arizona Senate, the Arizona House, the Michigan House, the New Hampshire House, the Wisconsin Senate, and the Wisconsin House) and 2 Democratic-held chambers (the Michigan Senate and the Minnesota Senate), as well as the aforementioned, tied Minnesota House…In many states, Democrats are looking forward to a favorable cycle, driven by a reaction to President Donald Trump and his policies. However, in some states, voters may be tired of Democratic governance at the state level, creating cross-cutting pressures…In a number of legislative chambers controlled by Republicans, Democrats are hoping to ride a blue wave and break GOP supermajorities…” Jacobson provides an assessment for each state. More here.

In “Here’s Your Damn Playbook, Democrats: Party leaders can’t seem to process that Trump’s policies are in fact staggeringly unpopular. Minneapolis is showing politicians how it’s done” Aaron Regunberg writes at The New Republic: “You can see how Democrats got the wrong idea. When President Trump was sworn into his second term one year ago, it was not unreasonable for the opposition to feel somewhat cowed. Though his victory was narrow, Trump won the popular vote and made significant enough inroads into traditional Democratic constituencies—young people, people of color, working-class people—that his grandiose claims of a political realignment were arguably credible. That wasn’t an excuse to roll over—standing up to the regime was essential. But there was an argument for Democrats to be careful about picking their spots…A year later, things look very different. Trump’s approval ratings are dismal on everything from the economy to immigration; more than half of Americans say his policies have made life less affordable for them; and his support among young and nonwhite voters has cratered…Americans are seeing what ICE is doing, and they don’t like it. Pollingshows that a majority of Americans view ICE unfavorably and support restrictions on the agency…This is the kind of playing field in which a fight—which will drive further attention toward ICE’s abuses—is politically advantageous. (To be clear, this is a fight worth picking on principle, even if it’s not a political slam dunk—but the fact is, it’s both!)…As fragile and corrupt as our elite institutions have revealed themselves to be, the people in this country are demonstrating real resilience against Trump’s authoritarianism. This should inform our strategies of resistance moving forward.”

Some new polling charts, from Ariel Edwards-Levy at Bluesky:

Jennifer Rubin explains “How to Stop the Fascism: What we do after another DHS murder ” at The Contrarian: “The brutal execution of Alex Pretti on Saturday, coupled with Donald Trump and his minions’ defaming the victim, lying about the facts, asserting that lawfully carrying a weapon made him a legitimate target (!), and refusing to undertake a serious investigation should horrify all decent people…In the immediate aftermath of the last murder, Democrats, libertarian-minded Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), state and local leaders, and former military should warn against invocation of the Insurrection Act. On Friday, Vice President JD Vance, between lies (e.g., falsely blaming local officials for ICE-induced violence, whitewashing arrests without 4^th Amendment-required judicial warrants, falsely claim Minneapolis has the highest concentration of undocumented immigrants), acknowledged he did not think the Insurrection Act was “necessary.” What has changed on the ground since then? (Walz’s activation of state national guard to keep order may help keep Trump at bay.)…We should not think Trump is immune from public opinion or indifferent to atrocious polling. TACO Trump can be compelled to reverse himself (as he did regarding Greenland) when he runs into a buzzsaw of criticism and/or sees markets sink. Public outcry, driven by his overreach, can force his retreat…In the short run, Democrats can advance a batch of proposals, for example, to cut off funds to the Minneapolis deployment absent a request from the governor; limit CBP operations to the border (as used to be the case); require body cameras, immediate suspension of any agent after firing his/her weapon, and full cooperation with local and state authorities; eliminate masks; install an Inspector General to review all DHS actions and recommend policy and personnel changes; and ban arrests without a judicial warrant…Measures that even Republicans should be embarrassed to oppose — mandating that a parent or guardian must be present before children are taken into custody; ensuring protection of nonviolent First Amendment activities (including filming agents); and prohibiting agents from firing at moving vehicles and/or any person who does not pose an immediate threat to others — should garner bipartisan consensus…In short, the horror of DHS’s murders and lawless rampages must not be allowed to dissipate into the ether of nonstop Trump scandals. Minneapolis can be an historic inflection point, not only to disable Trump’s brutal immigration approach but to defeat his authoritarian project more broadly.”

Nathaniel Rakich ponders a worrisome question at Salon: “Trump regrets not calling up troops after the 2020 election. What stops him in 2026?,” and writes: “Regrets — we’ve all had a few. One of President Donald Trump’s, apparently, is not directing the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election in search of evidence of fraud…That revelation, part of a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Jan. 7, commands particular attention in a world where Trump has already sought to push the boundaries of his power, deploying the National Guard to multiple U.S. cities to crack down on protests and crime. The November midterms will be the first federal general election with Trump as president since that 2020 contest, and even before his comments to the Times, plenty of people were already worried that Trump would attempt to deploy the National Guard around the 2026 election…The National Guard isn’t necessarily the problem here; the Guard actually has a history of helping with election administration, such as when troops in civilian clothing helped fill in for absent poll workers during the pandemic in 2020. But many Democrats and election officials are worried that Trump could, say, send them to polling places to interfere with voting on Election Day. If troops were to take possession of voting machines or other equipment, it could break the chain of custody and invalidate scads of ballots. And if troops just show up outside polling places, even if they don’t try to impede the administration of the election, their presence could still intimidate voters…That’s a worst-case scenario. However, there are significant legal and practical barriers to Trump doing this.” Read more here.

Samuel Benson and Alex Hernandez report “Latino voters powered Trump’s comeback. Now they’re turning on his economy” at Politico, and write: “In 2024, economic anxiety and immigration concerns drove Latino voters to President Donald Trump. Those same issues are beginning to push them away…Across the country, the cost-of-living woes and immigration enforcement overshadowing Trump’s first year back in office are souring Hispanic businesspeople, a key constituency that helped propel him to the White House. In a recent survey of Hispanic business owners conducted by the U.S. Hispanic Business Council and shared exclusively with POLITICO, 42 percent said their economic situation is getting worse, while only 24 said it was getting better. Seventy percent of respondents ranked the cost of living as a top-three issue facing the country, more than double the number that selected any other issue…In 2024, Trump won 48 percent of self-described Hispanic or Latino voters, the highest mark for a Republican presidential candidate in at least a half-century, driven largely by economic anxiety. But polling shows Trump’s approval among Latino voters cratering as their satisfaction with the economy and immigration enforcement plummet…In a November POLITICO Poll, a plurality — 48 percent — of Hispanic respondents said the cost of living in the U.S. is “the worst I can ever remember it being,” and a majority (67 percent) said responsibility lies with the president to fix it…According to a November Pew Research poll, about two-thirds (68 percent) of U.S. Hispanics say their situation today is worse than it was a year ago, and just nine percent say it is better; 65 percent of Latinos disagree with this administration’s approach to immigration, and a majority (52 percent) said they worried they, a family member or a close friend could be deported, a ten-point increase since March…Trump’s favorability rating among Hispanics is now at 28 percent, per a recent The Economist/YouGov poll, 13 points lower than it was in February of last year.” More here.

At Brookings, William A. Galston explains why “The economy weakened support for President Trump in 2025 and may do so again in 2026“: “Driven largely by public discontent over persistently high prices, approval of Donald Trump’s performance as president declined substantially in 2025. What the public saw as the president’s inadequate focus on the economy made things worse. At the same time, many of Trump’s disappointed 2024 supporters could shift back toward him if the economy improves…At year’s end, the president’s overall job approval averaged about 43%. He does reasonably well on immigration, crime, and foreign affairs—the issues that dominated his first year in office. He does much worse on the economy (41%), inflation(36%), and health care (32%).¹ Unfortunately for him, the people care more about the latter list than the former: 66% of Americans identify either the economy, inflation, or health care as the top issue facing the country, while 24% pick one of the issues to which the president has devoted most attention…Economic concerns remain dominant, and the public’s assessment offers the president little encouragement. Only 27% rate the state of the economy as excellent or good, compared to 72% who evaluate it as fair or poor. Eighteen percent say that they are better off, but 36% say the reverse. Twenty-three percent think the economy is improving, but 53% say that it is getting worse…This helps explain why almost six in 10 Americans say that President Trump is focusing on the wrong things. Only 16%think that he is spending most of his time on domestic issues, and the invasion and possible occupation of Venezuela won’t help those numbers. Seventy-three percent say that he is not spending enough time working to lower prices…The public’s perception of misplaced priorities has consequences. Only 38% believe that Trump cares about “people like you,” while 62% think that he does not.”

Galston continues, “Economic expectations for 2026 are not bright. Most Americans think that tariffs will continue to push up prices, and only one-third believe that their family’s finances will improve, down from 48% last June. Twenty-three percent think that the economy is getting better, compared to 53% who think that it is getting worse…Increased public confidence in Democrats’ ability to manage the economy has contributed to the 4.5-point edge Democrats now enjoy in the midterm vote for the House of Representatives. Still, 40% of the electorate is willing to change its mind about Trump’s job performance, and they overwhelmingly cite the economy as the issue that could move them. If this happens, Republicans’ prospects in the midterm elections would brighten…There is some evidence that the first year of Trump’s second term could have longer-term consequences for the American party system. After the 2024 election, analysts speculated about a realignment that would transform Republicans into a multi-ethnic, populist, working-class party. Now this prospect seems remote. Many of the groups that moved strongly toward the Republicans in 2024—independents, Hispanics, young adults—have moved away and should be regarded as swing voters…Republicans’ populist credentials have been tarnished. Sixty-five percent of the people think that the Trump administration’s policies favor the wealthy, compared to just 12% who think they are oriented toward the middle class. Not surprisingly, populist sentiments remain strong. Eighty-one percent of Americans, including 66% of Republicans, believe that the rich in the U.S. have too much power. Sixty-two percent say that taxes on billionaires are too low. Fifty-seven percent believe that the government should try to reduce the wealth gap between the rich and the poor…Progress is another core element of the creed. Each generation is supposed to do better than the last. But now, only 15% of Americans believe that today’s children will grow up to be better off than their parents, while 51% think that they will be worse off. Republicans and conservatives share this pessimism.”

In “A New Low for American Workers: The share of American income going to labor is at its lowest level since measurements began,” Harold Meyerson writes at The American Prospect: “Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released earlier this month show that the labor share of the nation’s GDP hit the lowest point it’s been at since the BLS began measuring such things in 1947. In that year, the labor share—that is, the pay and benefits that American workers claimed—stood at 70 percent of the nation’s income, with the remaining balance going to profits and other investment income…In the third quarter of 2025, the labor share stood at 53.8 percent. That means that the share of the nation’s income going to workers over the past 78 years has declined by roughly 16 percent, as the share going to investors has grown by the same amount…It’s not all that hard to identify the reasons behind America’s epochal transformation from a nation that honors work to a nation that honors investment. In 1947 America, when the labor share stood at 70 percent, more than one-third of the workforce was unionized, and taxes on the highest incomes routinely exceeded 70 percent. But for the heirs of the Rockefellers and the Fords, we were billionaire-poor, even as record numbers of working-class Americans found themselves, for the first time, able to buy houses…It’s only been in the past 10 or 15 years—beginning with the emergence of Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders’s first presidential campaign—that the existence of this redistribution became widely visible as a national problem. Today, however, with the crises of affordability in housing, health care, education, and even food affecting scores of millions of Americans, we’re beginning to see a politics—potentially, a majoritarian politics—devoted to curtailing this upward redistribution and bringing some of the nation’s income back to those who actually do its work.”

In “CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities,” Jennifer Agiesta, Ariel Edwards-Levi and Edward Wu write at CNN Politics: , “Public opinion on nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House is negative, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds, with a majority of Americans saying Trump is focused on the wrong priorities and doing too little to address cost of living…A majority, 58%, calls the first year of Trump’s term a failure…There’s hardly any good news in the poll for Trump or the Republican Party entering a critical midterm year, with the president’s handling of the economy looming as the defining issue in key House and Senate races…Asked to choose the country’s top issue, Americans pick the economy by a nearly two-to-one margin over any other topic. The poll suggests Trump is struggling to prove that he’s addressing it. And it finds broad concerns over Trump’s use of presidential power and his efforts to put his stamp on American culture…Views of economic conditions have remained stable — and largely negative — for the past two years, with about 3 in 10 rating the economy positively. What’s changed in the latest poll is the increased pessimism about the future: Just over 4 in 10 expect the economy to be good a year from now, down from 56% just before Trump was sworn in last January…A 55% majority say that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, with just 32% saying they’ve made an improvement. Most, 64%, say he hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods. Even within the GOP, about half say that he should be doing more, including 42% among Republicans and Republican-leaners who describe themselves as members of the “Make America Great Again” movement.” More here.

From “Backlash to Trump has been more severe in his second term” by G. Elliot Morris at Strength in Numbers: “In the first year of Donald Trump’s first term as president in 2017, the share of Americans calling themselves Republicans (or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party) dropped just 2 percentage points — from 42% in 2016 to 40% by Q4 of 2017. I predict it will surprise many people to hear that the Democrats didn’t actually change their advantage in party ID much at all in Trump’s first term, expanding their advantage to +7 in 2018 from +6 in 2016…In Trump’s second term, however, the Republican Party is shedding members at a much higher pace. Gallup released its latest party identification data this week, and the numbers show Republican identification dropped from 46% in 2024 to just 40% in Q4 of 2025 — a 6-point decline, triple the 2-point drop during Trump’s first term…While many pundits covered Trump’s 2024 win as a new dominance for the right in American politics, it’s clear now that the apparent new apex of GOP loyalty was more of a phantom swing, perhaps an election-year shock driven by inflation and an unpopular Democratic president. There were a lot of soft Trump supporters who were willing to identify with the GOP in a moment of incumbent backlash, but didn’t stick around when Trump inevitably did what was all very well predictable ahead of time…III. Will 2026 be another blue wave?…The question now is whether Democrats can convert this party ID advantage into a big midterms victory. They will need to do that if they want to deliver on their promises of reining in Trump. But party ID advantages don’t automatically translate into votes — ask Democrats circa 2010 or 2014. In both years, Democrats held advantages in party identification but lost badly because their voters didn’t show up…But when you combine a 6-point decline in Republican identification with strong generic ballot numbers (and a tendency for the party in the White House to lose ground over the election year — see my post from Tuesday!), sustained special election overperformance, and an engaged base showing up to protests, you have the ingredients for a wave. Redistricting is the big unknown variable for 2026, but of course, that wouldn’t blunt a big Democratic popular vote victory, just the number of seats they win.” Read more here.

n his NYT opinion essay, “Trump Unmasked,” Thomas B. Edsall puts Trump on the couch, quotes some psychological experts, including Ian Robertson, an emeritus professor of psychology at Trinity College in Dublin, who notes, “In a Feb. 12 Irish Times article, “A Neuropsychologist’s View on Donald Trump: We’re Seeing the Impact of Power on the Human Brain,” Robertson described the frenzied opening days of the second Trump administration:Deports manacled immigrants, closes AIDS-prevention programs, starts and stops and restarts a tariffs war, vows to cleanse Gaza of its troublesome inhabitants and demands that all Israeli hostages be released by Hamas by midday on Saturday or he would “let hell break out.”…This activity, Robertson continued, fuels an aggressive, feel-good state of mind, particularly in dominant, amoral personalities such as Trump’s. It also creates a restless, hyperactive state of mind, which, when combined with a feeling of omnipotence, fosters the delusions that you can snap your fingers and sort every problem…”  Edsall comes to the following conclusion: “Over the past week, it felt as though Trump was even more intensely compelled to publicly announce his determination to dominate everything in sight, and anyone who wants to block him had better watch out…Perhaps most spectacularly, during a Jan. 7 interview with four Times reporters, Trump was asked if there were any limits on his global powers…He replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”…“I don’t need international law,” he added…Trump may think his own morality and his own mind are the only constraints on his otherwise limitless power, but if we are dependent on either — not to mention Trump’s sense of empathy, compassion or sympathy for the underdog — we are in deep trouble. The nation, the Western Hemisphere and the world at large need to figure out how to place restraints on this ethically vacuous president, or we will all suffer continued and ever-worsening damage.”

Trump’s health care “plan” is the same old nothing burger the GOP has been pushing for decades. As Jonathan Cohn explains in “Trump’s ‘Great Healthcare Plan’ Is Not Great. It’s Not Even a Plan” at The Bulwark: “DONALD TRUMP ON THURSDAY rolled out what he is calling “The Great Healthcare Plan” and the single most important thing to know about it is that it’s not really a plan…A real plan would have details and numbers, plus experts on standby to explain and defend it. It would reflect weeks of behind-the-scenes work, and represent the beginning of a serious, persistent effort to get a bill through Congress. That is not what the White House produced…The online summary is just 350 words and fits on a single printed page. The extended “fact sheet” clocks in at just 825 words. There are days Trump writes more than that in his posts on Truth Social…And it’s not like those 825 words are dense with policy substance. About a third is a summary of some modest—er, “historic”—executive actions Trump has already taken. The rest is a list of ideas either Trump or Republicans in Congress have endorsed before, with no guidance on the specifics that it would take to turn them into legislation….None of this is surprising. Trump has been promising to release plans for “great” health care throughout his two presidential terms, going back to the very first days of his initial campaign when he was launching his crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “I am going to take care of everybody,” Trump boasted in a 2015 CBS News interview. “Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

“In the run-up to the new year,” Justin Vassalo writes in “Will Democrats Gain from MAGA’s Schism over Foreign Policy?” at The Liberal Patriot,”political observers were struck by the degree of public feuding in MAGA’s camp. Some even ventured that there are serious fissures in Donald Trump’s coalition, particularly over what constitutes “America First” and who is welcome among their tribe. Much of the drama, though, revolved around the Epstein files, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s stunning break with Trump, and the GOP’s internecine battles over the influence of extremist right-wing commentators like the antisemite Nick Fuentes—battles that hadn’t necessarily redounded to the Democrats’ benefit in the polls. The question as 2026 began was whether Democrats could find ways to exploit these growing discontents while maintaining their newfound focus on affordability…The potential fallout from the U.S. military’s audacious capture of Venezuela’s autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro, on January 3rd under Trump’s order (without consultation of Congress or a formal declaration of war) could soon embolden Democrats to challenge Trump on his own ideological terrain. So far, Trump’s decision—justified as fighting “narcoterrorism” but evidently motivated by personal animus and a stated desire to take control of Venezuela’s oil—has polled poorly with independents and reinforced the general public’s perception that Trump is increasingly divorced from their everyday concerns…While Trump has unabashedly declared he, as commander-in-chief, is bound only by his “own morality,” many Americans are certain to oppose this further concentration of executive power…And the ire that such an atavistic strategy is likely to elicit from voters fed up with military adventurism, endless wars of choice, and gargantuan, opaque defense budgets presents Democrats with a clear opportunity to cast Trump’s second term as a parade of betrayals. Perhaps more than any other event, the Maduro affair symbolizes the disjuncture between the issues that expanded Trump’s coalition in 2024 and a record that has already disenchanted his “soft” and “shy” supporters. At this precarious moment, Democrats shouldn’t hesitate to frame Trump’s gamble—a reversion to Cold War-style meddling liable to yield major and unanticipated consequences—as putting ordinary Americans dead last…Still, any Democratic strategy to confront the new Trump doctrine will only succeed if it extends beyond raw criticism. Democrats need to convey in no uncertain terms that voters are right to be angry with Washington’s endless policy capture, that their party will do everything to reassert powers Congress has virtually abdicated, and that they will renew the vision of prudent defense and domestic reinvestment that animated Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Above all, though, Democrats must map a path to security, peace, and prosperity that speaks, with conviction, to American ideals—and relieves the country of the folly and tragedy that have damaged America’s standing in the 21st century.” More here.

Bianca Quilantan and Josh Gerstein write that the “Supreme Court appears likely to uphold state transgender athlete bans” at Politico.”The Supreme Court seems poised to uphold state laws banning transgender women from women’s sports teams even though some justices signaled a reluctance Tuesday to issue a sweeping ruling that could reverberate beyond athletics or threaten states that require schools to accommodate transgender athletes…Conservative justices largely focused on how to apply the absolute transgender athlete bans in West Virginia and Idaho, neither of which have taken effect over the past several years. They took into consideration hormone suppression and mitigating biological advantages, age limitations for sex-separated athletics and whether they should toss the Idaho case due to mootness…“We have to decide for the whole country — constitutionalize this — given that half the states are allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said…Lawyers backing the West Virginia and Idaho bans asserted that they should be upheld because they truly impact only what they called a “tiny” number of people: transgender women and girls who have taken hormones to mitigate sex differences and who are seeking to play on women’s teams.” Democratic candidates actually have a tougher call to make than Supreme Court justices in their individual campaigns. In 2024 Elon Musk presented Trump with multi-million dollar funding of ads designed to portray Dems as excessively trans-friendly and allowing Republicans to parade around as the macho, straight male-friendly party. Some believe that the ads could have tilted the election toward Trump. Read on here.

Alexander Bolton reports that “Senate liberals tell colleagues to pivot to economic populism” at The Hill, and writes: “Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Senate liberals are urging their Democratic colleagues to pivot to economic populism by “confronting” corporate power and billionaires, warning that just talking about affordability alone won’t move swing voters who backed President Trump in 2024…“There is clear consensus in our party for a relentless focus on affordability this year and beyond. We agree. But it would be a mistake to embrace an affordability agenda that fails to confront the billionaires and corporations making it impossible for hardworking Americans to achieve and afford a middle-class life,” they wrote…“Bland policy proposals — without a narrative explaining who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing – will not work,” they warned…Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), two other outspoken progressives, also signed the memo to “interested Democrats.”…The Democrats cited a recent poll published by the Century Foundation of 1,426 registered voters that found that Americans increasingly cannot afford basic goods such as medical care and groceries and that people without college degrees are twice as likely to skip medication or a meal…And the survey found that voters across demographic groups believe corporations and the wealthy hold too much power and these voters overwhelmingly support policies that put money in the hands of working people…They wrote that working-class voters “see politicians — Republicans and Democrats — cozying up to those same corporations to line their own pockets rather than directly confronting corporate power.”…The senators argue that Americans are “demanding bold, populist economic policies — not just technocratic fixes at the edges — so that hard work is valued and rewarded.”…They argue that Trump’s “campaign of faux economic populism succeeded in 2024” but that it has failed to deliver on its promises to make basic goods and services more affordable, setting the stage for a “backlash” to his presidency and “laying the foundation for a large popular majority to wrestle government back from the billionaires and corporations.”

“Trump Tumbles With Middle-Class Voters,” Isabella Torregiania writes at knewz.com: “According to a The Economist/YouGov survey, support for Trump is slipping with middle-class Americans — those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year…The president’s net approval among this group fell consistently over three months: -10 in October with 43% approval and 53% disapproval, then -12 in November and -17 in December, when 40% approved and 57% disapproved…YouGov’s December poll found his net approval among working-class Americans earning less than $50,000 per year sank to -34, with just 31% approving and 65% disapproving…The findings show that confidence in the U.S. economy is falling, emphasizing Americans’ growing anxiety over living costs… While many Americans struggle with rising expenses, Trump continues to dismiss the affordability crisis…”The word ‘affordability’ is a con job by the Democrats,” he said last year…In December, a PBS News/NPR/Marist survey found 57% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s economic performance, while only 36% approve — the weakest rating he has received on this issue in either term…Financial stress is evident, with 70% of respondents reporting that their area is not affordable for the average family — a rise from 45% in June…Additional data from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research also showed a drop in approval across other areas…By December, only 40% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, a 10-point drop since March.”