Another Good Night for the Democrats

Republican politicians, at least those who are up in 2026, must feel like they are between a rock and a hard place right now. The rock is the demands imposed by Donald Trump; the hard place is the sentiments being expressed by voters. Both sides of that need to be kept happy (or, at least, placated). Whether or not that is even possible, however, is an open question.

The latest grim electoral news for Republicans (and, thus, excellent electoral news for Democrats) comes out of Miami, where officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-she's-a-Democrat Eileen Higgins trounced officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-he's-a-Republican Emilio T. Gonzalez yesterday, 59% to 41%, with 99% reporting. This is the first time the Democrats have won that city's mayoralty in nearly three decades, and Higgins not only won, she did so by 18 points.

Beyond the partisan flip, and the extent of Higgins' victory, there are two things here that should have Republicans very nervous. The first has to do with the fact that, as we have pointed out many times, "Latinos" are not a homogeneous voting bloc. Broadly speaking, you will find much more conservative Latinos in Miami and its outskirts, along the Texas/Mexico border, and in rural areas. And of those three groups, probably the most conservative are the Latinos in Miami, who are overwhelmingly Cuban. If those folks are not showing up to the polls, or are voting Democratic—and one of those two things must be the case, to produce a result like the one last night—then it's big trouble for the GOP. Either they aren't interested in what the red team is selling when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, or they are aggravated by what's happened since Trump took office, or both. And if even conservative Latinos are hopping off the S.S. Trump, that would specifically have implications for the new Texas district map, which assumes continued Latino support for Republican candidates, as well as for a potential new Florida map.

The second thing that should have Republicans scared is that Miami mayoral elections are not only officially nonpartisan, the candidates tend to take pains to obscure their true loyalties. But this year was different. Consider this from reader C.F. in Miami:

I am a political junkie. I am well-versed in the political morass of several countries and a couple of U.S. states. I've lived in Miami for nearly two decades. And I honestly did not know that Miami hadn't elected a Democrat in 30 years until just a few weeks ago.

The reason? Candidates are not allowed to state their political party. What this does is it allows candidates to carve out an agenda with less fear of reprisal from the national or state party. The whole "purity test" thing is nullified. Mayors can be urban Republicans sensitive to the needs and demands of a modern, global city, and not forced to be a Nebraska Republican like you see with the California GOP in the primaries.

In the entire time I've lived here, I always review the proposed program of the candidates, and the top candidates always direct their policies to those voters on the "opposite" side. As a progressive, I've always felt represented. I swear that I had no idea that the current mayor (Francis Suarez) was a Republican until he flirted with running for President

Except with this election. This one is quite clearly the typical Right vs. Left debate. I will add that I truly believe that Gonzalez's downfall was going pretty hard right with zero ambiguity and literally no policies that would distinguish an urban Republican from a Bible Belt conservative, along with his painting of his opponent as some communist pinko.

And for the record, in your breakdown of the key issues, most of Gonzalez' agenda indicates that corruption under his administration would continue and expand. (Miami gives New York City and Chicago a run for their money as the "Most Corrupt City in the US.")

In other words, Gonzalez (and Higgins) chose to nationalize this local election, and Gonzalez got himself clobbered. That is considerably more instructive than if, say, the Des Moines mayoral race is decided by debates over ethanol subsidies.

Beyond what happened in Miami, there is one other election result from yesterday that is of interest. State Rep. Marcus Wiedower (R) resigned his seat representing HD-121 in the Georgia state House, and voters headed to the polls to pick his replacement. Just over a year ago, Donald Trump won that district by 12 points. But in yesterday's contest, Eric Gisler (D) looks to have eked out a narrow victory over Mack "Dutch" Guest IV (R), 51%-49%, with 99% reporting.

Surely readers know that we are not enthusiastic about drawing broad conclusions from a special election, held in the winter, where fewer than 12,000 people cast ballots. That is a circumstance that has "wonky" written all over it. Nonetheless, the 12-point shift toward the Democrats is consistent with what's happened in other special elections over the past few months. Maybe MAGA voters are staying away with no Donald Trump on the ballot, maybe independents are disgusted by what they've seen from the administration, maybe Democrats are extra motivated to vote, maybe all of the above. In any event, what we have here is not just one result, it's an overall trend. And if it were to hold into next November (no guarantee, of course), it would spell disaster for the Republicans. The House would surely be lost, and the Senate might very well flip, too.

It's also notable that the result was in Georgia, since the two public commissioner seats decided there last month saw similar shifts toward the Democrats. Not only is Georgia a swing state, it also has a critical U.S. Senate election next year, as Jon Ossoff (D) tries to hold on to his seat. Based on the recent returns, Ossoff and the DSCC have to feel pretty good about his chances. And holding that seat is the first, critical step in flipping the upper chamber. (Z)

Kristi Noem Is in Trouble...

Donald Trump was very embarrassed by the high rate of turnover in his first Cabinet. There are numerous, credible reports that he decreed that EVERYONE appointed to Trump v2.0 would make it to at least the 1-year mark, no matter what. Well, the 1-year mark is now just over a month away. Meanwhile, things are not going so well for Trump—electorally (see above), economically, Epstein-ally, and in many other ways. Since his problems are NEVER his fault, he is going to be on the lookout for scapegoats. Add it all up, and the first parting of the ways between Trump v2.0 and a Cabinet officer may soon be upon us.

There are, of course, many places that will allow you to bet on various developments in politics. We're going to use PredictIt here, because unlike PaddyPower and other European books, it's not blocked in the United States. Here are the betting patterns when it comes to "which will be the first Trump Cabinet official to go?":

It is interesting that people are betting on Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. Those positions were pretty stable even during the highly unstable Trump v1.0, with Secretary of Energy Rick Perry lasting two years, and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin hanging on for Trump's entire first term.

It is also interesting who is NOT attracting any action. Tulsi Gabbard is crazypants, and is unreliable (and possibly unstable), so we get her inclusion. But isn't the same true of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? And couldn't the time soon come that there's heat on the administration over all the sick and dying kids, with Kennedy getting thrown under the bus? We are less surprised that "Attorney General" Pam Bondi and FBI "Director" Kash Patel are not drawing any bets; they've both generated a lot of the wrong kind of headlines, but Trump places enormous value on fawning lackeys who are willing to completely surrender themselves to him.

In any case, the trendlines that are of most interest are the ones for Secretary of Playing Soldier Defense Pete Hegseth and for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. We have a long item on Hegseth in the hopper, which we will get to soon. Today, we want to address Noem, who is apparently in the doghouse these days. And if anyone should know the dangers of the doghouse, it's her.

Why is Noem in trouble, at least potentially? That's a little murky, but there appear to be a number of things working against her:

• Noem's chief adviser is her lover longtime ally Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski has an ego almost as large as that of Trump himself, and is deeply impressed with his own importance and his own influence. So, he's stepped on many hundreds of toes, and has alienated many people in both DHS and in the White House. Inasmuch as this administration is basically the Hunger Games, writ large, there is a huge target on Lewandowski's back, which means there's a target on Noem's back.
  
  
• Noem has been utterly fanatical about imposing Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. But she's done it in a way that is politically unpopular. There is, of course, no way to do the things Noem has done AND to have them be popular, but the President regularly takes up residence in a fantasy world where he can have his cake and eat it, too. So, he seems to believe that the next wave of enforcement actions, likely to commence in January, can be accomplished in a way that the American people will love, love, love. And he may be thinking that someone else is going to be needed to pull that off.
  
  
• Speaking of someone else, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) is out of a job on January 15, and has made no secret of his desire to join the Trump Cabinet. Trump has much more respect for male businessmen than he does for women of any sort, and he prefers as many male members in his Cabinet as is possible. So, he might be in the process of convincing himself that Youngkin can do a more lovable job of deploying the Blackshirts ICE than Noem can.
  
  
• Noem has embarrassed the administration several times, like the time earlier this year she did not know what "habeas corpus" means, or the time, earlier this week, where she wore a ridiculous sombrero at a Mexican restaurant while celebrating her birthday.

You never know what will happen with this president, as his decisions mostly depend on whoever had his ear most recently. However, there are enough Noem rumors circling that she almost certainly is in danger. And if Stephen Miller or Laura Loomer happen to decide she's just not quite loyal enough, she's certainly done for. (Z)

...And So Is Mike Johnson

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), whose conference in the House is unruly at the best of times, is coming under some truly withering fire right now, the lion's share of it from his fellow red teamers. A rundown of some of the many problem areas for Johnson:

• Health care is about to be front and center. Budget hawks are demanding that the BBB cuts be honored. Swing-district members are insisting that Republicans come up with some sort of a plan to soften the blow. And Johnson is caught in the middle.
  
  
• At the moment, defense spending is the focus of the lower chamber. Back in the summer, when the Freedom Caucusers were throwing one of their tantrums, Johnson promised them that he would incorporate their Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act into the annual defense appropriations bill. As it turns out, the Speaker did include that legislation in A defense bill, but not THE defense bill that is likely to become law. So, many Freedom Caucusers are hopping mad.
  
  
• A discharge petition is supposed to be a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency maneuver, as it is a direct challenge to the authority of the Speaker. In his tenure, Johnson has faced five of them. That sounds like a pretty small number until you realize that in the three-decade span before Johnson got his gavel, the House had a grand total of four discharge petitions.
  
  
• Similarly, members have been using motions of censure to snipe at their colleagues, sometimes colleagues in their own party. This not only wastes hours of floor time, it also makes it look like Johnson has lost control of the House.
  
  
• Many of the women in the House Republican Conference are particularly hostile to Johnson. Disdain for the Speaker is at least part of what made Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) throw in the towel. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) did an interview last week in which she called Johnson an "ineffective leader," said he "wouldn't have the votes to be speaker if there was a roll-call vote tomorrow" and predicted that he won't be retained as party leader in the next Congress. Yesterday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) seconded those sentiments in a New York Times op-ed, while blasting Johnson (and other Republican leaders) for marginalizing women. In Mace's view, Johnson is but a slight improvement over Kevin McCarthy (whom she voted to depose), and is considerably worse at his job than Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was. After the Mace op-ed went live, several other women in the Republican conference told NBC News that Mace is right about women members being marginalized.

How can we explain this dramatic uptick in publicly expressed Johnson criticism? We've been pondering it for a few days, and this is what we've come up with:

• He's a Scapegoat: This is the most obvious one. As we note in the first item above, it's a very tough time to be a Republican. Members don't like the election results they are seeing. They don't like the anger they are getting from constituents. They don't like the polls that are being released. They are probably nervous about their fundraising. Someone has to take the blame for this, and Johnson is the obvious target. Donald Trump is also an obvious target, of course, but anyone who points the finger at him does so at their own peril, unless they happen to be Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).
  
  
• Donald Trump: Speaking of Trump, Johnson has made himself a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. Whatever the President says, goes, as far as the Speaker is concerned. It is entirely possible that this was a 100% necessary concession in order for Johnson to be able to keep his gavel. After all, he has a narrow majority, and an any-one-member-can-initiate-a-motion-to-vacate rule hanging over his head. If he angers Trump, Johnson could be done for. However, the trade-off is that the Speaker is supposed to be something of a firewall that protects members from the demands of the president, and gives them room to accomplish things. Johnson is not doing that, in any way, shape, or form, which means members feel like they are both powerless and are on their own. No wonder they are using special tools, like the discharge petitions, to lash out.
  
  
• He's a Sexist: That may, or may not, be exactly the right way to put it. And, truth be told, we wish we had thought to ask (A) or (L) to write this part before it was too late at night to do so. Oh, well. In any event, our (admittedly imperfect) experience is that evangelical folks like Johnson, Mike Pence, etc. have a certain way of interacting with women that works out OK for them when those women are evangelicals. However, that same approach works rather less well when interacting with women who are not evangelicals. What might be unconcerning or even charming to a woman who embraces separate-spheres/more traditional gender roles can very easily come off as patronizing or dismissive to a woman who is more egalitarian.
  
  What it boils down to is that we doubt that Johnson is sexist in a manner that is obvious to him. He's a politician, and a successful one, and this is not the 1940s. However, we also doubt that so many women members are completely imagining things. We thus conclude that we're seeing a clash of gendered worldviews. That said, if someone (e.g., Johnson) holds more 19th-century ideas, and does not properly adapt when dealing with a woman who is of a 21st century mindset, that is absolutely sexism. In fact, it's enough to get you fired or sued in many contexts.
  
  
• He's Got an Impossible Job: With a mercurial (and possibly not-all-there) president, a tiny majority, a fractured conference populated by many prima donnas and show horses, and a whole bunch of really touchy political issues that are about to come home to roost, Johnson has had an impossible task placed before him. Even Sam Rayburn, or Joseph Cannon, or Nancy Pelosi might not be up to it.
  
  
• He's Not Especially Good at His Job: That said, Johnson is not Sam Rayburn, or Joseph Cannon, or Nancy Pelosi. Recall that he did not exactly "earn" his gavel in the sense of working his way up through the ranks, networking, fundraising, etc. No, he got it because when McCarthy got canned, and the GOP was in the middle of an embarrassing "we can't get a new leader elected" mess, Johnson was loony enough to be acceptable to the Freedom Caucus, but sane enough to be acceptable to the rest of the Republicans in the House. There is no particular reason to think he'd be an especially smooth operator, and little of what he's done since taking the gavel has caused us to question that assumption. We'd say he's pretty average as a Speaker, maybe a touch below-average. And average/below-average are not likely to get it done when circumstances call for someone extraordinary, or maybe even more-than-extraordinary.

It is improbable, unless Trump turns hard against him, that Johnson will lose his job anytime soon. He is clearly very unpopular, but the House Republican Conference has the exact same problem that they had when they gave Johnson the gavel in the first place: a dearth of electable candidates. If Johnson gets the boot, and then the Republicans spend multiple embarrassing weeks trying desperately to pick a replacement, all while people are losing health care, prices keep rising, the Defense department keeps firing on Venezuelan ships, etc., that would be a disaster heading into an election cycle.

Still, Johnson's unpopularity and frequent lack of effectiveness will have consequences, even if he hangs on until the end of the 119th Congress. As we note, he's got some really tough battles coming up, including the defense bill (and then the rest of the budget), as well as whatever is going to happen with health care. The longer and uglier those battles are, the worse it is for the Republicans heading into election season, especially if they aren't able to actually get anything done.

The other problem is all the retirements. Already, 23 Republicans have decided to stand down at the ends of their terms, while four more have decided they can't even wait that long and have resigned. And, in contrast to the Democrats, those departing members are not mostly elder statespeople in the twilights of their careers. They are disproportionately committee chairs and/or members in their 40s and 50s, who should theoretically be entering their primes. Needless to say, if you lose the people who are supposed to be the next generation of party leaders, that can presage long-term problems. Meanwhile, the more open Republican seats there are, the more opportunities there are for Democratic pickups in November of next year.

One last thing. The House is currently 220R, 213D. There are two open seats (TX-18, NJ-11) that will be filled by Democrats, and there is one seat (GA-08) that will be vacated when Greene quits on January 5. So, for some period of time, it will be 219R, 215D. Several other Republican members have recently threatened to join the ranks of the early resigners, among them Mace and Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE). It's still a long shot, but it's not impossible that control of the lower chamber could flip at some point (if maybe only for a short while). Given that GOP members are ALREADY finding ways to lash out, well, quitting in a way that gets Johnson demoted would certainly be the ultimate example of going out in a blaze of glory. (Z)

The First Female President?

We've actually been meaning to get to this for a couple of weeks. The above item, and a speech from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), make this as good a time as ever to finally take care of business.

The initial story, from a few weeks ago, was a speech from Former First Lady Michelle Obama. Democrats across the country would be thrilled to draft her as their presidential candidate. And she wants none of it. Speaking at a town hall-style event, she explained part of the reason why: "As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at me about running 'cause you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman."

On Sunday, Clyburn was on Meet the Press, and he seconded Obama's sentiment: "Michelle Obama is absolutely correct. If you look at the history, we demonstrated that we are not ready. These are incredible women who have run—Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris." The Representative added that he hopes the glass ceiling will be broken sometime soon, and so he will continue to support women candidates, but he just doesn't know when the day will arrive.

At this point, let us note that anytime this issue comes up, we get e-mails observing that Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump did, a fact that potentially argues against the point that Obama and Clyburn are making. Truth be told, however, we think the Clinton experience actually proves their point (as Clyburn himself implies). Clinton was eminently qualified for the presidency, and she had some scandals (of dubious significance). Donald Trump was entirely unqualified for the presidency, and he had some scandals (of substance). And yet, he won. Clinton got more votes because she ran up the score in states where the majority of voters are comfortable with the notion of a woman leader. And she lost because Trump eked out wins in the states where there is considerably less widespread comfort with that possibility.

The important question, of course, is when the day will finally come. Nearly a hundred other nations have broken their glass ceilings; when will the U.S. catch up with (much of) the rest of the world? We very seriously doubt that, unless the event is a generation or more in the future, the first woman president will be a Republican. There are just too many Mike Johnsons, both in the leadership, and in the rank and file, of the party for that. As to the Democrats, we cannot get away from our sense that blue-team primary voters are going to play it very safe in 2028, and give their support to the whitest, straightest, male-st, most moderate candidate they can find. We suppose that a Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) or a Kamala Harris could pull off a surprise, but we wouldn't bet on it.

That takes us to 2032. If a Democratic man wins in 2028, then he'll be running for reelection in 2032. If the Republican wins in 2028, then the "play it safe" sentiment is likely to be even more intense, resulting in another straight, white, moderate, male candidate.

That means that we have to conclude that the next opening, as it were, is 2036 or 2040, unless a woman candidate gets elected VP, and then succeeds when the president succumbs (or resigns). If the U.S. does wait that long, or longer, it will be rather embarrassing that it took the country so long to catch up to the U.K., Mexico, Ireland, India, Japan, Italy, Israel, Taiwan, Poland, South Korea and so many others. But it's hard for us to read the tea leaves in a manner different from the way in which Obama and Clyburn have read them. (Z)

Twelve Days of Christmas... Games, Part IV: Three Little Words

Today, we are going to keep it simple and image-free. We have chosen 12 notable people who were all born on December 25. We're going to give you the person's age on December 25 of this year (with the number in black if they are still alive) and then three words for each of them. You have to guess who the person is based on that information:

• Person 1 (135 years old): Believe It... Not
  
  
• Person 2 (54): Katy Perry's Boyfriend
  
  
• Person 3 (71): Sweet Dreams This
  
  
• Person 4 (204): American Red Cross
  
  
• Person 5 (107): Egyptian Laureate Assassinated
  
  
• Person 6 (75): Gay Marriage Wedge
  
  
• Person 7 (76): Oscar Miner's Daughter
  
  
• Person 8 (118): Minnie The Moocher
  
  
• Person 9 (101): Submitted Approval Zone
  
  
• Person 10 (79): Wasting Away Margaritaville
  
  
• Person 11 (126): Casablanca Maltese African
  
  
• Person 12 (138): Hotels Patriarch Paris

And we're going to have a tiebreaker today. If you asked Isaac Newton, he would tell you he was also born on December 25. However, that was on the Julian calendar. What is his birthday on the Gregorian calendar in use today?

If you would like to take a shot, the link is here. Note that, as on Jeopardy!, last names are all that is required. However, please no use of Google or other such resources. We can write games to be Google-proof, but then they have to get much more nitpicky. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.

---The Votemaster and Zenger