I see that the American mid-term elections have seen a major victory for the Democrats - they've gained control of both Congress and the Senate. And, based on my reading from Twitter, there seems to have been a significant rejection of Trump even from amongst MAGA.
All of which is good, probably. Except for one thing...
Politicians are remarkably terrible at learning the lessons from election results. And I fear that the Democrats are about to make the classic blunder, actually the same blunder made by Starmer's Labour party a couple of years ago, of reading a rejection of the incumbent as an endorsement of them and their agenda.
As far as I can see, the Republican defeat is largely a combination of three things:
- Democrat voters were motivated to turn out, in order to get rid of Republican incumbents.
- The majority Republican base, who have no great love for Trump but "always" vote Republican, were largely not motivated to go out and vote.
- Trump's own MAGA base are currently really angry. Not because they've rejected Trump's agenda, but rather because they feel betrayed that he hasn't done enough of it. And, in particular, they're angry about the war in Iran, which they don't feel should have happened anyway, and more important (to them) is driving gas prices upwards.
It's not at all clear how Trump will respond to any of this. It seems very unlikely we'll see a repeat of his attempt to overturn his defeat in 2020, for the reason that the various races don't seem to be particularly close - in theory a recount might "find" a couple of hundred extra votes, but not vast numbers. This means that he's going to be a lame duck president for the next two years, stymied by a legislative branch that he doesn't control.
The received wisdom seems to be that, as a deranged narcissist, he will therefore lash out, and double down, and it's all going to be absolutely awful. But maybe not - normally, in this situation he'd just declare bankruptcy, write off all the debts, and start over. I'm not sure what the political equivalent of that is. Maybe it just doesn't matter.
Of much more interest to me now is the question of who the two parties put forward as their candidates, and what they put forward as their agendas, for 2028.
I had assumed that the Republicans would go with J.D. Vance and, basically, more of the same, but Iran and these elections are potentially a game-changer. I think their best play is to stick with the agenda, but they then need to find a new candidate, someone who can credibly say, "no, we're actually going to do it this time." My gut feeling, though, is that they'll probably try to claim that with Vance in harness, and have it all blow up in their faces.
Meanwhile, I have a really hard time seeing who the Democrats can choose as their candidate. My fear, though, is that they'll revert to the exact same agenda as Hillary and Kamala attempted to push, potentially even with Kamala Harris as their candidate once again, and with similar results. (Conversely, I'd recommend finding a more moderate candidate and taking several large steps back towards a centrist position.)
Of course, the consequence of all of that is the I suspect both parties are going to put forward losing candidates paired with an agenda that doesn't work for them. But given that one of them has to win...
So it's going to be interesting, but perhaps a lot more hopeful than it has been for a very long time. Watch this space, I guess.