Thoughts on the election and the state of politics
The election results might pressure Republicans in congress to distance themselves from Trump, and they might pressure Trump himself to change course. I would not expect either factor to lead to an immediate course correction in the short run, but minor course corrections seem possible.
The main reason not to expect immediate change by Republicans is that members of congress are more worried about being primaried for opposing Trump than losing in the general election. In addition, most of them are ideologically committed to Trump’s anti-government policy agenda.
Trump himself has reasons to change course. He clearly knows he is in danger of losing the mid-terms. His staff knows he has become a political liability – hence his failure to campaign in NJ and VA and his overseas travel in the run up to the elections. And yet it is not clear that he understands he is leading his party into the political wilderness (or forcing it to win by rigging elections). He seems to think – or at least hope – that he has a messaging problem rather than an unpopular policy problem.
One reason Trump is boxed in is this: the most economically beneficial policy change he could make would be to rescind his tariffs. But he genuinely believes in tariffs, and rescinding them would be an admission of weakness and failure that would damage him politically. So he’s stuck.
Moderation?
There has been a big debate over whether the democrats should moderate on policy. In particular, Adam Bonica and G. Elliott Morris have criticized a recent New York Times piece touting the electoral benefits of moderation. I don’t want to wade into the statistical debates, but will offer two observations.
As Lee Drutman points out, even if policy positioning matters at the margin in individual races, it doesn’t seem to matter very much, and Democrats need to focus on reforms with more potential for big gains, including electoral reforms.
Many are arguing that Democrats need to be open to different voices, to let candidates in different areas match the policy preferences of local constituencies. This is seen an alternative to simply tacking to the center. If what matters is the party’s national brand, however, it’s not clear how this “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach will work in practice. If, for example, Mamdani is too far to the left for voters in Iowa, and Democrats need to win a Senate seat in Iowa to pass legislation or confirm any federal judges or justices, then Mamdani’s victory could be a problem for the party even if Mamdani is a good fit for New York (which is not obvious despite the hype; his margin of victory was lower than many recent mayors).
Realignment?
Morris argues that there was not a major political realignment in 2024; Hispanics in particular seem to have swung back hard against him. Instead, both 2024 and 2025 were about affordability/inflation. This is quite plausible, but perhaps there could have been at least a modest realignment under Trump. People tend to form relatively stable partisan attachments at a young age. If Trump had governed in a sane, responsible manner, it’s possible he could have made long term Republican voters out of some of the young adults who supported him, including more conservative blacks and Hispanics. If that was a possibility, it seems like the opportunity was missed. Good.
The economy, stupid?
Assuming the election was mostly about affordability and inflation, it appears that we have serious problem on our hands, viz., a perpetually disillusioned electorate. There are only two solutions to affordability problems, economic growth and redistribution. (The alternative to modest inflation, deflation, is a path to macroeconomic disaster, so let’s put that aside.) Both faster growth and more redistribution are difficult to achieve, and at least on some accounts these goals are in tension with each other. Further, if the Democrats are struggling at least in part because they are viewed as ineffectual and prone to overpromising and underdelivering, which seems likely, a victory in 2026 and 2028 powered by affordability promises could easily turn into a popular disappointment.
If Trump and Repubs are worried about winning? Then reinstate Medicaid and subsidies for healthcare insurance. They could get their hands off of SNAP also.
Trump and Repubs are attacking the bulk of the population who could turn out and vote against a Repub’s candidate even if a woman or a woman of color. Would Hillary or a woman of color have been so terrible in the presidency? Not likely. In fact, either of those intelligent women would have been far better. America still has to learn that a woman for president may be the equal or far better than the last few presidents we have endured. I believe each time Trump has won, it was because he ran against women and people were not ready to accept women in the Oval Office.
I agree there is an element of overpromising. But, what do you say then and before elected? Perhaps?
“I can do this if a majority of Congress in the House and the Senate back my efforts to deliver a better economy.”
A candidate could say this and blame the opposition later on if blocked.
So far they’ve been pretty successful getting people to vote against their own interests.
Bill, I agree that Democrats have to make promises to win elections; all politicians do. It’s just hard to make promises you can keep, especially about economics. Some of the obstacles are political. Others are policy challenges. My point is that we seem to be stuck in an equilibrium where voters are disappointed with both parties, at least in part due to slow growth. There may be a way out, but finding the path is the challenge of our times (other than beating Trump).
Did Democrats Really Win The November Election?
Democrats just supposedly had a huge victory on November 4, 2025, but are we any closer as a country to making the critical decisions that must be made? Or are we any closer to providing a political system the American public wants. The people have been saying for a long time that they want the two parties to work together and solve problems.
Unfortunately, the answer to both is a resounding “No.” We are no closer to addressing the economy, voting rights, immigration, civil rights, climate change, artificial intelligence, Ukraine, healthcare, social security, abortion, guns, and the myriad of other major issues. And, many Democratic leaders and political pundits are claiming the Democrats achieved an overwhelming victory. A victory that will likely guarantee a House takeover in 2026, and a perpetuation of at least three more years of Congressional and governmental gridlock, hate, and dysfunction. Meanwhile, the issues that must be addressed and the public demand will remain unmet.
In a recent fundraising letter, Kamala Harris said after the November Democratic nationwide voting victory, “We must harness that power to come up with a blueprint for our government that truly works for the American people. We must continue speaking out and listening when the people say, ‘This is how I want my government to work for me.”‘ I couldn’t agree more. But, I would emphasize that we must really listen, we must listen closely and carefully.
Was the recent election turnout really a Democratic victory? We can’t simply immediately dismiss the fact that recent polls show low public support for both parties, with most indicating slightly more support for the Republican Party. Additionally, recent polls also show approximately 50% of the voting public claims to be Independent — not Democratic or Republican. Additionally, what about Zohran Mamdani’s big win in New York City? That doesn’t signal strong support for the Democratic Party.
I think we must listen carefully and realize that the people are voicing their strong disapproval of the current political environment, not necessarily support for Democrats. With the recent voter turnout, combined with the massive No Kings protest, the public is screaming that they want a change from the craziness of the past several decades, with back-and-forth political momentum that has led to mass polarization, a continuous failure to address and solve the country’s problems, and an ultimate threat to democracy itself.
We must listen carefully. The election did not eliminate Republicans. And, it will not eliminate Republicans if Democrats win the House in the 2026 midterms. We will still have two distinct parties, with differing points of view, and an abundance of difficult problems to solve. If Democrats win the 2026 midterms and we continue the same “we win, you lose” philosophy of governing, we will be no closer to meeting the public demands and solving our many critical issues of our time.
So how do we harness the people power and create the blueprint for government that Harris called for? If we look objectively toward the future, and want to carry “the great experiment” beyond its 250-year watermark, we must find a way. Otherwise, our inability to make decisions and solve problems will simply overwhelm us. We currently have a preview of that reality, as we just experienced the longest government shutdown in history, are failing to meet the most basic needs of the public, and have no ability to address the critical issues that await us. Congress has not even passed its spending bills since 1997.
We must find a way to reconnect the power of the public in a positive way to the political decision-making process. Certainty, we must stop the malicious attempts to disrupt, limit, and distort the normal voting rights of the public. But we need to do much more. We need to find a way to “harness the power” of the public to force the unwilling politicians to work together, act respectfully, and solve problems. The public must be able to hold them accountable, monitor their activities, and weigh in on decisions. (See: A Revolution In Congressional Decision Making)
Not sure why the link did not work for “A Revolution In Congressional Decision Making.”
https://angrybearblog.com/2025/11/a-revolution-in-congressional-decision-making
J.P.
I posted your commentary and added the link. I will delete the post of Eric’s post. Good commentary and thank you for writing it.
Bill
Bill, will do, but I thought it was an appropriate comment to Eric’s post.
J.P.
And after serious discussions with multiple experts on the topic. They agreed with you. So I switched it back and also posted it. 🙂 You are right.