Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Trump Angers MAGA Base
Donald Trump is usually pretty careful about keeping his base happy. At least, the more visible and audible parts of it. But recently he has done a few things that have at least annoyed some of his supporters. No one is bolting yet, but it's something to keep an eye on.
First up is immigration—or more accurately, emigration. The base wants all the undocumented immigrants to turn into undocumented emigrants, voluntarily or otherwise. But farmers, especially corporate farmers, have told Trump that if farm workers are deported, food production will collapse and food prices will skyrocket. He knows what inflation did to Joe Biden's presidency and doesn't want that. He is already starting to cut back on raids at farms, even though they are a target-rich environment. Same is true of hotels, the larger ones of which are all owned by big, powerful corporations.
Trump's comments in Iowa about protecting some migrants have led to intense pushback from some MAGA figures, like Steve Bannon, Joe Rogan, and Charlie Kirk. They are yelling that Trump is giving "amnesty" to migrant workers. Some MAGA influencers have picked this up and let loose on social media platforms. Trump seriously doesn't like being accused of granting amnesty, but as long as he exempts major groups of immigrants from becoming emigrants, it will continue. He also understands that native-born Americans are not going to work for wages the undocumented workers will work for, so, as we also noted yesterday, he is going to have to continue to leave farm workers alone or face the heat from inflation.
A second problem is Jeffrey Epstein, as we wrote earlier this week. The administration released video footage from outside Epstein's jail cell the night he died, but the digital clock on screen jumps suddenly from 11:58:58 p.m. to 12:00:00 a.m. The conspiracy-minded base is worried about what happened in the "missing minute." Was Epstein murdered to keep him quiet about who hung out with him and what those people did to underage girls?
A third problem is Ukraine. Trump has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin and said he would send more weapons to Ukraine. Much of the base supports the Godless Communism in Russia and doesn't want Ukraine to be free. Or something.
In any event, a person close to Trump said (on background): "I will tell you right now, MAGA has never been in more turmoil than the last 72 hours." Will anything come of this? Trump hopes that all his talk about tariffs may deflect attention from farm workers, Epstein, and Ukraine, but the base is not really interested in tariffs, so it might not work. (V)
Republicans In Congress Are Dismayed about Trump's Tariff Policies
While Trump may have some problems with the base over farm workers, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ukraine, Republicans in Congress have a different beef with him: tariff policy. In particular, he gave himself 90 days to make deals with 200 countries on tariffs. Now the 90 days are up and there are only two tentative deals (with the U.K. and Vietnam). And Trump has just unilaterally imposed steep tariffs of 25% and up on over a dozen countries. Congressional Republicans are hearing from businesses about this uncertainty and none of it is positive.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who used to be a partner at Price Waterhouse, said "If you're going to go into a trade war, it's good to have allies. What we did is alienate the ones we know are naturally inclined to work with us." Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said that senators want to know where the trade talks stand. If Trump has made agreements with some countries, she wants him to make them public. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said: "We're in uncharted territory. I do not know the impact the tariffs are going to have on the American economy or the global economy. I don't, and nobody else does either." A Republican senator who wished to remain anonymous also said there is a strong desire among Republican senators to see finished trade agreements. Instead, Trump rolled out new tariffs per Aug. 1. That is not what the senators want.
Clearly the senators are worried that if we get TACO Tuesday once a month, markets are going to get spooked, no one will believe Trump anymore, and there could be a recession next year, which could cause the Republicans to lose the House and maybe even the Senate. But Trump is just going his merry way, ignoring all the Republican senators. They are worried about the consequences of that. (V)
Why Does Trump Want to Fire Jerome Powell?
Also on the economic front, Donald Trump is constantly criticizing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell (his own appointee), demanding that he either lower interest rates or resign. Trump even wrote Powell a letter a week ago demanding interest rate cuts. Powell understands that lowering interest rates would cause inflation to spike and the dollar to drop. He doesn't want that, so he is holding firm. It is not clear if Trump has the power to fire Powell, but he probably doesn't.
Part of Trump's desire for low interest rates—even if that sets off a new round of inflation for which he would be blamed—is due to his background as a real estate developer. Real estate lives or dies by interest rates. Real estate developers would prefer 0% interest if they could get it. Eric and Donald Junior are running his company now and still doing projects, so from a strictly commercial view, he prefers low interest rates.
But Lael Brainard, a former Fed governor, thinks Trump has a different reason for wanting to fire Powell: He is worried about the interest that the government will have to pay on the new $4 trillion in debt that his BBB created. For every point of interest that Powell knocks off the rate, the government saves $400 billion over 10 years. If interest rates go from 4% to 1%, as Trump wishes, that 3% cut will save the government $1.2 trillion over 10 years. That's the real goal: hiding the effect of his BBB (Budget Busting Bill). Trump is probably unaware that reducing interest rates will spur inflation. He also doesn't care that the Fed is supposed to be independent of the Executive Branch.
Some people would also like low interest rates. These include people with variable-rate mortgages, credit card debt, and student loans. On the other hand, seniors who need interest on their savings to pay their bills want high rates, not low rates. Also, high interest rates strengthen the dollar, which makes companies that buy a lot of stuff abroad (say, Walmart), very happy. There is no way to please everyone.
Trump's talk about canning Powell has led to speculation about who Trump would replace Powell with, if he is able. The main talk is about the Kevins, although with Trump, you never know. One of them is Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council. He has talked to Trump several times recently and told Trump he is interested in the job and would take it if offered. The other one is former Fed governor Kevin Warsh. He has dissed Powell in public, which is music to Trump's ears. Another possibility is Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
Of course, once appointed and confirmed by the Senate, the new Fed chairman might take his job seriously. His job is to balance inflation and unemployment. It is not to make Trump look good or decrease federal interest payments. Slashing rates and igniting inflation would make Trump blame the new chairman for the inflation, which would cause Trump to attack the new guy and maybe try to fire him. Surely all candidates for the job can imagine that scenario. (V)
Mike Crapo Wants to Do Another Reconciliation Bill
Sen. Mike Crapo wants another megabill passed by the reconciliation process, for the next fiscal year. He hasn't said what he wants in a new bill, but simply noted that some things on his wish list were crossed out by Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough in bill #1. He apparently thinks she might change her mind on bill #2.
Another Republican senator who wants to try again is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). He at least knows what he wants. He wants to gut Medicaid even more than the first bill. In particular, states that expanded Medicaid have the federal government pay for 90% of the cost. He wants to slash the federal government's share and make the states pay more. Johnson threatened to vote "no" on bill #1 up until the moment he caved and voted "yes."
House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX) also supports another bill with the leftovers that didn't make it into #1. He suggested doing it in the fall.
Of course, getting bill #1 over the finish line took half a year and a lot of arm twisting. The bill is also very unpopular. If work is begun on bill #2 in September, it will probably spill into 2026, an election year, and many House members will be gun shy since all of them are up in 2026. This doesn't mean it won't happen, but everything depends on what Trump wants. If he is for it, another bill is a possibility. If he is not interested, it is not going to happen. (V)
Megabill Is Still Unpopular
YouGov has released the first poll taken after Donald Trump signed the BBB. People still don't like it, with 35% approving of it and 53% opposing it.
The poll also had some other interesting findings. On the "direction of the country" question, 34% think it is headed in the right direction and 57% think it is headed in the wrong direction. That result never looks good for the incumbent party in House elections. On Medicaid, 49% want to give it more funding, 25% want to keep it at the current level, and only 17% want to give it less funding. Count on the Democrats next year to point out that the Republicans have cut it by about $1 trillion over 10 years. Medicare is even more popular than Medicaid (56% for more funding, 28% for the same, 8% for less). SNAP (food stamps) is not as popular as Medicaid, but still popular, with 41% wanting to give it more funding, 29% wanting to keep it the same, and 20% wanting to give it less.
Another interesting question is whether people think the proposed budget will help or hurt the average American. Here 28% think it will help, 9% think it is neutral, and 52% think it will hurt. YouGov also asked about tariffs; 20% want them increased, 22% want them kept as they are, and 40% want them decreased. A full 72% expect the tariffs to increase prices. Given this sentiment, Trump will have a hard time selling any new tariffs.
What about Trump's job approval? It is 11 points under water, with 42% approve and 53% do not approve. At least that is better than Elon Musk's favorability. He is 28 points under water (32% to 60%).
The top three issues for people are inflation (21%), the economy (13%), and health care (13%).
There were many other questions asked, with detailed crosstabs here. (V)
Trump's Social Media Company Makes a Deal with Newsmax
If you have been following the news for the past, say, 10 years, you know that Donald Trump primarily views the presidency as a way to make money for himself. Think about crypto, Bibles, sneakers, and so much more. There is also his social media company, which represents a lot of value to him on paper, although it would be hard to cash in on it without the stock crashing. DJT is not doing so well these days, although the capitalized value of it is $5 billion. Trump owns about half of it. Here is the stock price since 2022:
In an effort to pep up the DJT stock, Trump has made a deal with Newsmax, a far-right news and propaganda company run by Trump's buddy Chris Ruddy (who is also Newsmax's largest shareholder). Newsmax is a cable channel that draws about 300,000 viewers in primetime (vs. 3 million for Fox News).
The deal is that Trump's media company, TMTG, has launched a worldwide streaming platform called Truth+. It will get much of its content from Newsmax. All of the content will be Trump friendly. It is intended to be a new home for conservatives and non-woke viewers. Apps for it are already available for Android, iOS, and other systems. It will feature an "America First" perspective and have live streams as well as other content.
Trump emphasized that because it will be available through apps, it will be available worldwide. He is apparently not aware that most of the world hates him bitterly, so the international audience is likely to be microscopic. But there could be a U.S. audience from people who can't get Newsmax via their cable provider.
Needless to say, a media venture in which the sitting president is a major shareholder brings up major ethical issues. Will its coverage of the president be fair and balanced? The question answers itself. It will make Fox News look, well, fair and balanced. (V)
What Musk Doesn't Understand
Elon Musk is about to make the same mistake that everyone else who has started a third party has learned the hard way. While it is true that many Americans dislike both the Democrats and Republicans, starting a new party isn't the way to fix it. There are already plenty of third parties out there. There is something more fundamental that has to be fixed before a third party will get anywhere.
Third parties have some immediate problems when they start up. The biggest one isn't money. It is getting on the ballot in 50 states, each with their own arcane rules, and where at least one of the major parties will fight tooth and nail to keep a new third party off the ballot.
There's also another big problem, namely the first-past-the-post single district system, especially in the House. To get a House seat, the third party has to get more votes than both the Democrat and the Republican. Unless the candidate is exceptionally well known and popular, this virtually never happens. To win the presidency, the candidate has to get more electoral votes than the Democrat and also more than the Republican. The third-party presidential candidate who got the largest share of the popular vote in the past 100 years is Ross Perot. In 1992, he got 19% of the popular vote—and 0% of the electoral votes. That's the problem. George Wallace got 46 electoral votes in 1968 (and 14% of the popular vote), but he was a regional candidate with a very specific appeal in his region.
If Musk really wanted to change things, his initial focus should be to get Congress to change the law about first-past-the-post single member districts. The best approach would be to have all House members be elected statewide based on proportional representation. In other words, each party would produce a list of House candidates. Then if it won [X] percent of the vote, it would get [X] percent of the House seats from that state. If that number was, say, five, the top five candidates on its list would be seated. Many countries have a scheme more or less like this. In this way, a new party that got 10% of the vote nationwide might be able to get 40 seats in the House and become a real force. Of course, in states with only a handful of House seats, getting 10% of the vote wouldn't get the new party anything, but in larger states it could pick up a few seats here and there.
As to presidential campaigns, this wouldn't work. In 2024, No Labels raised $25 million and couldn't find anyone who wanted to waste his or her time running on its ticket. One approach to dealing with that problem and boosting small parties could be fusion voting. It used to be common, but now only New York and Connecticut have it for all offices. California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania have it for some offices. When fusion voting is allowed, multiple parties can nominate the same candidate and all the votes for the candidate on all the party lines are added up. For example, in New York in 2024, The Working Families Party nominated Kamala Harris for president and she got 3.4% of the vote statewide on this line, but all those votes were added to the 52.5% she got on the Democratic Party line. Similarly, Donald Trump got 3.9% of the vote on the Conservative Party line. In this way, a vote for a small party shows support for that party without endangering the voter's second choice candidate. If a party can get 10-15% of the vote, then its choice becomes a major factor in elections and it begins to get real power. But the long process of changing laws is not something Elon Musk has the patience for. So all his efforts and money will come to naught. (V)
Republican Senate Super PAC Breaks Fundraising Record
The Senate Leadership Fund, the main Republican Senate super PAC, raised $85 million in the first half of 2025. This is a record for the first half of an off year. In fact, it is double the previous record. This is the first test of how good Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is. He is off to a flying start.
However, Thune doesn't deserve all the credit. The SLF is now run by Alex Latcham and Cory Gardner, in close cooperation with Donald Trump. In the past, it was run by Steven Law, a close ally of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). So Trumpish guys do better now than McConnellish guys did in the past. Plausible.
Since the group is now rolling in money, it will start spending it much earlier than normal. In fact, they are already spending in Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The latter might soon stop since nobody knows who either the Democratic or Republican candidate will be. How to support or oppose a candidate if you don't know who they are? It plans to spend much more money on digital and streaming than in the past, to catch people who don't watch traditional television, especially younger voters. Many nontraditional voters showed up for Trump in 2024. The SLF wants to get them to vote in 2026 and that may require nontraditional media to get to them. (V)
Dan Osborn Is Back
Quick, without looking back, was Nebraska on the list of states the SLF is already advertising in? The answer is "yes." How come? Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), son of billionaire Joe Ricketts, who founded TD Ameritrade, was appointed to a Senate vacancy in Jan. 2023. In 2024, he won a special election to fill out the rest of the term of Ben Sasse. Next year he is going for a full term. His approval rating is 38%. Now you understand why the SLF is already advertising in Nebraska.
In addition, Ricketts has another problem. In 2024, independent Dan Osborn, a former union leader, ran for the Senate against Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE). He got 47% of the vote. He is back now and running against Ricketts. Osborn is much better known now and will probably get much more money from out of state this time. Combined with Ricketts' low approval rating, the SLF sees a potential problem in the Cornhusker State. Osborn, a mechanic by trade, is going to frame the race as an ordinary working guy vs. the son of a billionaire.
With Trump not on the ticket next year, it is possible that some marginal Republicans won't bother to vote this time, giving Osborn a shot at it. The Democrats are surely going to refrain from running a candidate and will tell their voters to support Osborn. Osborn has said he will not caucus with either party. If the Republicans end up with 49 seats and the Democrats get 50 seats and Osborn wins, he will have enormous power. Nebraska voters might just like that idea. (V)
DCCC Will Focus on Districts Where Rural Hospitals May Close
One of the effects of the megabill Donald Trump signed last week is that many rural hospitals may be forced to close because the bill changes the funding formula that keeps them afloat. Democrats have noticed and plan to exploit this to the hilt. In particular, the DCCC is going to target 35 Republican districts where rural hospitals are threatened. The ad is straightforward: "Congressman [X] voted for a bill that may force your beloved local hospital to close due to lack of federal funds. Time to get rid of him." The ads have started already and will continue for the time being, maybe indefinitely if there is enough money. It could be a potent issue. People care about local hospitals, especially in rural areas where the second closest one could be 100 miles away.
Another point that the ads will make is that starting in 2027, millions of people will lose their Medicaid. Since the cuts won't start before the midterms, it might not have the obvious effect. But carefully worded ads could make it even worse. People don't know who will lose care and who won't, so an ad that said: "The Republican bill might cause you to lose your health insurance next year." Since almost no one understands the details, some scare tactics could work well. Just blame the problem on the incumbent Republican member of the House. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones