- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Are Republicans in Trouble?
🌊 Are Republicans in Trouble?
Two developments this week suggest the Republicans are weaker than they appear
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
Many pundits have cast the November election as a landslide victory for the Republicans. After all, the Republicans won the White House – with the popular vote! – and both chambers of Congress. In response, there was barely a protest. This wasn’t 2016. Rather than line up to condemn conservative policies, institutions ditched DEI, public figures came out in support of Trump, and CEOs – from Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg – lined up to fund his inauguration.
Since then, a slew of polls have come out that seemed to confirm the “vibe shift.”
One Harvard-Harris poll in February found that Trump’s approval rating was a record +9, while the Democratic Party’s was -28, the lowest on record. Since then, infighting has engulfed the Democrats, with many liberals accusing the party of appearing powerless against Trump. As Politico headlined two weeks ago, “We Dug Into the Polls. Democrats in Congress Should Be Very Afraid.”
Yet this week, cracks in the “vibe shift” started to show.
In November, Trump won a district in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania by 15 points. On Tuesday, the district held a special election to replace a state senator who had stepped down. It was hardly an election worth keeping an eye on: A Democrat hadn’t won the seat since 1979.
In the lead-up, though, polling showed a Democrat was leading. That prompted Republicans, including Elon Musk, to warn about the situation on X. Their concern changed little: When the count came in, the Democrat won with 26,951 votes to the Republican’s 26,469, 50%-49%.
Democrats quickly claimed the vote represented national anger about Trump’s policies.
Republicans were split: Some quickly downplayed the election’s significance, claiming that this was a narrowly decided local election where the deciding factors may have had nothing to do with national politics. They noted that special elections are often not representative and that the result did not impact control of the state senate, where Republicans still have a three-seat majority.
Others claimed the vote was rigged: On X, the conservative journalist Liz Harrington – who frequently claims election fraud to her 436,700 followers – tweeted that it was impossible Republicans lost:
Yet on Thursday, it was none other than Trump himself who made it clear how vulnerable the Republicans actually feel.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
We’re curious to hear what you think: Are the Republicans in a bad position? Does the Democrats’ win in PA mean anything? Or is this all just noise? Let us know by replying to this email.
In case you missed any of our latest stories, here they are:
Yesterday’s story – in which we compared each person’s private comments in the leaked Signal chat with their public ones – set off a firestorm. Lots of responses, so we’ll get right to them.
Jerry wrote:
Because of what seems to be a liberal agenda, I will be canceling my subscription to Roca.
Martin wrote:
If I wanted MAGA Media I’d be listening to Mark Levin. Unsubscribe. Stop emailing me.
Editor’s Note: Looks like we covered the chat fairly!
Joe wrote:
First, focusing on decision-making and alignment is a very creative and interesting way to cover this story. Nicely done!
Having been in similar conversations, I would challenge you on a couple of points, although none are a big deal. You state, "Waltz also disagreed with Vance." I do not see a clear disagreement. Vance essentially said he doesn't want to bail Europe out, and it may be a good idea to think about this longer (a month), but he is good either way. Vance's position is grounded on his 3% of US trade factoid. Waltz presents different trade #s and suggests there is complexity and uncertainty in US vs. Europe percentages. Waltz is open to executing now or waiting. So, there was no disagreement in logic, positions, or recommendations; the only counter was with the understanding of the information, the so-called "facts." It appears that they collectively learned and became aligned through the discussion. As you point out, in the end, it appeared all agreed that Red Sea shipping isn’t a purely European interest and that no European navy had the ability to crush the Houthis, meaning the US had to do it.
Thanks for the great reporting!
Schimon wrote:
Before I respond, thank you both so much for what you do. I’ve never consumed such a neutral outlet before!
First, I am starting to think that Mr. Goldberg may have been added to the chat on purpose. Not a huge fan of conspiracy theories, but the contents of the chat are not outrageous enough, that is, they are well-aligned with what these politicians said in public. That sparks the thought that they wanted the public to see that to demonstrate their democratic integrity. Both the press conference in the Oval with Zelenskyy and this incident strike me as a coordinated now.
Second, I agree that if this was inadvertent, it is embarrassing from a technological perspective. And I’m a little worried about national security if that’s how easily information can be leaked. But maybe they pokered that even the Atlantic wouldn’t sell the information to the Houthis or Iran, and did it on purpose.
Finally, I am a little surprised by how honest Trump’s advisors appear in this chat. If the addition of Mr. Goldberg happened inadvertently, I believe it is a good sign for Americans to have leaders who discuss in such an open and constructive way.
That’s all for today. See you tomorrow!
-Max and Max