Donald Trump Gives His First Post-Election Interview

This weekend, Donald Trump gave his first interview since winning the election. To say he is all bark and no bite would be an exaggeration, but Trump the president-elect is nonetheless a very different person than Trump the candidate. A fair amount of what he told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press tones down what he campaigned on.

Trump said he would "seek" to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, since no other country has it (in fact, 34 other countries have it). The key word here is "seek." The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that everyone born on U.S. soil is an American. To end that would require repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. Good luck with that. Is he going to seek repealing the Fourteenth Amendment? We suspect this is the last time we hear about this idea.

Trump also said Ukraine would probably get less aid with him as president. That's not the same thing candidate Trump said, when he told Vladimir Putin that the world is his buffet and he should help himself to whatever he wants. Maybe Trump is now aware that many Republicans don't like Russia and godless communism, and cutting off aid to Ukraine altogether would put him at odds with many Republicans in Congress. He even backed down about leaving NATO. He said if they treat us fairly, he would stay in. That probably means that if all the other countries would spend 2% of their GDP on defense, he would stay in. Most, if not all, of them have already gotten that message and are ramping up defense spending.

Trump said that he couldn't guarantee that his tariffs would not raise prices. It sounds like he is serious about tariffs, which, of course, will raise prices. But maybe under the radar there will be exemptions for every company that donated to his campaign so he can claim victory without actually changing much.

Trump also scuttled his earlier plans to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, which he can't actually do. However, he did say he would fire FBI Director Christopher Wray because "he invaded my home" and wasn't sure at first whether Trump's ear was struck by a bullet or shrapnel. A competent FBI director would know that instantly from the sounds the agents made when reporting it to him. "Bang bang" would mean a direct bullet hit, of course.

The President-elect also stuck with his threat that he would lock up his "enemies," like Liz Cheney. This is not likely to go smoothly. If he just ordered the DoJ to arrest Cheney and lock her up, she could certainly get a court to do its habeas corpus thingie and release her. In America, even Trump's America, the president can't just lock people up because he doesn't like them. He could ask the AG, probably Pam Bondi, to investigate Cheney, but to lock her up, Bondi would first have to convince a grand jury that the former representative committed a crime. Finding a grand jury in very heavily Democratic D.C. to do that would be a challenge, especially given the tiny little technicality that Cheney hasn't committed any crimes. Then there would have to be a trial. Good luck with that, too. Trump could make Cheney spend a lot of money on her defense, but since Democrats sorta, kinda like her now, she could probably start a GoFundMe campaign to pay her legal bills. When asked if he would prosecute Jack Smith, Trump said he would leave that to Bondi. She would never do that. She may be Trumpy, but if she did, she could never get a conviction and then Smith would have formal recognition that he did not commit a crime and she and Trump would have enough egg on their faces to provide the entire cabinet with omelets for breakfast for a week.

Trump said he would not tamper with Social Security or raise the age of eligibility. He would merely make it more efficient. What does that mean? Replace the agency's aging x86 computers with spiffy new Apple M4 computers?

When asked about banning abortion pills, Trump said he probably wouldn't. If Congress were to pass a bill banning mifepristone, would he veto it? He wasn't specific, but Senate Democrats would filibuster any such bill, so it would never arrive on his desk.

On the subject of health care, he doesn't really have a concept of a plan. If he works hard, something he hates to do, maybe he might be able to work up to a glimmer of an idea about a concept of a plan. In practice, he will leave it to Congress, which is badly divided on the topic and is incapable of doing anything.

Trump even made nice to supporters of Kamala Harris, and said to them: "I'm going to treat you every bit as well as I have treated the greatest MAGA supporters." Does he mean it? We will reserve judgment on that one.

The President-elect did say that on Day 1, he would sign a raft of XOs on the economy, energy and the border. That he can do, but XO's are merely orders to the bureaucracy to take certain positions and interpret laws in a certain way. They are not laws.

In short, the campaign is over and Trump has to govern. And he hates governing. Governing is hard, and getting anything through a very closely divided House where every Republican will have a veto over everything for the first 3 months will be tough. And what gets through will be filibustered in the Senate.

In reality, he can and will issue lots of XO's and can have future OMB Director Russell Vought change the federal budget proposal to Congress to remove things he doesn't like and add things he does. The budget can pass using the reconciliation process—at least, if Trump can get it through the House, which is not a given since the Freedom Caucus may demand even bigger cuts than he wants. In short, he is trying to water down his campaign promises already because many of them were always totally unrealistic and he is worried that trying to do things and failing will make him look weak. And in MAGAworld, the weak are eaten for lunch. (V)

Trump's Syria Policy: Not My Problem

Events are moving so fast in the Middle East that whatever anyone writes today could be obsolete by tomorrow. Is the new sheriff in town in Damascus Taliban-lite or a reformer? Is Iran going to lick its wounds and be quiet for a while? Vladimir Putin supported Bashar al-Assad for a decade. Assad lost and had to flee to Moscow over the weekend. He looks like a loser. Donald Trump does not like losers.

Until Jan. 20, the one-president-at-a-time rule says that Joe Biden still gets to call the shots on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Biden is cautiously optimistic about Syria, but also warned about the new leaders: "They're saying the right things now. But as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions."

Trump's comment about Syria on his boutique social media site was: "THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED." In any event, by Jan. 20, things could be clearer there, so there is no need for Trump to stick his neck out right now. He can wait to see how it develops. His long-time preference is to stay out of other folks' wars and that could be his first inclination now. He could also just leave matters to Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio. In short, things are very unstable and make long-term predictions, say, for Wednesday, quite premature.

On the ground, things have changed. Iran no longer has a land route to ship weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and after the beating it got from Israel, is no longer the force it was. That alone could be significant. More is likely to change before Jan. 20. (V)

AOC Is in for the Ranking Member Slot on the Oversight Committee

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is running for a job with approximately zero power: the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, which can investigate anything the chair wants to investigate. Is she stupid?

Anything but. She is extremely savvy, despite being only 35 and only in her third term in the House. She knows very well that the Republicans will hold a 220-215 edge in the 119th Congress, but the president's party usually gets whacked very hard in the midterms. If that happens in 2026, she will suddenly become one of the most powerful people in D.C., as chair of a committee with the power to subpoena anyone for any reason, put them under oath, and ask any questions she wants. At congressional hearings, most members just grandstand, but she is extremely good at asking probing questions and not taking "no" for an answer.

Will she get the job of ranking member? She is up against Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA). Connolly is in his eighth term and is 74. For younger members looking for generational change, she is the clear favorite. After the results of this year's elections, many Democrats think generational change is an excellent idea and Ocasio-Cortez could win this one.

What would she do if she wins? Well, the ranking member doesn't have a lot of legal power, but AOC has a lot of soft power. Everything she says gets a lot of attention and makes news, and with a million followers on Bluesky now, she can put malfeasance in the Trump administration in the spotlight, get lots of news coverage, and put Trump on the defensive.

The procedure now is that the Steering and Policy Committee, which hasn't been filled in yet, recommends the ranking members by secret ballot. Then the full caucus votes on the recommendations. AOC is now busy lobbying members of the Hispanic Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, while Connolly is lobbying senior members across various factions. The House leadership has an (unusual) hands-off policy. The decision should happen within 2 weeks.

If Ocasio-Cortez pulls this off, that will boost her profile enormously, especially if the Democrats capture the House in 2026. It is widely expected that she will run for the seat of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when he retires. He is 74 now and up in 2028 when he will be 78. She could possibly even challenge him in a primary in 2028 if he decides to go for another term. (V)

Nearly 100 Former National Security Officials Are Worried about Tulsi Gabbard

While Pete Hegseth's nomination is getting most of the attention at the moment, as everyone waits for Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) to announce her vote, there is more controversy ahead. In particular, nearly 100 former national security officials have written a letter urging the Senate to carefully scrutinize the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI. "Scrutinize" is a euphemism for "reject." The officials note her lack of experience in anything even peripherally related to national security and also her previous controversial (pro-Russia) statements and a meeting she had with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. They also question her willingness to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to a president notorious for refusing to read the Presidential Daily Briefing. In Trump v1.0, he had the DNI or CIA director personally come and explain things to him.

As one example of her aligning herself with al-Assad, Gabbard publicly cast doubts on intelligence reports and overwhelming public reporting that the Syrian leader attacked his own people with poison gas. She said the attacks were staged by agents from the U.K. She has also insisted the U.S.-funded labs in Ukraine were developing biological weapons, thus justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine to destroy the (nonexistent) labs.

In addition, the letter points out that the DNI must manage 18 different spy agencies throughout the government, many of them at war with some of the others. This requires extensive management experience running organizations with a large number of competing divisions. She has no such experience. Her background is being a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, followed by four terms in the House representing Hawaii.

Left unsaid is the fear that she would leak critical U.S. intelligence to Vladimir Putin and other enemies of the United States, as she often defends dictators around the world. In some ways, she may be more endangered than Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or Kash Patel because many Republicans actually care about national security and don't want to put a loose cannon in charge of it.

It is worth noting that in the past, far milder problems were fatal for cabinet-level nominees. George W. Bush's first pick for secretary of labor was derailed for housing an undocumented immigrant. Barack Obama's first nominee for HHS was forced out for not paying taxes on a car service. Joe Biden's pick for director of OMB had to drop out due to some of her sharply worded posts on social media. These are small potatoes compared to Gabbard's love of America's enemies and sharing posts from RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-backed station. (V)

People Are Cheering the Murder of a Health Care Executive

The peasants have grabbed their pitchforks and they are angry. Very angry. Last week, Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare, the biggest health insurance company in the U.S. by market share, was gunned down in cold blood outside the hotel he was staying in while attending a conference in Manhattan. It was clearly carefully planned. The weapon was reportedly a veterinary gun that is typically used to euthanize animals. It fires 9 mm rounds but is virtually completely silent. The spent cartridges had the words "delay" and "deny" and "depose" scratched onto them. The police investigation is ongoing and the killer is still at large.

What is interesting (and political) here is the public reaction to the murder. Normally, if a famous person is unexpectedly shot, there are endless requests for "thoughts and prayers." There is none of that this time. In fact, a large number of people on social media are outright cheering Thompson's death or celebrating it. This is virtually unheard of after what was basically a planned assassination. It is widely assumed that the killer (or a family member) had been insured by United Healthcare, had requested some health service (or filed some claim), and the company turned it down. Many of the people posting on social media are relating their experiences with health insurance companies that can also be summed up as "delay" and "deny" and they think Thompson's company caused many preventable deaths by denying care so he deserved what he got.

What is also interesting is that when there is a major crime in the news and the perp is at large, Internet sleuths go to work to harness the power of the Internet to try to track him down. Even when it is not clear if there is a crime but someone disappears, the Internet often goes to work. When famous computer scientist Jim Gray's boat inexplicably vanished on a clear day off the coast of California with no mayday call or flares, a massive search operation was immediately organized on the Internet, with sections of the ocean assigned to people with private planes to search for him and much more. The possibility of his high-tailing it to Mexico for some reason was thoroughly discussed. In Thompson's case, the top Internet sleuths are pointedly refusing to help find the killer. Michael McWhorter, who posts true crime stories on TikTok for his 6.7 million followers, said there was nobody on TikTok interested in finding the killer, something that would certainly have happened in other situations. Also, Savannah Sparks, who has 1.3 million TikTok followers for her account where she tracks down the identity of people who do racist or criminal things, said she isn't interested in helping the police on this one. Her words: "Absolutely the fu** not." Yet another TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy, who has 2 million followers, also refused to help.

All of this is astonishing and shows how hated the health insurance industry is. This incident could be a warning to Donald Trump not to monkey with the ACA and make people even more dependent on private health insurance companies, which are so unpopular that the assassination of one of its leaders is a cause for joy for many people. Also, the pent-up hatred about health insurance could be an issue the Democrats could grab onto in 2026 if they can come up with a program to reform the industry. It is even possible that lowering the age for Medicare from 65 down to, say, 50 and then continuing to lower it over time could be a huge winner. The phrasing is crucial, though. "Socialized medicine" is wildly unpopular in the U.S. but Medicare (which is a form of socialized medicine) is wildly popular. In particular, this is an economic issue which speaks to white working-class men, many of whom have had care or claims denied by big insurance companies. A pitch like a "public option," in which people from 50-64 could be allowed to opt into Medicare++ if they so desire, could be a big electoral winner. If the Republicans opposed it to help companies like United Healthcare, well, good luck with that. (V)

Another Day, Another Unqualified Nominee, This Time to Run the IRS

It almost seems like Donald Trump is going out of his way to find nominees who are completely unqualified for their positions, daring the Senate to reject them. With some modest effort, he could find people who support his views and who could be confirmed easily, but that is not his game plan.

The latest unqualified nominee is Billy Long for IRS commissioner. Long is a college dropout who was an auctioneer for over 30 years before being elected to the House from Missouri. He is not a tax lawyer or an accountant or a CPA. While in Congress, Long did not serve on the Finance or Taxation committees and knows nothing about tax law or running a sprawling organization like the IRS, which has 85,000 employees.

While in Congress, he did support a flat tax, in which everyone would pay the same tax rate, irrespective of their income. Billionaires would love that. Of course, the commissioner has no say at all on tax rates. That is up to Congress. Maybe Trump doesn't know that. Or maybe he wants to weaponize the IRS against his political enemies. That could be done under the radar but it would require a commissioner who would play ball.

The reaction to the nomination is mixed, as expected. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) said he is looking forward to hearing Long's ideas about IRS. On the other hand, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), who is on the tax subcommittee, called it a "terrible mistake."

Another issue is that, as with the FBI, the IRS commissioner has a fixed term to avoid political interference. The term of the current commissioner, Danny Werfel, runs until Nov. 2027, but Trump said he would fire Werfel immediately. When Congress wrote the laws about the tenure of agency heads, it was naively assuming presidents would not terminate them prematurely just to put in their own people. The laws should have simply stated that they are allowed to finish their term unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress. Giving the president the power to fire them at will just makes them ordinary political appointees, which was not Congress' intent.

One reason Trump may want to replace Werfel with someone who knows nothing about taxation or running a large bureaucracy is that Werfel expanded audits of wealthy individuals and big corporations, clawing back billions in unpaid taxes. He also rolled out a scheme in which people with relatively simple tax returns can file online for free, something very common in Europe. It is hated bitterly by tax prep companies and companies that make tax prep software. Werfel also greatly improved IRS customer service, which was woeful. Some Democratic lawmakers are afraid that all of this will be canceled by Long, making it simple for rich people and corporations to cheat and get away with it.

Previous commissioners knew something about taxation other than not liking taxes. Werfel has a master's in public policy from Duke, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina, held multiple jobs within the IRS, and was acting commissioner for 6 months in 2013. Before him was Charles Rettig, who has a master's in taxation and who worked as a tax lawyer for three decades before being nominated and who also was chairman of the IRS Advisory Council. Will Long be confirmed? Probably, unless some scandal is unearthed soon. For Republican senators, merely being totally incompetent is no reason to reject the president's choice and they will no doubt hear from their big donors who will rejoice at the pick. (V)

Is the American Century Over?

In 1941, Henry Luce, the influential publisher of Time magazine, proclaimed the "American Century," in which the post-World War II United States would lead the world, spread free enterprise, and create an abundant life around the globe. He saw enormous possibilities for the world under American leadership. He was basically right for 80 years. The system was based on four principles:

1. A rules-based economy that gave the U.S. access to world markets.
2. A guarantee of world peace, backed up by the enormously powerful U.S. military.
3. A liberal immigration system that allowed the best people from all over to move to the U.S. and bring their skills.
4. A picture of America that valued knowledge, ability, expertise, and a "can do" attitude.

Now Donald Trump wants to dismantle the entire thing. He wants to gut federal agencies of their expertise, impose tariffs, de-commit from NATO, and cozy up to dictators abroad. He sees the "American Century" as an enemy to be defeated. His cabinet picks include many incompetent people who will achieve his goals by running their departments into the ground.

The "American Century" didn't happen by itself. The Marshall Plan in Europe and aid to Japan and Asia reduced the chances of those countries deciding that communism was the way of the future. This was in America's interest, so the money was well spent. Rebuilding war-torn countries also provided huge export markets for American manufacturers. Bretton Woods established the IMF and World Bank, whose loans often stipulated that the money had to be spent buying products and services from American companies. These institutions were definitely not created out of pure altruism. But the result was to create prosperous trading partners for America and peace in the world. Sometimes the U.S. made nice to autocrats in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, but on the whole, the system worked and certainly benefited America.

A key part of the success story was immigration, both skilled workers and unskilled workers. About 25% of the agricultural workforce is currently undocumented, as well as 17% of construction workers and 19% of maintenance workers. If these people were all deported, huge pieces of the economy would simply collapse.

Yet another part of the success story was the veneration of expertise. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine was considered a miracle, as were inventions like television and the jet plane. There was close cooperation between government and leading universities, to keep America at the forefront of technology.

Trump wants to withdraw from the world, get rid of scientists at the NIH, doctors at the FDA, economists at Treasury, demographers at the Census Bureau, and policy professionals everywhere in government. For good or bad, the American Century made America rich and powerful and the envy of the world. But a bare plurality of the voters decided on Nov. 5 that eggs were too expensive so they want something else. So far, Trump seems to be leaning toward isolation, oligarchy, incompetence, and corruption. We may soon see how well that works.

Fundamentally—and with apologies to Al Gore—there is an underlying inconvenient truth here. People are unhappy because they feel the "system" is not working well for them. What they really mean is "economics" in a generalized sense, including jobs, wages, health care, education, opportunities, etc. They feel that they are stagnating or even falling behind. Part of it is due to foreign competition, and part is due to technology (automation) that makes some people "obsolete." Being a coal miner doesn't have a lot of future and coal miners feel that no one cares.

For better or worse, the U.S. has a two-party system. Countries that have many parties, like Belgium, Israel, Italy and the Netherlands, allow you to pick a party that is perfect for you, but forming a government after the election often takes a year and often that government collapses before the next regularly scheduled election. In reality, many Republicans don't give a hoot about ordinary folks. What they care about, above everything else, is giving rich people more money and more power. But that is a tough sell, so the GOP has discovered that playing to the voters' prejudices about gays, transpeople, minorities, immigrants, and even women is popular. In contrast, the Democrats really do care about ordinary folks (and have since FDR), but they don't play to people's prejudices. So people have a choice: vote for a party that is bad for you personally but reinforces your prejudices, or vote for a party that is good for you personally but condemns your prejudices as immoral. As long as they vote the first way, they can feel happy that the president and Congress hate the people they hate, but are stuck with a personal situation they are very unhappy with.

Maybe the U.S. needs four parties:

1. Works for rich people and hates marginal groups (the current Republicans).
2. Works for rich people but likes marginal groups (probably wouldn't do so well).
3. Works for ordinary folks but hates marginal groups (not present now).
4. Works for ordinary folks but likes marginal groups (the current Democrats).

This covers all the possibilities. Maybe there is an opening for bigoted economic progressives (#3). Not a pleasant thought, though. George Wallace was kind of in basket #3. (V)

Appeals Court Upholds Ban on TikTok

On April 24, 2024, Joe Biden signed a bill that would ban TikTok from operating in the U.S. on Jan. 19, 2025 unless its U.S. operations were sold to an American company. This is because the owner of TikTok, a company called ByteDance, works very closely with the Chinese government. Gigabytes of data about 170 million Americans are being stored in databases operated by the Chinese government. The possibilities for blackmail and more are legion. The purpose of the law was to put the company in American hands and not feed a vast amount of data about Americans to China. Microsoft, Oracle, and Walmart have expressed interest in possibly buying the U.S. part of TikTok, but ByteDance has not shown any interest in selling it.

When the law passed, ByteDance and others sued to get it overturned. The law survived at the district court level. On Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. sustained the district court decision unanimously, saying that national security interests and the government's legitimate interest in blocking a hostile foreign government from collecting a treasure trove of information about Americans outweighed the First Amendment. After all, there are plenty of other places people can post and view videos. Needless to say, the case will soon be dumped in John Roberts' lap. While conservatives dominate the Supreme Court, it is not clear what the conservative position is here. The ACLU is against the law because it limits some people's expression, so that could give the Court an idea of which side it should be on (hint: oppose ACLU).

A key issue is where is Donald Trump on this issue. During Trump v1.0, the president was in favor of forcing ByteDance to sell its American operations to some American company. But during his campaign this year, he used TikTok extensively to reach hard-to-reach voters. Of course, if the U.S. operations were sold to some big American company, nothing would have to change except that data on Americans wouldn't be handed to the Chinese government. If he wanted to, he could drop the lawsuit. On the other hand, pressure from Microsoft, Oracle, and Walmart could make him change his mind.

Technically, the law bans Apple and Google from making the app available in their stores after Jan. 19. Trump could announce that the new AG will not take action to enforce the law. However, we doubt that Apple and Google's lawyers would take the risk of knowingly breaking the law just because Trump said he wouldn't enforce it. After all, he could change his mind at any time. In any event, the future of the app is up in the air for the moment. (V)

DCCC and NRCC Will Keep Their Chairs for the 2026 House Election

The race for the House in 2026 will be extremely competitive. The current margin is just five seats, 215D, 220R. In the first midterm election, the president's party usually gets hit hard, so the Democrats have a decent shot at taking back the House, especially if Trump v2.0 is chaos, with many resignations, firings, adverse court decisions, etc. So for each party, a key figure is the person running the committee in charge of winning House elections.

Both parties decided to go with an experienced hand. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) will run the DCCC again, for the second time, and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) will lead the NRCC again, also for the second time. DelBene gets credit for negating Donald Trump's coattails completely and actually picking up a seat in the House. Hudson gets credit for holding the House, even though he lost a seat. Both are popular in their respective parties. Running the House committee is tougher than running the corresponding Senate committee because the chair has to worry about 435 races instead of only 33 or 34. Furthermore, Senate candidates are major figures in their own right and many are good at fundraising, sometimes from out of state. House candidates, even incumbents, need more help generally. This means the DCCC and NRCC chairs need to be good at fundraising, and having done it recently means they are well-plugged-in with donors.

Which seats will be the critical ones next time? One thing to look at is which seats flipped in 2024. They went one way in 2022 and the other way in 2024, and they could go back again in 2026. This is especially true of seats the Republicans just flipped because if the "normal" anti-president wave happens in 2026 due to people being unhappy with the president, these could be the most vulnerable seats. So let's look at the seats that flipped partisan control on Nov. 5, from Democratic to Republican. These will all be top targets for the Democrats in 2026:

District	PVI	Democrat	Dem Pct.	Republican	GOP Pct.	Notes
AK-AL	R+8	Mary Peltola (D)	46.4%	Nick Begich (R)	48.4%
CO-08	EVEN	Yadira Caraveo (D)	48.2%	Gabe Evans (R)	49.0%
MI-07	R+2	Curtis Hertel Jr. (D)	46.6%	Tom Barrett (R)	50.3%	Elissa Slotkin (D) ran for the Senate
NC-06	R+11	(None) (D)	00.0%	Addison McDowell (R)	69.2%	Kathy Manning (D) retired due to redistricting
NC-13	R+11	Frank Pierce (D)	41.4%	Brad Knott (R)	58.6%	Wiley Nickel (D) retired due to redistricting
NC-14	R+11	Pam Genant (D)	41.9%	Tim Moore (R)	58.1%	Jeff Jackson (D) retired due to redistricting
PA-07	R+2	Susan Wild (D)	49.6%	Ryan MacKenzie (R)	50.5%
PA-08	R+4	Matt Cartwright (D)	49.2%	Rob Bresnahan (R)	50.8%

Here are the nine seats the Democrats flipped compared to the current Congress. Note that compared to the 2022 election, the Democrats are +2, not +1, because Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) flipped the seat of "George Santos" (R-NY) in the special election after "Santos" was expelled from the House on Dec. 1, 2023:

District	PVI	Republican	GOP Pct.	Democrat	Dem Pct.	Notes
AL-02	D+4	Caroleene Dobson (R)	45.4%	Shomari Figures (D)	54.6%	Barry Moore (R) retired due to redistricting
CA-13	D+4	John Duarte (R)	50.0%	Adam Gray (D)	50.0%	Gray won by 187 votes
CA-27	D+4	Mike Garcia (R)	48.7%	George Whitesides (D)	51.3%
CA-45	D+2	Michelle Steele (R)	49.9%	Derek Tran (D)	50.1%
LA-06	D+8	Elbert Guillory (R)	37.7%	Cleo Fields (D)	50.8%	Garret Graves (R) retired due to redistricting
NY-04	D+5	Anthony D'Esposito (R)	48.8%	Laura Gillen (D)	51.2%
NY-19	R+1	Mark Molinaro (R)	49.2%	Josh Riley (D)	50.8%
NY-22	D+3	Brandon Williams (R)	45.5%	John Mannion (D)	54.5%
OR-05	D+2	Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R)	45.1%	Janelle Bynum (D)	47.7%

Of course, there are other vulnerable seats as well, especially Democrats in districts Trump won and Republicans in districts Harris won. The latter may be especially vulnerable because without Trump on the ballot in 2026, marginal voters who came out of the woodwork specifically to vote for Trump may stay in the woodwork in 2026. In a district that is fundamentally Democratic (i.e., one that Harris won), a strong Democrat may be in a good position to flip the seat.

What is also noteworthy here is how stable the House is. Only 17 seats changed parties. That means that 418 seats stayed with the same party. In other words, 96.1% of the House seats stayed in the same party. There were 45 House retirements in 2024, but in the vast majority of the cases, either one Democrat was replaced with a different Democrat or one Republican was replaced by another one. Partisan flips occurred in only 3.9% of the seats. This effect is largely due to state legislatures that have gerrymandered districts to be unwinnable by the other party. (V)

The Virginia Gubernatorial General Election Has Already Started

The two biggest races in 2025 will be the gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey. There are also local elections, including for mayor of New York City, but governors outrank mayors, so let's take a first look at those races now. We will have plenty of time for local elections in the coming months.

Virginia holds its gubernatorial elections the year after the presidential election. The Virginia state Constitution bans the governor from serving two consecutive terms, although there is no limit to the number of terms as long as they are not consecutive. In other words, the day the governor is inaugurated, he is already term limited. We say "he" here because in the glorious history of Virginia, no woman has ever been elected governor. We are going to go out on a limb here and say that 2025 could be the year that changes.

Virginia is an important state and many members of Congress and the administration live there, which alone makes the gubernatorial race a national affair. Also, the only major elections in the presidential year +1 are the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and New Jersey is usually a snoozer. Consequently, Virginia gets more attention than a state of its size usually gets.

One interesting fact is that in the last 50 years, the president's party lost the Virginia gubernatorial election every time but one, which bodes well for the Democrats.

There won't be primaries this time. Both parties already have their candidates. The Democrats will run Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and the Republicans will run Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA). Spanberger is white; Earle-Sears is Black. If Spanberger wins, it will be historic because, as we note above, no woman has ever been elected governor of Virginia. If Earle-Sears wins, it will also be historic because it will be the first time any Black woman has been elected governor of any state in all of American history. Virginia already had a Black male governor once (Doug Wilder).

The initial signs favor Spanberger. First, she is much younger, at 45. Earle-Sears is 60. Second, she is a prodigious fundraiser and has already banked $9 million for the race. Third, if Trump messes up or if he implements Schedule F and fires thousands of federal employees who live in Virginia, Earle-Sears is going to hear about it, big time. Fourth, Earle-Sears is an immigrant from Jamaica. If Trump spends 2025 running around yelling that immigrants are all dangerous people and should go back to from whence they came, that is surely going to cause some MAGA Republicans to think twice about voting for an immigrant. Fifth, as a member of the House Agriculture Committee, Spanberger knows quite a bit about farming and when she campaigns in the rural parts of the state, can talk turkey with the farmers. Sixth, Spanberger's last three races were tough and she is a battle-tested veteran. Earle-Sears has also run for office three times. She was elected to the House of Delegates in 2001, ran for the U.S. House in 2004 and got 31% of the vote, and coasted to lieutenant governor in 2021 on the coattails of popular Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA). Youngkin will support her, but he is not on the ballot. She is. Seventh, Earle-Sears is a devout Christian. Abortion could be an issue, with Spanberger pro-choice and Earle-Sears pro-life. Earle-Sears also opposes same-sex marriage. That said, Republicans do win the governorship of Virginia from time to time, including the current occupant of the governor's mansion in Richmond.

People are tempted to see the Virginia gubernatorial race as a bellwether for the midterms. Is that true? Well, here are the 10 most recent Virginia gubernatorial elections and the net change in the House midterms a year later.

Year	Governor	House change next year	Prediction
1985	Gerald Baliles (D)	D+5	Good
1989	Doug Wilder(D)	D+7	Good
1993	George Allen (R)	R+54	Good
1997	Jim Gilmore (R)	D+5	Bad
2001	Mark Warner (D)	R+8	Bad
2005	Tim Kaine (D)	D+31	Good
2009	Bob McDonnell (R)	R+63	Good
2013	Terry McAuliffe (D)	R+13	Bad
2017	Ralph Northam (D)	D+41	Good
2021	Glenn Youngin (R)	R+9	Good

It is not a huge sample, but for the most part, when a Democrat is elected governor of Virginia, Democrats pick up House seats the next year in the midterms. Similarly, when a Republican is elected governor, Republicans generally gain House seats the next year. It could be that when people are angry with the Democrats they elect a Republican as governor and everyone else follows through and votes for Republicans for Congress the next year, and vice-versa. So, Virginia could be a bellwether. (V)

New Jersey Will Make Up for Virginia's Lack of Primaries

Unlike Virginia, where the general election campaigns have already started, New Jersey is going to be a free-for-all in both parties. New Jersey is a blue state, but the conviction of Bob Menendez didn't help the Democrats' image much and Kamala Harris' performance in the state was the worst of any Democrat in over 30 years. Also, Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) won in 2021 by the thinnest of margins, 51% to 48%. And everyone in the state remembers Chris Christie—not always favorably, but they do remember him.

The primaries are in June, so we will have 6 months of mudslinging in the primaries. Six credible Democrats have already jumped in. Three of these are well known and good at fundraising. All three are white. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop is the most anti-establishment of the three. He is the son of a delicatessen owner and grandson of Holocaust survivors. He went to Harpur College and then got an MBA from NYU and an MPA from Columbia. After graduating, he worked for Goldman Sachs, didn't like it there, and joined the Marine Corps, which sent him to Iraq. He got quite a bit of publicity about leaving a high-paying job on Wall St. to serve his country in an active war zone. He was elected to the Jersey City Council at 28, the third youngest councilor in the 200-year existence of the city. In 2013, he was elected mayor of Jersey City and has been there ever since. His fights with the New Jersey establishment are legendary. As mayor, he has built thousands of housing units and implemented a $17/hr minimum wage and paid sick leave for city employees. He will be the progressives' favorite.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) is also running. "Mikie" is pronounced "MY kee," not "mickey," although her birth name is actually Rebecca Michelle Sherrill. She went to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. After graduation she learned to fly helicopters and flew missions throughout Europe and the Middle East for the Navy. She left the Navy as a lieutenant, which is like a captain in the Army, although if she had stayed in, she would have been promoted to Lt. Commander (major in the Army). After leaving the Navy, she got a J.D. at Georgetown and became a federal prosecutor. In 2018, she was elected to the House. She was initially a Blue Dog, but has since left that caucus. Her base will be college-educated suburban women who see an accomplished and talented woman in her who could become New Jersey's first Democratic female governor (Christine Todd Whitman is a Republican).

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is also running. He is the son of a small business owner and a preschool teacher. He got into politics early. At 16, he was a Senate page. In college (Penn) he was an intern for C-SPAN, the secretary of the Senate, and the speaker of the House. After getting a J.D. at Harvard Law School, at 23, he was a speechwriter for Bill Clinton, and later worked in the campaigns of Wesley Clark, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. He later worked at the FCC on broadband and then became a strategist for Microsoft. In 2016, he beat a sitting Republican for election to the House in an intensely bitter race. In the House, he is a fiscal moderate. He is known as a human ATM as he is a gargantuan fundraiser and has $20 million in his federal campaign account. However, New Jersey tightly regulates spending on state races. Like Fulop, he is Jewish and a very staunch supporter of Israel. All three of these candidates are highly qualified and about as elite as you can get.

There are three other Democrats in the race, but they are lower profile than these three. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka is Black and much further left than any of the others. He will have to depend on small, grassroots donations. Sean Spiller, also Black, is a former teacher and current leader of the teachers union. Stephen Sweeney is 65, a social moderate, and the former president of the state Senate until he was defeated for reelection by a Republican in 2021.

One insider described the race as a "sh**show." As high-profile members of Congress and big fundraisers, Sherrill and Gottheimer are the best known statewide and the favorites.

Now the Republicans. Former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli really wants to be governor of New Jersey. He ran in 2017 and 2021 with no luck. Maybe the third time's the charm. He has a B.S. in accounting and an MBA in finance, both from Seton Hall University, a private Catholic school. He was president of the Raritan Borough Council from 1991 to 1995, then on the Somerset County Board of Commissions. In 2011 he was elected to the Assembly. He has clearly come up through the ranks, but he has a problem. He has called Donald Trump a "charlatan" and has stated that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. He is very not-MAGA. Will that fly in the modern Republican Party?

Bill Spadea, in contrast, is a very Trumpy radio host. He is all-culture-war all the time. He went to Boston University and then served a stint in the Marine Corps. Then he ran for Congress and the state legislature and lost both races, failing to get 40% in either one. If New Jersey Republicans want to go all-out Trumpy, Spadea is their man. Of course, this is likely to result in a Gov. Gottheimer or Gov. Sherrill, but you can't have everything. Because Spadea ranted on his radio show for thousands of hours, if he gets the nomination—and he could if Trump endorses him—Democratic oppo researchers will have a field day selecting out choice material for ads.

Other Republicans include state Sen. Jon Bramnick and former state Sen. Ed Durr, neither of whom is expected to get the GOP nomination.

All in all, in a blue state with one of three very strong Democrats running against either a not-Trumpy two-time loser or a very Trumpy guy with a massive lode of material for oppo researchers to work with, it favors the blue team. If we had to guess a year in advance, we would say Sherrill and Gottheimer are the (slight) favorites now. But in politics, a week is a long time and a year is forever. (V)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 5: J.D. Vance

Time for six reader-suggested Christmas gifts for Vice-President-elect J.D. Vance:

• R.S. in Milan, OH: I'd like to suggest a scrapbook of stories, social media posts, etc. from around 2017 when universities around the country were fawning over Hillbilly Elegy. This gift will serve as a reminder of just how much the institutions of higher education he has been demonizing embraced him. This doesn't appear to matter to him, so the Christmas gift needs to be presented in a very public manner to remind the electorate as well.
  
  
• C.W. in Littleton, CO: As the lead lackey, perhaps this book would help J.D. Vance understand his role. (I mean, everyone else will be gifting him a plush sofa with a big, red bow.)
  
  
  
  
• M.B. in Granby, MA: A fond reminder of J.D.'s first time speed dating:
  
  
  
  
• M.M. in San Diego, CA: A visit with his favorite relative:
  
  
  
  
• S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: This cookbook seems appropriate:
  
  
  
  
• N.S. in Lafayette, CO: A loaded coal train that derails into his front yard.

For the rest of the week, we'll be running reader answers to this question suggested by T.B. in Powell, OH: Imagine you were going to give a Christmas gift to the United States. Specifically, a law, institution, initiative, civic structure, or like commodity imported from some other nation. What gift would you bestow?

Send your picks to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger