Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
This Time Will Be Different
When Donald Trump entered the White House on Jan. 20, 2017, he didn't have a clue how the government worked or where the levers of power were or how to operate them. Now he knows, and he also has a detailed playbook in the form of Project 2025, so this administration could be very different from Trump 1.0.
To get an idea of what Trump might actually do, Politico convened a panel of four reporters who have covered Trump from the start and asked them about Trump 2.0. To start with, last time his Cabinet and other top picks were conservatives, but largely respectable people he didn't know. This time, the main (and, in some cases, only) requirement is total loyalty and obedience. Also, being good looking or having been on Fox News a lot seems to be a common thread. He wants people who know television and look good on television. In contrast to last time, many of the picks know nothing whatsoever about the department or agency they are going to lead. In fact, some of them are downright hostile to the mission of their department or agency. Also, having escaped 88 indictments and two assassination attempts, Trump feels invincible and emboldened. Excess testosterone and excess hubris doesn't always work out well.
Last time, there were many people around him who tried to rein him in, often successfully. There is not going to be anyone like that this time. Last time the RNC tried to make him behave like Ronald Reagan. It didn't work, but at least Ronna McDaniel tried. Now the RNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. He is almost totally consumed by retribution, grievance, settling scores, and punishing his "enemies." There was much less of that last time. These will be major themes of his administration. And to make it easier, the resistance is exhausted after 8 years of dealing with Trump, both in office and out of office.
Another difference is that there was no Elon Musk whispering in Trump's ear all day last time. They admire each other for different reasons. Trump will never be as rich as Musk and Musk will never be president like Trump (he is not natural born, having been born in Pretoria, South Africa). We don't yet know what Musk's influence will be, but it could be enormous, especially on economic issues. Will Musk undermine other administration officials? Will he quietly stab people in the back?
Although Trump has hinted at a third term and we have pointed out how he could become president without being elected president, he will be 82 at the end of this term, and simply may not be up to another term. He knows that if he breaks the law in ways not covered by the Supreme Court ruling, he could possibly spend all of his post presidency fighting to stay out of prison. And the current cases might come back again. This may constrain him a little bit. We didn't have that the first time.
One final thought is that Trump has always been unpredictable, and will probably continue to be unpredictable. Stuff may happen in the country and the world that we cannot foresee now and we have no way of knowing how he will deal with it when surrounded by incompetent flunkies. (V)
How Blue States Will Fight Deportations
One thing that Donald Trump has promised and really means is that he will try to deport some immigrants. Not everyone who is in the country illegally. That is impossible, but he will deport enough people to show his base he means it. Blue states don't like this and will fight him. In fact, they are already preparing to fight him.
The first line of defense will be for the blue-state AGs to sue Trump in court when he tries to federalize the National Guard or use the Army on U.S. soil. They hope that when the courts issue injunctions to stop it, until the courts have ruled on the legality, he will stop. Of course, he might just ignore the courts. With a Democratic House, that would lead to impeachment, but with a Republican House, nothing will happen.
Of course, Trump's team wants to win those court battles rather than just defying a bunch of judges because his defying the courts could become a campaign issue in 2026. So, his lawyers are already working on plans to craft his XOs to be able to withstand court challenges. This is something he learned from his Muslim ban last time. One thing he will probably do is deactivate a mobile phone app called CBP, which allows immigrants to set up appointments to seek asylum. Until an undocumented immigrant has formally requested asylum, he or she has no protected status and can be removed. Arguing "but it was hard to make a request for asylum" is probably not going to work in court, if it gets that far.
Incoming border czar Tom Homan plans to ramp up raids on workplaces and other locations where undocumented immigrants tend to be found. When an agent addresses an employee and says: "Papers, please," the worker had better be able to whip out a U.S. passport or other proof of U.S. citizenship or legal residency. Otherwise, he or she will get pushed onto a bus that heads for the border (or a detainment camp).
If blue state governors order their National Guard units not to cooperate, Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows him to order the U.S. Army to operate on U.S. soil. Of course there will be court cases about that, but the Act does give the president that authority. Some libertarian senators, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), don't like the idea of the Army arresting Americans and they might ally themselves with the Democrats, but it is not clear what they could do except pass a resolution saying they don't like what is going on.
It is possible that Trump will not begin with a dragnet approach, but start with trying to find people who were convicted of a crime in their country of origin. That won't be so easy, since the country of origin is unlikely to cooperate. Still, Trump might claim that he's going after criminals, which would probably be supported by more people, even if it isn't true.
Some blue cities or states may declare themselves to be sanctuary cities or states and have their National Guard oppose federalized ones or CBP or ICE agents. The legality of this is untested. But Trump may not wait to find out. What he could do is simply cut off all manner of federal funding to the states. States can't run deficits, so this would force the states to cut essential programs while the courts sort this out. That would be fine with Trump.
Blue states are also preparing PR campaigns to try to win the war for public opinion. One tack will be to repeatedly say that if immigrants are deported, Big Ag will have to double or triple what they pay their workers, and this will result in grocery prices heading toward the moon. Given the election results, turning immigration into an economic issue might work well. It will be a nasty fight, but it is coming.
However, there is a downside for the Democrats here. Suppose lawsuits from blue states are successful and the courts block Trump's deportation plans. Then Trump will blame Democratic governors for foiling his plans. In 2026, many blue states will have gubernatorial elections, some for open seats. Then in 2026, Trump could spend a lot of time urging his supporters to elect Republican governors so he can deport illegals. This could make deportation a key issue in the gubernatorial campaigns. When a reporter asks a Democratic candidate for governor: "If you win, will you cooperate with the president in trying to deport illegals in your state or will you protect them," there is no good answer. A "yes" will anger Democrats and a "no" will anger Republicans. Either answer will anger some independents. There is no easy way out for Democratic candidates, especially when the Republican candidate says: "I will definitely obey any lawful order to detain people here illegally and turn them over to ICE." (V)
Is Trump The Next Orbán?
Many authoritarians don't take power in a military coup. They were elected by people who wanted them. The modern prototype is Hungary's Viktor Orbán. A member of Hungary's parliament who lived through Orbán's power grab, Gábor Scheiring, has written an article describing the playbook and warning that Trump may try to follow it. He notes that Hungarians didn't think it would happen—until it happened. There are two phases, which he calls the Software and the Hardware. First Trump will have to do the Software before he can start on the Hardware.
The Software- The Folksy Outsider: The would-be authoritarian has to establish himself as an outsider
who is a friend of the common man. Even though Trump is a billionaire, he has been working hard at this. Spending 15
minutes working at a McDonald's that was closed allowed for a photo-op showing that he was a man of the people. Folks who
had worked at McDonald's or other restaurants could then see him as someone who cared about them. Of course, he doesn't
give a hoot about them, but people who see him working the fryer think he does. That's all that matters.
- Anti-elitism: The common folk think the elites disrespect them (which is largely true),
but it is important for the would-be authoritarian to emphasize this. Trashing ideas that the elites love but most
people do not love, like having trans women on girls' sports teams, is a no-brainer. Sen. J.D. Vance, a Yale-educated
lawyer, has even said universities are the enemy. We wonder how that went over back at his alma mater. But it doesn't
actually matter how it went over in New Haven. It played in Peoria.
- Anti-immigrant: The authoritarian candidate needs a scapegoat to blame for the
country's problems. Immigrants are an easy target, although there are others. They are especially easy if they look
different than the majority, have a different culture, or speak a different language. It's their fault things are
terrible and the solution is to get rid of them.
- Economic Nationalism: Here, globalization is the enemy. If we could only get free of the
outside world and the forces controlling us from the outside, things would be better. Outsourcing production is part of
that, so tariffs are needed to make production abroad too expensive and not viable. Ordinary folks are seen as
hardworking, while plutocrats are seen as benefiting from globalization by getting cheaper labor abroad. That needs to
stop.
Once the pump has been primed and ordinary people see the "problem" and have been informed of the "solution"—letting the would-be authoritarian run rampant without regard to rules or laws—then we get to the hardware.
The Hardware- Strengthen Executive Power: The key here is to remove or weaken all the guardrails.
Move as much power as possible to the leader. In the U.S. this is the theory of the unitary executive, which says that
the president is in charge of everything in the executive branch and can order anyone in any agency to do his bidding,
legal or otherwise. Anyone who objects is fired or arrested. Schedule F is designed to minimize the power of civil
servants and maximize the power of the president. Checks and balances are so 18th century.
- Discipline the Judiciary: Independent courts are a potential problem, so they have to be
reined in. Putting friendly people on the Supreme Court is a good start. Now the lower courts. With a compliant Senate,
Trump will be able to install hundreds of judges who will rule as he wants them to, often without even giving explicit
instructions.
- Change Election Processes: Manipulating rules for elections is up to the states and many
of them are doing their best. Banning absentee voting or making it much harder, reducing the number of polling places in
carefully selected areas so people have to wait for hours to vote (and banning anyone from giving people standing in
line a free bottle of water), requiring IDs that poor people usually don't have, and much more helps here. Then the
authoritarian can win future elections more easily.
- Control the Media: The media could be a big problem, so they have to be intimidated. It's
not hard. Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong were certainly intimidated and their respective papers did not endorse the
person their own editorial boards had already decided to endorse. Expensive and potentially crippling lawsuits for
slander and other things could also help. At a certain point, the owner of every media outlet will get the message: Toe
the line or be driven out of business. In Trump's case, co-opting Elon Musk, who then posted dozens of Trump-friendly
messages each day to eX-Twitter, also falls in this category.
- Secure Control Over the Party: It is important that no rivals emerge within the ruling party
to challenge the authoritarian. Having your daughter-in-law run the RNC is a good idea, if available.
Is there an antidote? Yes. The first line of defense is the courts. Until they have been entirely corrupted, they will issue rulings that undercut the leader. Openly defying the courts can reduce the leader's popularity, especially if the opposition makes a big deal about it.
The second line of defense is the media. This means not only newspapers and television stations, but also social media, which is the main source of news for many people. Folks who oppose the regime should become very active there and continuously put out the truth. They should also constantly point out all the lies and disinformation there. In many cases, Trump's followers actually have no idea what is true anymore. This is something anyone can do.
The third line of defense is alternative power sources. States and cities also have power, in particular the power to resist the leader in many ways and certainly the power to make news. Their leaders can criticize the authoritarian and explain to the people what he is doing that hurts their interests. Trump, for example, can't get rid of the nearly two dozen Democratic governors and many Democratic mayors of big cities. If they get together and keep harping on the same line, it could eventually sink in, but a consistent story is needed. For example, "all Trump cares about is enriching himself and his billionaire friends. He doesn't care about you at all." Just keep repeating that and keep coming up with examples of where he is hurting ordinary people (e.g., tariffs cause inflation). Another power source are the unions. There are others, but they have to focus on convincing people that the leader is not on their side.
Scheiring also has some specific ideas for the U.S. First, local organizations, including unions, must be strengthened and defended vigorously. Second, party and election financing should be shifted from wealthy megadonors to microdonors. Kamala Harris raised a billion dollars, most of it in small donations. That is a good start. Third, the Democrats have to take over some of Trump's populist ideas. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) can provide a list if anyone is in doubt. Fourth, elites have to stop calling ordinary people "a basket of deplorables" or "garbage." Calling the rich names is fine, but the working class has to be held out as the true hardworking Americans. Maybe go study FDR. He was rich but he figured it out. It can be done. In short, you don't protect democracy by talking about democracy. You protect it by protecting people and making it clear what you are trying to do and what the other side is actually doing. (V)
Is Pam Bondi Just an Esthetically More Pleasing Version of Matt Gaetz?
Career lawyers at the Department of Justice are relieved that Matt Gaetz isn't going to be their boss. He knows nothing about being a prosecutor and even less about justice and couldn't care less. All he wants to do is please the Dear Leader.
Pam Bondi is a question mark at this point. She was Florida's AG for 8 years, so she definitely knows what AGs do for a living: put crooks in jail. There is no reason to think she didn't do her job well there. Her background as a prosecutor is probably stronger than most recent AGs before they got the job with the feds. Current AG Merrick Garland, for example, had a few years as a U.S. attorney and another few as assistant AG, but for much of his career he was in private practice and later a judge.
So Bondi definitely has a strong background in law enforcement. On the other hand, she has been there for Trump from the beginning. Will she be a vehicle for harassing and indicting Trump's enemies? She certainly sounds like it. One former prosecutor said: "So is she going to just be a somewhat more palatable, esthetically more enhanced version of Gaetz or something else?" It is very likely the Senate will confirm her, so we will find out soon.
One thing we do know is that Bondi is at least garden-variety corrupt. In 2008, then-New York AG Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump University for defrauding students, promising to teach them how to become real estate millionaires and then giving them incompetent instructors whose advice was: "Buy low, sell high." As Florida AG, Bondi received 22 complaints from Floridians who felt Trump cheated them with a worthless real estate course. She was about to join Schneiderman's lawsuit (which does show that in her pre-Trump period, she was doing her job correctly). Then a $25,000 donation to her reelection campaign arrived from Trump and she dropped the case. What strikes us is how even a relatively small donation had a big effect on her. We have more respect for politicians who are at least smart enough to demand a mid-six-figure "donation" or more to avoid prosecuting the donor on a serious charge. Oh, and Trump didn't make the donation out of his own pocket. His "charitable foundation" did. That is illegal. You expected something else?
On the other hand, although she may be corrupt, she made a smart bet in hitching her wagon to Trump. She has supported him in public for years. When Trump was on trial in New York in the hush-money case, she showed up to provide moral support. Has she swallowed the Kool-Aid, or was she merely pretending in order to get a job in a potential future Trump 2.0 administration? If the latter, it worked, as she got a top job.
Now that she is AG-designate, she said "Prosecutors will be prosecuted." Does she mean it? Our guess is that she is smart enough to understand that Trump has the attention span of a flea. She may start an investigation of Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, and some of Trump's other "enemies." She will point out to him that she needs to collect enough evidence to win convictions as it would look bad for him if juries ruled that they were not guilty of anything. So the "investigations" could go on for a year and then she could quietly decide there wasn't enough evidence to get guilty verdicts so they would fizzle out. By then Trump would be busy with other things and would have long forgotten about the cases. As long as she never brought up the subject, he might never bother her about it. People who know her have reported that she will not break the law to round up Trump's enemies, but she could pretend to in order to pull the wool over his eyes.
Of course, even if her "attempts" to go after Trump's enemies were just judicial theater to entertain Trump, that doesn't answer the question of what her real priorities would be. Will she target billionaire tax cheats or poor welfare cheats? In Florida, she had a mixed record. After her stint as Florida AG, she worked for the lobbying firm of Ballard Partners, representing clients including Qatar, Amazon, General Motors, and Uber. She also fought to overturn the Affordable Care Act and against the legalization of marijuana. It is safe to say that in cases that pit a giant corporation against an individual, she will side with the giant corporation. She is very conservative and deeply religious and spent years fighting against same-sex marriage. But if her only real sin is not demanding a much bigger "donation" to let Trump U. off the hook, chalk that up to naiveté. In the end, she might not be worse than other Republican AGs like Jeff Sessions, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Edwin Meese, and John Mitchell. She might even be better than some of them. That's a low Barr to clear, though. (V)
What Comes Around, Goes Around
In the lame-duck session of Congress, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is trying to ram through as many judges as possible. Republicans are doing everything under the sun to obstruct them. Is it really necessary to have a roll call quorum call every 15 minutes? It isn't necessary, but it sure gums up the works. Republicans are doing it to the max. Ultimately, Schumer got worn down and made a deal in which he wouldn't try to confirm four circuit judges in return for the Republicans allowing 12 district judges to proceed quickly. It was probably a bad deal, since in January, Trump will ask the Heritage Foundation for the names of four very conservative district judges and then he will nominate them and the Senate will confirm them. Remember this name: Aileen Cannon. You might hear about her again next year. Circuit court judges are far more important than district judges because most cases end at the circuit level. The Supreme Court takes very few cases.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said: "They're requiring us to do every single step and take as long as we can. That's their prerogative under the rules." But Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) said: "You always have to be careful of what comes around, goes around." In other words, maybe the Republicans can block four or six or even 10 judges, but then when the Democrats start blocking the thousands of appointments Donald Trump needs to make in the next 4 years, it could be very painful. This might force the new Senate to do one of two things. First, Republicans might have to make deals with the Democrats by rejecting some of Trump's worst nominations in order to allow dozens of the least damaging ones though quickly. Some of the not-so-Trumpy senators might actually like this since it would give them cover to reject nominees they know are not suited for the job.
Second, the new majority leader, Sen. John Thune (R-SD), could go all-in and change the Senate rules to prevent the minority from blocking nominations. This would enrage the Democrats, but they couldn't do anything about it... except remember it. They know that the Republicans' 53-seat majority is not forever, and the incumbent party often takes a shellacking in the midterms. George W. Bush lost 6 Senate seats in 2006, Barack Obama lost 6 in 2010 and 9 in 2014. Donald Trump actually gained 2 seats in the Senate in 2018 due to a great map, but lost 40 seats in the House. If the Republicans changed the rules now, the next time the Democrats were in power, they would simply steamroll the Republicans. Cooler heads in the Republican conference know that, but Trump might try to force their hand. (V)
Tillis Is Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place
In 2026, Democrats will be playing offense in the Senate, primarily in Maine (against Susan Collins) and in North Carolina (against Thom Tillis). Both will be in the spotlight, but Tillis somewhat more than Collins because Maine Republicans don't expect Collins to toe the party line all the time. She is slightly mavericky and that is fine with Maine Republicans. North Carolina Republicans aren't so tolerant.
This puts Tillis in a difficult situation. While Donald Trump won North Carolina by 3.3 points, Democrats won downballot, including governor, lieutenant governor, AG, SoS and superintendent of public instruction. Tillis has to win some Democrats to get another term. His problem is that if he votes for all of Donald Trump's nominees, he won't get many (or any) Democratic votes, and that will make winning very tough. If he votes against the worst of the worst, he could get primaried by someone claiming to love Trump more than he does. Tillis is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. In 2017, he voted for all of Trump's nominees, but they were far less controversial than this year's crop.
Voting on the nominees will only be the start of Tillis' problems. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (R-NC), who ran for governor and lost, said he would leave politics, but you never know. He still has many supporters and they might encourage him to primary Tillis, especially if Tillis started voting against Trump's nominees and bills. If Robinson really quits politics, someone Trumpier than Tillis, like Rep, Dan Bishop (R-NC), might consider a run, especially if Tillis refused to toe the party line on all votes.
Tillis beat Cal Cunningham (D) in 2020, but Cunningham suffered a zipper malfunction and that did him in. Tillis can't count on popular Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) having a zipper malfunction if he runs, as Democrats hope he will. Worse yet, the party in the White House often suffers heavy losses in the midterm, and that could hurt Tillis, especially against a popular former governor with excellent zipper control. (V)
Will Trump Kill the Subsidy on Electric Cars?
This morning, The New York Times opened with a story headlined: "How Trump Could Upend Electric Car Sales." What he could do is end the $7,500 federal tax credit on electric vehicles. Some estimates project that eliminating the subsidy could cause sales to drop by 27%. This calculation is based on the experience of other countries that had subsidies and then dropped them.
What we find interesting here is whether Trump, who detests electric cars simply because Joe Biden and the Democrats like them, will follow through and kill the subsidy. In particular, we think this issue will lead to some fun discussions between Trump and Elon Musk, who might well have some ideas on this subject. It could serve as a test case of exactly how much power Musk really has and could lead to a falling out between the two gigantic egos if Trump tells Musk: "I am the president and you are not." (V)
Another Country Shifts to the Right
Quite a few countries are moving to the right, with nationalist populist anti-immigrant candidates doing well in various countries, even if they don't ultimately take power (this time). There are strong movements in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, and elsewhere.
In a complete surprise, in yesterday's elections in Romania, a hard-right ultranationalist populist, Calin Georgescu, came from nowhere to come in first in the presidential election. He got 22.95% of the vote, beating reformist candidate Elena Lasconi (19.17%) and center-left Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu (19.15%). This could change as the last votes are counted, but it is an upheaval, and another sign that people everywhere are unhappy with the status quo and want radical change. Since no candidate got 50%, there will be a top-two runoff on Dec. 8.
Georgescu said he admires Hungary and described Vladimir Putin as a man who loves his country. He campaigned on TikTok, where he made fiery messianic speeches.
Georgescu has some parallels with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. In both cases, they are not leaders of an existing political party. They are simply free agents who want change. Wilders is more of a single issue politician. He opposes Islam and Muslims and wants to close mosques and ban the Koran. Georgescu is an all-around right winger on everything, not just on immigration.
It should be noted that the president of Romania is kind of like King Charles III. He is the official head of state, but has no real political power. That is held by the prime minister. Still, Romanians' willingness to support a right-wing populist, even for a job without any real power, could be a harbinger for future elections and shows that people in many countries are unhappy with how things are going and want serious changes. Donald Trump's victory should be seen in the light that when people are unhappy, they want change (everywhere), and he was the change candidate, even with all his flaws. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers