Welcome back to the deep dive. OK, so our mission
today is really to look past just the immediate
election results. You know, we want to analyze
the bigger shifts happening underneath. Exactly.
We're not just doing the horse race who won,
who lost. We're looking at the the strategies,
what's actually working with voters and some
really big legal battles brewing. Right. We've
got sources covering the media reactions, a huge
Supreme Court case about presidential power and
trade and also how the parties are Well, rigging
the game for the future with maps and election
security stuff. Yeah, a lot to unpack. We've
pulled from places like the Washington Post,
New York Times, Politico, NBC, NPR, ABC News,
the usual suspects. So this dive should give
you the key things you need to know, like what
arguments are sticking? What's the next big fight
in Congress or the court's going to be about?
Let's let's jump in. OK, so first segment, the
media takeaways. After the recent elections,
what were the sort of recurring themes popping
up everywhere? Well, you know, reading through
all the analyses, two things really jumped out
consistently. First, the Trump factor still.
The New York Times, Politico, ABC, NBC, NPR.
They all basically agreed he remains, let's call
it, electoral poison for the Republicans overall.
Even with some minority groups that had shifted
towards him before. Even there, yeah. Yeah. The
drag seems pretty widespread. AP just flat out
called the results a referendum on Trump. OK,
so that's one big theme. What was the second?
It always seems to come back to this. It does.
It's the economy. Stupid. Still. AP and NPR really
hammered this home. Voters are just incredibly
sensitive to prices, the cost of living. That's
top of mind. And did we see that play out with
specific candidates? Absolutely. Candidates who
really lunged into that, who hammered on prices,
think so are Namdani, Abil Spanberger, Mikey
Sherrill. They seem to do really well. They were
talking about what people are feeling at the
grocery store. OK, but here's where it gets interesting,
based on some polling. The blame for those prices.
It seems to be shifting. We saw an Ipsos poll.
Yeah, that poll was striking. It suggests Americans
are actually blaming Donald Trump for the current
inflation rate. He's what, 19 points underwater
on that specific question? Nineteen points. And
why did the poll suggest a reason? It did. The
sources pinpointed it pretty clearly. Fifty eight
percent of Americans think his tariffs are the
main reason for price increases. They're seeing
them as the scapegoat. So that connects directly
to the cost of living concerns. Directly. You've
got like seven in 10 Americans saying they're
spending more on groceries. Food and energy prices
are up what 12 percent over the last year. And
that hits working class families the hardest.
Which ironically is supposed to be a key part
of his base. Exactly. And you even had figures
like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene warning
Republicans could lose the House if people are
still continuing to go paycheck to paycheck.
So they recognize the danger. But they can't
seem to shake the connection people are making
between the tariffs and their wallets. It looks
that way. It's an affordability issue that people
are tying back to a specific policy. And, you
know, this has real strategic implications. Look
at Virginia's gubernatorial results. What happened
there? Well, yeah, most counties stayed red on
the map. But compared to the 2024 presidential
election, every single county in Virginia shifted
at least a little bit towards the Democrats.
Every county. Even the deep red ones. Every single
one. Which tells you something important about
campaign strategy. Which is? That campaigning
hard everywhere matters. Even in those red areas
you know you won't win. It's about, like, closing
the gap. So losing by less is actually a win?
In a way, yes. Losing a red county by 10 ,000
fewer votes is just as valuable statewide as
winning 10 ,000 more votes in a blue county you
already hold. It's about margin compression.
So the takeaway is, show up. campaign on affordability,
hammer the tariff connection, even in hostile
territory. That seems to be the lesson from Virginia,
yeah. Just showing up and making the case can
shave off crucial votes, even if you don't flip
the county. That's a powerful insight. Okay,
speaking of tariffs and policy, let's pivot to
the courts. Because it sounds like the Supreme
Court... might be about to take away a major
tool related to those tariffs. Yeah, this is
a really big one. We're talking about learning
resources, Inc. v. Trump. Tell us about that.
What's the core issue? So the background is,
you know, the Trump administration imposed all
these huge tariffs using executive orders. They
claimed it was an emergency situation. Right,
I remember that. They were pretty sweeping. Oh,
completely. The sources even pointed out kind
of absurdly that they slapped tariffs on imports
from Hurt Island, which is like uninhabited.
a UNESCO site, just to show the power was supposedly
unlimited. OK, but isn't levying tariffs basically
taxes Congress's job according to the Constitution,
Article 1? That's the whole point. Article I
gives Congress the power of the purse, including
tariffs. So the administration had to find a
way around that. How'd they try? They argued
Congress actually gave them that power indirectly
through a law from 1977. It's called the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA. IEPA. OK.
And what does that law say? It lets the president
regulate the importation or exploitation of goods
during a declared national emergency. So the
whole case kind of hangs on that word, regulate.
Does regulate mean you can just impose massive
taxes? That seems like a stretch. Well, that's
exactly what the justices seem to think. They
sounded pretty skeptical during the arguments.
Especially now, right? They just overturned that
Chevron standard about Deferring to agencies.
Precisely. They're pushing back on agencies reading
broad powers into vague laws. The justices basically
asked, how could Congress just hand over its
core taxing power without saying so very, very
clearly? Did the administration have a counter
to that? They tried. The Solicitor General argued
these weren't taxes, they were regulatory tariffs.
The goal wasn't revenue, supposedly. It was negotiation
leverage. Did that fly? Especially when Trump
himself said the tariffs were helping the deficit.
Yeah, Chief Justice Roberts jumped right on that.
If they're reducing the deficit, that sounds
a lot like revenue, which sounds a lot like a
tax. The regulatory tariff argument seemed pretty
thin. So the court was dubious. What about the
precedent? Were they worried about future presidents
using this? Oh, absolutely. That was a huge part
of the discussion. They posed this really pointed
Hypothetical. What was it? They asked, OK, if
we say the president can do this under IEPA for
a trade emergency, what stops a future Democratic
president from declaring climate change a national
emergency? Uh -oh. And then slapping massive
regulatory tariffs on all imported gas -powered
cars. Wow. And what did the administration's
lawyers say? He basically had to concede that
yes, under their reading of the law, that would
be possible. That probably didn't help their
case much. Probably not. It runs right into this
thing called the major questions doctrine. Remind
us what that is again. It's relatively new, right?
Yeah, from 2022, it basically says that for really
big politically or economically significant regulations,
the administration needs clear authorization
from Congress, not just some vague word like
regulate in an old law. And EPA doesn't have
that clear authorization for tariffs. Not according
to the sources analyzing the arguments. No, it
just says regulate. It doesn't say impose unlimited
taxes via tariffs. So what's the likely outcome
here and when? Most observers think the administration
is likely to lose this one, based on the justices'
skepticism, maybe apart from Thomas Nolito. And
because the case was fast -tracked, we should
get a decision pretty soon, maybe before the
end of the term. And if Trump loses, what's the
impact? It'd be a huge blow, frankly. It takes
away his main tool for trying to shape international
trade deals through unilateral action. It forces
any future tariff policy back through Congress.
OK, so a potential major check on executive power
coming from the courts. That takes us nicely
into our last segment, the mechanics of the next
fight, how the parties are setting up the battlefield
for 2026. Right. While the court might limit
current power, the parties are already deep in
the trenches fighting over maps, candidates and
even the basic infrastructure of elections. Let's
start with the maps, the redistricting race.
Where's the action happening? Well, California
and Virginia are both redrawing congressional
maps right now. The estimates we saw suggest
that could potentially net Democrats maybe eight
seats combined if things break their way. Eight
seats is significant. Any specific examples of
these mapfights? Yeah, look at Maryland. You've
got the Democratic governor, Wes Moore, pushing
for a new map specifically designed to target
the state's lone Republican congressman, Andy
Harris. His district is what? R plus eight? Pretty
Republican. R -plus -8, yeah. It's MD -01. But
Maryland already has some incredibly gerrymandered
districts, like MD -03, which snakes all over
the place. The problem for Moore is that the
Republican voters in Harris' district are really
concentrated geographically deep on the Delmarva
Peninsula. So it's hard to draw them out. Exactly.
You can try to make it maybe R -plus -3 or R
-plus -4, which is competitive, but it's tough
to guarantee a flip when the voters are packed
together like that. It shows how hard it is to
undo geographic sorting through map drawing alone.
Okay, so that's a tough one for Democrats. What
about elsewhere? Any wins for less gerrymandered
maps? Actually, yes. Out in Utah. A state judge
there just threw out the state's congressional
map. Why? What was wrong with it? It was a classic
crack. It took Salt Lake County, which is heavily
Democratic, like 1 .2 million people, and split
it up between all four of Utah's congressional
districts. Ah, so diluting the Democratic vote
to make sure none of the districts were competitive.
Precisely. The judge tossed it out, and the new
court -ordered map creates an R plus 6 district
centered more logically on Salt Lake City. R
plus 6. Yes. Still leans Republican, but winnable
for a Democrat. At least conceivable, as one
source put it. easy, but possible. They have
potential candidates, like Ben McAdams, who held
a seat before, or even Caroline Gleick. She's
a professional skier who climbed Everest. An
uphill climb then, apt. You could say that, but
just as Dems get a shot in Utah, they've taken
a hit somewhere else. Maine. Right. Representative
Jared Golden is retiring. Yeah, he is a moderate
Blue Dog Democrat in a rural district, ME01,
that leans Republican R plus four. He managed
to hold it, but now that he's leaving, it's going
to be really tough for Democrats to keep that
seat. Which probably reinforces the idea within
the party that they need moderates in these swing
districts. It leads right into the next point.
Primary interference. The head of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, the DCCC, Representative
Susan Delban. From Washington State, yeah. She's
explicitly saying she plans to meddle in Democratic
primaries in these crucial swing districts. Meddle.
That sounds controversial within the party. Why
do it? Her stated goal is pretty blunt. Make
sure the strongest possible general election
candidate wins the primary. And in her view,
that almost always means a moderate, somebody
like Abigail Spanberger. Not a progressive, like
Zoran Mamdani. Exactly. She calls them Spanberger
clones versus Mamdani clones. The strategy is
clear. In districts, Democrats absolutely need
to win for a majority. They want the candidate
perceived as having the broadest appeal. Will
she interfere everywhere? No, she drew a line.
She said she won't get involved in safe blue
districts, like D plus 10 or more. But in the
toss -ups, the swing seats, progressives are
basically being told, maybe sit this one out
if you think you can't win the general. The priority
is majority, full stop. OK, maps, candidates.
What about the actual plumbing of the elections,
the infrastructure? There was some concerning
news there. Yeah, this is really worrying. Federal
agencies, specifically CISA, the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency, are apparently
pulling back from helping state and local governments
with election security. Why is that a problem?
Don't states run their own elections? They do,
but many local election offices have tiny budgets,
like almost no money and certainly no cybersecurity
experts on staff. They relied on federal help
for threat assessment, monitoring physical security
advice. And that help is going away. What specific
cuts are happening? The cuts sound pretty drastic.
The CISA election monitoring room, which was
like a central hub that's being closed, there
was something called the Election Infrastructure
Information Sharing and Analysis Center, EI -ISAC,
which gave real -time threat info to local officials.
Funding zeroed out. Gone. And get this. The CISA
staff, who actually monitored election equipment
for vulnerabilities, laid off. So who is doing
the monitoring? Well, instead of monitoring the
machines, CISA apparently sent monitors to California
and New Jersey to... Observe voters. Observe
voters, not the voting machines or the networks.
That's a huge shift in focus. It's a massive
shift away from infrastructure defense towards
something else entirely, and it leaves a huge
gap. Who fills that gap? If the feds aren't helping
and local offices can't afford it. That's the
million dollar question. Effectively... Maybe
no one is watching the perimeter as closely.
And this is where the foreign interference risk
comes back in, connecting weirdly to the tariff
stuff we discussed. The sources pointed out that
foreign adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, whoever,
they don't necessarily root for Republican or
Democrat. They root for their interests. Right.
Predictability, maybe? Or getting rid of someone
seen as erratic. Exactly. If a foreign power
sees the current U .S. leadership as, say, unpredictable
on trade. or maybe careless with nuclear policy.
They might want regime change, regardless of
party, and a suddenly weakened, unmonitored election
infrastructure. That looks like a pretty tempting
target if you want to sow chaos or influence
the outcome. Wow. OK, so that's a lot we've covered.
Let's try to pull it together. We hit three main
areas right. First, the economy is still king
in messaging, and the blame for high prices seems
to be landing on Trump's tariffs. Second, the
Supreme Court seems poised to significantly limit
the president's power to impose those tariffs
unilaterally, potentially reasserting Congress's
authority. And third, The parties are already
fighting tooth and nail over the future battlefield
redrawing maps, trying to control who gets nominated
in key districts. And worryingly, the federal
government seems to be stepping back from securing
the actual election infrastructure itself. Which
brings us to that final provocative thought.
We heard the Supreme Court justices questioning
the emergency tariff power by asking, could a
president use this for climate change? Yeah,
that hypothetical about taxing gas guzzling cars.
So if the court does rule against the administration
here, using the major questions doctrine to say
no, you need clear congressional approval for
big economic actions under an emergency. Does
that signal a broader shift? Could the court
become equally skeptical of any claimed national
emergency, maybe related to election security,
or something else entirely if a president tries
to use it to bypass Congress for major policy
changes? That's a really interesting question.
If they're saying major questions require clear
statutes for economic emergencies, why wouldn't
that apply to other types of declared emergencies
where a president tries to act alone on something
huge? It could mean the court is really trying
to force power back to the legislative branch
across the board, pulling back on decades of
growing executive authority. It might fundamentally
change the playbook for how presidents respond
to crises, forcing them to work with Congress
rather than around it. Definitely something to
watch. Something for you to mull over. Thanks
for joining us for this deep dive into the source
material. See you next time.