With less than a month until midterms, things look bleak for Trump and the GOP. Trump has a 39% job approval rating (RCP), dragging down GOP candidates on the ballot. RCP shows Democrats leading on the generic ballot by nearly 9 points. Election Betting Odds shows Democrats taking control of the House with nearly a 90% likelihood and the Senate with nearly two-thirds, while Republicans trail in several GOP-held Senate seats, including NC, ME, AK, OH, and TX.
I used to support the GOP until the 2016 GOP primary; during my UH graduate school days, I shifted to a conservative-Democrat perspective after taking graduate economics courses (nothing ideological about those classes; over the years, I became more skeptical of federal government programs). I had always been fiscally conservative and pro-life, which were inconsistent with the agenda of increasingly dominant left-wing Democrats. Even during my more liberal undergraduate days, I identified more with the goals of proposed legislation, regardless of their counterproductive means. As I've written before, my political divorce with the Dems came with the derailed Bork nomination. (It probably differed with other Southern Democrats who probably also transitioned to the GOP as the only other mainstream conservative option by the 90s. (In fact, I may have supported Ford in 1976 except for his preemptive pardon of Nixon.)) I particularly supported the free market, free trade, and a more open immigration process, all of which Trumpkins opposed. The only thing I've supported from Trump, beyond more conservative judicial picks, is a deregulatory approach to governance. My divorce from the GOP was when Trump clinched the 2016 election. This didn't mean I reverted back to the Dems. Their key Big Labor constituency also opposed free trade and more open immigration (labor protectionism). I simply registered (when available) with the Libertarian Party, which faces duopoly opposition to listing candidates on ballots. For example, I don't think I had any LP candidates on my recent ballot, so I had to write in candidates or choose other third-party candidates.
Trump seems to have forgotten that a key factor in his reelection was the economy, and inflation has picked up with a cheap dollar, global energy price spikes as a result of significant oil supply interruptions from the Gulf region via the Strait of Hormuz, Trump's unprovoked trade wars (including tariffs, ultimately paid by American businesses and consumers), and some labor force problems due to aggressive ICE operations targeting unauthorized immigrant workers. Worker wage gains are falling below inflation. Via Google AI:
I do not think I represent most Americans. I am a hard-core fiscal conservative who would slash spending, liberalize immigration, and embrace/expand free markets/trade, but I rarely gain more than a handful of X impressions when I post my preferences. It could be shadow-banning certain tweets, of course. But X is a curious place: I'll meticulously provide detailed refutations (with AI extracts) of Trump Administration boasts (say, economic claims), but users seem to prefer it when I mock "Bone Spur" Trump for claiming he could have quickly ended our ill-fated Vietnam intervention. It's really difficult to cut federal programs when every dollar has vested interests or politically potent beneficiaries at risk. Trump isn't tackling the growing senior entitlement crisis because the government already has to dip into dwindling reserves, since payroll tax revenue doesn't cover current beneficiary costs and distributions. Trump has zero appetite for taking the heat for raising revenues and/or cutting costs. It's easier to kick the can down the road around 2033 when seniors face over a 20% cut in benefits. My motivation is clear: we need to resolve the shortfall sooner rather than later. Trump knows Bush's second term lost momentum over the Third Rail of American politics. I'm not arguing it's just a GOP problem; Democrats' one solution to any issue is to soak the rich. The fact is, even if you confiscated all the assets of wealthy people, you'd get only a 1-time bump in revenue and no future revenue. This redistributionist fantasy only defers the day of reckoning.
The Dems have one big advantage this fall: the GOP controls Congress, and the White House and the midterms generally cost the POTUS' party. I haven't heard any viable fix from the Dems for the "affordability" crisis. One would think they might take on Trump's unconstitutional tariffs, but to be clear, Biden largely kept Trump's first-term protectionism and "buy American" policies. In fact, RINO Trump has largely co-opted Dem talking points on offshoring, China as a scapegoat, and labor protectionism (including immigration). The Dems are largely running against Trump's modest cuts to domestic spending priorities (e.g., healthcare), while Trump is trying to counter with some government fraud crackdowns (e.g., Minnesota).
But what motivated this rant in particular was that, in at least three steps Trump sought to turn the midterms to his advantage. In fact, Trump has recorded soundbites where he told Congressional Republicans that he wanted them to nationalize elections. This directly contradicts Article I and would require an amendment to the Constitution for relevant federal legislation.
The first way was his attempt to jam the Save America Act through Congress. This goes beyond earlier legislation by requiring an oath (subject to perjury) that they are U.S. citizens by birth location, parental citizenship status, or naturalization. I've already discussed this in earlier posts. This shifts the burden of proof to voters. The issue is that up to 10% of American citizens lack the required documentation, either because it was lost or, in some cases, never existed (e.g., home births not registered through the states). States can address this with other evidence, such as church records, medical bills, birth announcements, and school records. But this process can take a long time, and in the meantime, the voter is denied a ballot. This is a heavy price to pay for a statistically nominal case of alien voters, which Trump has asserted with no credible data. An alien voter faces prosecution and/or deportation, and they are generally ineligible for government (e.g., welfare) programs.
Then Trump has pressed for GOP-controlled states to gerrymander their Congressional districts to mitigate seat losses or maybe even expand their slim majority. The basic idea is to peel off enough GOP voters in GOP strongholds to offset the opposition's advantage in nearby districts. However, this can be a double-edged sword because it puts strongholds at risk. (Also, some Dem-controlled states have countered with their own gerrymandering schemes) I saw a recent report indicating some recently gerrymandered seats are trending Dem or toss-up.
Finally, Trump has threatened to station federal personnel at precincts to intimidate voters. They have tried to sue some locations (e.g., the Alaska race where another candidate shares the same given name and surname).
I find Trump's tactics abominable and un-American.
As I write on Election Eve, almost all contested Senate seats are trending GOP. Even red seats in TX, KS, IA, and SC are in play. Trump's attempts to install loyalists in these states may be lethal to GOP attempts to save their majority. Nevertheless, I would welcome a restoration of balance between Congress and POYUS. I don't think Dems can jam pet legislation past a veto-bearing Trump, but they would have leverage in dealing with Trump.
