Just a few general observations at the top:
- MAGA Coalition that wasn’t: As RealClearPolitics analyst and political scientist Sean Trende wrote in his 2012 book, “The Lost Majority,” coalitions of everyone don’t last. In Trende’s convincing telling, even FDR’s New Deal coalition was never as solid as it seemed in retrospect. The idea that Latinos and the Bros were going to join forces with the Evangelicals, and white-working class, and immigration hawks, and free-market mavens, and economic populists for some kind of generational alliance was always wish-casting. The good news is that these voters will be up for grabs again in 2028.
- The revenge of message discipline: A goodly portion of the Republican setback was Trump’s lack of message discipline (or even coherence). I am in no way obligated—or interested—in defending Trump, but there is a case for the tariffs; there is an argument to be made that inflation—well off its highs in the Biden administration—has improved; there is a justification for aggressive immigration enforcement by ICE. Even though I’m in opposition (and have been since day one), there is even a case for the…intervention?…in Iran. But other than a few throw away lines, Trump just wasn’t interested (in fact, seemed incapable) in making that case for any of those things. On that note, the American economy is in pretty good shape, especially compared to its perpetually anemic European competitors. Never heard Trump say that.
Trump’s preference for the put down and the “weave” has worked for him to this point. His ascent coincided with technologically-driven changes in the nature of political communications (such as micro-targeted social media feeds and the meme-ification of politics) that lent themselves to Trump’s simultaneously crude and, shall we say, breezy approach to political rhetoric. Maybe I’m a dinosaur, but back in my day a serious campaign would have 2-3 succinct talking points paired with a semi-legitimate supporting factoid for each set to repeat until critical mass (and then some) was achieved. There was just no—ZERO—counterpoint from the president, not matter how pat, to all the “man in the street” plaints about choosing between food and gas.
Now, the good news, bad news:
- Good news: The outcomes were largely driven by “atmospheric events,” namely sustained inflation, particularly in the form of higher gas prices. Furthermore, Democrats are still generally unpopular. In other words, this wasn’t some kind of historic shift based on fundamental principles (despite what you’re hearing from the pundit class). In all likelihood, the political atmosphere will change in the next two years, maybe in ways that will favor Republicans, and Democrats will, with a little luck, disappoint their base and outrage the “up for grabs.”
That said, Reagan Republicans and other free-market types have got to come up with a response on the affordability/AI/Data Center issue. The good news is that Democrats are completely unserious on these issues, particularly reducing what used to be called the “cost of living.” When Democrats talk about “affordability” they mean only one thing—price controls, which (followed by the necessary subsidies) inevitably create market distortions that ultimately leave consumers (i.e., voters) unsatisfied.
- Bad news: Unfortunately, The People want price controls, regardless. Price controls seem logical and make sense at an elementary level: things cost less when you lower their price, so why not just lower the price and help everyone out? Without control of the White House, Democratic initiatives of any sort face long odds. That said, Trump has frequently sympathized with such populist (read socialist) instincts, even if more often in rhetoric than action, and may be inclined to support some Democrat proposals (prescription drugs…again). Besides being popular with the electorate, the other problem for Republicans is that, if actualized, the negative impacts of price controls and subsidies may not be apparent enough by 2028 to cause a backlash (it takes time to destroy an economy as resilient as ours). And, as with Obamacare, even (especially?) if negative impacts are apparent by then, Republicans will be blamed for any deficiencies.
Miscellaneous
- The California conundrum: It is hard to overstate how disheartening and demoralizing it is to see California voters consistently favor candidates and policies that are PROVEN to be detrimental on so many levels. It seems no matter how disappointing and under par, Californians are happy with the status quo. Steve Hilton ran a good campaign, but it didn’t matter—not even on the margins. Not sure what the answer is. I used to argue that, eventually, the state of affairs would get so bad the pendulum would swing. I have been wrong.
Joe Sheffo is a resident of Encinitas and a former editor at the “North County Times.” He worked as an auditor for the State of California, including nine years at the State Auditor’s office. He has no party affiliation.