Main page    Feb. 24

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

The Voters Are Giving Their Representatives a Bit of Negative Feedback

Last week, when the House was in recess, many members of Congress held town halls with their constituents. Some got an earful about what Donald Trump and, especially, Elon Musk are doing. In a number of cases, Republicans approve of the layoffs and cuts in the abstract, but are wildly against them when they or people in their town are being laid off. Anna Foy, a woman in the R+11 district of Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA) complained that she spent 6 years preparing for her new job at the Bureau of Land Management and just like that, she was fired. Bang. Gone. McCoy said that work previously done by people can now be done more efficiently by AI. Her job was wrangling feral horses on federal land. The basic idea many people expressed is: "I love it that Elon Musk is reducing the size of the government but I don't like it one bit when it is my job being eliminated. Why can't he eliminate other people's jobs instead?"

In rural La Grande, OR, Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR) spoke to people in his R+15 district and was booed. Some of them yelled "Tax Elon." This scenario was repeated all over the country, from coast to coast, with representatives trying to defend Musk and Trump to hostile audiences who didn't mind oxen being gored as long as it wasn't their ox being gored.

In OK-05 (R+12), an Army veteran who served five tours asked Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK): "How can you tell me that DOGE... has determined that it's Ok to cut veterans benefits?" In another encounter, a constituent said that it is all right that the government is downsizing, but it should be done humanely and it is Congress' job to see that if it has to be done, the people doing it had better be following the laws.

Democrats were encouraging people to show up at town halls to let their representatives know what they thought of a person no one voted for destroying agencies and killing jobs left and right on his own whim. Lawmakers who didn't hold town halls discovered protests around their district offices. Democrats were surprised at the energy they saw and are starting to realize that holding Republicans in Congress responsible for Musk is making the Republicans squirm. Expect much more of this going forward, as it gives Democrats a villain that rank-and-file Republican voters don't instinctively support.

On the other hand, the Republican activist class likes what they are seeing. At CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference), the speakers and attendees showed their love for Musk. CPAC host Mercedes Schlapp (and wife of Matt Schlapp, a conservative activist who has been credibly accused of sexually assaulting men), said: "Elon Musk is delivering on behalf of President Trump and his mandate to remove waste and corruption and fraud out of the federal government. For too long, the American taxpayers did not know how our money was being spent. And we're finding out that there's a chunk of this money that's been going to this leftist propaganda, not only here in America, but across the globe." AG Pam Bondi hailed "my buddy's great work." Mark McCloskey, who became a conservative celebrity when he and his wife pointed guns at protesters marching past their house after the killing of George Floyd, said: "I love what he is doing. He's a smarter guy than I am." Musk himself showed up and declared: "I am become meme." Note that these folks are all well-to-do and are not at risk of being fired from their government jobs. They can afford to get up on stage for a round of huzzahs. But they are not enough to win elections by themselves. (V)

Is Trump's Honeymoon Already Over?

Multiple polls are showing that Donald Trump's approval rating is now underwater. Watch:



The WaPo/Ipsos poll broke things down by Republicans and non-Republicans (i.e., Democrats plus independents). The contrast is startling. Trump ran a base-only campaign, and now he is running a base-only presidency. On virtually every issue, support of non-Republicans is 40-50 points lower than support of Republicans. Here are some selected issues, with green being non-Republicans and red being Republicans:

Approval gap Republicans vs. non-Republicans on 15 different issues

As long as Republicans support Trump, most Republicans in Congress will follow him and ignore everyone else. However, in swing districts, where House members need votes of Democrats and independents to win general elections, having Trump being so unpopular with non-Republicans could be a real problem. And we are only 5 weeks in. Historically, a president's popularity goes down over time as he fails to do what his supporters expected and the opposition gets energized by the approaching midterms. (V)

The Purge Now Hits the Military

The one institution that most Americans, and nearly all politicians, revere is the military. Attempts to damage it are about as taboo as anything in politics. But now, Elon Musk is going to go where no man has gone before: He wants to fire 5,400 civilian DoD employees. This is expected to be the first round of 50,000 layoffs in that department. This may or may not go well, especially since the civilian employees of the DoD include a high percentage of retired military.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth welcomed Elon and the Muskrats at the Pentagon, saying: "They're going to have broad access, obviously, with all the safeguards on classification." The president can grant any security clearance he wants to any person to whom he wants to grant it, so most likely Musk already has a top-secret clearance, meaning he has total access to everything in the Pentagon computer systems.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which has 250,000 DoD civilians as members, called the move "a slap in the face to veterans and military families everywhere that will not soon be forgotten." Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "It is going to profoundly, and unfortunately, reshape the military into a political tool of the president. You get a military force that will tell the president whatever he wants to hear. Disaster soon follows." If the military is called into action for anything later this year or next and it fails to achieve its mission, during the midterm campaigns Democrats are going to be screaming: "Musk destroyed our armed forces." But even before any future military action, the cuts will affect military bases all over the country, and the voters around them aren't going to like it.

But there is more. Hegseth directed Pentagon officials to cut $50 billion out of the Pentagon budget. That will affect a lot of people, from firees to contractors, and their families. Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses said: "Through our budgets, the Department of Defense will once again resource warfighting [sic] and cease unnecessary spending that set our military back under the previous administration, including through so-called 'climate change' and other woke programs, as well as excessive bureaucracy."

What Salesses is ignoring, either through ignorance or intentionally, is that the military has repeatedly said that climate change is most definitely a military issue. When formerly arable land ceases to be able to produce enough food for its population (due to climate change), the people there probably won't starve to death quietly. They might just get the idea of waging war on their neighbors to slaughter them all and take their (still-productive) land. If the country being attacked is important to the U.S. for strategic reasons (e.g., it has valuable natural resources or plays an important geopolitical role somewhere), the U.S. could get dragged into a war somewhere on account of climate change. The brass fully understands this and has teams of people thinking about how to deal with far-flung wars the U.S. could get dragged into as a result of climate change and how to fight them. Firing all these people now is not going to be a big help when the crunch comes. All it might take is one really big drought and one failed harvest to pull the trigger. (V)

What Does Trump Really Want to Do about Ukraine?

Donald Trump's policy on Ukraine is a mess and changes hourly. There are two general approaches countries have to foreign policy. The first one is based on ideology. Countries support other countries that share their values, no matter where they are. So the U.S. supports countries that are capitalistic and democratic, no matter where they are, even as far away as Australia. Russia supports countries that are communist, even as far away as Cuba.

The alternative is a spheres of influence approach. In this one, big countries get to control and dictate policy to smaller countries near them. In this model, the U.S. gets to run the Western Hemisphere, Russia gets to run Europe, and China gets to run Asia. If this is what Trump chooses, it will be a complete break from decades of U.S. foreign policy that big countries should not invade smaller ones just because they can. Of course, since the rule of law means nothing to Trump domestically, why should it internationally?

Trump seems to be going back and forth between these models. On some days he is for supporting Ukraine as a free and capitalistic country and wants to make a deal to buy all its valuable rare earths and other minerals. On other days he doesn't care if Russia absorbs the whole country—or at least the eastern part, for the time being—even though that is where the rare earths are located.

Last week there was a meeting of the G7 on the occasion of the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This for what Vladimir Putin expected to be a blitzkrieg 2-day war. The other members wanted to issue a statement condemning Russian aggression. U.S. officials refused since Trump is now spouting Putin's line that Ukraine was the aggressor. We now live in a post-fact reality.

Does Trump really believe this, or is it a negotiating tactic? He often makes a first offer that is totally and completely unacceptable to the other side so that his second or third offer, which is merely outrageous, seems good by comparison. Trump's first offer was half of Ukraine's minerals, probably worth $15 trillion, in return for a vague promise of uncertain aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could never accept this. Maybe a deal in which American mining companies would get exclusive rights to negotiate deals for the minerals in return for specific weapon deliveries might be possible in the end. But if Ukraine remains a sovereign country, Putin would be unhappy, and Trump hates to make his buddies unhappy.

Another factor here is Elon Musk. Trump couldn't tell a rare earth from a rare hamberder. Musk can probably tell erbium from terbium blindfolded, by feeling it. Rare earths make the magnets used to propel electric cars more powerful, so Musk is very much interested in getting a supply from a country other than China. Rare earths are not actually rare. The U.S. has large deposits of rare earths—for example, in California—but the process used to extract and refine them pollutes the environment horribly. Better somebody else takes the environmental hit. Brazil, India, and Australia also have large deposits. Here is a tutorial on what rare earths are and why they are valuable in many products, not just electric cars.

Trump's indecision on Ukraine is opening a rift between the MAGA Militia, who are happy to give Russia whatever it wants, and those Republicans who came of age during the Reagan administration and see Russia as the "evil empire." The latter are represented by Nikki Haley, who tweeted: "These are classic Russian talking points. Exactly what Putin wants," and Mike Pence, who tweeted: "Mr. President, Ukraine did not start this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives." More important, the Murdoch-owned New York Post ran this image on page 1:

New York Post cover showing Vladimir Putin with headline 'This is a dictator'

Notice the Ukrainian flag on the top right. We doubt that was an accident. If Murdoch's other properties start defending Ukraine and attacking Russia, that could put Trump in a bind. Maybe this was a warning to Trump.

Conservative writers Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin also disputed Trump's assertions that Ukraine started the war and that Zelenskyy is a dictator. On the other hand, when asked, Trump's supporters seem to be parroting back Trump's line that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a dictator. This is because the Ukrainian president did cancel the scheduled elections on the grounds that having him spend his time campaigning instead of traveling around the world begging for weapons would mean the end of the country. However, the Ukrainian Constitution did give him some leeway to do that in an emergency. (V)

The Auto Industry Is Worried about Trump

Donald Trump's constant threats about tariffs are making one important industry, the auto industry, very nervous. First there are the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Cars are made from steel and aluminum and some of it comes from abroad, where it is cheaper. If the raw materials for making cars go up in price, the price of cars is going to have to go up. That will make imported cars from Europe, South Korea, Japan, and other countries more competitive. Also, a higher price may convince some potential customers to stick with their old car longer, or to buy a used car.

Second, there are the tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada. The problem here is that many of the parts used in cars, including nonmetallic parts, come from these countries. A 25% tariff on them will also force automakers to raise prices. Even more complicated is that some parts are made of subparts and the partially assembled part goes back and forth across either border multiple times during the assembly process, incurring tariffs on the full value of the part each time. In Europe, all countries have a value added tax, so if a part that goes from country A to country B is worth, say, €14, and it later comes back worth €15, the taxable value upon reentry into country A is €1, not €15.

The supply chains for U.S. automakers are completely integrated throughout North America, as a result of NAFTA and USMCA. Every step is done where it can be done most cheaply, without regard to which country the company doing that step is in. For the auto industry, deciding between having some step done in Detroit or Mexico City is no different than deciding whether to have it done in Detroit or Kansas City. Price, shipping costs, quality, and ability to deliver on time are what matter, not the country where the factory is located.

Tariffs are upending all the carefully optimized supply chains. Finding new suppliers who can deliver complex parts to exacting standards on time is not something that can be done in a hurry. Furthermore, car makers don't want to scramble to create entirely new supply chains only to have Trump change the tariffs in 3 months and make their new arrangements uneconomical. This uncertainty is killing them. They want predictability so they can make long-term plans.

Another issue is all the paperwork that would be needed to figure out the tariff each time a part crosses a national border. If GM owns a factory in Mexico, it may not even bother to keep track of what the semifinished part is worth each time it goes back and forth across the border. A whole new accounting infrastructure might be needed to keep track of what parts are worth at each step in order to pay the tariff. Needless to say, there will be a great temptation to value the part at a very low value until the final step in Detroit, when a decal is applied saying the part has been approved. Bingo, it is suddenly worth $50, whereas the same part imported from Mexico this morning without the decal was declared at a value of $3—after all, that part hadn't been approved so it wasn't worth much. Consequently, the amount of money raised by the tariffs may not be as big as Trump expects. On the other hand, clever accountants will be able to demand and get hefty pay raises.

The bottom line here is that although the tariffs might create some jobs in the U.S. steel industry, they could destroy the U.S. auto industry (which is far, far bigger than the steel industry) due to making U.S.-made cars more expensive than imported cars. Trump never thinks these things through, even though the U.S. auto industry is centered in Michigan, a key swing state, and in the surrounding states. Finally, a number of foreign car manufacturers have built factories in low-wage, low unionization states like Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. They will be hit by the tariffs as well, and the resulting unemployment resulting from the flood of cheaper cars made abroad will hit Trump's supporters the hardest. (V)

The Real Battle: DEI vs. Demography

One of the issues Donald Trump has hit the hardest is DEI. His XOs and other actions ban it everywhere he can and he threatens organizations and states where he doesn't have the actual power to ban it. Many companies have gotten the hint and closed their DEI offices and are phasing DEI out. Trump's largely white, working-class supporters are cheering, thinking that henceforth all the blue-collar jobs will go to white men. Victory at last!

But it may be short-lived. The victory may not outlive the Trump presidency. Trump's enemy on this score isn't the Democrats, it's the demographics. Since 2000, young white people have not only declined as a percentage of the population, but also in absolute numbers. Companies that actually want a more diverse workforce may not need a special office anymore to ensure that when most of the applicants for entry-level jobs are not white men. As time goes on, they will naturally move up the corporate ranks (at least absent overt and illegal discrimination). It may take longer without a push, but after a while, the majority of students and young workers, taxpayers, and voters will not be white men. This may come as a shock to Trump's base, but it is going to happen whether they like it or not. If most of the applicants to Ivy League universities are women or nonwhite men, simply because there are more of them, then the top law schools, medical schools, business schools, etc. are going to be inputting and outputting more people who are not white men to go into their respective professions.

Of course, if Trump rolls out policies or threats to actively thwart these people, we could be headed for a two-tier society and more social turmoil for a while.

In 2000, 70% of high school graduating classes were white. In 2021, it was 49% and falling. Is there any chance the demographics could flip? Not likely because the percentage of white women of child-bearing age is dropping, meaning fewer white births. That is also not likely to reverse due to immigration since, despite what Trump would like, most immigrants are not coming from Norway. In short, Trump may be able to hold back the tide for 4 more years, but eventually demography will win out. (V)

There Aren't Any People of Color Anymore

What? Doesn't this fly in the face of the previous item? No. There aren't any "colored" folks or "Negroes" anymore, either, although 14% of the U.S. population has roots in Africa. And hardly any people are "Latinx."

The reason is a mistaken assumption on the part of Democrats that people who are not white can be lumped into the same basket, labeled "people of color." As it turns out, people whose ancestry goes back to Senegal, Egypt, China, or Nicaragua don't have much in common with one another politically and have nothing in common with Apaches and Navajos. One size does not fit all. There are no deep-seated cultural, social, economic, or political linkages between these disparate groups.

In 2024, the Democrats were startled by working-class Black and Latino voters voting like working-class whites and college-educated Black and Latino voters voting like college-educated whites. Education and income have become better predictors of voting behavior than race or ethnicity. Bernie recognized that, but the other Democrats have been slow to catch on.

As a result of this new development, Democrats are at a loss about what to do. For years they have been talking about "people of color" as though it was a well-defined voting bloc. Turns out it really isn't, and to the extent it is, this is because many minorities are lower middle class or poor and it is their class commonality, not their ethnic commonality, that causes many of them to vote for Democrats.

Democrats talk about "people of color" all the time. Republicans never do, except when mocking it as "wokespeak," along with "Latinx," which virtually no Latina uses, despite being the target audience for the new, very-not-Spanish word dreamed up by some white professor at an elite college.

What Democrats have also missed is that social unrest is sometimes due to conflict between one minority group and another, not between a minority group and white people. The Los Angeles riot of 1992 was mostly Black Angelenos vs. Korean Angelenos. At the height of COVID-19, there were hate crimes committed by Black people (who lost their income) against Asian people (who the perpetrators blamed for their misfortune). On eX-Twitter, there is anti-Black sentiment in the Latino community. Talking about "people of color" glosses over the fact that the various minority groups are sometimes not all that fond of one another and aren't united in opposition to white people.

Trump may have gotten more votes than expected from various minority groups because they don't believe he is a deep-seated KKK racist who burns crosses on people's lawns as a hobby. They think he is more of a casual racist, who says things he doesn't actually believe to get votes and then forgets them. He is not the second coming of George Wallace.

The opposite may also be true. Some studies have shown that for a substantial portion of Asian voters, Kamala Harris' background as half-South Asian meant exactly zero to them. It didn't figure into their voting decision at all.

To start winning back minority voters, Democrats would be advised to drop the term "people of color" and start addressing the different ethnic groups on their own terms or talk about class issues instead, although that will cause the Republicans to scream that they are pushing socialism. Ads in Michigan should focus on issues relevant to Blacks but ads in Nevada should focus on issues relevant to Latinos. These may overlap, but are not identical. In any event, "people of color" needs to go to a nice retirement home to hang out with the "Negroes." (V)

Andrew Cuomo Wants to Rise from the Dead

Andrew Cuomo served as governor of New York from Jan. 2011 until Aug. 2021, a longer tenure than any of the other state governors at the time. He was a popular governor who got stuff done, including same-sex marriage, codifying the right to abortion, gun control, and a lot of infrastructure stuff (the Second Ave. Subway, the Moynihan Train Hall, the Mario Cuomo Bridge, and the reconstruction of LaGuardia Airport). He was widely praised for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, he also had a habit of sexually harassing women. NY AG Letitia James investigated him and found 11 women he had harassed. Cuomo denied everything. When the heat got too much, he resigned, but was never prosecuted.

With Eric Adams' reelection campaign in tatters, Cuomo is planning to rise from the dead by running for mayor of New York City in November. He certainly won't be alone, but he has been quietly working all the levers to get support from key groups in advance of his announcement, which is expected in 2 weeks so he can get on the June 24 Democratic primary ballot. In New York City, winning the Democratic nomination is pretty much tantamount to winning the general election. However, there is a catch. The (closed) partisan primaries use ranked-choice voting. Cuomo, being one of the best-known candidates, could get the most first-place votes, but still end up losing when the second, third, fourth, and even fifth-place votes are redistributed. For example, if there are two Black candidates who split the first-place votes, if all of their supporters pick the other one for second place, the more popular of the two could end up winning the nomination in the end.

One thing going for Cuomo is that he could run a campaign in which all he did, day and night, was attack Donald Trump rather than the other Democrats in the race. New Yorkers might decide that having someone calling out Trump loudly and visibly every day was what they really wanted, with Cuomo's deputy mayors actually running the city. The city charter allows the mayor to appoint as many deputy mayors as he wants and assign them whatever duties he wants. If Cuomo becomes the leader of the resistance, that could even be a springboard to run for president in 2028. Some Democrats want a tough, fiery, outspoken candidate, and Cuomo could fill the bill.

One of Cuomo's bases as governor was the unions. He was a very pro-union governor. He is now talking to all the major unions in New York City to try to drum up support. Union endorsements can easily translate to boots on the ground for him. Cuomo is also talking to Black groups and Jewish groups, two blocs with which he has always had good relations.

The race will be crowded. Here is a quick summary of the current candidates plus Cuomo. For more details on each one, see this article:

Name Job Ideology Ethnicity Banked Endorsements Liabilities
Eric Adams Mayor of NYC Pro-business Black $3.1 million (None) Under federal indictment
Michael Blake Pastor Moderate Black $90,000 (None) Perennial candidate
Andrew Cuomo Fmr. governor Centrist Catholic Mucho (later) (None now; many later) The 11 women he harassed
Brad Lander NYC comptroller Progressive Jewish $3.9 million UAW, Jumaane Williams Nerdy white guy
Zohran Mamdani Assemblyman Far left Muslim $3.2 million UAW, DSA Not well known nepo baby
Zellnor Myrie State senator Pro real estate Black $2.5 million Rep. Dan Goldman Unknown
Jessica Ramos State senator Progressive Latina $31,000 UAW, Teamsters Fundraising, misogyny
Scott Stringer Fmr. comptroller Centrist Jewish $2.4 million Rep. Jerry Nadler #MeToo problem

It's New York City, so there is something for everyone. We assume Adams won't get many first-place votes, but he might get some second and third place votes. If Cuomo jumps in, he will probably be the favorite for getting the most first-place votes. If all he talks about during his campaign is how he will spend day and night in front of the cameras telling everyone that Donald Trump is a monster who is destroying the country and he will try to rally the opposition to him, he could win. In the final round, it might come down to Cuomo and Lander. Cuomo's pitch could be "I hate Trump more than anyone." Lander's pitch could be "I will run the city well." On the other hand, if the people who vote for the three Black candidates, the Latina, and the Muslim all agree on their second-choice candidate, that person could make the finals.

The Republicans seem to be coalescing around Guardian Angel and radio personality Curtis Sliwa, who has lost mayoral races before—bigly. The only way he could win is if the Democrats foolishly nominate Eric Adams. (V)

Judge Dale Ho Appoints Paul Clement to Explain Why Eric Adams Should be Prosecuted

When Danielle Sassoon, the Donald Trump-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY, resigned rather than follow an improper and unethical order from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to drop the case against NY Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for Adams' assistance with Trump's immigration roundups, her resignation letter read more like an opposition brief. In it, she laid out the standard that federal judges use to determine whether these requests should be granted.

While most such requests are routine (and routinely granted), the judge's approval is required to prevent the type of abuse of power that Sassoon alleges this request so obviously represents. Sassoon explained that under Rule 48(a) of the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure, which governs these requests, the Court can deny the motion—even if the defendant consents—"if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest." She argues that this is such a request and is not "consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision-making."

Sassoon then lays out the reasons the request is against the public interest: (1) It's the result of an improper quid pro quo to drop charges in exchange for Adams' assistance with Trump's immigration roundup; (2) The DoJ's request is without prejudice in order to have leverage against Adams to ensure he keeps his end of the bargain; (3) The indictment was properly brought and her office was getting ready to add more charges for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence; and (4) Bove has not questioned the strength of the case or the evidence supporting it. Sassoon also notes that even though she was the lead attorney on the case, she was not included in any discussions about the decision and her objections have been ignored.

Add to that Bove's very real threat of legal action against Sassoon and the other prosecutors in her office for voicing their objections and resigning, and it's hard to imagine any judge granting the dismissal. Ho held an initial hearing on Wednesday and the prosecutors repeated the admission that they wanted to drop the case so Adams could better help with Trump's immigration crackdown. Bove appeared solo, and no one presented any arguments in opposition to the request. On Friday, Judge Dale Ho issued an order appointing former Solicitor General Paul Clement as an amicus curiae, or friend of the Court, to argue the opposing view. In his order, Ho noted that "courts are normally aided in their decision-making through our system of adversarial testing" especially in situations with, as he delicately put it, "unusual fact patterns."

Clement was the solicitor general under George W. Bush and has argued countless cases before the Supreme Court. It's not unusual for a Court in high profile cases to solicit opinions from outside the parties and even to appoint their own amicus. Judge Emmet Sullivan, for example, appointed an amicus when the DoJ requested to drop the charges against Michael Flynn during Trump's first term. Ho has given the parties the issues he wants briefing on: (1) whether he can consider documents other than the motion to dismiss; (2) how much discretion he has and how in depth can his inquiries be in considering the request; and (3) whether he can dismiss the case with prejudice. (L)

Friedrich Merz Will Lead Germany

With European-American relations at their lowest point in decades, the two most powerful politicians in Europe will soon be Friedrich Merz and Ursula von der Leyen, both Germans. Merz is likely to be the new chancellor of Germany and Von der Leyen is president of the European Commission.

The final results of yesterday's parliamentary election in Germany are not in yet, but the preliminary results give this projection:

Results of the German election

This is an ignominious defeat for Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his SPD.

Germany has an interesting rule for elections that most other parliamentary systems do not have. A party needs at least 5.000% of the vote to get any seats in the parliament. If a party gets 5.000% of the votes, it gets 5.000% of the 630 seats, or 32 seats. If it gets 4.972% of the vote, it gets 0% or 0 seats (except in very special circumstances). This means that the number of seats the big parties get depends on whether the small parties pass the 5.000% threshold. It appears that one of small parties, the Left, will make it, but the FDP (Free Democrats) missed. The BSW, a new pro-Russia left-wing party, appears to have gotten 4.972% and thus missed by 13,000 votes out of 59 million, but that could change. If the BSW fails to hit 5.000% in the final count, then the CDU/CSU (conservatives) will have 208 seats in the Bundestag (parliament) and the SPD (social democrats) will have 120 seats. Together they will have 328 seats, more than the 316 needed for a majority and they will be able/forced to govern together. If the final count gives the BSW 13,000 more votes, the CDU/CSU + SPD will fall short and will need a partner, probably the Greens. That will make negotiations much trickier. Just imagine that the U.S. House had 217 Republicans, 216 Democrats, and some totally crazy party nobody will touch with a barge pole with 2 seats. Then the Democrats and Republicans would have to form a coalition, even though they are far apart on everything. Welcome to Germany 2025. Since the CDU/CSU and SPD are miles (OK, kilometers) apart on almost everything, talks about what they will do together could take weeks. One thing they seem to agree on is that letting Vladimir Putin grab any European country he wants is not a good thing. But domestic issues will be tougher.

The neo-Nazi AfD Party did worse than the polls showed it would do, and it is unlikely that endorsements by Elon Musk and J.D. Vance made any difference. Still, Merz was not amused by their interference and said: "Intervention from Washington was no less dramatic and ultimately no less outrageous, than the intervention that we have seen from Moscow." This does not suggest a lot of cooperation between Trump and Merz going forward. Trump's slogan of "America First" might as well have been "America Alone." Imagine what would happen if there is another 9/11-type terrorist attack and Trump asks Merz for help in tracking down the person who planned it and Merz says: "Your problem, not mine."

Here are some of the things Merz will try to do. He will be more successful on issues where the SPD is on the same page as he is.

Somewhat unstated here but very much on the agenda, is reducing the number of immigrants, but not as drastically as the AfD.

Even though Merz is the head of the conservative party, he is far to the left of the Republicans and not really that far from Joe Biden on many issues. One thing that is clear, though, is that Germany now considers the U.S. an unreliable partner and will proceed accordingly.

This is a horrible development for the U.S., as allies will now chart their own courses on many things, and what they do may not be in America's best interests. Think, for example, about ASML, the Dutch company that makes the chip-making machines that makes all the world's advanced chips. Dispensing with Joe Biden's economic diplomacy, they could go back to selling them to China instead of the U.S. because they regard China as a more reliable partner. Think about foreign intelligence services refusing to give critical intel to the U.S. because they don't trust DNI Tulsi Gabbard. There could be a long list.

When it became clear that Olaf Scholz was done for, we got some really good comments from German readers about what had just happened. However, the holidays and other issues didn't allow us to run those in a timely fashion. We'd very much like to run some responses from readers in Germany and/or the rest of Europe giving your views about what happened, or why, or what it means, etc. Please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Teutonic Shift." (V)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones