2026 Midterm Post Mortem

Election night turned out to a bad night for Republicans.

A very bad night.

It did not surprise me that the Democrats did well.

History was on their side.

I had written previously that the Democrats had a lot going for them.

It has proven to be difficult for the party in power in The White House to not suffer congressional losses in the midterm elections.

Combine that will an unpopular Iran War and high gas prices and it was never going to be easy for Republicans.

What did surprise me was the scope of the losses the Republicans took across the board.

The final numbers of losses are still being tallied but as I write this the Democrats have picked up 39 House seats and 7 in the Senate.

This compares to average midterm losses for the incumbent party of 26 House seats and 4 Senate seats.

No matter how you look at it, it was a political whooping.

However, it is hardly unprecedented.

Consider what we have seen in recent history.

If we go back further, even FDR saw Republicans pick up 81 seats and 7 Senate seats in the 1938 midterms halfway through his second term.

When you see voting moves like this it doesn't necessarily say to me that we are seeing a political realignment in these votes in the country.

After all, Clinton, Obama and FDR all won reelection two years after these huge defeats for their party.

Votes like this are intended to send a strong message to the party in power that the people do not believe they are getting what they were promised.

The people are sovereign in our system.  They possess the supreme or ultimate power to do anything they want.

This seems to be lost on too many people who complain that they have no influence or power. It may seem that way when you are just one vote. However, those votes add up quickly.

Our Constitution also insures that change can be made fairly rapidly.

The entire House of Representatives has to stand for a vote every two years.

Our Founders established the two year House erm so that the People could quickly send a message if they did not like what was going on.

FDR took office in 1932 with the promise that he was going to end the depression. By 1938, things were not much better economically and FDR continued to overreach. For example. he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.

The Democrats paid the price in 1938.

Clinton ran as a centrist in 1992 and quickly pushed a liberal agenda when he got into office.

The Democrats paid the price in 1994.

Obama ran in 2008 telling everyone he was going to reform healthcare and save every family $2500 a year.

The Democrats paid the price in 2010.

Trump made two big promises in 2024 that voters remembered.

He was going to keep the United States out of foreign wars and he was going to bring inflation down.

Inflation is down but gas prices are not.

Trump might have been able to survive the fallout from Iran if he had set expectations better at the outset of the campaign and he had not spent many wasted months in stop and go negotiations with Iran.

The voters tired of it and punished the Republicans at the ballot box.

How did we end up with Trump and the Republicans going from positive popular vote margins two years ago to the numbers we saw on election day?

A big part was turnout.

Democrats turned out like it was a Presidential year.

Republicans turned out like it was a normal midterm election where the turnout is typically about 2/3 of the Presidential year.

This chart leaves little doubt that Democrats were motivated to send a message to Trump and the Republicans.

Many Republicans saw no reason to vote.

However, turnout alone does not fully explain the election results.

There were obviously a number of turncoats who voted for Trump in 2024 but voted for a Democrat in 2026.

Some were undoubtedly Republicans who were either not happy with Trump or the Republican Congress who could not seem to be able to come together on important issues such as the SAVE Act.

An NBC News exit poll puts that number at 7% of voters.

At the same time, 2% of Harris voters in 2024 voted for Republicans in 2026.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-elections/exit-polls

That 5% net change does not seem like much but if you take the 49.8%-47.3% margin Trump had and take 5% away and give it to a Democrat you now have a 44.8%-52.3% outcome.

A 1.5% vote margin advantage for Republicans becomes a 7.5% disadvantage.

However, there appears to be a larger number of turncoats who were Independents who voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2024 but abandoned them in the midterm elections.

Trump lost by 3 points to self-described Independents in 2024.

Republicans lost Independents by 26 points in 2026.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-elections/exit-polls

If you are that far underwater with Independents it is hard to win any election when they represent about 1/3 of voters.

Even considering all of that, there are some real head scratchers in the data.

Where did 19 million additional  Democrat votes come from between 2022 and 2026?

Republican votes were basically the same.

Kamala Harris got 75 million votes two years ago.

Trump received 77.3 million.

Democrats captured 94% of Kamala's votes in 2026

Republicans only captured 72% of Trump's.

The other interesting factoid I noticed is how much early voting has changed the political game.

In fact, the final vote tallies revealed that the Democrats had banked so many votes in early voting that even if every vote on election day in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas had been for the Republicans the Democrat Senate candidate would still have won!

Here is how the actual votes broke down in Texas between early and election day votes.

79% of the votes were cast early.

 These elections were over before we even got to election day.

The concept of a single election day seems to be long gone.

What were the issues that moved voters?

This quadrant chart uses the NBC News exit poll to show how important issues were to voters.

Controlling immigration is still a strong issue for Republicans.

It is also not a surprise that those that felt strongly about the Iran War voted for Democrats.

However, what is really surprising is that Government Corruption was a strong issue for Democrats.

They must believe that Trump is corrupt because that is what you hear on MSNOW, CNN or mainstream media outlets.

On the other side of the coin, what about all the corruption that DOGE unearthed involving NGO's?

What about the Medicaid fraud we are finding out about?

The fraud with Obamacare?

How about the fraud tied to the Somalis in Minnesota and elsewhere?

The Democrats put these programs in place and have turned a blind eye for years on how these programs have been abused.

Do the voters really believe that the Democrats have any interest in cleaning up the rampant corruption in government?

Their core belief is to create an even bigger government bureaucracy.

The problem that Democrats will have going forward is that for the most part they did not offer any solutions to the issues that motivated voters.

How do they fix the cost of living when it is big government deficits and easy money that has largely fueled it?

How do they lower gas prices when they want to ban oil and gas drilling?

They may be able to stop funding the Iran War but what happens if Iran deploys a nuclear weapon in the next two years?

How do they stop AI and data center development when most construction jobs are now dependent on that spending and the nation's future economic prospects are largely tied to AI. It would be like stopping the railroads in the 1800's, the electric grid in the early 1900's or the internet in the 1990's.

The concerns are real of what the new found Democrat power will mean.

Did anyone see the stock market on Thursday?

It has already been proven that voters have a very short memory.

The Democrats may find they won a battle but lost the war.

It will be interesting how they use their new found power.

I don't imagine voters (most particularly those key Independents) are looking for the Democrats to spend the next couple of years investigating Trump and trying to drive him from office.

Democrats would be much smarter to try to find common ground and work with Trump who loves to make deals.

Was there any Republican who came out a winner in Midterms?

I would suggest it was Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida.

DeSantis has rarely been mentioned lately when anyone talks about 2028.

J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio have gotten all the attention.

Tuesday night's results should elevate DeSantis in those conversations.

Florida is the one state that was able to withstand the blue wave.

DeSantis also cannot be tied to Iran, inflation or Trump like Vance and Rubio can.

DeSantis also now can commit time to be a full time candidate for the Republican nomination in 2028 if he chooses to run. Vance and Rubio do not have that luxury right now.

I have often said that a year can be an eternity in politics.

That was proven true on Tuesday night.

A year ago there wasn't anybody I knew that was predicting these results.

In another year or two everything could be turned on its head again.

Enjoy the ride.

I suspect it will be a wild one.

Midterm Election Musings 2026

We have reached election day in the United States.

I wrote two weeks ago that this is the most difficult election I have ever seen in attempting to predict the outcome.

Polls and opinions about the results we are going to see come tomorrow are all over the map.

You would think that with the advent of early voting and the betting markets that we would have a better idea of what to expect.

All of this additional information seems to has just created more confusion.

As I wrote two weeks ago, this race will most likely be determined on turnout.

This is especially important in midterm elections when the number who vote is lower than in Presidential years.

On average since the 1930's, only about two thirds who vote in a Presidential year show up and vote in the midterms two years later.

Source: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/national-turnout-rates-graph/

The party that can get their voters to the polls (either early or on election day) is likely to win.

Who do the Democrats need to turn out?

Young and minority voters are critical.

Who do the Republicans need to vote?

Those who voted for Trump in 2024 and older white voters.

Republicans also have to hope that white, working class voters who were traditional Democrats, until Trump came on the scene, do not return to their Democratic roots.

Republicans are facing significant headwinds.

First, the President's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterms.

Second, prices at the gas pump right now are a daily reminder that things have not gone well in Iran.

On Christmas eve last year I filled up my car at Costco for $2.20 per gallon.

Recent prices are almost double that number.

This is a problem for Trump and Republicans.

As usual, early voting favors the Democrats.

Republicans need a big turnout today to overcome the turnout advantage that Democrats have in most states from early voting.

Two recent polls suggest that the Republicans also have some things going for them.

An NBC News poll that was just released this week showed that, despite the drag of gasoline prices, Republicans are +2 on the economy, +5 on controlling government corruption and +11 on immigration.

Democrats are only +1 on controlling inflation and +5 on the War in Iran.

Link: https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2117325612855476694

In that same poll Republicans actually have a higher favorable rating than Democrats.

Link: https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2117325612855476694

Those are not the types of numbers that suggest a Blue Wave.

A New York Times/Siena poll also found that late deciders in key Senate races were choosing the Republican candidate by a margin of 9 points.

 

The bottom line is that there is almost no final result in the House or Senate that would surprise me other than Republicans picking up seats in both chambers or the Democrats doing better than historical midterm averages  (net gains of 26 House seats and 4 Senate seats).

As for the critical Senate races in key swing states I would expect almost all of them could be decided by low single digit margins no matter who wins.

Regardless of who wins I do not see it having much effect on what Trump does over the next two years.

He will pursue his agenda.

He is indefatigable.

He never quits.

Those are the only things I am sure of on this morning of this election day.

I wrote this in 2019 when Trump was being attacked from all sides.

Say what you want about Donald Trump but the thing that sets him apart is that he is not afraid to take action. He is not afraid to face criticism. He is unrelenting. He persistently works to achieve his objectives. There is no quit in him.

There has been no politician like him in my lifetime. Perhaps that is because he did not spend a lifetime as a politician. Perhaps that is because he doesn't really need the job. Perhaps that is because he is an arrogant egomaniac. I don't know why he does what he does.

What I do know it that he is indefatigable. He relentlessly pushes his agenda forward. That, more than anything, defines who he is and why he should never be underestimated. That is also why the Democrats and liberal media despise and fear him so much.

 It will be as true tomorrow no matter what happens tonight.

Revisiting Roe v. Wade

This is a picture of women celebrating as Governor Maura Healy recently signed legislation legalizing abortion up to birth in Massachusetts.

This new law takes effect on November 10 in that state.

Source: Google AI

The irony in looking at this photo is that I am sure most of these women were peddling hysteria to other women in the past that if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would mean abortion would be banned in the United States.

Of course, that was not true. The ruling merely returned it to states like Massachusetts which now has a law that allows abortion without any gestational limits at all.

That propaganda was so effective that abortion became one of the most important issues for women in many elections over the last 50 years.

Abortion is a controversial topic and views are very divided about it.

It is a difficult issue because it involves the balancing of rights.

Where do you draw the line between balancing the right to life of an unborn child with the rights of a mother to choose whether she wants to carry and care for that child that was conceived in her body?

Which right is to be given precedence? The right of a woman to choose or the right of the baby to live?

I have written about the subject several times in these pages over the years.

There has been no issue that has been more emotional (on both sides) for the last 50 years.

Most national surveys show that voters want abortion to be legal but with limits.

For example, a Gallup national survey in 2023 (a year after Roe vs. Wade was overturned) found that 69% of voters said abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

However, there was only 37% support for abortion in the second trimester,

And only 22% supported abortion in the third trimester.

Those views closely match what the law is in most other countries in the world,

Most of Europe limits abortion to the first trimester.

Only 8 of 193 U.N. countries allow abortion on demand into the third trimester.

Only 15 permit abortion on demand past 15 weeks of gestation.

Source: https://lozierinstitute.org/gestational-limits-on-abortion-in-the-united-states-compared-to-international-norms/

That now includes the United States in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade.

However, opinions differ significantly by state.

10 states plus the District of Columbia will have no gestational limits on abortion when the Massachusetts law takes effect on November 10.

Oregon, Colorado. Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, New Mexico, Maryland, New Jersey and Alaska are other states that have made abortions up to birth legal,

Those in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas have opposing views.

They are among 13 states in which abortion has been generally banned.

The map below shows the status of abortion limits across the country as of August, 2026.

To again reinforce how divided the nation is on the issue.

About half of the states have gestational limits that are equal to or stricter than the Roe v. Wade standards.

Half have limits today that are more liberal than the standards under Roe v. Wade.

Source: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/

The final irony in all of this is that the number of abortions in the United States is actually higher now than it was when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Source: Google AI

You would never know that based on the continuing political environment and emotion on the issue from the Left.

Think about all of this.

The United States generally has a national abortion law that is less restrictive than 96% of the rest of nations in the world.

Abortions have actually gone up since Roe v. Wade was reversed.

Why does abortion even continue to be an issue?

In Massachusetts, abortion was already legal up to fetal viability before the new law was passed.

Fetal viability no longer matters. There is no gestational limit. Abortion is permitted up to birth. 

Is it hard to look at this and not see that an important line has been crossed.

There no longer in attempt to balance the right of a woman to choose and the right of a baby to live.

This is something to celebrate?

Electoral College Education

The Democrat Socialists want to get rid of the Electoral College.

So do many Democrats. Of course, now they are almost one in the same.

Kamala Harris says we need to revisit the Electoral College. That means she is in favor of abolishing it.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6005239-harris-suggests-electoral-college-revisit/

There seem to be many Americans who do not understand the logic behind the electoral college and the genius of our Founders in devising this system of electing our President.

I still recall my son coming home from school some 30 years ago with a homework assignment from his 6th grade teacher. She asked everyone in the class to write a letter to Congress asking that body to vote for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a popular election vote. 

She had taken it upon herself to have the entire class take this project on as a way to "teach" them about the U.S. Constitution.

Needless to say, this was not teaching. It was her attempt to indoctrinate her students with her point of view. I was not pleased and I sent a note back to her telling her that my son would not participate in the assignment. 

In my view, the electoral college was just fine. After all, our country is called "The United States of America" for a reason.

It might be time for a little electoral college education for those not familiar with all the reasons why we don't use the popular vote for President/Vice President.

I was in Sydney, Australia earlier this year being driven to the airport by a Russian emigree. 

Upon finding out I was American he said he loved the United States but was confused about one thing--the electoral college. He asked me to explain why it was used.

I summarized a little bit of what follows for his education. 

Our founders had very good reasons to adopt the electoral system of electing our President/Vice President instead of by popular vote.

Article 2, Sec.1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the method of choosing electors.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Our founders were very distrustful of a full democracy. That is why they established the constitutional republic that we have.

The reason was simple. A democracy can be very susceptible to the whims and impulses of the general public. A democracy is also likely to run roughshod over minority rights. These concerns were at the heart of almost every decision made in writing our Constitution.

I have written about this previously, including one of my favorite blog posts of all time, "Improper and Wicked Projects". If you have not read it before, you should. It might actually shock you on how well our Founders understood human nature.  Power, politics, greed, fallibilities, bias, conflicting interests, oppression. There is nothing going on today that they did not anticipate.

Because of theses concerns it made sense to place an intermediary group of electors between the popular vote and the election of the President in order to protect against these risks. It was also important that this group of electors would be independent of any pre-established body like the legislature.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper #68 that explained the reasoning behind "The Mode of Electing the President".

It seems a little ironic today with all the outpouring of love for Alexander Hamilton by the liberal left (largely based on the popular Broadway play), and its criticism of the electoral college process, that Hamilton was the chief defender of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers.

It is also ironic that Hamilton stated that the electoral college method laid out in the constitution was probably the least criticized section in the entire document as ratification was being discussed by the various states. This is how he began Federalist Paper #68.

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. 

This is how Hamilton went on to explain the key points of the electoral college system.

First, he explained why it was important for the people to have a vote in the process even though that role would only be to delegate the final choice to an independent body free of conflicts. Note also that no elected official may serve as an elector. The electors were also expected to apply discernment and reason to their choice. This is the argument that the anti-Trump people used in trying to get Trump electors to vote for someone else and be so-called "Faithless Electors".

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

The electors would, as is the case in other aspects of our republican government, provide an additional level of discernment and investigation as well as insuring that the vote is not a pure popularity contest but one in which a majority of the union of states is supportive of. They wanted to insure that the President was elected by the United States, not just the people from several states with large populations.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. 

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Our founders were particularly concerned about the danger of the legislature being too beholden to one of their own and any possible corruption in the election of the President as well as possible influence in the election by foreign governments. This is another reason for the electoral college and the focus on the decentralization of the vote by each state's electors rather than by popular vote or by a vote in the legislative body as would be the case in a parliamentary system.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. 

The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

The concern was so great about the centralization of power and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the electoral body that the Constitution even requires that the electors meet in their respective states rather than in one central location. There is little doubt that the Founders would be horrified of the attention and abuse the electors received from anti-Trump liberals leading up to the electoral vote leading to his first term. Everything they did was to prevent something like this as explained below.

Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 3

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot...

Again, there was a rationale for this by the Founders as well. They believed that having the electors vote at one time and in one place for the President presented too much risk for turmoil.

And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

It is clear that one of the reasons that the Founders preferred the electoral college was that they were concerned that the people of the 18th century would not have a good sense of the character and qualifications of the candidates for President. Most would never see or hear the candidates in person. They could not truly judge their suitability in an age with no radio, television or internet. That is why it made sense to have the added comfort of electors who might know the candidates better to insure that the President is up to the job.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. 

Of course, in the media age of today this no longer is the issue it was in the 18th century. Candidates are in the public eye and are subject to constant media scrutiny. Voters do not have the same reason to not know who they are voting for. This is where the argument for the anti-Trump forces that wanted to cite Hamilton in encouraging "Faithless Electors" falls apart.

If this was the only reason for the electoral college there would be a good argument to disband it and move to a popular vote.

However, the bigger reason for the electoral college involves the issue of decentralization and the importance of state rights in our governance. After all, as I told my son's teacher 20 years ago, we are The United States of America for a reason.

We are hearing a lot today that the electoral college is unfair because it diminishes the large states like California and New York and provides advantages to smaller states. However, this was also the case in 1787 as it is today. In fact, small states actually had bigger advantages at the beginning of our nation than they do today.

For example, California and New York (per the 2020 census on which current electoral votes are determined by) have a population of 60  million. That is 18.1% of the total population and provides 84 electoral votes out of 538 electors (15.6%). However, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have just over 1.2  million in population between them (4/10 of 1% of total U.S. population) but they each get 3 electoral votes (1.1% of the total for their combined 6 electoral votes out of the 538 total).

However, in the first U.S. census (1790) after the Constitution was ratified, the two largest states in the union, Virginia and Pennsylvania had about 33% of the population and had 36 of 132 electoral votes (27%) in the Presidential election of George Washington in 1792 . On the other hand, Rhode Island and Delaware similarly only had 3/10th of 1% of the total U.S population at that time but their electoral votes were equal to about 5% of total electoral votes.

It should be noted that one of the reasons that Virginia was hurt in its allocation of electoral votes was because the Founders penalized states that had slaves. States with a slave population (the only state with no slaves counted in the 1790 census was Massachusetts. New York had 21,000 slaves, almost as many as Georgia's 29,000) were only given credit for 3/5 of this population for purposes of seats in the House of Representatives and the electoral college.

You get a real sense of why the Founders designed the Constitution the way they did when you see the 2016 election results presented in a different perspective.

One or two large states can make a big, big difference in the popular vote results.

That was true in 1790 just as it is true today.

The Founders clearly did not want any one state to have an outsized influence on the election of the President.

Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 if the 49 states other than California are considered.

His popular vote margin would have been 4 million votes if New York was also excluded.

           2016 Popular Vote                                                  2016 Popular Vote excluding California

Or consider this county by county graphic. Trump won 2,626 counties. Clinton won 487.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

2020 looked like this between Trump and Biden. Trump won 2,558 counties and Biden won 551.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

This is a map of 2024. Trump won 2,661 counties. Kamala Harris won 451.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

The Founders wanted a President of the United States of America. 

Not of two or three large states. Or a dozen big cities.

The electoral college makes sure that this happens.

If it were not for the electoral college every candidate would just campaign in the big cities in the states  with the largest number of voters.

Every action in office would also be influenced to a large degree by huge urban populations.

The Founders understood this when the Constitution was formulated and saw that a President elected by popular vote would be detrimental to our union of states.

In 2026 we are still seeing the wisdom of what our Founders were thinking in 1787. 

Again, there was almost nothing they did not anticipate.

Those that are educated about why the electoral college was adopted understand its importance.

However, you can be sure that the Democrats are going to push very hard to convince people that it is not democratic.

Why?

They can see the shifts in population from blue states to red states that are taking place.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/28/2030-electoral-college-projections-00750488

Ten or more electoral votes could shift from blue states to red states for the 2032 election.

Democrats do not want to abolish the electoral college based on some deeply held principle.

They believe they need to do it for their political survival.

Everyone should understand the underlying motivation of those who oppose the electoral college as well as being better educated of why our Founders designed the system the way they did.

Guns or Butter?

It is popular for liberal Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed and others to say this.

Why do we always have money to fund wars but we never have enough for the public good?

Has the United States been ignoring the public good in favor of national security and defense?

Let's look at a chronology of spending priorities of the federal government from 1945 to 2025 in 10 year increments.

You can view the entire sequence of years from 1940 to 2025 at this link.

In 1945, as the United States was finishing World War II, Defense spending accounted for almost 90% of federal government expenditures.

Social programs did not even account for 1% of total spending.

In 1955, even though the U.S. was beyond World War II and Korea, Defense still consumed 62% of federal spending due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Income Security (welfare) was 7.4% and Social Security was 6.5% of total federal spending.

By 1965 National Defense had declined to 42.8% despite spending on the Vietnam War and the space program.

Social Security had risen to 15% of the budget and Income Security was 8%.

Social spending was destined to dramatically increase from this point forward with the passage of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp and other social programs during the Lyndon Johnson administration.

 g

National Defense declined to 26% of federal spending in 1975 after the end of the Vietnam War.

Social Security was up to 20% and Income Security had increased to 15%.

Medicare and Medicaid were still well down the list of spending items.

Ronald Reagan arrested the slide in Defense Spending but the additional spending just kept the percent spent on Defense at the same level in 1985 as it was a decade earlier.

Medicare broke into the top 5 spending categories for the first time.

Social Security, Income Security and Medicare consumed 40% of all federal spending compared to 27% for Defense.

Social Security had overtaken Defense as the largest category of federal spending in 1995.

Over twice as much was being spent on social programs as was spent on National Defense.

In 2005, despite being involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11, Defense was down to 20% of federal spending.

The United States was spending more on both Social Security and Health Care (Medicare and Medicaid) than it was on Defense.

2015 saw Defense spending decline to 16% of federal spending.

Social Security and Medicare were taking up 40% of the federal budget as Baby Boomers started to retire.

Income Security and Medicaid for the poor was taking up another 27%.

That brings us to about where we are today.

Defense is down to 16% of federal spending and has almost dropped out of the Top 5 spending categories.

We are actually spending more on interest on the federal debt than on Defense.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Income Security consumed over half of the federal budget.

Income Security took another 9%.

60%+ spent on these social programs compared to just 13% on Defense.

t

How can anyone honestly say that if was not for "wars" and national security that we would be able to properly fund social programs?

When I look at these numbers you wonder how anyone survived without the trillions of dollars that we are now spending on social programs.

However, somehow people did.

For decades there has been a debate about the appropriate tradeoff between "guns and butter".

What is the appropriate level of spending between defense and social programs?

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp

There is little doubt that liberals will continue to argue that not enough is being spent on social programs no matter what the real numbers are.

Guns or butter?

The reality is that butter won the political argument a long time ago.

85 years of federal spending proves that.

A more detailed breakdown of spending for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026 is below.

Credit: https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2113654691959656928

Baseball Is Striking Out

The World Series is being played right now between the Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays but baseball has a major league problem.

In the just completed season there were more strikeouts recorded than hits.

This is the ninth consecutive season this has occurred.

It did not occur one time in the previous 141 years before it first happened in the 2018 season. (MLB play began in 1876).

I cannot imagine there are many fans who want to watch a team strikeout 7, 8 or 9 times a game.

The Tampa Bay Rays had the lowest average number of strikeouts this season---7.07 per game.

The Los Angeles Angels had the most---nearly 10 times per game.

2026 MLB Average Team Strikeouts Per Game
Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/strikeouts-per-game

For context, the 1927 New York Yankees averaged 3 strikeouts per game.

30 years ago the Yankees won the World Series averaging 5.6 strikeouts per game in the 1996 season.

In 2026, the Yankees averaged 9.2 strikeouts per game.

Colson Montgomery of the Chicago White Sox struck out a record 227 times this year.

This graphic was posted when he broke the previous MLB season record of 224,

Montgomery hit .197 over 638 plate appearances.

By comparison, Nellie Fox played in the majors for 19 years between 1947 and 1965.

Nellie Fox Topps Baseball Card- 1960

14 of those seasons were with the White Sox.

Fox struck out just 216 times in those 19 years with over 10,000 plate appearances and had a career batting average of .288.

Think about that.

Nellie Fox struck out fewer times in 19 seasons than Colson Montgomery did in just one season.

Here are the average hits per game by team in 2026.

Is it just a coincidence that the two teams that are on the top of this list are playing in the World Series?

2026 MLB Average Team Hits Per Game
Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/hits-per-game

Seeing more strikeouts than hits in baseball is clearly a function of dominant pitching overwhelming the ability of batters.

At one time it was rare that a MLB pitcher could throw a 96 MPH fastball.

Today that type of velocity has become almost necessary to gain a spot on a MLB roster.

Mix that together with very few pitchers who throw more than 100 pitches in a game, and fresh arms being brought into the game in relief, means that hitters are at a distinct disadvantage.

That is also reflected in batting averages.

The 2026 regular season only saw 7 batters in the major leagues with at least a .300 batting average.

By contrast, there were 38 players that hit at least .300 in 2006.

Do you think the following stats may have had something to do with the decreased numbers of .300 hitters over the last 20 years.

Ex-MLB and Cincinnati Reds great Joey Votto suggests we should not expect many batters above the .300 average any more.

Votto says it is just not just exceptional pitching that combines increased velocity and spin rates that have brought down batting averages.

He points to the fact that there is much more emphasis on team defense that has turned former hits into outs.

More batters are also focused on hitting the long ball than being contact hitters,

As a result, the .300 hitter of 20 years ago is now hitting .240 or .250.

Votto calls it the new normal.

The nostalgic memories of the .300 hitter with 30 home runs has been replaced by a .240 hitter with 40 home runs.

Link: https://x.com/MLBNow/status/2102845958862062019

MLB has to decide if it can prosper with a product where we see more strikeouts than hits.

It has shown a willingness to make changes the last few years.

Banning the defensive shift in the infield, the pitch clock, larger bags to promote more steals and the new ABS system that allows challenges to ball and strike calls have all been positives in my view.

What can it do to give batters a better chance to get more hits and fewer strikeouts?

Should the height of the pitching mound be lowered again?

It already was done once before beginning in the 1969 season when the height of the mound was lowered from 15 inches to 10 inches.  The average ERA for pitchers went from 2.98 to 3.61 in one season due to this change.

Should the pitching mound be moved back from the traditional 60'6"?

Should the ABS strike zone be tightened to force more pitches to the center of the plate?

Should a requirement be made to require that the starting pitcher complete a minimum number of innings (eg. 5 or 6 as long as 100 pitches have not been completed) before being replaced? 

Should the definition of a checked swing counting as a strike be changed?

Most of these ideas have been experimented with in the minor leagues with mixed results.

For example, moving the mound back 12 inches did increase hard hit balls and pull rates on fast balls.

However, breaking balls have more room to break at that distance.

I don't know what needs to be done.

However, it seems something has to be done.

I am not interested in watching a game full of more strikeouts than hits.

It also promises to get worse if we see more pitchers like Jacob Misiorowski of the Milwaukee Brewers.

Misiorowski started and was the winning pitcher in last night's game 1 of the World Seried for the Brewers.

It was the 12th straight game the Brewers have won when Misiorowski started since August 9. 

Misiorowski's first pitch last night was 103.5 mph.

How do you hit that?

It seems not many of the best hitters in the world have proven that they can.

Therein lies the problem for baseball going forward.

The Midterms, History and Trump

We are under two weeks until the midterm elections will be decided.

Every day I am asked by someone about what I think the results will be in this election.

Will we see a blue wave in the midterm elections with scores of Democrats being swept into office based on voter dissatisfaction with Donald Trump?

Or will we see a red wall of Republicans and Independents turn out to defend the Trump agenda in November?

The media, many political pundits and most polls suggest that the Democrats have the numbers and energy to put Trump on the defensive.

I have been closely following politics for a long time and I have never seen an election cycle that is more difficult to handicap.

Polling seems to have become increasingly unreliable as more voters (particularly Republicans) do not want to participate in political surveys.

Since the betting markets have come on the scene I also question the extent to which some polls are being used to manipulate the betting odds. 

When money is in play you can be assured that someone is motivated to fix the game.

Early voting has also changed the game.

Polls are similar to making a bet before the game. 

Early votes are akin to actually getting a glimpse of the score of the game on your phone in the first quarter of play.

We may know who those early votes were for but in many states we know their political affiliation, age, race or other indicators.

I am following the early voting closely in a number of states but even then I see analysts who come to two different conclusions based on the same data.

It makes predicting anything very confusing and risky.

This causes me to take a step back and just look at the history involved in midterm elections.

Midterm elections are traditionally challenging for the incumbent President's party.

In the last 22 midterm elections (dating back to 1938) there have only been two times that the incumbent party gained House seats (1998 and 2002). 

The average loss of House seats in a midterm election is 26 since World War II.

Both times the President's party gained seats in the House were when the President (Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002) had approval ratings of over 60%.

Donald Trump's approval rating is far short of that.

The average loss of seats in the Senate for the incumbent President's party over midterm election cycles has been 4.

History suggests that it will be difficult for Republicans to avoid losses in the midterm elections. If these historical averages are to hold in 2026, the GOP would find themselves in the minority in both the House and Senate. Donald Trump would also find himself even more under siege in Washington, D.C.

Why do midterms present such a problem for the incumbent President's party?

I believe it is a result of several factors.

National Presidential elections have higher voter turnout and bring out more casual voters and independents.

Midterm elections are more partisan. You tend to get more voters by party affiliation. They are more hard core in their politics.

Voters are also more partisan when their person is not in The White House. Those in the party that is out of power are more motivated to send a message to the guy in The White House. 

Those with their guy in power are more complacent. You also typically see some disillusionment by voters two years into a President's term. The results have not matched the promises. This disenchantment causes loss of support for the President's agenda even among those who voted him into office.

One of the interesting facts about the Presidency of Barack Obama was that he won two elections comfortably but he suffered devastating losses in both of his midterm elections.

Democrats lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2010.

Democrats lost another 16 House seats and 9 additional Senate seats in 2014.

Barack Obama assumed the Presidency with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate in 2009. GOP majorities were in place in both Houses when he left.

Obama was not able to translate his own electoral victories to success for his party in the midterms.

A big reason for this was that a lot of Obama's voters came from casual voters of which large numbers are young voters. They voted for Obama. A lot of them did not bother to vote at all in the midterms. 

This chart shows how the percentage of voters age 18-29 surged in 2008 and 2012 but fell off dramatically in the midterms in 2010 and 2014.

On the other hand, those age 60+ typically vote in every election. This group has historically been more likely to vote Republican. You can see what this translates into in pure numbers in this chart that shows actual votes cast by those 18-29 compared to those age 60+ during the Obama years.

Similar patterns existed with African American voters. In 2008 and 2012 Obama got 16 million African American votes. In 2010 and 2014 only about 9 million African Americans bothered to vote at all in the midterms.

All of this is why I have written consistently in these pages over the years that turnout is everything in an election. If you can get your people to vote, you will win. If they stay home, you will lose.

We know there are a lot of motivated Democrats with Trump Derangement Syndrome that are sure to vote.

However, the biggest question for Democrats is whether that will include the young voters and Black voters they need in a midterm election?

For Republicans, the question is whether the Independent and Swing voters who came out for Trump in 2024 will come out and vote when he is not on the ballot?

It remains to be seen whether those Trump voters are necessarily GOP voters. Like Obama, Trump proved to have a unique appeal to certain voters. 

A lot of his votes did not come from traditional Republican voters. He appealed to a lot of Independents and he got many blue collar Democrat votes as well. Will these voters turn out to defend the Trump agenda in 2026?

The results two weeks from now will largely be determined by turnout.

How many are going to vote and who is more likely to vote?

Will it be more young and minority voters?

Or older and White voters?

For example, here is a breakdown of the early vote as of 10/20/26 in 14 states that report those votes by the ages of the voters.

Source: https://x.com/DanRadzikowski/status/2111936675764977686

Voters aged 18-29 make up only 3.3% of the total EV compared to 55.4% for those age 65+.

Yes, older voters are more likely to vote early.

However, those younger voters are really going to have to turn out in the next two weeks or the Democrats are likely to underperform expectations.

For context, 18-29 voters made up 14% of the electorate in 2024 and 12% in 2022.

That is a lot of room to make up.

Voters age 65+ made up 28% of the electorate in 2024 and 34% in 2022.

Will Independents stay with the GOP or has the Iran War and gas prices chased them away?

To what extent will the Democrat party embracing Democrat Socialism affect the votes of moderate voters?

The answers to those questions will determine who wins and loses in two weeks.

I don't like making political predictions.

It is too easy to be wrong.

However, I would much rather be a Democrat than a Republican right considering past history.

The unanswered question is whether we can trust history in an era in which Donald Trump is still a consequential and compelling political figure even though he is not on the ballot.