Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Our mission today,
well, it's pretty laser focused. We're synthesizing
a huge stack of sources for you. A huge stack.
We've got the latest Gallup polls, some really
surprising local election results, high stakes
legal battles. Exactly. And the goal is to give
you the absolute fastest, most thorough understanding
of where the political and economic landscape
is right now. And we're not just looking at the
obvious headlines here. No, not at all. We're
trying to find those hidden currents that are
actually shaping the 2026 map. And we absolutely
have to start with those hidden currents. I mean,
the hook today isn't just about the top line
approval numbers, which are, frankly, quite challenging.
They're tough, yeah. It's what's happening far,
far away from Washington. We are seeing definitive
evidence that these truly sleeper issues things
like electricity prices exactly skyrocketing
electricity prices often fueled by the massive
energy demands from AI data centers they are
quietly swinging local elections in deep red
areas And that tells us that fundamental economic
pain is, well, it's starting to crack partisan
loyalty. OK, so let's start with that big political
pulse check, because these Gallup numbers, they
really demand our attention. We're looking at
an overall job approval of just 36%. With disapproval
spiking up to 60%. 60. And that 36 % figure is
a major benchmark. Now, the all time low is 34
% right after January 6, 2021. Right. But this
36 % This is a record low for what we sort of
been calling Trump v 2 .0. The political movement
since he left office. Exactly. He started that
period of 48 percent, a sustained rating in the
mid 30s. I mean, that puts the House of Representatives
in serious jeopardy for the Republicans next
year. And, you know, maybe the Senate, too. And
what's genuinely surprising here isn't the drop
among Democrats. I mean, they couldn't really
get any lower. It's the. The erosion happening
with independents, they fell from 33 % approval
down to just 25. And even among Republicans.
Right. A slip from 91 % down to 84. That erosion
among the base, that is the huge danger sign.
That 7 % dip in Republican loyalty. That's where
the analysis really needs to focus. Who are these
people? Who are these seven percenters? Well,
they're likely voters who are feeling the pinch
of inflation and those local economic stressors
we mentioned, like utility bills. So it's not
ideological? Not necessarily. They aren't suddenly
anti -Trump, but they're asking, is the government
doing anything to make my life cheaper? And when
the answer is no, they pull back their approval.
OK, so to put this in some historical context,
back in 2017, the average approval was 38 percent.
That preceded the midterms where Democrats flipped
41 House seats. A blue wave. Is that level of
devastation possible again, even with all the
highly effective gerrymandering we have now?
That's the major caveat. You always have to mention
it. Gerrymandering might reduce the number of
potential flips, but there's a critical counterpoint
to that. The dummymander. Yeah, that's when political
models create these so -called safe seats based
on flawed assumptions about how people will vote.
Say, they assume loyalty from black, Latino,
or young voters based on old trends that are
now shifting. And if that model breaks? If the
model breaks, those safe red seats become highly
vulnerable. A gerrymander can actually become
a liability when a specific, unanticipated, issue
-like utility rates just blows up the whole map.
So when we break down the administration's performance
by issue, the results are, while they're telling,
the highest approval is on crime. It pulls in
43 percent. Which fits the standard Republican
platform, sure. But then you see the political
liabilities just stack up at the bottom of the
chart. The lowest approval issues are, I mean,
abysmal. Yeah. Healthcare policy at 30 percent,
the situation in Ukraine at 31, federal budget
also at 31, the Middle East is barely better
at 33. Which raises a real question for me about
polling accuracy. How can the general category
of foreign affairs score 41 percent approval?
When all the specifics are in the toilet. Exactly.
When the two biggest international conflicts,
Ukraine and the Middle East, are rated so poorly.
What are people approving of? It absolutely flags
an ambiguity in voter knowledge. I think voters
are giving a kind of general pass on the high
level concept of foreign affairs. Yeah. You know,
thinking about alliances or global standing.
While rejecting what they see on the news every
night. Precisely. They are actively rejecting
the specific crisis level conflicts. It suggests
that if reporters focus specifically on how the
administration is handling, say, key allies,
that general 41 percent would just collapse instantly.
OK, so shifting away from polling, let's look
at the performance art coming out of Washington.
The administration is heavily focused on executive
actions, specifically this announcement to cancel
all of Joe Biden's executive orders that they
claim were signed by auto pin. A number they
claim is as high as 92 percent. 92 percent. This
whole auto pin battle is, well, it's classic
political theater. It's completely performative
in a legal sense. Right, because an executive
order is just a directive to the bureaucracy
telling them how to interpret existing laws.
Exactly. And the simple fact is that whether
the previous president signed it by hand or by
a machine. The next president can just issue
a new one overriding it with the flick of a pen.
With the flick of a pen. It makes zero operational
difference in the long run. In fact, if you go
back to the George W. Bush administration, their
own Office of Legal Counsel confirmed a president's
authority. to use auto pins for these directives.
So the method of signing doesn't matter. It doesn't
invalidate the instruction. The only reason to
highlight this is just to create noise. OK, but
wait. They are making a special point about pardons.
They're claiming auto pin sign pardons are invalid.
Isn't there at least some legal meat on that
bone? I mean, a pardon is a more solemn constitutional
act. You'd think so, but not really. What's fascinating
is a 1929 memo from the Solicitor General, which
stated the Constitution doesn't actually specify
how a pardon has to be granted. So even an oral
agreement would work. Technically, yes, though
written is obviously more practical. The administration's
focus here, it isn't really the legality of the
auto pen. They're using the auto pen to imply
something deeper. And that deeper implication
is the real danger here, isn't it? It is. The
suggestion that using an auto pen implies a lack
of mental competence. a lack of executive capacity.
That is the critical takeaway. And it's a constitutional
can of worms. Because if you successfully establish
that a lack of mental competence can invalidate
official acts without invoking the formal process
of the 25th Amendment. You've set a terrible
precedent. A terrible precedent. Yeah. A future
Democratic president could then apply that same
standard questioning competence retroactively.
Against every act of the next administration.
Yeah, it weaponizes the whole issue of mental
fitness speaking of political deflection Let's
talk health care since the promises to lower
costs weren't met The strategy has clearly shifted
to finding a scapegoat blaming greedy insurance
companies for rising health premiums This is
the administration's way of avoiding the core
financial conflict in modern health care reform
Let's just break down the mechanics simply for
a second. Okay, if the government passes a mandate
meaning insurers have to accept seriously sick
people without charging them extra for pre -existing
conditions, that cost has to go somewhere. Right.
You stop the insurer from charging the high -risk
person, so the cost burden just shifts. Exactly.
And normally, that shifting cost is absorbed
by government subsidies that help pay those premiums.
But since this administration opposes those subsidies
on ideological ground... You're left with a bad
equation. You're left with... Mandate... require
coverage. Plus, no subsidy government doesn't
pay, which equals a premium hike. The cost gets
shifted onto every healthy working person paying
a premium. The only way insurance companies can
stay in business is by jacking up premiums for
everyone else. So the political question really
becomes, is the administration willing to admit
that their own stance against subsidies is what's
leading to the higher premiums they're now blaming
on greed? And that's a major opportunity for
Democrats. They could clearly explain the function
of subsidies here to defuse that whole greedy
insurer narrative. If a voter understands that
high premiums are basically a tax on the healthy
to make up for a lack of government funding,
the blame game changes instantly. Which brings
us right into rising costs and economic stressors.
We have a new villain in the household budget.
It's replacing the price of eggs. And that villain
is electricity prices. Absolutely. Electricity
is the new major price shock and is driven primarily
by the astronomical energy demands of AI data
centers. People are seeing this on their monthly
bills and it's quietly becoming a huge local
political issue that DC just doesn't seem to
recognize yet. We saw proof of this in the recent
Georgia Public Service Commission elections.
I mean, these are races nobody outside of Georgia
usually even watches. No. And Democrats won landslide
victories in some extremely deep red counties
there. This is a huge bellwether. Voters in places
like Hogan'sville, for instance, were furious
about escalating utility bills. and a specific
localized $50 a month levy for a new nuclear
power plant 200 miles away. And they blamed Republicans
for it. Squarely. For being too cozy with the
AI industry and utility providers. The two Democrats
won on this single issue. In counties, Trump
won by massive margins. And this isn't isolated,
right? This same issue came up in Virginia. Repeatedly.
The Virginia gubernatorial election, it kept
surfacing. The public is demanding that tech
companies pay the full cost of data center energy,
not the ratepayers. Especially since those data
centers create almost no local jobs once construction
is done. Exactly. Voters are asking, why should
I subsidize massive energy use for something
that gives my community zero benefit? And politicians
who can't answer that question are getting punished.
Severely. Okay, moving to consumer sentiment.
The overall picture is low, but when you look
at the graphs, there's a genuinely fascinating
disconnect in who is actually optimistic about
the economy. Right. First, the partisan divide
is still king. Republicans are much happier than
Democrats. Which is pure partisanship. Pure partisanship.
We know this opinion would flip instantly if
a Democrat takes the presidency in 2029 no matter
what the GDP is doing. But the wealth divide,
that's what's really striking. People who own
stocks, about 60 % of adults are feeling better.
But that 60 % isn't uniform across the population,
which creates a political problem. 70 % of white
adults own stocks, versus 53 % of black adults
and only 38 % of Latino adults. And that disparity
explains why some groups might feel disproportionately
negative, even if the national numbers look stable.
Of course. The top third of income earners are
more optimistic. Because if you have money left
over to save or invest, even with high inflation,
you're participating in the stock market's growth.
For the 40 percent of Americans who don't own
stocks, rising prices just mean a shrinking budget.
And then there's the most counterintuitive graph
of all, the age surprise. So vast. Young adults
under 35 are far more optimistic than older people,
especially those 55 and up, even though younger
adults generally have lower incomes and fewer
assets. Right. And while, you know, Idealism
is a factor we have to look deeper. Older Americans
are often on fixed incomes. They're deeply sensitive
to inflation eroding their savings. Younger adults,
though, they see themselves as still climbing
the earning ladder. They might see current hardship
as temporary, believing their future earnings
will outweigh today's high prices. They're optimistic
about their potential, whereas older voters are
worried about preserving their present assets.
OK, let's switch gears entirely to the legal
and electoral battlefields that are shaping the
immediate future, starting with a definitive
legal loss that really sends a message. Yes,
the three judge panel decision unanimously upholding
the order for that payment of what was it, nine
hundred and thirty seven thousand nine hundred
and eighty nine dollars and thirty nine cents.
That's the one against Trump and his former lawyer,
Alina Haba, for that bogus racketeering lawsuit
against Hillary Clinton. And the significance
there is the panel's composition. The judges
were appointed by George W. Bush, Joe Biden,
and Trump himself. When you get a unanimous ruling
across that wide of a political spectrum. It's
not an ideological decision. It's a statement
about the quality of the litigation. It sends
a clear message that this type of politically
motivated baseless lawsuit will be punished with
serious financial penalties. And this fine just
adds to the pressure stacking up against the
$83 million E. Jean Carroll judgment that's on
appeal. He does. Now, in foreign policy, we have
this highly sensitive leaked phone call about
Ukraine and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff.
It's jaw dropping. The leak suggests he's coaching
Russia on how to sell a peace plan. Yeah, the
leak suggests Witkoff is coaching a top Russian
official, Yuri Ushakov, on how to structure a
Ukraine peace plan so that it appeals to Trump.
Witkoff, I mean, this is a guy who has idolized
Trump for 40 years and has called Putin not a
bad guy. So he's freelancing foreign policy.
He appears to be completely freelancing and,
you know, toting water for Russia. This brings
to mind that quote from the seasoned negotiator,
Aaron Miller, deals are cut when there is urgency,
meaning both pain and prospects for gain. Precisely.
And right now, Putin is clearly not experiencing
enough pain to negotiate unless he gets to dictate
the terms. Witkoff, who seems desperate to please
his idol, is likely trying to structure a deal
that Putin wants, then helping the Russians frame
it so Trump sees it as a win. Which would be
a clear dictate outcome from Moscow. And it completely
undermines any serious U .S. negotiating position.
OK, so let's turn to the immediate electoral
bellwethers happening this December. These are
the races that are testing all these underlying
tensions we've been talking about, especially
that economic pain threshold. We've got several
runoffs highlighting the progressive versus moderate
Democrat fight in Atlanta. You have Mayor Dickens
backed moderates running against candidates supported
by the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America.
Right. For city council and school board. You
see a similar dynamic in Jersey City with former
Governor Jim McGreevey running against a working
families party -back progressive. These results
will show where the energy really is in the Democratic
base. Then you have races focused on immigration
and ICE. In the Albuquerque mayoral runoff, the
current Democrat mayor, who limited cooperation
with ICE, is facing a pro -IC Republican former
sheriff. And a big win for either side there
says a lot about local sentiment toward enforcement
policy. You know, regardless of all the national
rhetoric. But the race that truly tests our core
thesis, the anti -utility and AI backlash, is
that Georgia HD 121 special election. The absolute
must watch race. This district is extremely red.
Trump won it by 22 points in 2024. If the Democrat
Eric Gisler flips that seat. It validates everything.
It proves that the anti -utility sentiment we
saw in those PSC races was not a fluke. It means
economic pain is flipping seats in rural areas.
And it's a huge signal for And finally, let's
not forget the challenges popping up against
established Democrats in New York City. Right.
Young progressives like Chiyose and Alexa Avelez
are targeting powerful incumbents like minority
leader Hakeem Jeffries and Dan Goldman. Goldman
is a fascinating target. He was the lead impeachment
counsel. He's a progressive himself and he's
very wealthy. Which makes him incredibly difficult
to knock off. The challengers have to move very,
very far left to create any daylight between
themselves and incumbents who are already you
know, card carrying progressives. It makes for
a really contentious primary. So as we synthesize
all this, what does it all mean? We've gone from
a specific 36 percent approval hurdle and that
performative legal noise about auto pins to the
surprising economic split between stock owning
and non -stock owning demographics. And most
importantly, we've pinpointed these immediate
electoral indicators in Georgia and the southwest
that are being driven by energy prices and local
economic frustration. The key insight, I think,
is that even with widespread gerrymandering,
economic pain, specifically localized, rising
costs like electricity, can break through. It
can overcome partisan loyalty. The results in
Georgia are telling politicians that scapegoating,
whether you direct it at insurers or previous
presidents, it won't work if voters feel it in
their pockets every single month. So here's a
final provocative thought for you to chew on
that kind of builds on this theme of economic
fairness. We noted that Swiss voters recently
rejected a 50 percent inheritance tax and the
Washington Post ran an editorial congratulating
them. Right. Now, we often hear debates about
taxing earned income versus capital gains. But
consider the simplest defense of an estate or
inheritance tax, preventing people from becoming
billionaires purely by lucking into the right
parents. It's a fundamental question of fairness.
We accept taxing earned income. which is money
someone actually labored for. But that feels,
well, fundamentally different than taxing someone
who acquires billions by birthright. So if voters
are looking for a tax that addresses fairness
and prevents the creation of vast unearned wealth.
Perhaps the focus shouldn't only be on income,
but on inherited assets. It's an issue that will
absolutely resurface for the 2028 debates. Something
to mull over as you watch those Georgia results
come in. Thanks for joining us for the Deep Dive.
Always a pleasure.