Dem
54
Ties
2
GOP
44
The dust is settling. We're going to do 20 election-related questions today, and then non-politics questions next weekend.
If you are still pondering the headline theme, we will add the additional hint that the qualifying verbiage in the third headline is, admittedly, a bit cheeky.
L.H. in Smyrna, GA, asks: I just read Greg Olear's article from Substack: "Section 3: The Quickest and Easiest Way to Remove Trump From Office." I am simply astounded.
What is your take on using this approach to remove Donald Trump from office, now that the Democrats have control of Congress and overwhelming support for reform?(Z) answers: I read some of Olear's piece, and because I did not like the writing style—it has the feel of a reality TV show, or an infomercial—I did not finish it. So, it's possible I'll restate something that he included somewhere in the second half of the piece.
In any event, his argument is that the Congress could invoke the Fourteenth Amendment, declare Trump to have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States, and cause him to be disqualified from further service. While I am not a lawyer, and you never know for sure about these things until the courts weigh in, this is unquestionably correct. All it takes to make this clear is two very basic facts:
- When Colorado tried to kick Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot, the Supreme Court ruled, in Trump v. Anderson that the only body that has the power to determine eligibility for federal office is Congress. Not the states, not the federal courts, only Congress.
- It is possible to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to remove a sitting officeholder, as it has happened before. In fact, the most recent removal under the Fourteenth Amendment was Couy Griffin, who was removed from his position as Member of the Otero County Board of Commissioners because he participated in the 1/6 insurrection.
So, Congress clearly has this power, and the fact that Trump is already serving is not an impediment, legally speaking.
Whether Congress should do this is a different matter. Removing a president, even an unpopular one, using a trick that few people have ever heard of, will lead to rioting in the streets. Further, if the current win-at-all-costs iteration of the Republican Party ever regains a majority, this would invite them to invent a cause of action—"in refusing to vigorously patrol the southern border, President Ossoff is engaging in rebellion against the United States"—to remove a Democratic president. And all of this so as to trade Donald Trump for... J.D. Vance.
If a Democratic-controlled Congress was going to try it, I can only see two politically viable ways to proceed. The first option would be for Congress to pass a resolution declaring Trump to be guilty of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and to say that this is being done in service of the historical record. Then, they could wait until someone with standing (say, the state of California, after Trump impounded some funds) filed suit and demanded his actions be overturned on the basis that he is not legally qualified to serve as president.
The second option would be to pass such a resolution, and to make clear that the Democrats are prepared to go to court to push for removal. Then they could say that this is not what they WANT to do, but that it's become clear that the process for handling presidents who are incapacitated or who have broken the law is badly broken. So, if Trump does not want to be removed, he and the Republicans will have to work with the Democrats to develop a better oversight and removal process.
M.C. in Portland, OR, asks: Please review this for us even if you have done it before, as it is very timely: How could the Trump people try to prevent a new Congress from even being seated/meeting/legislating, and what are the supposed guard rails against this? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is already expanding military occupation of D.C. at this moment. What if they just declare there is an emergency because the elections were rigged by, um, somebody, and therefore the election outcomes are null and void, and any new members of Congress who assemble and try to take office and legislate are criminals who will be immediately imprisoned? What's to stop them?
(Z) answers: I am going to answer a conspiratorial question this time, but then I am done until the new Congress is seated. It may be hard to resist, folks, but there's no upside in worrying about boogeymen.
The short answer to the question is something we have written a hundred times: Governance rests on the consent of the governed. The people of the United States just made clear they are very unhappy with the current direction of the country. Do you honestly imagine they are going to sit idly by while MAGA attempts a coup, using parliamentary tricks?
The longer answer is that there is nothing magical, at least legally speaking, about the U.S. Capitol building. Nor is there anything magical about the oath of office. Once the members and members-elect have their certificates of ascertainment, which will be issued by state officials, then they are duly elected, and they will be the members of the 120th United States Congress as of January 3, 2027, at noon ET. Full stop. The only thing the oath does is allow them to exercise the powers of office.
If Hegseth and his goons somehow made it unsafe or otherwise impractical to meet in Washington, then Democratic leadership would announce that Congress will meet in some other venue. Congress Hall in Philadelphia seems an obvious choice. Yes, it would be a bit snug for 435 people, but it's clear that Congress CAN meet there because they already DID meet there (from 1790-1800). And the messaging (it's right next to Independence Hall) would be pretty solid.
Once the Democrats, and any Republicans who decided to heed the message as to the new meeting place, showed up, then they would elect and swear in a new speaker, and then the speaker would swear in everyone else. At that point they would be able to exercise the powers of office. And their first order of business would be to do something about any member who participated in efforts to block Congress from taking their seats. One option would be to decree that those members are permanently disqualified from future officeholding under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment (see above). Another would be to expel the members, and then let them face their voters in a special election.
In short, any Republican member who tried this would not only fail, they would likely end their career. They might also end up in prison.
And note that I wrote this answer to focus on the House. It isn't much different for the Senate, excepting that the Senate has 65 continuing members who are already duly elected and sworn in. Those 65 include 34 Democrats/independents who caucus with the Democrats and 31 Republicans. So, if anyone tried to interfere with new members taking their seats, then the Senate would still have a Democratic majority.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: I can appreciate that a good deal of the alarms that were raised by various politicians over what they claimed were Trump's plans to interfere with the election, overturn unfavorable results, seize ballots in blue cities, and intimidate voters at the polls were probably little more than particularly effective narratives to get Democrats' blood running hot in order to help keep those politicians' fund-raising efforts going strong.
However, I've known these Trump-voter types my entire life. I know what they're capable of and I know how they operate when they are backed into a corner. Even those lucky enough to not have grown up in a MAGA-before-MAGA-was-MAGA Evangelical Christian family saw on January 6, 2021, what these people will do when things don't work out their way. Those same people can probably deduce that sending racist cops or ICE to intimidate non-white people at the polls would hardly be something a**holes like MAGA voters would flinch at were it suggested.
Why did Election Day go so smoothly? Why were there no amateur, ICE gunslingers at the polls? Did Trump blow it by overreaching and not delivering on much of anything other than hate since 2024?(Z) answers: If you want the executive summary, here it is: Trump and most of his acolytes are incompetent boobs. I have written this many times, in this exact context.
To expand on that, trying to steal an election is no small thing. The first option is to try to limit voting rights, through the passage of voter ID laws, or striking people from the voter rolls, or the like. This is probably the biggest chink in the United States' democratic armor. And clearly, the Republicans did some of this kind of stuff. But it wasn't anywhere near enough. In fact, it probably backfired because, as I have also written many times, there is no better way to get people to vote than to try to take away their right to vote.
The second option is to go to court, and to try to get the judiciary involved. The problem here is that you have to have a cause of action that will pass muster with a judge. We, and in particular (L), have written extensively about how anemic were the causes of action that Trump's
personal flufferAG Todd Blanche came up with.A third option is to try to use force, or the threat of force, to keep people from entering polling places and casting their ballots. Certainly, Blanche was thinking about trying something like this, and he even said he was going to deploy 1,000 DoJ "monitors" to various polling places. However, we have not heard a word, either in the media or from readers who were working the polling places, that this had any effect at all.
Given the lack of information, we can only speculate as to why it didn't work. We will start by pointing out that 1,000 people sounds impressive, but there are 100,000+ polling places in the U.S., so it's really kind of a drop in the bucket. On top of that, because Trump can't keep his damn mouth shut, he and his team telegraphed their intent, such that much smarter people (e.g., Govs. Gavin Newsom, D-CA and JB Pritzker, D-IL) had time to prepare countermeasures. Oh, and when 60 million people vote early, then polling-place intimidation isn't going be nearly as effective. This is not Bull Connor's America. As we now know, Blanche and his jackboots could have scared away every single Democrat who showed up to vote on Election Day in Texas or Georgia or North Carolina, and it wouldn't have mattered because those Senate races were already over by virtue of early voting.
Meanwhile, the backdrop of all of this is that Donald Trump is a coward. And the people around him, by and large, are cowards. And the people who make up his movement are, quite substantially, cowards. This may sound judgmental, and perhaps it is, but it's really not meant to be. There is a whole academic literature on this, that takes things down to a granular, microcellular level. The short version is that some humans are going to produce more of the neurotransmitters that trigger a "fear" response. And in a two-party system, there is always going to be a party that tries to appeal to the voters with the above-average fear responses. That party, at least currently, happens to be the Republican Party.
Anyhow, if you've got a party of disproportionately fearful people, led by a disproportionately fearful man, then you would expect there to be a lot of big talk, backed by very small action. And that is what seems to have happened.
A.B. in Melbourne, Australia, asks: You've mentioned federal anti-gerrymandering legislation a few times recently. My understanding is that states run elections and draw the districts, so how could federal laws put an end to the practice?
(Z) answers: The federal government is empowered to make general rules about how elections must be conducted, particularly when it comes to making certain that those elections comport with the rights and the protections conferred by the U.S. Constitution. This is what makes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 perfectly legal.
Anti-gerrymandering legislation would have, as its basis, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (and likely other constitutional provisions, as well). Even a first-year law student should have no trouble putting together an argument that by diluting the voting power of some citizens, and magnifying the power of others, gerrymandering violates the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.
S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, asks: Which election result surprised you the most in each category: governor, House, and Senate?
(L) answers: Governor—Gina Hinojosa (D) in Texas. I really thought voters there would keep Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) even as they were jettisoning Paxton.
Senate—That's tough because there are so many to choose from! But I'd say Annie Andrews (D) in South Carolina. I knew it would be close but I didn't think she could pull it off.
House—If she loses, Lauren Boebert (D). The fact that she moved districts to give herself a safer seat and it backfired, while her old seat remained in Republican hands, is too sweet.
(V) answers: Governor—Gina Hinojosa. I expected Sen.-elect James Talarico (D) to win because he faced a terrible, incompetent, loathsome, crooked-to-the-core opponent. But Hinojosa faced a very experienced politician who had won statewide many times before. I didn't think she had a chance.
Senate—Scott Colom (D) in Mississippi. South Carolina is a close second, and although the Republican (Darline Graham) wasn't qualified to be a U.S. Senator, neither was the Democrat (Annie Andrews). But Mississippi really wasn't on the radar at all.
House—Lauren Boebert, queen of the crazies. It hasn't been called yet, but she is 3,200 votes behind in an R+9 district full of other crazies. This shows the scope of the tsunami, reaching 1,000 miles inland over a major 14,000-foot-high mountain range
(A) answers: Everything in Texas. I didn't think I would see that state go blue in my lifetime. I thought at best James Talarico might win, due to people voting for Abbott and either ticket splitting or leaving their senator vote blank. I also didn't expect Republicans' redistricting efforts in Texas to blow up so badly.
(Z) answers: Governor—Gina Hinojosa. If you had told me 6 months ago what was going to happen, I might have picked Amy Acton (D) in Ohio or Rob Sand (D) in Iowa, because those are both pretty red states. Or, at least, they were pretty red states. But by Election Day, it was clear the Republicans in those races were in trouble. Meanwhile, at best, the evidence for Texas was that Hinojosa might (but probably wouldn't) win in a squeaker. There was nothing that suggested a 7-point win, which is a blowout.
Senate—Scott Colom, especially if he wins, but even if he doesn't. Recall that Mississippi is the state that helped bring you such hits as secession, the KKK, lynching and Jim Crow. And they are this close to electing a Black guy as their U.S. Senator.
House—Richard Hudson (R-NC). As chair of the NRCC for the last 4 years, he had all the internal polling at his fingertips, and he also controlled the PAC purse strings. And he lost. It tells you Republicans clearly had no idea how much trouble they were in.
P.B. in Chicago, IL, asks: I see that Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Max Miller (R-OH) are going to lose. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) may lose, as well as Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS). All terrible people. Who else am I missing and who do you think are the worst people who just got their comeuppance? Who is the worst member left (Congress only)? Gym Jordan (R-OH)?
(Z) answers: Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) is a vile creature, who is hated by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Beyond the folks you've named, and not counting the folks who left of their own volition (e.g., Rep. Nancy Mace, R-SC; Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC; Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-AL), he is the most deserving receiver of comeuppance. Honorable mention goes to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), for her Brett Kavanaugh song-and-dance. Be pro-choice, be anti-choice, but don't insult your constituents by trying to have it both ways.
Jordan, by virtue of his looking the other way while young men under his charge were molested, and his show horsery in Congress, is a pretty awful member. Also on his level are Andy Barr (R-KY) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who are out-and-out bigots. And let's not forget Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who is pleased to enable Donald Trump's worst tendencies, up to and including the 1/6 insurrection (when Hawley famously made a gesture of solidarity with the rioters). Also, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is such a spineless opportunist that he will throw, and has thrown, his own wife under the bus in search of more power.
Incidentally, I know that every person I mentioned here is a Republican. That is primarily because sleazeball Democrats tend to get thrown out of office, either by their colleagues or by their voters. If you want a Democratic name, then maybe Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ) and/or Gil Cisneros (CA), who are always near the top of the "Members of Congress who made the most stock trades" lists. Such behavior certainly gives off an unpleasant odor. That said, I cannot put them at the top of the "worst members" list, because there are at least 25 members of Congress who are heavy-volume traders, and most of those 25 are Republicans.
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, asks: As I'm sure many Electoral-Vote.com readers have been doing, I've been following the counts in the Alaska and Mississippi U.S. Senate races since Election Day. And while the Mississippi tally has been slowly progressing, the Alaska count seems stuck at 74 percent of the expected total since Wednesday evening (it's Friday evening while I write this).
Why is the count not progressing? I know Alaska has to collect votes from a lot of remote locations and absentee ballots can arrive as late as Nov. 13 (Nov. 18 if mailed from overseas) but why aren't we seeing at least some of the remaining ballots tricking in? Do they just wait until the 13th to release the tallies of all the domestic absentee ballots and that's what the remaining 26 percent largely are?(Z) answers: First, the reason it takes a lot of time is that it's hard to get ballots from the more remote parts of Alaska, and it's also somewhat hard to get ballots from the lower 48. And all of this is before we talk about any ranked-choice voting that needs to be processed.
Second, the reason there have been zero updates is that Alaska law forbids them. The state will provide an update on November 10 (Tuesday), another on November 13 (Friday) and a third on November 18 (Wednesday after next). At that point, ranked-choice tabulating will begin for any races in which it is necessary.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: I just donated to Scott Colom. His plea for the donation is that it will help him ensure that the votes and procedures in Mississippi are followed properly.
Since I donated, I obviously buy his pitch. I also heard a story on NPR about how people who cast provisional ballots in Mississippi have 5 days to cure them, and the candidates' teams are working to let people know they need to do that.
Do you think a donation to him at this time is worthwhile?(Z) answers: Yes, it is worthwhile. Depending on how close it is, there could be hundreds of arguments over this ballot, or that ballot. If you want him to win, and you obviously do, you want to make sure he has foot soldiers available for all of those fights. And if he ends up with extra funds in the end, well, the worst-case scenario is that they go to his reelection effort in 6 years.
M.T. in St. Paul, MN, asks: It's okay to dream once in a while. So a very wishful question. If the Democrats win Alaska and Mississippi this year, get the presidency in 2028, hold their Senate seats in 2028 and pick up three more (Wisconsin, North Carolina and Iowa are most likely), Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) gets replaced by a real Democrat, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) gets re-elected, and the Democrats manage to hold a significant number of seats in the House, what do you envision getting done in the 2 years the Democrats hold the trifecta, assuming they get Murkowski on board with some issues? Seems that in this scenario she becomes a very influential Senator.
(Z) answers: I think Supreme Court reform, anti-gerrymandering legislation and single-payer health care are all within reach, and all have majority, bipartisan support.
V.R. in Oxford, NC, asks: You mentioned a few times before the election that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) might have a smaller (or even nonexistent) margin for error for the last few weeks of 2026 because some defeated House members might decide not to return to Washington. By my count, there are at least seven (and possibly as many as nine) Senators in Majority Leader John Thune's (R-SD) 53 to 47 majority who won't be Senators for very long. Some of those probably don't have much charity or loyalty to Donald Trump right now. So do you think the Senate might also have difficulty getting important legislation passed in the next not-quite two months? And could this affect Samuel Alito's and Clarence Thomas' retirement decisions?
(Z) answers: When the preview of your message showed on screen, the only part that was readable was "You mentioned a few times before the election that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) might have a smaller (or even nonexistent)..." That suggested a very different kind of question than the one you sent.
Anyhow, the first problem is the budget. By virtue of the continuing resolution (CR) passed before the election, they need a budget in place by December 11, or the government will shut down. It is hard to know how that will play out. Democrats will probably only accept another CR that kicks the can to some day after January 3, 2027. Some Republicans might be wanting to play hardball, either because this is the GOP's last chance to pass "their" budget for a good, long while, or because the particular member is out of a job, and this is their last stand.
Because the budget is likely to be a mess, and because the members don't particularly want to miss their Christmas breaks, and because some members are likely to call in sick for the rest of their terms, it's hard to imagine them passing much legislation other than the budget (and again, even that is very possibly going to be a CR and nothing else). It does not help the Republicans that if they wait too long, the Democrats can use parliamentary tricks to delay things, such that bills won't get to the floor before the session expires.
I don't think Alito or Thomas will resign. There just isn't enough time to make absolutely certain that a nominee gets selected, vetted and approved, especially since the Senate is likely to be busy with the budget. If they are going to exit, they'll need to do it soon, probably this week.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I watched Fox News on election night because I knew Democrats were headed for a strong showing and I wanted to see how Donald Trump's favorite apologists reacted on live TV. By around 11:30 PM EST, it was clear the Democrats would win both chambers of Congress, and the coverage became much more bitter.
Trey Gowdy claimed Democrats won no legislative mandate because they were very negative, and won based on opposition to Trump.
How big of a margin of victory does a party need to claim a mandate to pass its legislative agenda? A 15% margin? A 20% margin? Do the Republicans expect Democrats to sit on their hands for the next 2-4 years? This is a strange position to take, considering the governing role spelled out for Congress in the Constitution.(Z) answers: This is nonsensical pundit-babble.
I have no idea what Trey Gowdy thinks "mandate" means. I also can't imagine why he believes that you can't have a mandate if you run against the party in power. Does he really imagine that his own party, who promised a "Contract with America" when they ran against incumbent president Bill Clinton in 1994, and won big-time, did not have a mandate?
I cannot put specific numbers on what is, and is not, a mandate. A mandate, or any other word you prefer to use, is a message from the voters about what they want. The politicians can use this to sell their policies to the public and, perhaps more importantly, to the other politicians in their own party. If the voters make clear they want [X], then the president or the leaders of Congress can tell their fellow partisans, "We have to find a way to do [X], or we are going to pay at the next election."
In this election the voters sent some very clear messages about what they want. They don't like data centers. They don't like ICE. They are very unhappy about the economy and, by extension, the disruptive tariffs and Iran War. More broadly, the voters are clearly tired of all the dysfunction and all the nastiness. They also abhor all the corruption.
The Democrats have a clear idea of what they need to be working on. The extent to which they are able to make progress, without benefit of controlling the Oval Office, will determine their fate in 2028.
C.A.G. in Athens, GA, asks: The thought of any monument to Trump's ego being erected nauseates me. If he does manage to build his Arc de Trump, what are the chances a future president could (and would) un-erect it, reflecting the wishes of the people of D.C.?
Also, he is so proud of his ballroom! Despite the fact that it will be the most grandiose, most magnificent, most incredible ballroom ever built, what are some options that a future president might have to un-ballroomify it? Perhaps turn it into DEI or civil rights-based offices? Or maybe workspace devoted to helping the poor, the uninsured, or maybe immigrants? What do you think would give Trump the biggest kick in the teeth?R.D. in Syracuse, NY, asks: During this election cycle, it appeared that Trump was far more focused on his vanity projects rather than on issues that matter to the American public. Going forward, do you foresee the construction projects in D.C. continuing? Specifically, looking into your crystal ball, do you see the arc, ballroom, golf course, National Garden of American Heroes and Kennedy Center being completed? Or, do you think the new Congress will be able to put a stop to this folly? Please include his recent proclamation that the Oval Office is a national monument and so renovations can't be undone.
(Z) answers: If Trump really wants a monument of some sort to himself, he has to accept that he will have to work with the Democratic majority to make that happen. None of the major projects he might instigate will be complete by the time he leaves office, which means he would be reliant on the next administration to complete them. And none of the things he wants to do, major or minor, are irreversible. So, he would be reliant on the next administration to keep his changes in place.
He has absolutely no hope of being successful, long-term, with any sort of changes to the Kennedy Center honoring him, or with any "permanent" changes to the Oval Office. Those are nonstarters. There is also little hope of the Arc de Trump surviving his term. It would cast a shadow across a fair portion of Arlington National Cemetery. That alone is cover enough for the next administration to halt construction and to tear down whatever portions have already been completed.
That leaves the golf course, the National Garden of American Heroes and the east wing of the White House. Nobody cares much about a golf course, and it would certainly be an appropriate way to remember a president who played golf something like 1,000 times during his term. The National Garden of American Heroes is the kind of thing that has a long history in D.C., and it could be populated not only with some of the great white men Trump wants to honor, but also with people that are more to the Democrats' tastes, like Harriet Tubman or Dolores Huerta or Geronimo. And the White House is going to have to have a new east wing, sooner or later.
The reason that the Democrats might play ball here is that Trump is the kind of man who might trade his signature on, say, legislation giving $5 billion in food aid to poor people in exchange for legislation creating the Donald J. Trump national golf course, and setting aside $20 million for him to redecorate as he sees fit. That kind of trade would be a big win for the Democrats.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Although issues such as pornography, premarital sex, sex education, contraception, abortion, interracial marriage, gay marriage and trans rights remain important, their prominence as primary wedge issues seems to be fading as society becomes generally more accepting of personal lifestyle choices. In many of these cases, the principle that individuals should have the right to do as they please—provided it does not harm others—has gained significant ground.
Looking ahead, which of these two potential sexual rights issues do you see as more likely to gain legal traction next: the legalization of sex work or the legal recognition of polyamorous relationships? Alternatively, is there another emerging sexual rights issue that I may be overlooking?(Z) answers: It is hard for me to imagine that either of those two issues is on the horizon. But if I had to pick, sex work is already legal in significant parts of Europe, and in some parts of the U.S. So, that seems more likely to become a hot-button issue than polyamory.
That said, if you really wanted me to predict "the" hot issue in this area, say 10 years from now, it would be: "Conservative voters! The progress we've made on protecting the unborn is threatened! We must rally!"
Sometimes, what's old is new again.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: It seems to me that if someone like Marco Rubio resigns as a way to distance himself from an unpopular president, that move will fail. Especially if he tries to frame it as some sort of disagreement over the Iran War. The time to have made such a move would have been the moment Trump made that disastrous decision or shortly after it became clear the war was going to be a losing proposition. How do people like Rubio expect that a resignation will wash away the stench of serving in the Trump administration?
(Z) answers: You are right that Rubio's goose is already cooked. And that is before we pause to recall that he ran for president before and he was a godawful candidate. The only reason he looks like the best guy on the GOP bench right now is that the rest of the bench is a total clown show. You could pick any one of the 10 or so leading Republican candidates from, say, 1988, and they'd all run laps around the current GOP frontrunners.
British politicians tend to be much smarter about this. When the PM does something questionable, a lot of the ambitious Cabinet members resign. That way, they can say they always opposed whatever the unpopular policy was, and they had the integrity to act upon their convictions.
F.D. in Ninove, Belgium, asks: With eleven open seats (AL, IA, IL, KY, MI, MN, MT, NC, NH, OK, WY), two defeated incumbents in the primaries (LA, TX), four defeated incumbents in the general election (KS, ME, OH, SC) and two pending resignations due to the sitting senator being elected governor of their state before their senate term ran out (MN, TN), at the minimum there will be seventeen (17) freshmen U.S. Senators in January 2027. And this is written even before the races in AK and MS are resolved, so that number could still be revised upwards to maximum 19...
Is it my imagination or is the Senate freshman class of 2027 thus unusually large? Especially for the modern era? Correct me but isn't this the biggest turnover since the Reagan landslide of 1980?
What were the largest classes since the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment and why?(Z) answers: You can see a chart here; it covers every incoming Senate class since the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.
The largest freshman class (and this only includes people who were new members at the start of the term, and not appointees chosen to complete unfinished terms) was in 1946, with 22 freshman members. In part, because there was a party realignment going on. And in part because some members who might otherwise have retired in 1942 or 1944 decided to hang on a bit longer because of the ongoing war effort.
The last time there was a freshman class as large as this one will be is the late 1970s. Over the span of three elections, there were 18 freshmen (1976), then 20 (1978), then 18 again (1980; the Reagan landslide year). Another partisan re-sorting was going on. Plus, between the corruption of the Nixon regime and the stagflation of the Ford/Carter years, voters were in an extended "throw the bums out" kind of mood.
In the 21st century, the only election that's come close to this one is 2010, with 16 freshmen. In part, that is because there was an unusually large number of retirements (9). And in part, that was because a lot of people were angry about Obamacare. Usually, these days, there are about 10 freshmen senators for each new session of Congress.
G.N. in Albuquerque, NM, asks: I saw this post on Instagram pointing out that an election like this has happened before, and in greater numbers, back in 1974. Within six years we had Reagan elected President and all the talk about the end of the GOP was fluff. What is your take on what happens now?
(Z) answers: To start with the numbers, the Democrats gained 4 Senate seats in 1974, along with 59 seats in the House. In 2026 thus far, the Democrats have gained 7 Senate seats and 44 House seats. Since Senate seats are more valuable, and represent more people, those numbers are either a wash, or they say that 2026 was a bigger year. The Democrats will probably end up with a pickup of about 8 Senate seats and 49 House seats, and if you asked any Democratic pooh-bah whether they would rather have 4 more Senate seats at the cost of 10 House seats, they would take that deal every time.
Beyond the raw numbers, however, comparing 1974 to today is preposterous. First, because the country is far more gerrymandered than it once was. It is much harder for large numbers of House seats to change hands. Second, because the country is much more polarized today. There used to be liberal and conservative wings in both parties. So, when New Hampshire traded in Norris Cotton (R) for John A. Durkin (D) in 1974, that wasn't that radical a change. On the other hand, dumping a Roger Marshall for an Adam Hamilton is a HUGE swing of the pendulum.
Oh, and what saved the Republicans after the 1974 election was the emergence of the most gifted GOP politician of the last half-century-plus. If that is the GOP's plan today—all they need is a party leader of the caliber of Ronald Reagan—that is a pretty daring plan, to say the least.
B.B. in Detroit, MI, asks: Michigan now has the senators with the youngest combined ages in the Senate. Do we also have the two smartest senators in the Senate? What other state would be in the running for that "title?"
(Z) answers: There are a number of states with one really intelligent senator, and one senator who hasn't impressed me, or about whom I just don't have much information. New York is that way; say what you will about Sen. Chuck Schumer (D), but he's clearly intellectually brilliant. On the other hand, I just don't know much about Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D).
The state that I would pick here is Arizona. Mark Kelly (D) is an aeronautical engineer, a naval aviator and an astronaut. You don't get any of those three lines on your résumé without being pretty damn sharp. And Ruben Gallego (D) is a Harvard grad and a Marine Corps officer. Again, those are not the credentials of a nitwit. And I have heard both men speak, and they clearly have a lot on the ball.
S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: Based on the election results, do you have a perspective on if any of the states we saw shift left this election are undergoing a more permanent swing like we saw with, for instance, Virginia and Colorado during the Obama years? My feel is that states like North Carolina, Georgia and Texas are good candidates for a more permanent shift because these results couple nicely with significant emigration of younger educated people into those states. States like Iowa, Alaska, Mississippi and Kansas do not have this same influx of people and are more likely to shift back right or remain purple. South Carolina has a similar issue as Florida, where the influx of people are retirees, who are more likely to lean conservative.
(Z) answers: I think you're probably right about the demographic shifts, though don't sleep on the importance of Black voters in some places (e.g. Mississippi) learning that they CAN win elections if they make sure to turn out.
That said, I think the most important phenomenon is not demographic change, but the fact that Democratic governance will cease to be a scary right-wing bugaboo in many places (Texas, most obviously) and now will become a fact of life. And if the Democrats perform well (by, say, fixing Texas' godawful electric grid), then that is more likely to lead to permanent change than any sort of change based on demographic shifts. As we have seen in the last 2-3 elections (if not the last 7-8), these various demographic groups are more than willing to cross the aisle if they are not happy with the party in power.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: After the midterms I feel that there's something bigger going on, but I don't have words for it. Do you feel the same? If yes, do you have words for it?
(Z) answers: I would borrow the words of Howard Beale from the 1976 movie Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
I have written many times, now over many years, that Americans carped about the issues of the Gilded Age for decades until they just couldn't stand it anymore, which laid the groundwork for the (decidedly bipartisan) Progressive Era. I have also taken the view that, one of these days, Americans of the 21st century will get tired of partisanship and distractions and over-concentration of wealth, and will demand real change. We might just be on the cusp of the New Progressive Era.