Welcome back to The Deep Dive. We are jumping
right into a huge stack of sources today. A big
one. Yeah. All focused squarely on the, let's
say, shifting landscape of American politics.
You've sent us a lot of election data, policy
deadlocks, and some really jaw -dropping stuff
on how power is being used. And our mission,
as always, is pretty simple. We want to slice
through all that noise and just pull out the
knowledge nuggets you need to really get what's
moving the political needle right now. We're
looking for the patterns, those aha moments.
Exactly. And why some things work and others
just spectacularly fail. OK, so let's start right
off with special elections. For analysts, these
little contests are, you know, they're like crucial
bellwethers. They filter out the noise of a presidential
race. And we have to talk about the TNO7 result,
Tennessee's seventh district. So Republican Mark
Van Epps won, getting 54 percent to Democrat
Afton Benz, 45 percent. Right. And on the face
of it, a nine point Republican win in what we
know is an R plus 10 district. That seems totally
fine. Seems consistent. Yeah. Republicans held
the seat. End of story. Right. But. And here's
the key context to need. When you look at the
2024 presidential margin, Donald Trump won this
exact same district by a staggering 22 points.
OK, wait. Let's unpack that. Yeah. So he wins
by 22, but the special election Republican only
wins by nine. That gap is enormous. It suggests
something. Yeah. Something fundamental has shifted.
It absolutely has. Yeah. Our analysis confirms
a 13 -point swing toward the Democrat in that
election. 13 points. Compared to the top of the
ticket last year. And this isn't, you know, a
one -off. It's not an anomaly. This is consistent
with what we've seen across the four previous
2025 special elections. So everywhere. Districts
are swinging, you know, a dozen points or more
toward the Democrats compared to 2024. That trend
of Democrats outperforming the top of the ticket
is persistent. It's powerful right now. OK, so
the data confirms this massive widespread swing
away from the last Republican presidential performance.
But this was still the Democrats' worst improvement
of the five specials. The swing wasn't enough
to actually flip the seat. So what went wrong
for them in TNO7 if the big trend was on their
side? And this is where we get the vital lesson.
Candidate fit still matters so much. The national
wins can be blowing your way, but Ifton Ben was
a self -proclaimed radical activist. In middle
Tennessee. In middle Tennessee. And Republicans
hammered her on it relentlessly. And then, to
top it all off, Representative Alexandria Ocasio
-Cortez shows up to campaign for her. I mean,
that feels like a strategic gift to the opposition
in an R plus 10 district. It absolutely was.
You can see it in the results. AOC is a tremendous
asset in, say, a dense progressive urban district.
Sure. But in a rural R plus 10 district, that
national progressive branding, it probably helped
the Republican consolidate votes from skeptical
moderates. So the lesson is match the electorate.
The biggest lesson from all this is simple. Candidates
who are a good match for their specific electorate
win, period. The national trend is just one factor.
That sets us up perfectly for our first section,
moving from these congressional races to the
microcosm of local politics. Yeah, the message
is even louder there. It's like, match your electorate
or lose, because the party label means a whole
lot less when you're just picking a mayor. We
saw that so clearly in the Georgia mayoral runoffs.
In Roswell, a moderate suburb, the Democrat Mary
Robin show, she successfully ousted the incumbent.
A sign of suburban fatigue. Right. But then you
look right next door in Sandy Springs, Georgia's
seventh largest city. It's 54 % white, 18 % black.
The incumbent Republican, Rusty Paul, he won
a fourth term, 69 to 31. Not even close. No.
The local dynamics, you know, desire for stability,
the demographics, it all supported the established
moderate Republican. And even where the candidates
had the same party, it was all about local stuff.
Look at South Fulton, a 90 percent black city
near Atlanta. Two black Democrats were competing.
Carmelifa Gums beat the incumbent mayor on things
like trash pickup and zoning. Right. Municipal
churn, not some grand ideological war. Exactly.
But the truly fascinating local outcome for me.
was the Atlanta City Council runoffs. Here you
had moderate Democrats backed heavily by the
mayor, Andre Dickens. Running against progressives
endorsed by the DSA, the Democratic Socialists
of America. Exactly. And this was supposed to
be the big test of the Mamdani effect, wasn't
it? It was. Yeah. Just to refresh, Zorhan Mamdani's
primary win in New York was seen as this like
proof of concept that progressives could successfully
take on moderate Democrats on a local level.
Precisely. The hope. or the fear, depending on
your view, was that this signaled a coming wave
of DSA power in cities all over the country.
And what did we learn from Atlanta? We learned
that the appeal is currently pretty limited and
highly localized. Both of the moderates, Thomas
Worthy and Wayne Martin, they won decisively.
What were the marches? Around 59 to 42 and 58
to 42. So not even close. The DSA brand, that
activist approach, it just failed to translate
into general election success there. which suggests
their path to power is still pretty geographically
constrained. And then we have this beautiful,
almost perfect morality play in Jersey City.
Oh, you couldn't write a clearer contrast. The
mayoral runoff between former Governor Jim McGreevey,
who resigned in a sex scandal years ago, and
Councilman James Solomon, a clean, young progressive.
Solomon's 41, ran on integrity. McGreevey is
68, and he was absolutely defeated. a two to
one margin. Wow. Yeah. I mean, there's a generational
thing there, sure, but the core takeaway is just,
it's kind of reassuring. Clean young progressives
can still beat, you know, moderate old sleazeballs
trying to get back in the game after resigning
in disgrace. It is good to know that America
is not totally broken. A brief moment of optimism,
yes. Okay, let's pivot hard now from local integrity
to national messaging because we're seeing a
massive quantifiable shift in the political dictionary.
Last year the word was inflation. Inflation,
inflation, inflation. Now it's all affordability.
It's everywhere and the data we have on congressional
emails is astounding. She shows exactly when
the political class got the memo. When was it?
As soon as Zoran Mamdani won that NYC primary,
a signal of economic populism, the word affordability
just spiked sevenfold. Seven times. Among Democratic
congressional emails, they got the memo instantly.
They understood that talking about the effect
of high prices, not the abstract concept, was
more potent. I'm curious about the method there.
Are these official legislative communications
or are they? It's primarily campaign communications.
Fundraising emails. The language designed to
directly connect with and motivate an average
voter. That's why the shift is so telling. And
the Republicans? They were still trending down
on the topic until the general election season
really started and then they hit the panic button.
A sudden massive spike. So they got the memo
late and are playing catch -up. They are. But
the challenge for the GOP is internal. Their
president has publicly called the entire focus
on affordability a con job. Which creates a real
communications dilemma. A huge one. If they talk
about it, they risk anchoring their party's leader.
If they don't, voters only hear the Democratic
solutions, which, you know, they sound pretty
concrete. And those solutions really do reveal
the policy divide. For Democrats, it's low -hanging
fruit. Blame high prices on Trump's tariffs and
promise to repeal them. Or push for a higher
minimum wage. Simple. Easy to understand. Republicans
have to get more creative. And their solutions
are riskier. One idea is to support lowering
interest rates, right? To ease lending costs.
But the counter to that is easy. So easy. Democrats
can just warn that lowering rates will unleash
the dreaded inflation demon all over again. The
messaging war here is... it's very high stakes.
Speaking of high stakes, let's talk about the
health care paradox. This is a situation where
Democrats might actually win politically by by
failing to pass a policy that would help millions
of people. Yeah, this revolves around extending
the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, health care
subsidies. These are the tax credits that help
people afford plans in the marketplace. And they
were enhanced during the pandemic. Substantially.
But those enhancements are temporary. Yeah. And
if Congress fails to reach a deal and the deadline
is coming up fast, the subsidies just lapse.
And that means premium spike. Overnight for about
20 million Americans. It's a consumer disaster.
So why is Congress having such a hard time acting
on this? Well, there's a big split in the Senate
GOP You've got the hardliners who've always hated
the ACA and see Killing the subsidies as a good
thing first step the first step Yeah, and they're
battling vulnerable swing state senators who
know exactly what will happen if millions of
their constituents lose coverage Right before
an election and then there's the new barrier,
which is purely ideological The abortion writer.
Correct. Some Republicans are demanding language
that bans the use of these federal subsidies
for any insurance plan that covers abortions.
And Democrats will never accept that. Never.
It's a fundamental change to health care access.
So here's the paradox that feels almost too cynical
to be true. The sources suggest that if this
deal fails, it could actually be a win for Democrats
in the midterms. Politically, yes. How do they
balance that? The potential political gain with
the... the moral responsibility to those 20 million
people. The sources are saying that politically,
Democrats know if the deal collapses, Republicans
who control Congress and the White House will
get the lion's share of the blame. It's a perfect
attack line for the midterms. Republican inaction,
Republican cruelty. Exactly. The consensus is
that while Democrats obviously care about their
constituents' health, the political reality is
that the blame game favors them if the clock
runs out. So what's the most likely endgame?
The historical trick. A short -term extension.
Kick the can down the road for a few months.
Get past the next election. That dynamic is deeply
frustrating. Let's shift gears completely and
talk about power itself, specifically executive
power that lacks a constitutional check. We're
talking about the presidential pardon. The pardon
power is truly unique in our system. Most powers
have a counterbalance, right? Congress passes
a bill. The president can veto it. President
nominates judges. Senate confirms. Is that not
the pardon? The pardon is only accepted in cases
of impeachment. The founders intended it as a
check of mercy, a way to fix things when justice
went wrong. But based on recent examples, it
seems to have morphed into something else entirely,
a tool to enforce loyalty. It's become a loyalty
tool, yes. The list of recent high -profile pardons
is like a a veritable assembly line. It sends
a clear message to anyone aligned with the administration.
Like who? We've seen a pardon for the former
Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who
was convicted on a 45 -year drug conspiracy sentence,
a case the U .S. prosecuted vigorously. And then
there are the symbolic pardons, the ones meant
to protect political allies. Exactly. Rudy Giuliani
and Mark Meadows both pardoned before indictment
for their roles in the 2020 election efforts.
That sends a stark message. That if you help
commit a crime for the president, you're protected.
The protection is there. Even if a federal pardon
doesn't stop state -level trials. And the system
benefits the connected. George Santos, you know,
he was sprung from a seven -year sentence for
fraud after just three months. It also seems
to explicitly reward financial support. Oh, absolutely.
Look at Paul Waltzak, a former nursing home executive.
He got his pardon for tax crimes less than a
month after his mother attended a million dollar
a person fundraiser Wow, or Changping Zhao the
crypto billionaire who pleaded guilty to money
laundering He was pardoned because of the deep
ties between his crypto empire and the administration's
own crypto interests It just shows the raw unchecked
nature of this power and that misuse of public
trust extends beyond pardons According to a stunning
ProPublica report. It goes to the misuse of public
resources subsidizing billionaire ranchers. Yeah,
this is a policy that was originally meant to
help small, struggling ranchers use federal land
in the West. But in practice? In practice, the
sources show people like Stan Krog, who's worth
$20 billion, has massive public land access.
Ranchers pay about 15 % of private grazing fees
for this access. Plus they get cheap insurance
and other benefits. The disparity is staggering.
Rupert Murdoch paid $200 million for his Beaverhead
Ranch. He pays the government only about $25
,000 a year to graze his cattle on 340 ,000 acres
of public land. Which is 95 % below the market
rate for similar private land. It's not just
a free lunch, though. It has real environmental
consequences. It does. Because the fees are so
low, there's no incentive to limit herd sizes.
So you get too many cattle on the land. That
leads to erosion, environmental degradation,
the same problem that contributed to the Dust
Bowl in the 30s. And what's so revealing is the
ideology behind it. There's a quote from Interior
Secretary Doug Burgum, who sees public land as
the balance sheet of America that is really restricting
itself by not being fully exploited. That framework
suggests exploitation is a virtue, not a problem.
It sets the stage for future policies that will
prioritize commercial extraction over conservation,
all driven by this belief that the land is underperforming
if it's not generating cash for the wealthiest
users. OK, we've covered national messaging and
unchecked executive power. Let's finish on political
manipulation and these state -level chess matches,
starting with Florida and Governor Ron DeSantis's
eagerness to redraw the congressional map again.
DeSantis is actively waiting for a signal from
the Supreme Court. There's a major case that
questions whether the Voting Rights Act itself
is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. And
if the court gives him the green light? The legislature
will be called back in January. And the new map
they draw is expected to carve up Democratic
strongholds and deliver three to five new Republican
seats. And they do this primarily by divvying
up districts with large black populations, right?
Like Representative Maxwell Frost's D plus 13
Orlando district. Precisely. You essentially
eliminate a voice for partisan gain. But while
this procedural rigging is a huge issue for democracy,
the sources note the cynical reality. Which is?
Voters care about the price of eggs and electricity.
Not gerrymandering. So unless gas prices are
spiking when this map is unveiled, it might not
even register as a big campaign issue in 2026.
The next example of this kind of pressure is
even more shocking. The SNAP blackmail threat.
This involves the Secretary of Agriculture. Brooke
Rollins, threatening to withhold SNAP benefits
food assistance from 21 blue states, California,
Minnesota, New York. They're refusing to share
the names and immigration status of recipients.
Does she even have the legal authority to unilaterally
cut off those funds? No, absolutely not. Nothing
in the statute gives her that power. This is
a favorite technique of the administration, political
blackmail. threatening legally entitled funds
to force compliance with something that isn't
even legal. And the whole premise is weak anyway.
Very weak. The USDA's own data shows only 0 .2
% retailer fraud. So the scale of the problem
she's claiming to solve just... it doesn't seem
to justify denying food to millions. Finally,
let's touch on the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.
Former Altine Devon or Mandela Barnes just got
in. Right. Governor Tony Evers isn't seeking
a third term, so it's a feeding frenzy in that
crucial swing state. Barnes is black, he's progressive.
That excites the base, gives him a national fundraising
network. But the challenge is that he lost his
2022 Senate race to Ron Johnson. And he was one
of the few Democrats to fail in that cycle. That
previous loss must cast a long shadow on his
electability. It does. And the skepticism is
so strong that the black -owned newspaper The
Milwaukee Courier ran an editorial titled we
can't afford to lose in 2026 and we can't risk
another Mandela Barnes loss. Wow. It really highlights
the central dilemma for Democrats in these swing
states. Do you pick the candidate who excites
the base or the one who has a better shot statewide?
So wrapping up this deep dive, we've hit four
major themes. The persistent democratic outperformance
in special elections, the rapid shift in language
to affordability, the huge policy cliff on ACA
subsidies and the alarming use of unchecked executive
power. All these threads, they really speak to
this underlying tension in how America is governed
right now. And to leave you with one final provocative
thought. it ties directly back to our discussion
on tariffs and executive power. The core legal
challenge to the president's trade power relies
on something called the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, or IEPA. The IEPA. That's
the statute meant to let the president regulate
commerce during a real emergency, like a war.
Exactly. And companies are preparing to sue for
refunds if the Supreme Court rules the president
had no authority to levy the tariffs they've
already paid, arguing that the act was misused.
If the government is forced to repay potentially
billions in collected tariffs, and we might not
get a ruling until mid -2026, what does that
do? It raises this existential question of how
that decision would destabilize the executive
branch's perception of its own economic power.
It could be a massive check on presidential authority.
A monumental constitutional check. One that would
impact every future administration's ability
to wage economic policy. It's a huge showdown
flying under the radar and you should definitely
track it closely. Fantastic analysis. That's
all the time we have for this deep dive. We hope
you feel thoroughly informed. We'll see you next
time.