Ask Us Anything
MAGA defections, appropriations, a way out of Iran, and winning the House
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Wolves and Sheep and Bowers News Media for $8 per month or $80 per year. You will receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and gain the ability to post comments on our articles.
How do we make it easier for Republicans to defect from MAGA and/or leave the Republican party? I think it’s hard for someone to acknowledge that the party they may have grown up with no longer deserves their support, and to make a change because that party is betraying some of the principles that are important to them as a US citizen. Can we find a way to be less critical of individuals so they feel more freedom to make a change? Side question: Is this why Independent voters are growing as a sector?
(Chris) I do wish there was more widespread self-awareness among engaged Democrats and progressives not to be jerks toward conservatives and Republicans. Being a jerk doesn’t win converts. However, some center-left activists make it clear that they think people who disagree with them are idiots and bigots who deserve to be insulted, sidelined from polite society, and held beneath contempt. It’s kind of like MAGA, just left-wing.
One of the bread and butter topics of conservative media is to highlight indefensible personal behavior from rank and file progressive activists toward rank and file conservatives and Republicans. It is absolutely a crucial part of how Republicans who may be disgusted by the behavior of their leader are kept in the party fold.
What can we do about this? We can start by not being jerks ourselves, and hoping that more will follow in our path. There is a large demand for jerk-ish behavior in politics these days (see Trump, Donald). Many politicians, influencers and advocates will build a supply to meet that demand as long as it exists in significant quantities.
As to your side question, yes, this is part of why there are so many independents in politics these days. It is connected to a phenomenon called negative partisanship, which I think you will grasp quickly when you read about it. People tend to dislike the opposing party far more than they like their own party, which reduces the number of potentially persuadable voters, no matter how badly political leaders may behave.
The weaponization fund has been scrapped. It looks like the extra ballroom funding will be the scrapped. Does that mean we lost on all the rest of the appropriations bill—like changes to ICE?
(Chris) There are no changes to ICE or CBP practices in the reconciliation bill that is moving through Congress. It will also not receive any Democratic votes, but it will (probably) pass anyway since reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered.
Simply put, government shutdowns brought about via Senate filibusters do not lead to policy concessions to the minority from the governing party. The governing party, whether Democratic or Republican, would find making such a concession an utter anathema, since it would effectively make the minority party the governing party.
The filibuster only exists because the governing party believes it can make a deal with the minority party. When that belief goes away, as it did in this case, the governing party will often just find a way to work around the filibuster, as Republicans are doing here.
Senate Democrats did a commendable job of sticking together and refusing to fund immigration enforcement unless significant reforms were made. However, without a majority of the Senate, their power is pretty limited.
Iran is not moved by Trump’s threats and bluster and the U.S. is in a worse situation strategically than before the “little excursion” that has already caused thousands of deaths and cost billions. Trump says he’s bored with the negotiations (since he hasn’t achieved a win), and soaring gas prices and a depleting oil supply seem less on his mind than opposition to his ballroom. He said himself that he doesn’t care how the war affects the American people. Given that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to intervene, how do you see this war ending without considerable U.S. compromise?
(Matt) I don’t. Trump is negotiating from weakness, lacks the ability to accept defeat, and has been unable to convince anyone that his failure is a victory. No wonder he is bored. There is no ego gratification to be had, so his impulse is to walk away and take comfort in his grandiose ballroom.
Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge that he has weakened the United States is making it impossible to set realistic expectations for the negotiations. So we are stuck in a cycle where Trump is spinning his wheels, alternating between promising a great negotiated deal and threatening further attacks. Perhaps he is hoping that the country will also get bored with Iran and forget the war ever happened. But in the world where people live, skyrocketing prices accelerated by the war hang over everything. Trump may claim not to care, but Republicans will feel the blowback to his callous disregard for their welfare soon enough.
Chris—thanks for the analysis in your article, “Where Do the Redistricting Wars Stand After Recent Court Rulings?“ However, I cannot fathom why in the world prognosticators still favor Democrats to win the House. That flies in the face of all the evidence you so clearly laid out.
(Chris): I am happy to explain this!
Republicans currently have a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, 220-215 (it is actually a little different than that because of resignations and the unexpected passings of some members, but 220-215 is the baseline figure you should keep in your mind).
If you combine all of the changes from redistricting in the 2025-2026 gerrymandering wars, right now it looks as though Republicans are set to move a net of about six Democratic-held seats into safe Republican territory. (I had estimated seven in my May 16 article on this topic, but neither Alabama nor Louisiana ending up taking a maximalist approach. I thought one of them would.)
So, that effectively puts us at something like 226-209 heading into the midterms. This means Democrats need to flip a net of nine seats or more to take control of the House.
Decision Desk HQ, Nate Silver and Real Clear Politics (not exactly a group of election forecasters friendly to Democrats) pin the current Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot at an average of 7.2 points (that’s 7.0 in DDHQ, 7.1 in Nate Silver, and 7.5 in RCP). That means they collectively estimate Democrats will win the national House popular vote by 7.2.
There are 22 Republican-held seats with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+3 or less, and 28 with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+4 or less. In an election where Democrats win the national House popular vote by 7.2, you should expect the overwhelming majority of those 22-28 seats to be won by Democrats, plus a handful of others that are even redder. And remember, Democrats need to win only a net of nine seats to capture the House majority.
So, that’s why prognosticators all still favor Democrats to win the House. If the Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot drops down to something more like 3.0-4.0, then it is time to get a little worried, as that would likely indicate a very close election.
What is your sober estimate of the number of House seats we will win? I am struck by how everyone feels so bullish about a blue wave, but then I get nervous when Republicans draw between 4-10 new seats for themselves. I figure a blue wave is more like 20 seats, but what’s the real number?
(Matt) It’s still too early to put a precise number on the range of seats Democrats should win this fall, because conditions continue to change. But, as Chris notes in his answer to the previous question, conditions are strongly in favor of a blue wave. The price of gas keeps going up, Donald Trump’s job approval rating keeps going down, and the generic ballot keeps getting gradually but unmistakably better for Democrats. And as economic conditions deteriorate, political conditions only improve for them. By late summer we should have a pretty good sense of where things will stand as people start voting. But I will be shocked if the generic congressional ballot doesn't grow from where it is.
As Chris notes, the extent of anger and disapproval of the administration is bringing competition to otherwise noncompetitive red seats, allowing Democrats to expand the map beyond what Republican gerrymandering can blunt. So while I’m reluctant to speak in hard figures at this stage of the election cycle, I do feel comfortable speaking in terms of magnitude. Republicans may end up with a gerrymandering advantage in the 4-10 seat range, as you suggest, but it should be reasonable to expect an overall swing of potentially dozens of seats if Democrats are making inroads to districts that are normally safely red.
Against my better judgement I am allowing myself to be optimistic about the potential for Republicans to lose the House and potentially the Senate in the midterms. That said, if that were to come to pass, what then? I have seen irrationally exuberant predictions that winning back both parts of the legislature would magically fix everything, but I personally think that this would merely be the first step, and the vast amount of damage that the MAGA movement has inflicted on our country will take an enormous effort over a very long time to mend. I would be more interested in your educated view on a) what realistically CAN be changed up-front and b) which efforts might best be prioritized for meaningful restoration to ensure we have an actual representative democracy in the long-term.
(Matt) I think you have reason to be optimistic because, as I noted in the previous question, Democrats are poised to do quite well in the midterms regardless of how aggressively Republicans throw obstacles in their way. And I think you are correct that there are no magical fixes. Even if Democrats take both the House and the Senate, it would be only the first of many steps toward restoring democracy and repairing the damage Trump is doing. The most obvious thing it would do is rebuild the legislative guardrail that Republicans have dismantled. Democrats would be in a position to slow the damage Trump is doing, prevent any additional MAGA legislation from passing, and conduct oversight (which would almost certainly include a record third impeachment) into the administration’s abuses of power. At this stage of repair, shining a light on Trump’s criminal activity will give the public a clear sense of the extent of Trump’s corruption, which will help set the stage for later, when Democrats ask the electorate for a mandate to repudiate Trumpism in 2028. At that point, a large number of repairs will be possible that cannot be undertaken while Trump is still in the White House. I have long contended that Democrats should make structural repairs to the political system that will make it possible for them to undertake significant policy changes afterwards. If you’re interested, I wrote extensively about these changes in my Project Democracy series, which you can access here.