One is happy to see that one has covered oneself. Consider: “Leader and folks are resourceful in their stupidity. They can always find a new way to be dumb, crazy, heedless, etc.” That takes in plenty of ground, which it had better since I was predicting—no, estimating, just estimating—the probable future behavior of Donald Trump and his MAGA base.
On election night the latter gave the former a good whack on the head, leading him to give up talk of challenging any election results that he didn’t like. This was a significant change but not conclusive, and I think I made it seem conclusive: “When the low-income, low-informed whites of the countryside stood behind Trump, they stood behind him so tremendously that he could say and do crazy things—send troops into cities, say ‘We shouldn’t even have an election.’ They aren’t behind him now.” All right, now they’re wobbly at best, but appointing Stephen Miller as chief of staff is at least fairly crazy and Trump did that three days after the election. Thank God for my saver, which also has the virtue of being correct.
All in all, I give my election analysis a “not great,” downgraded a notch from “so-so” because of Miller. Where my election calls panned out, it was because I bet on the Democrats. Where I got things wrong, I bet against the Democrats. It was that kind of night, the kind that hasn’t come around since 2008. If another happens, maybe I’ll be ready.
My focus was the Senate, nothing about other races. I predicted 51 Senate seats for the Dems; that was too low by at least three, possibly four or five. As to individual races, I predicted the Democrats would win in South Carolina, Texas, and Michigan but lose in Alaska. The first three calls panned out, we don’t know about the fourth. But only the South Carolina call strikes me as something to brag about. In Texas the polls showed that James Talarico was way ahead; no need for shrewd judgment there. In Michigan I got fancy and said Abdul El-Sayed’s victory margin would be less than his polling margin, which at last sighting had been six points; instead he won by seven points, which is what the candidate predicted this spring. In Alaska I thought Mary Peltola would suffer a narrow loss because her campaign’s being investigated for a dirty trick. That’s still possible, but news articles suggest she’s in for a very, very tight win. As for the state that provided the Senate races’ single biggest surprise, Mississippi featured in my piece only as one place among several where the Republicans were struggling when they should’ve been soaring.
Different methods. My method was to look at headlines and skim articles during the few days before the election, then let fly. Using this approach anyone could tell the Democrats would come out fine, but I lacked the courage to believe they’d do great, let alone phenomenally. With some serious research and thought, I might’ve come to that conclusion. But those things had little to do with my method, as I manfully allowed up front: “This forecast isn’t the result of thorough data gathering and careful analysis.” The problem is, it showed.
I was going by feel, my feel for Old Man Fate and how he behaves. Facts hemmed him in thoroughly enough to rule out a Democratic defeat. But he’d find a way to cheat us of outright victory. So I foresaw a Democratic win that would dwindle down into something equivocal, one vote away from a hung Senate. Even then I erred, since I forgot Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. A 52-seat majority would’ve been equivocal, whereas a majority of 51 would’ve been stymied outright by that alleged Democrat and his need to side with the Republicans. This would’ve left Vice President J.D. Vance to break ties in the GOP’s favor.
Looking at how a pro sets about analysis, I see that Susan Glasser of The New Yorker points to “viral clips” when she agrees with Vance that, in her words, “it wasn’t that Republicans failed to show up but that they did.” To give Vance’s words: “The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.” I think some Republican voters switched sides, no doubt a surprisingly high number, but I also think many more of Trump’s old supporters just stayed home. An article I read on exit polls indicated as much, and turnout was lowest down South. Plus, of course, it’s easier not to vote than it is to vote, and voting opens you up to jury duty.
The former hard core of Trump’s support doesn’t worry about filling out forms correctly, let alone going to the polls because of civic duty or a preference for some collection of stuffed shirts. They voted because Trump and Trump alone made it worth their while: they could watch him on TV as he tormented the damn elites from his position of ultimate power, power the base thought it shared because they’d given it to him. But the show doesn’t matter so much if your hero has you bleeding at the gas pump. Like a sucker who buys a miracle weight-loss pill and then discovers it doesn’t work, the schmucks haven’t turned to long walks and doctor-recommended meal plans. They said to hell with it and have left matters there. Also, one reason they liked Trump so much was that they hate Democrats.
More analysis. You’ll notice that Glasser says “Republicans,” Vance says, “people who voted for Trump/Vance,” and I say, “former hard core of Trump’s support.” The GOP suffered losses in these three overlapping groups, but I think the most significant losses were in the third. MAGA made today’s GOP what it so horribly is, but now the Magas aren’t feeling all that MAGA. What happens as a result? So far, as noted, two things: Trump has dropped his talk of challenging the elections, but he’s lifted up the despised ideologue Stephen Miller. Possibly he just wants to persecute more immigrants, but I think his real commitment is to getting back his fans. As always he’ll try to do it by being a jerk, and Miller’s a perfect instrument for that approach. Trump’s sense of the results will guide his behavior, so he’ll be veering back and forth. But I think coup talk and coup attempts are behind him. My reasons? I don’t know, maybe I saw some viral clips.