Conventional wisdom holds that after the perceived failure of Bush, the Global Financial Crisis, the bailouts, the Great Recession, the prolonged wars in the Middle East, the rise of China as a serious competitor, and in the wake of trade-related economic dislocations and greater inequality, Donald Trump single-handedly managed to assemble a new populist movement within the GOP and thus conquered the American political right.
There‘s certainly some truth to that, but it’s not the whole story. In fact, Trump’s true base has never been the relatively new, formerly marginalized, populist wing of the GOP but the White Christian Nationalists. Needless to say, one can surely debate the proper terminology to describe this group. Pew Research, for instance, affectionately named the group “Faith and Flag Conservatives“.
They are the red, beating heart of today‘s Republican Party and they are best understood as the group that felt the country was slipping away from them due to cultural liberalization or cultural shifts to the left.
The Populist Right, the other component of the MAGA base, on the other hand, felt that the country was economically slipping away from them.
To illustrate this point:
The patter that emerges is incontrovertible. Faith & Flag Conservatives aka arch-conservatives are the largest, the most politically active, and the most loyalist voting bloc on the right. And while their share is equal to the share of the Populist Right, the Populist Right is generally less aligned with the Committed Conservatives and the Ambivalent Conservatives who all, more or less, concur with the Faith & Flag Conservatives’ outlook on economic and foreign policy. Hence, the Populist Right is still rather awkwardly isolated in policy terms on the right.
What that means is that no one should be surprised that Josh Hawley‘s not in charge of crafting this administration‘s economic agenda nor should anyone be surprised that Tucker Carlson and Majorie Taylor Greene aren’t determining Trump’s foreign policy. There are, of course, exceptions where Trump happens to be personally more aligned with the populist views (at least for now) and these particular issues include military aid to Ukraine, antitrust policy and global trade.
That said, these numbers help explain why the OBBB‘s cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, SNAP and industrial policy subsidies paired with extensive tax curs are not as politically toxic for Trump as one might expect. Sure, so far the median voter is still skeptical but the collective and vigorous support among Committed Conservatives (aka Reaganite conservatives) and Faith & Flag conservatives simply outweighs the dissenters among the Populist Right faction of the party. A similar dynamic is at play as far as Trump’s Middle East policy is concerned.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
That said, these numbers help explain why the OBBB‘s cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, SNAP and industrial policy subsidies paired with extensive tax curs are not as politically toxic for Trump as one might expect
Yet...
There are still some Republicans (like Sens. Tillis and Hawley) who see the danger in how badly those cuts will effect voters in states Trump won (and therefore THEIR political careers, since Trump won't be on the ballot in 2026).
But many Republicans in the House are Trumpets (i.e. swept into office by Trump's presidential win in 2016). And when the you know what hits the fan, they perhaps believe they will be able to blame it on Biden, Obama or LBJ and are confident the Trump sheep will believe anything he says anyway.
Democrats will still have the edge in the midterms but I believe James Carville and Paul Begala are too overly optimistic about the number of House seats that will flip. Perhaps if they were active in running the DCCC. But they aren't.
@beckyromero Democrats should look at the phase ins of the tax cuts and the technical spending reduction measures. They naturally frontloaded the tax cuts while most of the spending measures only kick in after the midterms. I may be partial to that interpretation but I don’t think the OBBB is necessarily a majority killer for Republicans. The maps look pretty decent for them and just because doomsday predictions over endemic poverty, food insecurity and preventable health related deaths are politically salient and logical doesn’t mean many voters will actually feel the worst case impact of the bill. Always good not to count on or believe in your own spin when going into an election. They should make sure that the median voter believes in and cares about the same things they wanna talk about. But we shall see.
@CedricH what you say just proves how radically different the MAGA group is from any US political party of the past. The are downright evil placing the worse outcomes to occur after the next congressional election. They have been very clever in how they achieved their authority based on the plan set up by Gingrich. We are all the frog in the pot of water. It is incredible to hear and see what they get away with these days.
They naturally frontloaded the tax cuts while most of the spending measures only kick in after the midterms.
The strategy could be that Republicans think that Congressional losses will be less in a presidential election year than getting clobbered in the mid-terms.
Class III - Senators Whose Terms of Service Expire in 2029
Democrats Bennet, Michael F. (D-CO) Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) Cortez Masto, Catherine (D-NV) Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) Fetterman, John (D-PA) Hassan, Margaret Wood (D-NH) Kelly, Mark (D-AZ) Murray, Patty (D-WA) Padilla, Alex (D-CA) Schatz, Brian (D-HI) Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) Warnock, Raphael G. (D-GA) Welch, Peter (D-VT) Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
If things go sour for Republicans for 2028, there is no real vulnerable incumbant except Fetterman, who might lose in the primary to former Rep. Conor Lamb anyway.
Other the other hand:
Republicans Boozman, John (R-AR) Britt, Katie Boyd (R-AL) Budd, Ted (R-NC) - vulnerable seat Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) - vulnerable open seat if Grassley retires Hoeven, John (R-ND) Husted, Jon (R-OH) - perhaps vulnerable, if Dems get their act together in Ohio Johnson, Ron (R-WI) - vulnerable seat (when are we finally going to beat this guy!) Kennedy, John (R-LA) - should be vulnerable; might be when the Medicaid cuts hit his state Lankford, James (R-OK) Lee, Mike (R-UT) Moody, Ashley (R-FL) Moran, Jerry (R-KS) Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) - will she run? seems likely. if not, Dems could win a seat without spending a lot of $$$ Paul, Rand (R-KY) Schmitt, Eric (R-MO) - if Hawley doesn't reach 55% in 2026, Dems should make defeating Schmitt a priority Scott, Tim (R-SC) Thune, John (R-SD) Young, Todd (R-IN)
@beckyromero As far as the Senate is concerned, the problem is simple. The Democrats hold a disproportionate amount of Senate seats in swing states and they‘re still short of a majority. To be more precise, they currently control both Senate seats from Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and Michigan. That’s simply not going to last.
And it was mostly because the GOP fielded outrageous (or simply weak) candidates like Kari Lake or Herschel Walker, not because the voters rejected Trump or the Republicans in principle. The same happened when Roy Moore cost the Republicans a seat in Alabama for a few years.
Prospectively, we have to assume that the era of the Jon Tester‘s, the Joe Manchin’s and the Claire McCaskill‘s is over. Partisan polarization and the nationalization of Senate races gives the GOP a considerable edge.
The best that Democrats can do is to elevate and empower more individuals like Elissa Slotkin, Kyrsten Sinema (who has been foolishly ostracized), Mark Kelly and yes, John Fetterman who can win swing states and possibly make a run for the Presidency.
@CedricH it was built into the constitution to get the southern states, those with lower population, to support the establishment of the USA. I doubt any of the singers had any inkling how a group of such small, poor states could eventually rise to literally dominate the future of the country. We had a sampling of that in 1860, but even then doubted this could ever happen here!
@samueltyler2 That small group‘s candidate did win the popular vote last year. You have to come to terms with the fact that half or more than half of the country isn’t necessarily on your side.
@CedricH not so, he did not get over 50% of the popular vote! That is the only thing that keeps me thinking the citizens will wake up. So you need to accept the fact that he is the most unpopular president ever!
@samueltyler2 You can win the popular vote without an absolute majority. He won the popular vote with a relative majority, just like Bill Clinton did in 1992 and 1996.
@CedricH now you are playing with words. When you said he won the popular vote most would assume you meant greater than 50%. Face it, he is very unpopular by the general public, what is his current over/under?
@samueltyler2 I apologize for the confusion but I‘m not playing with words, a candidate wins the popular vote in the US by winning most of the votes, not 50% or upwards of that. That’s the technical definition of winning the popular vote in the US. There‘s always someone who wins the popular vote in US elections. And in 2024, it wasn’t Kamala Harris.
You‘re right though, his poll numbers are down, again. But they were down before and bounced back. Trump‘s numbers looked bleak around January 6th 2021 and yet here we are.
@CedricH unfortunately yes here we are. How much safer is the world, how much richer do you feel, how obvious is the current weapon of federal law enforcement for revenge
By the way, you say you are a neoconservative living in Germany, what is the closest former political party is that most closely related to?
@samueltyler2 Anyways, the CDU is probably closest to my views but then again, Germany‘s political system and its political culture are shaped by its history and Germany never had a neoconservative tradition, unfortunately. Unlike the US, Britain, Australia or Israel.
The best that Democrats can do is to elevate and empower more individuals like Elissa Slotkin, Kyrsten Sinema (who has been foolishly ostracized), Mark Kelly and yes, John Fetterman who can win swing states and possibly make a run for the Presidency.
Slotkin and Kelly are good Senators and good senatorial candidates.
People like Fetterman are in over their head (not because of health issues). He's likely to be defeated in the next primary (2028).
I wouldn't give two cents for Sinema. If a so-called Democrat can't support raising the minimum wage, I'd rather see that "Democrat" defeated and then go after the seat again in six years. Fortunately, she saw the writing on the wall and now we have Ruben Gallego in her place.
Sinema never seemed to have a well-grounded political ideology and at times was like somone at the bakery looking foe the flavor of the month. Glad to see her go.
To be more precise, they currently control both Senate seats from Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and Michigan. That’s simply not going to last.
Nevada has become more purple since the Nixon-Reagan years.
Arizona is a also historical red state that has shifted purple. You mentioned Kari Lake. Well, she's the type of Republican candidate Dems are likely to face in near elections since John McCain passed away, Jon Kyle retired and Trump and MAGA Land pushed out Jeff Flake. Just look at the Congressional delegation: Crane, Biggs, Gosar. There's a reason there are all still in the House - they couldn't win statewide. And until the state party disassociates themselves from MAGAs like Lake, they will continue to lose statewide.
Trump has endorsed TWO Republicans for the 2026 governor's race. Yes, two. Rep. Andy Biggs and land use consultant Karrin Taylor Robson. Biggs says, "There’s a difference between being endorsed by President Trump and being endorsed by President Trump and having his personal cell phone number."
Reporter Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic characterized Biggs as "all-in MAGA — basically, Kari Lake but without the sneer."
Biggs was elected to Congress (64%) when Trump won in 2016. The previous Republican incumbant (Matt Salmon) had won with 67% and 70%. Salmon was first elected as part of the Gingrich Revolution class of 1994.
Biggs followed up his 2016 victory with percentages of 59.4%, 58.9%, 56.7% and then 60.4% in 2024. The district lines were relatively the same after the 2020 Census (which would be the last two election cycles). The district is 67% white. Trump's percentages have been 57%, 57% and 59%.
He's part of the Putin Caucus in the House, not only voting against aid to Ukraine but was one of nine Republicans who refused to condemn the illegal abduction of Ukranian children to the Russia.
Michigan should be a reliable Democrat state. A strong Democrat candidate would be difficult to defeat in a traditional blue-collar state. Dems have won four of the last gubenatorial elections.
Georgia was long represented by Democrat even after the Nixon-Reagan years, then shifted to being a reliable conservative state. Now it's a battleground state.
@beckyromero Ya know, I called them swing states so you‘re right. They‘re all purple. But as you know, you get purple by mixing blue and red but as far as the Senate seats in NV, MI, AZ and GA are concerned, they‘re not purple, they‘re blue. I think that is an obvious anomaly and it won’t be sustainable even in a best case scenario for the Democrats.
Prospectively, I‘m also going to predict that Minnesota will be the next state to turn into a purple swing state and before you say it, I do know that it’s the only state that Reagan lost (besides DC) in his ‘84 landslide because he ran against Mondale who was from MN. The political map in MN is changing on a county level. Due to the peculiarities of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party and the high union density among farmers in MN, Democrats have somewhat resisted the national rural/urban divide in the state. No more. Now, they‘re relying almost entirely on the twin cities and their suburbs.
Minnesota has been a little too close to comfort recently.
Also, keep in mind that mid-term elections don't get as high turnout and turnout can effected due to local concerns (and the candidates) and not necessarily by national turnout.
And, yes, while we all talk about blue, red and purple states, the real divide is (and has been) urban/rural for decades. Some states are just more rural than others (or less urban to put it another way).
