Democrats already anxious about making the four-seat net gain necessary to flip the Senate have another thing to worry about, and I went through the logic and arithmetic of it all at New York:

A net gain of four U.S. Senate seats by Democrats in November would deny Donald Trump an easy path to confirmation of his executive branch and judicial nominees during the last two years of his presidency. It would also eliminate the governing trifecta that has allowed Republicans to repeatedly deploy the budget-reconciliation process, skirting the Senate filibuster that otherwise would protect minority-party influence over legislation. So it’s a really big deal.

But a Democratic Senate flip might come with an asterisk: It’s a big, bald-headed, hoodie-wearing asterisk named John Fetterman. To call the freshman senator from Pennsylvania “erratic” is a major understatement. But he’s becoming increasingly predictable as an ally of the Trump administration, especially on hot-button questions of war and peace.

The long and controversial saga of his recovery from the 2022 stroke that nearly derailed his Senate campaign is one thing; as New York’s Ben Terris reported earlier this year, there are widely varying accounts of how he’s doing from family, friends, and staff. But his transition from being a recognizable (if quirky) Bernie-bro progressive to his present status as every Republican’s favorite Democrat has been fast and furious. He made a point of defecting from his party colleagues on a number of early, high-profile Trump Cabinet confirmation votes (supporting half of them, including, uniquely, Pam Bondi for attorney general). He voted with Trump administration initiatives more than any other Senate Democrat in 2025 (albeit just over one-fourth of the time).

But perhaps just as important, he began to regularly criticize his party using GOP-style rhetoric about alleged Democratic extremism, intolerance, and irrational hostility to Trump. His alignment with conservatives actually seemed to accelerate in 2026, when he has appeared on Fox News a remarkable 56 times. And on one very high-profile issue, the U.S. relationship with Israel, Fetterman has been bitterly estranged from much of his party, refusing to countenance any criticism of that country’s conduct or leadership and extending this intense attachment to support for the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

Unsurprisingly, Fetterman’s repositioning has polarized his constituents by party, as this recent Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvanians indicated:

“Republicans (77 – 12 percent) approve of the way Fetterman is handling his job, while Democrats (69 – 19 percent) disapprove. Among independents, 48 percent disapprove of the way Fetterman is handling his job and 44 percent approve.”

Even more pointedly, 55 percent of Pennsylvania Republicans, and 57 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats, say they want Fetterman to leave the Democratic Party. And the GOP has sure put out a welcome mat: Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he and several other Republican colleagues have discussed a prospective party switch with the former progressive. And while Fetterman for many months consistently rejected that idea (at least publicly), just last week he said he might abandon his party if it became an “anti-Israeli party.” Since that characterization would be very much in the eye of the beholder, this would appear to open the door to a possible party switch.

The two obvious questions are whether that makes sense for Fetterman and how it might transpire if that’s what he wants. It is at this point hard to envision a scenario where this perceived turncoat could win renomination to the Senate as a Democrat in 2028. Just look at the above polls of Democrats. The numbers are not ambiguous at all. When Fetterman’s campaign committee announced it was conducting a joint fundraising initiative with the campaign of Pennsylvania’s Republican senator Dave McCormick, it barely raised an eyebrow. On the other hand, as Fetterman himself has pointed out, rank-and-file Republicans won’t be thrilled to embrace a Democrat whose heterodoxy has not extended to such hot-button issues as abortion or LGBTQ+ rights. He may also be aware of the Joe Lieberman precedent: In 2008, the Connecticut senator had just won reelection as an independent and then warmly endorsed the presidential candidacy of his close friend John McCain. But when McCain made it known he wanted to put Lieberman on the ticket with him, there was a huge conservative revolt over abortion and LBGTQ+ rights that ended the talk instantly. Pennsylvania Republicans may like Fetterman the Fox News Democrat, but they may like a true conservative better.

On the other hand, Fetterman could theoretically win another term in the Senate by doing what Lieberman did in Connecticut: running as an independent (which happened after Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont) and counting on his GOP friends to take a dive by nominating a weak candidate and signaling that crossover votes were okay.

In any event, if only to keep his options open, the smart move for Fetterman could be to stay put until after the election but let it be known his party-caucus affiliation afterward is negotiable. If Democrats flip the Senate without Fetterman’s vote, he can stay right where he is. If Republicans maintain a majority without his vote, he can also stay or switch, depending on his future plans. But what would really put him in the catbird seat is a 51-47 Democratic Senate majority that he could either confirm by caucusing with his old party or overturn by caucusing with Republicans even if he maintains an independent identification. Given the huge stakes involved, an intense bidding war over his support would almost certainly ensue.

Fetterman’s potential leverage, of course, would depend on everyone else in the Senate staying where they are. And if the above scenario emerges and Fetterman’s peddling himself to both parties, Democrats could make a serious effort to outflank him by flipping Republican Lisa Murkowski. Like Fetterman, Murkowski often dismisses the idea of a party switch. But thanks to Alaska’s nonpartisan top-four primary-election system, she’s already functionally an independent. She has a terrible relationship with Trump, who (along with the state GOP) backed a Republican rival in 2022 and is sure to oppose her in 2028 if she runs. And as the senior senator from a state that is unusually dependent on friendly federal policies and spending, Murkowski would almost certainly entertain a Democratic offer if it was generous enough and if she could maintain her seniority.

In any event, don’t get too invested in the Senate results on election night. If party control is up for grabs, watch Fetterman and Murkowksi and see how high the bidding goes.

From “Working Class Weekly: Winning the Battleground in Pennsylvania” at The Working Class Project:

Pennsylvania is among the latest investments in our multi-million dollar midterm ad campaign, which is targeting swing working class voters in nearly 20 key races. We’re targeting these voters to expand the battleground by putting traditionally safe Republican seats — including districts rated R+3 or higher — in play this November. Every ad in this campaign builds on the extensive voter research conducted through this Working Class Project, designed to win back working class voters in the battleground and beyond.

Pennsylvania’s 8th district in Northeastern Pennsylvania (also known as NEPA) is one of the most competitive races in the country this cycle. Republican incumbent Rob Bresnahan voted for the healthcare cuts that our focus group participants consistently show are a major negative. He also campaigned on a promise to ban congressional stock trading — only to become one of the most prolific traders in Congress. This combination of healthcare cuts, rising costs and corruption are everything voters hate about Congress right now.

PAIRING COSTS AND CORRUPTION

Our focus groups continue to show that corruption is a powerful negative with these voters — especially when it’s tied directly to their own cost of living concerns. Our research points to specific Republican vulnerabilities that give Democrats a real opening to make corruption messaging stick, namely, stock trading and healthcare.

Pennsylvania’s Rob Bresnahan has made headlines for becoming one of the most prolific stock traders in Congress, despite promising during his first campaign to support a ban on congressional stock trading. What makes this more tangible for voters is how closely his trading activity tracks with the cost pressures hurting working families. He sold off stock in Medicaid providers, then voted to gut Medicaid. He bought defense stock prior to the US launching strikes on Iran, and has backed the war that is driving up costs at home.

More here.

In “Democrats fight to win back Latino voters who are key to flipping the House,” Juhi Doshi writes at abcnews.com: “Two years back, President Donald Trump made gains with Latinos that were decisive to his victory. Now, with conflict overseas and high costs, Democrats are eyeing key House races that have significant Latino populations that are essential for a House majority…Trump’s net approval rating among Hispanic voters has suffered since he took office for his second term. A June 2026 Fox News poll found Trump underwater by 38 percentage points, with 31% of Latino voters approving of how he was handling his job as president and 69% disapproving. In March 2025, he was down by only 11 points with the group, with 44% approving and 55% disapproving… But strategists warn that Democrats need to give voters something to vote for, not just something to vote against…Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who studies Latino voters, said regional and national-origin differences among working class voters — Cubans in Florida, Dominicans in New Jersey, Puerto Ricans in New York and Mexican Americans in California and Texas — are collapsing under one shared issue: the economy…”Both parties just devolve into these petty, irrelevant cultural battles that are not speaking to anybody’s concerns. What you end up with is Latinos voting against whoever is in power and punishing them for the economic issues that aren’t being addressed,” Madrid added…Democrats, who have lost ground with Latinos since 2016, believe the passage of Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” — legislation that is set to result in cuts to Medicaid and SNAP benefits — will also be key…In California’s Central Valley, where Medicaid covers at least half of all Latino residents, Randy Villegas is challenging Rep. David Valadao. He said that the residents in his district will drive across the border to Tijuana for cheaper medical work.” More here.

From “Trump’s Plot to Rig Midterms Gets So Unhinged That Even Fox Is Rattled. As Trump’s threats to corrupt the midterms grow more vile, a political scientist explains why his visible derangement shouldn’t distract us from the severe threat this moment poses.” by Greg Sargent at The New Republic: “During his prime-time speech dissembling endlessly about our elections, Donald Trump raged at news organizations for refusing to carry him live. Then his Homeland Security secretary also smeared the media, a sign Trump’s fury continues to deepen. We think this means Trump fully expects news organizations to help him amplify his lies about our elections to sow distrust in them. As we discuss in this episode, his speech revealed that he’s plainly mulling an effort to rig the midterms, and sowing that distrust is key to it. A funny thing, though: Fox News explicitly declined to endorse his claims and refrained from carrying his DHS secretary. And according to Fox sources, insiders were dismayed to hear Trump obsessing over our elections, thought it was bad politics for the GOP, and even worried it was bad for business given post-2020 litigation against Fox. We talked to Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos, who explains how Trump is telegraphing an authoritarian plot to corrupt the elections, why the assaults on the media are central to that, and how Democrats and the American people must respond. Listen to this episode here. A transcript is here.”

Here’s a chart from “The economic policy-branding paradox” by Patrick Ruffini at The Intersection:

Bill McKibben shares “An Idea for Democrats to Keep It Together in 2028. What if a candidate picked a running mate from another faction of the Party right away, and they ran on a unified vision?” at The New Yorker. An excerpt: “So it’s also worth imagining whether there are some structural ways that the Democrats could signal their seriousness about uniting, and their commitment to an alliance in the long term. Here’s one idea: candidates for President should consider naming, and campaigning with, their Vice-Presidential pick from Day One…Imagine this scenario (and feel free to substitute in other names). Say that, a few months after the midterms, Governor J. B. Pritzker, of Illinois, strides to a lectern in Springfield to announce a run for the White House, with the usual bunting and copious references to Abraham Lincoln, but standing with him is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He says that, since he would turn sixty-eight by the end of his first term, and since there is a clear desire among Americans for younger leaders, it makes sense for him to plan on serving just one term, and then to support the Vice-President for a run in 2032. She says that, since she’s short on executive experience, as opposed to legislative experience, it would be a logical step to spend four years as Vice-President—and that she’ll still only be forty-three on Inauguration Day in January, 2033…This plan seems as if it could accomplish any number of useful things. It signals that the candidates’ primary campaign would center on broad areas of agreement that unite centrists and progressives, rather than on the things they might contest: both are against authoritarianism and for action to broaden access to health care; both support more affordable homes and lower electric bills; both are eager for a transition to clean energy; and both are keenly focussed on community college as a key part of building a workforce for the future. In truth, the divisions between the various factions in the Party are not as deep as sometimes imagined—if you look closely, Joe Biden was a very Bernie President, determined to use large-scale government action to transform the economy. But there are also real differences in both style and emphasis, and this would be a way to bridge them—to announce, in short, that these views are not too disparate to animate the same Administration. Call it a government of Democratic unity.” More here.

From “Bombshell poll exposes what working-class voters really think of President Trump” by Joshua Nair at vt.co:

If you ask Donald Trump, he’ll probably tell you that he’s the greatest US President in history, bar none, and people who dislike him are stupid.

Well, if this is the case, then a chunk of US citizens have got a bone to pick with the 80-year-old.

Trump’s latest approval ratings have been made public, and one socioeconomic group has become increasingly disillusioned with the decisions made during his second term in the White House.

Despite claims that his approval ratings are his highest “ever,” data indicates that the majority of the working class now disapprove of the President’s performance.

Ever since the US and Israel waged war on Iran earlier this year, his ratings have fallen off a cliff, and with the war still raging on despite claims of a ceasefire, it looks like it’s not getting any better five months on.

The war seems to have swung voters in the other direction, despite Trump saying on Truth Social on June 29 that he had the “Highest Poll Numbers Ever” that was “Even Higher than Election Day, November 5th.”

…Data in 2024 showed that two in three white working-class Americans supported Trump, if research group PRRI’s post-election survey is to be believed.

Pew Research Center exit polling also indicated that Trump had 69 percent of the rural vote that same year, but in 2026, the story is different.

Back in May, 2,064 US citizens were polled, and over 60 percent of them disapproved of Trump’s performance as POTUS.

Delving into the specifics, 54 percent of white non-college voters also didn’t support Trump, which has gone up by 22 percent since February 2025.

In addition, 61 percent disapproved of the work he has carried out, while 66 percent specifically cited the war with Iran as a poor decision.

More here.

Here’s a stub from “Trump Owes Americans a Better Explanation About Iran. Two more Americans have died. Meanwhile, the president’s rationale for war keeps changing.” by Tom Nichols at The Atlantic: They died in an Iranian attack on a Jordanian air base; several more U.S. military personnel were injured and one is missing. The American people have a right to know why they died, and how many more of their sons and daughters President Trump is willing to risk in this war of choice…The president, so far, has issued his usual stock answers. It’s “a very sad thing,” he said in a phone call on Saturday afternoon to the right-wing outletNewsNation. He added: “We hate to see it happen. It’s in service to our country.” But every military death is in service to the nation. It is true by definition that all 16 Americans who have lost their lives so far in this conflict did so because they volunteered to wear uniforms of the United States military and endure great risks on behalf of their fellow citizens. Military service, even in peacetime, is inherently hazardous…But these Americans are dead because they were sent to war—and for months Trump has offered no comprehensive explanation about why his administration is ordering U.S. military personnel to put their lives on the line. Or, more accurately, he’s offered several rationales at various moments over the past 20 weeks of war.” More here.

Sen. Susan Collins now faces a more authentic working class candidate in Maine, where “Troy Jackson emerges as Democratic pick as top Maine Senate candidates step aside. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and former public health official Nirav Shah ended their Senate campaigns on Sunday,” as Bridget Bowman reports at nbcnews.com: “SANFORD, Maine — Former state Senate President Troy Jackson emerged from a whirlwind weekend of voting as Maine Democrats’ likely pick to take on GOP Sen. Susan Collins…By Sunday night, all of Jackson’s major opponents had dropped out of the race, including Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, physician Nirav Shah and former congressional staffer Jordan Wood, who reversed course after initially committing to remain in the race…Bellows made her announcement Sunday morning, while Shah exited the race Sunday evening after Democrats across the state selected delegates to next week’s state nominating convention.Jackson quickly established a seemingly insurmountable advantage in delegates as his supporters swept counties throughout the state…Jackson’s supporters won 481 of the 500 convention seats up for grabs this weekend, according to his campaign. Those delegates are not technically required to support Jackson at the convention, but with such a strong showing, his nomination became a foregone conclusion…A logger and former legislator, Jackson doesn’t officially become the nominee until the state convention next week. There, delegates will pick a new nominee to take on GOP Sen. Susan Collins, replacing primary winner Graham Platner after he abruptly ended his campaign last week following a sexual assault allegation, which he denied.” More here.

Check out “‘This Is Unbelievable:’ CNN Data Guru Says ‘Working Class Have Turned Against Donald Trump’” by Katherine Boniello at Mediate, who writes: “Working class voters have had it with President Donald Trump‘s handling of the economy, according to CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten…Speaking Friday morning on CNN News Central, Enten went over the staggering change in the president’s poll numbers on the subject with host Kate Bolduan, citing surveys that show 66% of Americans now feel groceries are unaffordable…Enten then dug into polling from The Washington Post and Ipsos showing a stunning 82% of working-class Americans with incomes under $50,000 feel the same…OK, income under $50,000 on grocery affordability. And keep in mind that, this Donald Trump won this group one, this group back in 2024 put up a historically strong performance for Republican candidate. But look at these numbers now, just 16% of those with household incomes under $50,000 think that groceries are affordable…The lion’s share, 82%. You rarely ever see 82% of any group agreeing on anything. But what you see here is that those working class folks, those who have incomes, household incomes, under $50,000, the lion’s share, more than 4 in 5 say that groceries are unaffordable at this point.” More here.

In “Florida Democrats point to special-election wins as proof of a comeback. After decisive statewide losses in 2022 and 2024, Florida Democratic leaders say more than 30 local and special-election flips show their organizing strategy is working,” Forrest Saunders writes at wptv.com: “TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Democrats say they have proof a 2026 comeback is possible. Now, they have to prove that momentum can survive Election Day…After decisive statewide losses in 2022 and 2024, Democratic leaders on Monday outlined a path they say could break Republican supermajorities in the Florida Legislature and begin moving the state’s politics back toward the middle…“The Republican supermajority in this legislature is breakable, and we are going to break it this cycle,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said during a virtual briefing…The party pointed to more than 30 local and special-election flips since the 2024 election, more than 3,000 volunteers, increased candidate recruitment and an advantage in requests for vote-by-mail ballots. The party’s tally includes local offices as well as recent legislative special elections — not 30 seats in the Florida Legislature…Fried said the difference this cycle is the party’s “Pendulum Project,” a year-round organizing operation designed to maintain voter contact between major elections…“This does feel different for multiple reasons,” Fried said in a separate interview. “We have seen that work paying off by flipping almost 33 seats at this point, overperforming the national average.” More here.

The following article, “Energy Costs Decide Power — Voters Demand Relief: The fight for political power now runs through affordable, abundant, reliable energy” by Ralph Benko and Jeff Garzik, is cross-posted from The Fulcrum:

Politics, for all its stagecraft and saccharine homilies, is not about “service” or “community” or any of the other treacly euphemisms politicians recite like Gregorian chants. Politics, as Christopher Hitchens might have acidly reminded us, is about power.

The taking of it.

The wielding of it.

The keeping of it.

Everything else is embroidery.

And the surest road to political power today is not identity pandering, culture-war theatrics, or the solutions, untethered from economic reality, of much “climate action”. It is energy — affordable, abundant, reliable energy. Energy is not a plank in the policy platform. It is the platform.

It is the oxygen of prosperity, the lubricant of peace, the arbiter of survival.

Those who grasp this axiom will inherit the Earth. Those who don’t will be reduced to muttering slogans over the ashes of their credibility.

The Revolt Of The Overcharged

Consider the improbable rise of two entirely different figures: Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani. Ideological opposites, united by a single brutal insight: voters are furious about affordability.

Trump put it plainly: “I won on groceries.” Bacon, eggs, apples — if the price doubles while wages stagnate, you can spend billions on messaging and still lose Ohio. Mamdani, from the opposite end of the spectrum, beat the same drum: “New York is too expensive. I’ll lower costs.” Did his proposed remedies make sense? About as much as medieval bloodletting. But he read the room correctly — voters were howling for relief.

This is the lesson. It isn’t ideology. It isn’t clever branding. It’s not even competence. It’s the perception — however implausible — that you can make life less ruinously expensive.

The Energy Elephant In The Room

Which brings us to the elephant crushing the furniture: energy. The cost of keeping the lights on, the servers humming, the food refrigerated, the wheels turning. Cheap, reliable energy is the hinge upon which affordability swings.

The American public knows it intuitively. As Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira have observed, voters broadly support an “all‑of‑the‑above” energy policy. They want fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear — whatever delivers reliability and keeps costs in check. What they do not support is a climate approach that drifts into overzealous or economically detached prescriptions, especially when those prescriptions ask ordinary people to bear steep costs for minimal environmental gain. Most Americans believe climate change is real and worth addressing — but they also believe that solutions must be scientifically grounded, economically sane, and compatible with rising living standards. People will not choose policies that make their lives materially harder when better‑balanced options exist.

Meanwhile, our economic adversary, China, has understood this with the cold precision of an engineer. Beijing has decided that energy abundance beats energy sermons. The result? A kilowatt-hour costs under ten cents there. In the U.S., depending on where you live, you’ll likely pay anywhere from 30% to 250% more for the same electricity — the financial equivalent of shooting ourselves in both feet, then politely handing China the starting pistol.

Free Markets, Not Fairy Tales

Here’s the part politicians can’t bring themselves to say aloud: free markets work. China — a nominally communist state — is quietly embracing market pricing to generate cheap, stable energy, while America — land of the supposedly free — ties itself into regulatory knots and engages in performative subsidy theater.

Even our supposed tech vanguard is sounding the alarm. Artificial intelligence, for all its promise, is a glutton for electricity. Data centers don’t run on slogans. The sudden, unignorable demand for baseload power has done what decades of climate reports could not: forced lawmakers to confront reality.

The physics don’t care about your narrative. You either provide abundant energy, or you fall behind.

The Path Forward

If you want power — real, electoral, enduring power — promise voters affordable, abundant, reliable energy. And mean it.

Not with incoherent subsidies. Not with punitive regulations. Not with magical thinking that wind and solar will replace baseload overnight. But with sober policies rooted in engineering reality and price transparency.

Give the American voter energy at less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, and they will give you Congress, the White House, and the keys to the kingdom. Fail, and watch as Beijing writes the terms of the 21st century.

Energy is the root. Prosperity the trunk. Jobs, security, peace, and dignity — the branches. Everything else is foliage.

In politics, as in physics, power is everything.

Ralph Benko serves as co-founder and general counsel to Washington Power and Light, a DC-based policy institute. He is the co-founder and general counsel for F1R3FLY Industries and has worked in or with three White Houses, two executive branch agencies, and the Congress, as well as many political and policy institutes.

Jeff Garzik is the founder of Washington Power and Light and a foundational pioneer of digital infrastructure. He was one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s four core Bitcoin developers, wrote much of the Linux/Android code powering billions of devices globally at Red Hat, and is now the founder/CEO of HEMI.xyz

As Democrats react to the continuing atrocities associated with the mass deportation campaign, it’s important for them to understand that what they find most objectionable is a feature, not a bug, for Trump’s base, as I explained at New York.

If you get your information from mainstream media or progressive political outlets, the recent debate over ICE tactics and mass-deportation policies during the second Trump administration is one-sided. Whipped on by quotas and undermined by haste and poor training, immigration enforcement agencies are constantly overreaching and providing horrifying social-media content to their many critics, it seems. More generally, the administration’s mass-deportation efforts appear to be going far beyond its claimed focus on “the worst of the worst.” There’s plenty of evidence that law-abiding immigrants who have been here for years are being targeted and treated abominably.

It’s understandable, then, that ICE’s overseers periodically give the impression that they’re working to rein in the masked agents. And even Republican politicians urge better deportation targeting as though the current politics just need some fine-tuning.

But it all looks different from MAGA-land, as evidenced by the backlash to the recent suspension of ICE vehicle stops after two fatal shootings. This infuriated many pro-Trump social-media influencers, reported the Daily Beast:

“MAGA faithful are revolting against Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, accusing him of surrendering to Democrats on a recent ICE reform … after he ordered ICE to suspend traffic stops in the wake of two fatal shootings of men by federal agents this week.

“Fox News host Tomi Lahren fumed on X, ‘We are being betrayed in real time. If you want Trump voters to stay home in November, keep this up, Markwayne and co. …’

“MAGA influencer and self-styled citizen journalist Nick Sortor blasted the change in ICE policy as a ‘TOTAL CAPITULATION to the left’ and ‘WEAK’ in an X post.

“Laura Loomer, the Islamophobic far-right influencer and President Donald Trump’s ‘loyalty enforcer,’ simply wrote, ‘Deport Markwayne Muslim!'”

In Trump’s world, keeping his base energized is always Job One. So unsurprisingly, he un-suspended the vehicle stops and restated the MAGA catechism about the need for mass deportation at Truth Social:

“The men and women of ICE are doing a GREAT job, one that has to be done. CRIME IS WAY DOWN IN AMERICA, in many cases with numbers that haven’t been seen in decades. The Open Border Policy of Sleepy Joe Biden allowed 25,000,000 people to pour into our Country, unchecked and unvetted. Many were Criminals, and we have to get them out. In order to do this, we must be strong, tough, and smart, and we CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP! Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s hands. The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won’t happen on my watch. I.C.E., be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job. Keep those Crime Stat Records coming! Remember, you are loved and respected in America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP”

This backlash against the apparently woke idea of reducing cruelty in ICE tactics stems from broader MAGA suspicions that opponents of mass deportation are lurking somewhere in the administration. It erupted even before Trump’s second term began in an intense battle over H-1B visas, beloved of the tech community (Elon Musk in particular). It continued in mid-2025 when there was talk of going easy on the immigrant farm workers who are so critical to U.S. agriculture. And when the general public began turning on ICE after high-profile shootings in Minneapolis, leading to bipartisan calls for reform, the hammer came down in the shape of GOP party-line legislation in Congress (signed by Trump last month) that pre-funds immigration enforcement for years with zero “guardrails” to prevent agent misconduct.

House Republicans are currently considering a tangible product of the MAGA backlash on immigration: legislation to “codify” the administration’s border and mass-deportation policies in order to make it somewhat more difficult for a future Democratic (or RINO) administration to change course. It’s called the Permanent Trump Secure Border Act, and the House Freedom Caucus is insisting it be passed before it will consider anything else (it’s dead on arrival in the Senate, of course, but this is about posturing for the base, not changing laws).

More and more, it’s looking like rational Republicans focused on swing-voter sentiments going into the midterms are being outgunned by those for whom base-voter mobilization is the exclusive and eternal formula for winning elections. That means making sure every single voter is aware that outrage over ICE agents dragging people from their cars and shooting them in the head is just a speed bump on the road to ridding America of as many immigrants as possible.

From “Key Factors Predicting Support for Donald Trump Among White Working-Class Americans” by Diana Orcés, Ph.D., Melissa Deckman, Ph.D. at prri.com:

White working-class Americans have consistently played a pivotal role in U.S. elections, increasingly aligning with the Republican Party. PRRI research from the 2016 presidential election, for instance, shows that 64% of white working-class voters backed President Donald Trump. Trump’s support among this key demographic remains high, with two in three white working-class voters once again backing him in 2024, according to PRRI’s Post-Election Survey.

PRRI developed a model to test various factors in predicting support for Trump among white working-class voters in the 2016 election, finding that aside from partisanship, much of the support for Trump was driven by cultural concerns, including fears of immigrants and cultural displacement. At the same time, while economic fatalism predicted support for Trump, personal economic hardship predicted support for Clinton in 2016, which ran counter to popular media narratives claiming that Trump’s appeal to the white working class was primarily due to the economic pressures that they faced.

Using data from the 2024 PRRI American Values Survey, we again conducted a logistic regression model among white working-class voters to determine the roots of white-working class support for Trump, replicating as many variables as possible to the original model we conducted in 2016 or substituting similar questions.

The models incorporate various demographic characteristics, including gender, age, region, Republican identity, and evangelical Protestant affiliation. Our logistic regression model also controls for the frequency of worship attendance (weekly or more) and civic engagement (weekly or more). In addition, the model accounts for cultural anxiety through indicators such as agreement with the “Great Replacement Theory” — the belief that immigrants are invading the country and replacing its cultural and ethnic identity — support for deporting immigrants, attitudes about gender, and perceptions of reverse discrimination. Finally, measures of economic anxiety are included, such as the belief that college is a gamble, as well as perceptions of a worsening personal economic situation and concerns about the local community’s future direction.

Partisanship and Demographic Factors:

• Identifying as Republican was strongly predictive of Trump support in both 2016 and 2024, although partisanship became an even stronger predictor in 2024: white working-class voters who identified as Republican were at least 15 times more likely to support Trump than those who did not identify as Republican in 2024.
• In 2016, we found that white working-class men were marginally more likely to support Trump than women, but this relationship was no longer statistically significant in 2024. Instead, in 2024, senior Americans ages 65 and older were significantly less likely than younger Americans to support Trump, while Southerners were twice as likely as non-Southerners to do so.

Religious Affiliation and Civic Engagement:

• Unlike in 2016, identifying as an evangelical Protestant and attending religious services weekly or more are now significantly related to Trump support in 2024. White working-class evangelicals and white working-class frequent religious service attenders are twice as likely as those who identify with other religious groups or attend religious services less frequently to support Trump.

Fears about Cultural Displacement and Reverse Discrimination:

• The salience of the “Great Replacement Theory” — the belief that immigrants are invading the country and replacing its cultural and ethnic identity — in driving support for Trump increased in 2024 from 2016, with those in the white working class who agree with this sentiment now three times as likely to have supported Trump. Those who oppose the idea that generations of slavery and discrimination against Black people and Native Americans have given white people unfair economic advantages were roughly three times as likely as those who do not share this view to favor Trump; in 2016, views about whether discrimination faced by white people has become a serious problem—a slightly different take on racial discrimination — did not emerge as a significant predictor.

Support for Deporting Immigrants Living in the Country Illegally:

• White working-class Americans who favor deporting undocumented immigrants remained roughly three times as likely as those who oppose this policy to express a preference for Trump in 2024, comparable to 2016.

Support for Patriarchal Views:

• Views about gender emerged as a powerful predictor in explaining support for Trump in 2024; white working-class voters who agree that society as a whole has become too soft and feminine were nearly five times as likely as those who disagree to support Trump. In contrast, the belief that “society seems to punish men just for acting like men,” another measure of patriarchal thinking, was not a driving factor for support for Trump in 2016 among the white working class.

Economic Anxieties:

• While the belief that college education is a gamble was no longer a significant factor in predicting support for Trump in 2024 as it was in 2016, white working-class Americans who perceive their personal financial situation as worse than the previous year were three times more likely to support Trump in 2024. In contrast, in 2016, individuals who perceived their personal financial situation as becoming worse were more likely to support Clinton than Trump.

More here.

In “After fatal shooting, Joe Scarborough rips into Susan Collins over funding ICE,” Allison Detzel reports at MS NOW that News commentator and Former Republican congressman “Joe Scarborough criticized Republican Sen. Susan Collins for her role in supplying tens of billions of dollars in new funding for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement in light of the fatal shooting by federal authorities of a 26-year-old Colombian immigrant in Collins’ home state of Maine — the second fatal shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in a week…Johan Sebastián Guerrero was killed by immigration agents in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday morning while he was on his way to work. Authorities later revealed he was not the target of the warrant agents were trying to execute…On Tuesday’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough blasted Collins and her fellow conservatives for effectively co-signing what he said was the federal government “killing people in the streets of America.” In doing so, the former Republican congressman accused the party of abandoning values it once held most dear, including its staunch opposition to government overreach…“When people like me started running,” Scarborough, who represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District from 1995 to 2001, recalled, “everywhere I went, I wanted to talk about ‘Well, the flat tax is more —’ they wanted to talk about Ruby Ridge. They wanted to talk about the ATF killing families that had guns.”” More here.

From “Trump Pulls Abrupt 180 on Strait of Hormuz After Iran Humiliates Him. Donald Trump had proposed tolling the Strait of Hormuz, but 24 hours later, he was singing a different tune” by Robert McCoy at The New Republic: “Rather than provide steady, articulate leadership and communication during his Iran war, the commander in chief has embraced bluster and erratic flip-flopping. The latest example of this came Tuesday, when President Donald Trump adopted a stance on the Strait of Hormuz diametrically opposed to the one he had announced the day before…On Monday, Trump decided that the United States would seize control of the strait. “We’ll become the guardian of the strait,” he told Fox News. “Now we’re gonna guard it, and we’re gonna get paid for guarding it. A lot of money. But we just want to be reimbursed.” In a Truth Social post, he said a 20 percent toll would be imposed on “all cargo shipped” through the strait…It was a stark reversal of the administration’s previous stance; Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance had stated unequivocally that no country would impose such a toll…Then the sun set and rose again, and Trump had yet another 180-degree change of heart…Tuesday, Trump declared that there would be no toll after all. Instead, he said vaguely in a Truth Social post that the U.S. would pursue “Trade and Investment Deals” with Gulf states. Shortly thereafter, he confirmed this new approach during a press conference. “I don’t think anybody should be able to charge a fee for the strait,” the president said, “or for any other strait relationship in terms of other sections of the world. I don’t think anybody should be really in that position.” More here.

The Broadcast Blog at Daily Kos shares “Trump Losing Everything Everywhere All At Once, which includes these observations: “After public outrage and outcry following two murders of immigrants by ICE officials over the past week — one in Maine who had an authorized work permit, the other in Texas who has been here for 30 years — the Dept. of Homeland Security is reportedly suspending most vehicle stops around the country. We’ll see if they do. Both men were shot and killed by immigration enforcement agents while in their car. Neither were endangering Trump’s jackbooted federal goons, nor were they their supposed targets for enforcement actions. At least 22 people have been fired on by agents involved in Trump’s deportation efforts during his second term. Six people, including three U.S. citizens, have been killed as a result of those shootings…In response to Iran‘s Sunday announcement that they are shutting down the Strait of Hormuz again, amid the collapse of peace talks, Trump declared on Monday that the U.S. was placing its own blockade on the Strait and would (unlawfully) charge ships 20% of the value of their cargo in exchange for safe passage. That ill-considered policy pronouncement didn’t last 24 hours before Trump called off the plan on TACO Tuesday. Instead, he spun an elaborate lie about “kings and emirs” calling him to suggest they be charged with investment in U.S. manufacturing to cross through the Strait…or some other fantastical, unintelligible, made-up-on-the-fly bullshit for reporters at the White House today.” More here.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (GA) has a few choice words for the Prez and his fellow election-denyers, as reported by Irene Wright at USA Today: “Georgia is in the middle of a tight and highly contested midterm election season, with two major races at the top of the ticket. And President Trumpis watching closely…Incumbent Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff is running against MAGA-backed, election denier Rep. Mike Collins for Georgia’s second senate seat. The other seat is held by Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock, who is not up for reelection this cycle….Throughout his election campaign, Ossoff has accused Trump of peddling an election lie, one that has been echoed by his opponent, Collins, during his campaign. As recently as June, Collins stated he believed Trump won the 2020 election in an interview with CNN…In response to reporting from MS Now and the Washington Reporter that Trump’s speech could be about election fraud and target Georgia’s two Senate seats, Ossoff said this renewed “obsession” with Georgia elections stems from Trump’s anger toward Black voters who turned against him…”Donald Trump‘s spiral continues. The failed president, pocketing billions as he drives up prices, is afraid to lose the midterms. So he will reheat debunked election conspiracy theories and tell bizarre new lies to deny his 2020 defeat and attack voting rights,” Ossoff said in a statement late Monday….”From the start, Trump’s obsession with Georgia elections revealed his fury that Black voters were instrumental to his defeat,” Ossoff said. “I’m asking concerned citizens nationwide to join me and support our voter protection efforts in Georgia.” More here.

Like a lot of Democrats, I’ve been anxiously watching the topsy-turvy situation in Maine, but made it clear at New York that it’s not absolutely the be-all end-all race.

Now that Graham Platner has withdrawn his Senate candidacy, his supporters in Maine seem equally furious at their former nominee and at national Democratic operatives both left and center. The former seized on Platner as a bundle of male proletarian stereotypes without bothering to vet him thoroughly for precisely the sort of background and character issues that brought him down. The latter cleared the field of viable alternatives to the hapless Janet Mills, even as they worked behind the scenes to undermine Platner and then exulted in his humiliation. The national narrative, as my Maine-residing colleague Rebecca Traister put it, promoted a “cartoonish proxy war … pitting the oysterman Platner, working-class cosplayer and dirtbaggy avatar of the male left, against a hidebound Establishment.” So it’s understandable that the locals would just as soon be left alone to work out their own representation in the U.S. Senate.

But it’s also understandable that Democrats nationwide tend to believe that “as Maine goes, so goes the Senate,” to adapt the ancient slogan about that state’s bellwether status. Susan Collins is the only GOP incumbent up for reelection this year whose state Kamala Harris carried in 2024. In fact, Maine hasn’t gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988, when George H.W. Bush (whose family maintained a summer retreat in Kennebunkport for many decades) won the presidency. Collins got lucky with a weak opponent in 2020 and has been given considerable leeway to distance herself from Donald Trump. But still, she is a Trump enabler and represents low-hanging fruit for 2026 … or at least she did until Platner’s campaign imploded.

As Maine Democrats try to get their act together, it’s a good time to ask the question: Could Democrats possibly flip control of the Senate without taking down Collins? A fresh look at the math is in order.

With Vice-President J.D. Vance holding a tiebreaking Senate vote, Democrats need a net gain of four seats to gain control of the chamber. According to the authoritative Cook Political Report ratings of 2026 Senate races, there are five GOP-held seats other than Collins’s that are in a competitive range. North Carolina, where Republican Thom Tillis is retiring, is rated “lean Democratic,” with former governor Roy Cooper running very strong. Races to defenestrate Dan Sullivan in Alaska (with former statewide congresswoman Mary Peltola as the Democratic nominee) and topple appointed senator Jon Husted in Ohio (former three-term senator Sherrod Brown is running there) are rated toss-ups. Winning all the toss-ups against the White House party in a midterm election is not a big reach, particularly when the president is as unpopular as Trump. Then there are two more races rated as “lean Republican”: the Republican-held seats in Iowa (where Democrat Josh Turek is running even with Republican Ashley Hinson) and Texas (where Democrat James Talarico is running even with MAGA wild man Ken Paxton). And while it’s rated “likely republican,” GOP Senator Pete Ricketts’s Nebraska seat is in everyone’s peripheral vision, given the potential strength of independent (but Democrat-supported) Dan Osborn.

So even if Susan Collins wins, Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, and Texas offer a path to a Democratic majority with Nebraska being a possible wild card. And of course, that assumes Democrats win their own competitive races in “lean Democratic” Georgia (where incumbent Jon Ossoff has a solid lead over Republican Mike Collins) and New Hampshire (Democrat Chris Pappas has a slim but steady lead over former senator John E. Sununu), plus the toss-up race in Michigan (an open Democratic-controlled seat where Republican Mike Rogers awaits the winner of a high-profile Democratic primary between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens).

Is it improbable that Democrats will win seven of nine competitive Senate races in November (not counting Maine)? Not necessarily. That’s how wave elections tend to work. Democrats netted six Senate seats in 2006 and eight in 2008, while Republicans netted nine in 2014. Yes, Trump carried Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan in 2024 — all but the last two by double digits — making them officially “red states” for the moment. But Democrats have unusually strong candidates in Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, and Georgia and an unusually weak opponent in Texas. If there’s any GOP ace in the hole, it could be a stash of national PAC money (the value of which was enhanced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling) it can deploy strategically. But that’s hardly a guarantee of victory.

Besides, Susan Collins is by no means out of the woods; indeed, her best hope of survival might have been to run against a damaged-but-not-defeated Platner. If Maine Democrats can unite behind a viable and scandal-free substitute, there’s plenty of time to challenge this vulnerable incumbent. And if they know what’s good for them, national Democrats should try to keep a relatively low profile down east.