Cloudy, the Election Is

Some call it “voter fatigue.” Too many elections (especially our annual ones here in Virginia), and the incessant barrage of negative (attack) messaging; ubiquitous and provocative social media posts; outrageous, incessant, and over-the-top fundraising appeals; and all means of behavior meant to draw clicks and views.

Sadly, it all happens because it works. What gets rewarded gets repeated.

No wonder we’re seeing this underreported trend, as the chart below shows: voters moving their partisan identification away from the major parties toward “independent.” In many social circles, it’s trendy, since being “independent” makes you look like a smart “above the fray” voter, while mentioning that your martini is stirred, not shaken.

But in reality, such “normie,” non-politically active people aren’t just avoiding party labels. They’re not voting. Especially in closed party primaries. That gives outsized influence to the most active and “extreme” voices. And thanks to partisan gerrymandering at all levels by both political parties, it’s the primaries, not the general elections, that increasingly determine who ultimately wins. Statewide elections are an exception, but have you been paying attention to what’s been happening in states in recent years? We’re down to only, really, 7 or so “swing” states in most statewide elections, especially for President.

We’ve never been more tribal, except for about half of America that’s turning us off as they go about their normal lives.

In this November’s elections, conventional wisdom suggests Democratic gains, based almost exclusively on public polling and historical patterns. You know, the history that suggests the “party in power” loses close races in the US House, US Senate, and most other elections in midterm elections.

Pundits of all stripes love to look for historical parallels as they ponder their predictions. Republicans, when talking about the 2026 elections, often point to the 2022 midterm elections, in which a Republican “red wave,” predicated on public polling, never materialized. These Republicans say Democrats face a similar dynamic this Fall. Maybe.

Other Republicans point to the 1998 Clinton six-year midterm, when Democrats actually made history by netting seats in the US House, a first (at least since 1934). House GOP overreach, especially the Clinton impeachment’s focus on sexual escapades, is attributed to turning him into a sympathetic figure. That was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party didn’t gain seats. That would repeat itself four years later, in 2002, but not since. I don’t think that parallel holds water.

In 2022, as my friend, political analyst and pollster Dave Winston has documented (I was with him on election night), the GOP won back control of the US House but in the process underperformed. They won only 9 House seats and failed to win the Senate. How? By losing moderate voters who 1) still matter and 2) were turned off by many GOP House and Senate candidates and by the lame attempts to nationalize the election with ineffective messaging. Independent voters made up 31 percent of the electorate and, unlike previous elections, didn’t swing to the party out of favor.

If Democrats gain 9 US House seats in 2026, they’ll take control of that chamber, albeit a tiny 4-seat margin. Democrats would need a net gain of four seats to capture the US Senate. They’re counting on North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, and Texas to make the difference without losing Michigan, New Hampshire, or other states they’re defending. More about that in a moment, but that’s really a tall order given the Senate map.

As for 2026, political consultants and the White House would be wise to remember the late, great US House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA), who famously said that “All politics is local.” Nationalizing non-presidential election messages rarely works unless an issue is literally handed to the opposing party (see 1982 and Reagan’s first midterm, when the national unemployment rate his over 10 percent in October, announced days before the election). Candidate quality and messaging still matter.

To an extent, Democrats did appear to “nationalize” the 2022 post-redistricting election by making it about Trump, and it helped. Party operatives are doing it again, and you can’t blame them, but voters are also blanching at the alternatives. While “independent” voters lean Democratic, a third are still undecided about which party they want to win in 2026.

Oh, sure, we’ve had plenty of midterm “wave” elections in recent years, and they seem to be happening more frequently than ever. Big wave elections, especially midterms, used to happen about every 20 years or so, including 1958 (Democratic), 1966 (Republican), 1982 (Democratic), 1994 (Republican), 2006 (Democratic), 2010 (Republican) and 2018 (Democratic). Based on the trend line, we might be due for another.

Pendulum swings have become faster and more furious, if not exhausting.

The conventional wisdom goes like this. Donald Trump is “underwater” in the polls, with approval numbers in the 30s (some polls have it higher); the “generic ballot” favors Democrats by some 3-8 points; Trump is slightly “underwater” on the economy, always a top issue, and the Iran “war.” Blah, blah, blah.

Nevertheless, those ubiquitous “generic ballot tests” that measure which party voters want to win in November have Democrats in the lead. But not by much. And voter registration trends, as captured by election analyst Seth Keshel in key states, continue to slowly favor Republicans.

What exactly are the variables we have to weigh to make guesstimates about the November 3rd election (early voting starts as early as September 18th in Minnesota, South Dakota, and Virginia).

Redistricting

Ten states representing 40 percent of the electorate—from California, Texas, and Florida to Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah—performed mid-census redistricting. According to my friend Charlie Cook’s analysis, the House map's Republican lean increased by 3 percent (R+3). The elections will be the ultimate barometer, but the new maps could/should net a GOP gain of about 6 seats. California’s Democratic gerrymander will offset Texas’s Republican redraw, and Utah’s addition of a court-ordered Democratic seat will offset Louisiana’s elimination of a majority-minority Democratic district. A brazen Democratic attempt to eliminate four GOP US House seats in Virginia failed state constitutional muster, wasting about $50 million in Democratic contributions.

The Supreme Court’s Louisiana vs. Callais decision, which narrowed the ability of states to use race as a determining factor in creating election districts, contributed to Louisiana’s redraw.

The bad news is that the number of marginal or “swing” districts (R+5 to D+5), according to the independent, nonpartisan Ballotpedia, will be reduced from 85 to about 70 of 435 seats. And in reality, the number is closer to about 20 House races this Fall. That’s not what the founders and framers intended for “the people’s house.”

Interestingly, three GOP states refused entreaties to redraw their House districts: Indiana, South Carolina, and Ohio. Heavily Democratic Maryland failed to carve up their lone GOP seat. Courts in Virginia and New York told their legislators no. But not a single Democratic state has stood up against partisan redistricting on their own, since most of their states have already eradicated GOP seats (see: New England).

While that will help Republicans in their quest to maintain their slim House majority in November, it won’t be enough to save it. Tell me who is going to show up and vote, and what motivates them, and I’ll predict how the congressional elections will turn out. I’m not there yet.

Looking ahead, the redistricting following the 2030 census will be fun to watch. The future might just be . . . Republican. Then again, it was just 20 years ago that leading Democrats were predicting a permanent Democratic majority, presuming its status as a “working class” party with continuing Hispanic and Black voter dominance. Oops. Stay tuned.

The Iran Conflict

You tell me how the Iran conflict—I refuse to call it a war without the commitment and engagement of ground troops, and where we have clear air superiority—turns out, and I’ll give you an idea or two what voters might be thinking when they cast their ballots. Nobody knows.

The conventional wisdom on this doesn’t exist, since factors change daily. Trump, hampered by the clear divisions between what remains of their civilian leadership and the lunatic Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which controls so much of the country’s economy along with its military assets, vacillates between destruction and diplomacy. It’s increasingly obvious that we either don’t have a concrete vision on how to end this conflict or that the assumptions and intelligence were not entirely correct. Trump is meandering his way toward declaring “victory” defined only by two things: no nuclear weapons for the crazies in Iran, and an open Strait of Hormuz, which the marketplace is seeking to replace as a transit for oil.

If Trump reaches a “successful” conclusion that calms energy markets and resumes the flow of crude around the world, resulting in lower prices and stability, it could yield political benefits. But the reality is that it takes months for economic disruptions to return to anything resembling “normal.” We are less than 100 days from the election, so unless this is resolved soon, and even if it is, it will fester and weigh heavily on the midterms.

Your guess is as good as mine. This is a moving target.

Gasoline prices, Inflation, and Jobs - the Economy

James Carville’s famous 1992 admonition that “It’s the economy, stupid,” still applies. Consumers remain laser-focused on grocery and gas prices, and they’re not happy. Being one, I know how they feel. I hate filling up my gas tank at $4.09 per gallon here in rural Virginia, and that’s not including my other car that takes premium gas, which costs me closer to $4.79 per gallon with discounts. I’m flying a lot this year back and forth to Europe, and it’s costing me a pretty penny.

Energy drives everything, no pun intended, so as long as natural gas and diesel prices remain high, those costs will be reflected in consumer prices for everything. And they’re not coming down anytime soon, no matter what happens with gas prices in the immediate future.

To be sure, food makers and other manufacturers are bending over backward to keep prices as low as possible while making investors happy. It’s a delicate balance, even a Catch-22. But if consumers perceive price pressures deflating, and they’re seeing lower gasoline prices, it might matter come Nov. 3rd.

Candidate “Quality”

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Or, let’s broaden the field to include other Democratic candidates. The candidate photo’d below include, clockwise from top left, likely Democratic nominee for Governor of Wisconsin, Francesca Hong; would-be US Senator and noted Christian heritic (God created six genders and asked Mary permission to impregnate Mary with Jesus, which you won’t find in Luke chapter 2) and former St. Rep. James Talarico; journeyman Democratic candidate and Graham Platner replacement Troy Jackson, who impregnated his second cousin with two kids [no marriage], the new nominee to face incumbent GOP Senator Susan Collins (R-ME); likely Michigan Democratic US Senate nominee Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (we’ll find out Wednesday morning!); future Congresswoman Darializa Avila Chavalier (D-NY); and Nancy Pelosi’s likely replacement, State Sen. Scott Weiner, a gay defender of pedophilia. And that’s putting it nicely. Hong’s primary win won’t happen until the 11th. But it will.

There are many more DSA-aligned Democratic nominees that I could mention. But you get the point.

This is your modern Democratic Party. Most polls suggest a third of Democratic primary voters support the Democratic Socialist agenda, which calls for government control over the private sector, including government-run grocery stores, free public transportation, free or subsidized public housing, and much more. What’s not to like! Unless, of course, you’re the poor taxpayer who gets to foot the bill.

My question is whether rank-and-file voters will know enough of these extreme representatives of the Democratic Party to think seriously about which party they want in charge of things come November 3rd? Given the paucity of media coverage, or interest in political campaigns, I doubt many know about the extremists that are grabbing control of the Democratic Party.

Complain all you want about the “extremists” in charge of the GOP, there can be no doubt that you know LOTS about them, even much that isn’t so. The media is sure that you do. But do you know about the agenda of these folks? This is what they’re peddling, and to the uninitiated, uninformed, and economically ignorant, this is very appealing.

The question is, of course, who pays? And do they really want to nationalize about half the economy, if not more, including food, energy, and the entire health care industry?

You and me. That’s who. Taxpayers. The people who pull the wagon, at least until we stop. Except the wagon is going to get bigger and bigger, full of freeloaders who expect you to pay for a life of luxury while they sell bad paintings on San Francisco street corners while brandishing their queer studies diplomas. Because they can.

History and polling no longer apply here. We’re traveling through uncharted territory. Unique candidates with agendas that were unimaginable just four—even two—years ago up against a president that turns people off and sucks attention away from worthy candidates.

We’re in uncharted waters, and the polls are pretty much worthless. We’ll revisit this around Halloween. Which seems appropriate.

Thanks for reading Against the Grain! Please consider subscribing to my Substack