This midterm, like most, will be about the incumbent, principally the economy, corruption and the Iranian war.

There also are secondary controversies which can matter on the margins. They may only move or energize a handful of voters; that might matter in close contests.

In 2026, the Democrats have a plethora of such advantageous issues, including:

THE BILLION DOLLAR BALLROOM

Senate Republicans, as part of what’s euphemistically called “the East Wing Modernization Project,” propose $1 billion of taxpayer monies. That includes funds for underground security installations, but the catalyst is Trump’s gaudy new ballroom.

The President, without authorization, tore down the historic East Wing of the White House clearing the way for a ballroom which he vowed would be paid for by rich donors. He initially put the cost at $200 million, then it got to $400,000.

That $1 billion of taxpayer money instead could restore the Medicaid cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” or build more than a dozen community hospitals in underserved rural areas.

Railing against the billion dollar ballroom, albeit exaggerated, in the context of Trump and his fellow billionaires getting richer due to government policies, will play anywhere from McAllen, TX to Maumee, OH.

THE POPE

Trump has attacked the first American Pontiff, who he says wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, “likes crime,” is “hurting the Catholic church,” and is an ingrate because he was only chosen to placate Trump.

All of that is untrue. What offends Trump is Pope Leo calling for peace.

A quick look at the politics shows Trump, in 2024, carried the Catholic vote by 53-46. Pope Leo is the most popular figure in U.S. public opinion polls. In one survey he has an 84% favorable rating with Catholics.

This fight is a loser for Trump.

SUPREME COURT

Democrats and Republicans have tried to make the High Court an election issue, usually with little success. But this patently political court might make it easier.

In opinions ranging from granting Trump, as president, extraordinary immunity from anything deemed an official act, even if illegal, to gutting voting rights, and then bending procedures to make sure it would take effect to help Republicans in this year’s elections.

Defenders of the Court point to the rejection of Trump’s tariff policy. True, but many Republicans and much of the business community agreed with the tariff decision. Rarely will you see the Republican majority on this court side against their party.

Look for candidates, with justification, calling for enlarging the Court and cracking down on ethical abuses.

ICE THUGS

Democrats can neutralize Republicans on immigration if they continue to strike distance from Biden’s permissive policies and focus on the brutal acts of ICE.

The murders in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti were horrendous. The made for TV ad is the picture of little five year old Liam Ramos, returning from pre-school in his snowsuit and Spider Man backpack, detained by ICE. He and his father were sent to a Texas deportation facility. A judge ordered them returned to Minneapolis.

The case is still pending but the picture of this little boy will remain a powerful indictment of the Trump policies.

KASH PATEL

We may be accustomed to an FBI director, experienced professional, with total integrity, a William Webster or Christopher Wray.

Patel is the polar opposite.

A devastating piece in the Atlantic outlined his drinking problems, missing in action at times, emotional outbursts and paranoia. There are reports of a mini staff revolt over improper demands the director is making, ordering them to investigate the reporter who wrote about him.

With politically inspired firings and with resignations, the nation’s top law enforcement agency, 38,000 once strong, has been decimated. Voters should be reminded of that.

The news that Barney Frank is in hospice care brought a rush of rich memories. More on those later.

In a book to be released this year Frank offers sage political and policy advice to Democrats.

He says the “left of the left “ among Democrats are pushing policies that “go beyond what is politically acceptable to most voters.” It was defund the police or open borders in previous elections, he notes, while today it’s abolish ICE or pushing for transgenders to play in women’s sports.

In a phone conversation, he elaborated on how this is an ill-considered effort “to restructure the country socially and culturally.” He added even when he agrees with general goals, Democrats “need to focus on what’s popular, pushing what’s unpopular is just dumb.”

Most Democrats agree, but that isn’t sufficient, he argues: “They have to explicitly repudiate” such policies. “ Failure to do so in the past led to the party’s brand being identified with these positions.

Few posses Barney Frank’s record and credibility in making these criticisms.

The co-author of the Dodd-Frank banking bill, he was one of the most influential members of Congress for three decades before retiring in 2012. He possesses a brilliant intellect, considerable legislative and political skills and a withering wit. He sees politics as a noble calling.

At age 86 he remains an unapologetic liberal, believing in a strong federal government role to protect the rights of minorities, civil rights and civil liberties, the poor, and a more progressive tax system to help finance programs. A self-proclaimed capitalist, he advocates strong regulation when necessary to tame excesses of the marketplace.

He could be brusque, even rude. But he commanded respect across the ideological divide. Nancy Pelosi, the liberal former Speaker who relied on him during the financial crisis called him “an exceptional legislator.” Alan Greenspan, the conservative former chairman of the Federal Reserve told me of all his congressional testimonies he prepared most diligently when facing Frank. There were policy differences, but Greenspan had enormous respect for the Massachusetts lawmaker.

His book will strike a familiar Frank theme: Democrats need to be progressive pragmatists who understand compromise is central to politics. He is dismissive of left wing ideologues and politically naive idealists

Just as small vocal group magnified the defund the police and open border views, the danger today is calls for abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. ICE is out of control, in desperate need of reform. But “it’s nuts” to suggest the country can function without an immigration agency.

In the campaign for gay rights, which he has supported for more than a half century, advocates were strategically incremental, addressing gay marriage only after building support for other protections first. This should be a lesson for transgenders today. “We should fight against discrimination and for giving kids medical care,” he says. “But don’t making playing in sports a litmus test.”

Unlike party critics like Democrat Mark Penn, who was Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, before he was fired, or those with vested interests, no one should question Frank’s progressive bona fides.

He wants an expansive, efficient federal government with fairer taxes.

Against open borders, he always supports legal immigration. He is down the line pro-choice on abortion, critical of conservative Republicans who “believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

He is Jewish, a Zionist supporter of the state of Israel, while harshly criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who he feels has caused terrible damage to the country’s standing in the United States and around the world. It’s time, he says, “to give Netanyahu an ultimatum, no more arms shipments unless he changes policies.”

My Barney memories date back to 1968 as a rookie Wall Street Journal reporter in Boston while Barney, 28 years old, was running policy for the city of Boston under new Mayor Kevin White. At night walking home through an alley I’d see Barney sitting alone at a table at the famed Locke-Ober’s restaurant, with a big slab of beef working through scores of documents.

After eight years in the Massachusetts legislature, he was elected to Congress. In 1982 he was redistricted to face a Republican incumbent who started off favored, amid a whispering campaign that Frank was gay.

The weekend before the midterm I went to Massachusetts and discovered this policy guy was a damn good politician. He won 60-40.

Subsequently he said he realized he was gay in his teens but, like others, he hid it and dated women for years. In 1987 Frank came out and in 2012 married Jim Ready.

Karl Rove and the Republicans capitalized on opposing gay rights, especially gay marriage, in the 2004 presidential election. Two years later, during a long interview, Frank was optimistic as, “once people realize that gays don’t affect their livelihood, when a gay couple moves into the neighborhood property values don’t fall.” In ensuing years, America experienced a dramatic change in public opinion, accepting gay rights and gay marriage.

Going back to 1994, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich took over the House for the first time in 40 years. Democrats were despondent, lost. Not the gentleman from Massachusetts. He told me Gingrich was an asshole, would overreach and provide lots of opportunities Check, check, check.

He was a dominant figure in the financial crisis, collaborating with Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a titan of Wall Street, who considered Barney “scary smart.”

The 2010 Dodd Frank was landmark banking legislation setting higher capital and liquidity requirements and financial stress tests for large institutions, more transparency and consumer protection. In more than a decade and a half with Republicans controlling Congress most of that time and two Trump Presidencies, the major elements of that legislation remain.

Frank’s sharp, caustic wit is legendary. A political opponent once challenged him to take an AIDS test and release it; he said he would if the other guy would take an IQ test and release it. When Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein told him all he wanted was “smart regulation,” Barney sarcastically shot back: “All I want is fucking dumb regulation.”

Congress, a dreary place these days, could use some of the Frank humor.

Substantively, he says Democrats are in a good place if they get their priorities right, as Trump is “imploding. His talent was to play on people’s disconent, exploit the anger. But he’s a one trick pony and it’s not working now.” (He told me in he book he cites three similar Democrats: Boston Mayor James Michael Curley, Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long)

Resting at home, Barney says he’s stabilized with his congenital heart condition and seems comfortable facing the inevitable.

His fervent hope is Democrats “will take advantage” of his message.

Despite Donald Trump’s unprecedented takeover of the Republican party, there are a few who have put principle above power.

They include several elected officials, former lawmakers like Liz Cheney and Jeff Flake; legal giants like former Federal Judge --and runner-up for a Supreme Court nomination -- Michael Luttig and Peter Keisler, founder of the Federalist Society, and policy and media heavyweights like Bill Kristol and the gang of GOP alums over at the Bulwark and columnists like Max Boot.

The knee-jerk loyalty of most Republican politicians is a mixture of true believers, party faithful and fear. For others it’s about money from lucrative lobbying -- there never has been an Administration more welcoming to influence peddling -- to the media limelight.

There’s also a small band of formerly respected moderate conservatives, now in full MAGA mode, who are shameful opportunists. They include:

JOE DIGENOVA

He’s back, charged with prosecuting Trump’s revenge demands from the 2016 campaign, starting with former CIA director John Brennan.

DiGenova was a top aide to Maryland’s liberal Republican U.S. Senator Charles Mathias. Then he was a successful U.S. Attorney prosecuting political corruption and convicting Jonathan Pollard, an American spying for Israel.

He became a critic of President Clinton, getting him and his wife / law partner, Victoria Toensing, lots of media attention which they lapped up. He became one of those spotlight seeking partisan lawyers.

He was made for Trump world.

He called special counsel Bob Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s effort to help Trump in the 2016 election “legal terrorists.” He represented a Putin-allied Ukrainian to get this bandit to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. He accused liberal philanthropist George Soros of controlling foreign service and FBI agents.

He said that Trump’s cybersecurity expert, Chris Krebs, who declared the 2020 election as the most secure ever, should be “shot.” Under the threat of a defamation suit, diGenova apologized.

In the effort to overturn that honest election, diGenova was an on-again, off-again Trump lawyer; stories suggested he wasn’t much respected by the president. A 162 page internal Fox News document accused diGenova of “spreading disinformation” and non-disclosure of financial motives.

An experienced prosecutor was removed by this Administration after she concluded there was insufficient evidence against Brennan. Similarly an investigation ordered by the first Trump Administration, reached the same conclusion about Brennan. That won’t phase diGenova.

DEVIN NUNES

The former California congressman started off as a conventional conservative, his mentors were two former House Speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan, the antithesis of Trump. He once called the House right wingers, now the Trump core, “lemmings with suicide vests.”

Campaigning with Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, he was politically smitten. Previously, in his first two years as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he maintained the panel’s traditional bipartisanship.

After Trump was elected he became a raging partisan, determined to prove the Russian effort to help Trump in 2016 was a hoax. He struck paydirt with the illicit surveillance of Trump supporter, Carter Page.

It was downhill from there.

He saw conspiracies everywhere and was caught secretly working with the White House on intelligence issues. When revealed, he had to temporarily recuse himself as committee chair.

Nunes, taking a leaf from his new hero, went on a defamation suit orgy, filing almost a dozen actions, everything from CNN to local California outlets . He hasn’t won anything, most were just thrown out.

In 2021, a discredited Congressman Nunes quit and became CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group, which was to be a social media leader. It was a total bust, with the stock price plummeting after it went public in 2024. After losing more than $700 million last year with only $3.7 million in revenues, Nunes was dumped.

He’s now chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board. The president pays no attention to his intelligence director, so it’s doubtful he’ll pay any attention to Nunes.

A dozen years ago the California congressman was seen as a possible chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, even Speaker of the House. He has made more money with his Trump association at the price of respect.

ELISE STEFANIK

Elected to the House in 2014, as the chamber’s youngest member, the upstate New Yorker had future written all over her. The head of the moderate Republican caucus, she was young, smart and politically savvy.

She opposed Trump in the 2016 Republican Presidential primary. Within a couple years she did, if not a 180 turn, a 179. She saw MAGA as the future, jumped on the Trump bandwagon, fiercely defended him during the first impeachment and even attended a COVID super-spreader Trump Rally in Oklahoma. (Former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain caught the virus there and died.)

Stefanik became the champion Trump cheerleader. She was a 2020 election denier, said the criminals convicted of the January 6th violent assault on the Capitol were being held “hostage” and blamed Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi for that Trump-inspired insurrection.

Caroline Mason, one of Stefanik’s early mentors, an officiant at her 2017 wedding, told Time magazine: “She basically abandoned her own core values for a man who had no core values.”

She stormed back into the headlines two years ago conducting a hearing on antisemitism at universities. She devastated a couple ill-prepared Ivy League presidents who had to resign. She just published a book on the issue, “Poisoned Ivies,” which reviews suggest rehashed her old attacks.

But the political future she calculated collapsed. Trump passed her over to be his running mate in 2024. She is retiring from Congress and was running for Governor. When Trump didn’t endorse her, and as she was 19 points behind the incumbent Governor, she quit the race and politics.

Like most who hitch their political star to Trump, diGenova, Nunes and Stefanik may get a temporary high. It never endures and they pay a real reputational price.

Saturday night is the annual White House Correspondents dinner, supposedly a celebration of Freedom of the Pess,

It has become more like clown show with 2600 of your most intimate friends.

First a short look back.

Years ago, when I was a young reporter for the Wall Street Journal, this dinner consisted almost exclusively of reporters and editors and their guests, usually leading politicians or government officials. It could be interesting and informative.

One year I took Larry Woodworth, director of the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, the most important staffer on Capitol Hill. Boring you think. Actually he was a really good, smart guy. I was covering the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees; that evening enriched my reporting. Another year I took California’s Jerry Brown; never a dull moment.

Decades ago it began to change; pressure mounted to get high profile entertainers and separately advertisers. Now I don’t object to dinners featuring the glitterati; I can star gaze too. And advertisers helped send my kids through college.

But combining those with a dinner that’s supposed to be about journalism and the First Amendment is out of sorts in these challenging times for the press.

Donald Trump is the featured speaker this year. Instead of a comedian the entertainment will be a mentalist.

Fine to have invited the President, as long as at the dinner honoring the First Amendment it’s noted that the featured speaker is a sworn enemy of a Free Press. So are couple other guests, Defense Secretary Hegseth who wants to dictate what reporters can cover the Pentagon and what they can cover; and FCC chairman Brendan Carr who shows contempt for a Free Press.

They may have to watch the recipients awarded for excellent journalism. How might Trump react with recognition to my favorite honoree, Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal who has reported on Trump’s abuse of power on pardons, or revenge against his enemies, most recently on his chaotic handling of the Iranian war ? Also honored will be two other Trump targets the Associated Press and CNN.

Will Trump, as customary, be on the dais to congratulate them ?

I’m just glad I no longer have to attend this spectacle.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

**** Trump is obsessed with the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates; it’s why he so viciously attacks Chairman Jay Powell. Yet his nominee to replace Powell, Kevin Warsh, told the Senate Trump never pressured or even asked him to cut rates. Fudging the truth is a bad start, Mr. Warsh,

**** Defense Secretary Hegseth ordered, in the name of freedom, flu vaccines no longer will be mandatory for the American military. At Valley Forge, in 1777, Gen. Washington mandated that all his troops be vaccinated against smallpox. Who do you think knew more about freedom, Hegseth or George Washington ?

**** Trump has declared English our official language. Yet he’s eliminating the federal office that provides support for teaching English to Spanish speaking kids.

Virginians will vote Tuesday on whether to facilitate a new gerrymandering of congressional districts that is deeply partisan, a bad idea.

I’d vote for it in a minute if I lived in Virginia.

The only reasons to vote against it are to help Donald Trump or if you believe in unilateral disarmament.

This is all about Donald Trump. In a desperate attempt to avoid losing the House majority this year he set out to try to manipulate the result. It began when, following his orders, Texas enacted a gerrymandered redistricting for 2026 to give the GOP control of 30 of 38 House seats, a gain of five.

Trump pressured states where Republicans controlled the process to do likewise. He ignored the normal practice, in most instances, where redistricting occurs every ten years after the census report on population.

What he didn’t fully anticipate was Democrats would fight back just as ruthlessly. It started in California where, unlike Texas, a referendum authorizing a redistricting change was put on the ballot and passed by more than three million votes. The aim was to check Texas and add five additional Democrats seats to the already massive 43 to 9 advantage.

Republicans succeeded in picking up a likely seat in both North Carolina and Missouri.

Trump set his sights on Indiana where he met resistance from prominent Republicans like former Governor Mitch Daniels and associates of his first presidency’s Vice President, Mike Pence. Thus it failed in the Republican-led state legislature and Trump now is trying to defeat seven GOP state Senators who stood up to him.

Maryland Democrats also decided not to change.

Separately, there are a couple court-related cases that should enable Democrats to pick up three seats in Utah, Alabama and Louisiana. If the Supreme Court soon were to gut voting rights, Louisiana Republicans may be poised to reverse that.

Florida Republicans, despite some legal hurdles, probably will approve a redistricting that should give them a couple more seats. This is a virtual certainty if the Virginia Democrats’ referendum passes tomorrow.

The stakes in Virginia are considerable. The new U.S. House map, drawn by the Democratic state legislators, is intended to give the party a 10 to 1 advantage up from the current 6-5. Some Democrats worried that it was too much of a reach.

Republicans are fighting back. They even trotted out the failed former Governor Glenn Youngkin to make a pitch against stealing votes.

The thrust of the GOP campaign was captured in an inane Washington Post editorial that charged sponsors of the referendum are deceiving voters by depicting it as “restoring fairness” in the upcoming elections and returning to regular order after the next census.

This is a partisan explanation but it’s exactly what is intended. Voters aren’t deceived. That’s why Democrats overwhelmingly support the referendum and Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed.

It’s instructive to look at Virginia and neighboring state North Carolina where Republicans, with the benefit of gerrymandering, are expected to win 11 of 14 House seats.

Looking at the top recent statewide elections, Virginia has voted Democratic in every one of the last five presidential elections, in three of the past five gubernatorial contests, and all six Senate elections. With fair redistricting, it’s not hard to see Democrats holding seven of the eleven House seats.

Republicans have won four of the past five Presidential elections in North Carolina, five of the last six Senate contests, while Democrats have won four of the five gubernatorial races. So all things being equal, the GOP could hold eight of the fourteen seats in the Tar Heel state.

That would mean Democrats have 13 in the two states and Republicans 12. If Virginia approves the referendum, that’s the anticipated outcome.

In Virginia, like California, the issue is being resolved by voters. In North Carolina it was politicians cutting backroom deals.

Both these changes are unfortunate. Voters should pick their representatives rather than politicians choosing their constituents. Gerrymandering not only makes for a more partisan outcome but makes governing harder.

Overall, there’s a better than even chance that Donald Trump’s effort to fix this year’s House elections will backfire. Democrats will be the net winners in this year’s gerrymandering wars.

--

Donald Trump is guilty of multiple impeachable charges: using his office to enrich himself, peddling presidential pardons, abuse of power by deploying the Justice Department and FBI as political weapons, arguably committing war crimes, among others.

It would be crazy, however, for Democrats to pursue or even threaten actions to remove him from office.

Any effort would lose even if Democrats win control of Congress in the midterms. It’s worse. Talk about impeachment is seized on by Trump as one of the few things that might energize the despondent Republican base. It also plays into the canard that his Justice Department is just making amends for what the Biden Administration did.

Yet already dozens of Democrats are raising the specter of impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. That will be further fueled by the New York Times prized White House correspondent Peter Baker’s piece on how Trump’s actions and rhetoric -- threatening to end Iran’s civilization, blasting the Pope and putting out an AI generated picture of himself as Jesus tending the sick -- raise anew questions about his mental sstability.
I have no access to any of his doctors nor any medical expertise; just watching Trump am convinced he has real cognitive problems.

But the 25th Amendment requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to find the President unable to discharge his duties. JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Howard Lutnick & co. moving to dump Trump? Dream on.

The impeachment brigade predictably includes left wing members of Congress, like Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. It also includes more mainstream Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

There’s an intense Senate primary in Massachusetts between incumbent Ed Markey and Congressman Seth Moulton. When one came out for impeachment the other had to. That plays well in a primary with liberal Bay State Democrats. It won’t in most red or purple state general elections.

These threats are a gift to Trump. “He’s saying ‘They want to impeach me,’” notes Bill Cohen. “Send me money and get prepared,” Cohen, later Secretary of Defense, was a key player as a freshman Republican Representative from Maine in the one accomplished impeachment proceeding in 1974.

Looking at this and the other three modern presidential impeachments should be instructive. In 1973 the table was set by a special Senate committee, headed by conservative Democrat Sam Ervin with bombshell testimony from former White House counsel John Dean and top Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield, who disclosed there was a taping system at the White House.

The next year the House Judiciary Committee, controlled by Democrats, took over methodically building the case guided by a great lawyer, John Doar, working with his Republican counterpart, Albert Jenner. By the summer a half dozen Republicans with key Democrats, working around the clock, perfected bills of impeachment.

The President, realizing his fate, resigned before any House or Senate votes were cast.

None of the next three impeachments came close to those standards. President Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with Republican political leaders forcing it upon a reluctant House Judiciary chairman.

There was merit in the case against Trump in his first term, as he tried to link aid to Ukraine to that country dishing out dirt against Joe Biden. The House Intelligence Committee did a good job laying out the case; the Judiciary Committee did not.

The move against Trump for inciting the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol to try to overturn the election was, out of necessity, quick and didn’t come up until after he had left office. Conviction fell short even with some Republican support.

Most of today’s Republicans are cowardly when it comes to Trump so any bipartisan action is not in the cards. The main effect of Democrats elevating impeachment then would be to distract from Trump’s governing failures.

The Justice Department is a wholly owned subsidiary of the President and the Supreme Court has basically given Trump carte blanche.

That doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.

When Democrats take the House, they will have the power of subpoena to investigate Trump’s abuses. They would need to set priorities: the enrichment of Trump and his family, the politicalization of the Justice Department, selling pardons.

And the statutes of limitations on most of these crimes, high or not, won’t expire until after 2029.

There will be a celebration Saturday of David Keene, a longtime conservative activist, who passed away last month. Two guarantees: it’ll be an eclectic crowd and there will be lots of terrific stories.

David was one of the reasons I feel fortunate to have covered politics all these years. Politically, we didn’t agree on much. He was a conservative; I was not.

But he was wonderful company, a great story teller, insightful, candid -- he could be just as harsh on some conservatives -- mixed in with humor and appreciation of irony.

The son of midwestern labor union officials, he was turned off by the left wing 60s and turned to conservatism.

He worked for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew and Sen. Jim Buckley before joining the Reagan ranks. Later, he was head of the American Conservative Union and the National Rifle Association. I’m passionately anti-gun; rather than argue we just teased each other.

A committed conservative, David was never a hater. That is in marked contrast to many of today’s conservative operatives.

He was principled, welcoming gays into he party when it wasn’t popular and opposing the post 9/11 Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds. He and the liberal Morton Halperin were honored together for their devotion to civil liberties and the constitution.

Unlike some of those other young conservatives of the 70s and 80s, David basically stuck to his principles. By contrast, others like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort made a lot of money and are convicted felons.

Keene was a great source, able to analyze with detachment. I can’t remember a conversation, no matter how serious the subject, where there wasn’t laughter. He was a happy warrior.

I got to know him well covering an exciting story. It was the 1976 Republican National Convention in Kansas City; Ronald Reagan challenged President Ford for the GOP nomination. When the primaries ended in early June they each had virtually the same number of delegates. The promise of a contested convention was in the air.

Then using the perquisites of the White House, Ford was picking off a delegate or two almost daily, headed to a certain victory in Kansas City. The right-wing Reagan diehards wanted to hit hard on ideology. John Sears, the brilliant Reagan campaign manager, realized that would be tilting at windmills; he focused on the rules instead.

Sears got Reagan to throw a “Hail Mary” three weeks before the convention. The conservative champion chose Richard Schweiker, a liberal GOP Pennsylvania Senator, as his running mate. Republicans were shocked but, as Sears foresaw, it “froze the linebackers,” or stopped any delegate movement as politicians assessed this new element.

Sears followed this with a rules proposal -- 16-C -- that would require a presidential candidate to announce a running mate before the nomination. This would be a ferocious fight to decide the nomination. If 16-C passed, whichever way Ford went was risky.

The Wall Street Journal assigned two reporters to follow the showdown. I tracked the Reagan team, specifically a top strategist, David Keene, for five days leading up to the make or break vote.

Keene gave me amazing access as he charmed, cajoled and pleaded with delegates. To moderates he stressed the big tent approach of the Reagan-Schweiker ticket, the message it sent about the Californian’s flexibility. To conservatives the message was who do you think would be a stronger candidate in the fall and would govern more conservatively? To more than a few, it was about personal or political interests.

For all his selective persuasion, I don’t think he said anything he didn’t basically believe. He also had to keep a check on Reagan zealots. One was New Hampshire’s right wing Governor, Meldrim Thomson, code-named “The Granite State Blockhead.” A junior staffer, code-named “The Leash,” was tasked to shadow the Governor everywhere. The Sunday before the convention opened, a slightly panicked Keene told headquarters, “The Leash has lost the Blockhead.”

He soon found him.

MY trailing him constantly got Keene in trouble once. We went into the Reagan command trailer, Sears spotted me and yelled, “Get him out of here.”

In those five days we talked not just about politics and delegates, but also about growing up experiences, why he became a conservative, admirable and not-so-admirable politicians. It always was in good humor. It was part political education, part just a good time.

On Tuesday night out of more than 2,200 delegates Ford won by 100, though it actually was a little closer.

That sealed the nomination in the last political convention where the outcome wasn’t pre-ordained.

Although we didn’t see each other as much in later years, in Kansas City I made a friend for life.

March Madness has not been compelling. There have been no huge upsets and only one great game the past two weeks, Connecticut’s final second victory over Duke.
All three games in the Women’s Final Four this weekend were one-sided.
Tonight, however, the UConn-Michigan championship contest may change those dynamics, producing a memorable game.
It features a great team against a great coach.
I’m a political hack journalist who loves basketball but hardly am an expert. But it hasn’t been a terrific tournament for the experts, so why not give it a shot.
I’ve seen both Michigan and UConn numerous times on television and in person for their games against Duke. Michigan is an awesome team, big, quick, deep, talented. On Saturday the Wolverines, with their best player injured for much of the game, manhandled Arizona, who many experts thoughts was the best team in the field.
UConn is really good basketball team with a mixture of seasoned veterans and a star freshman. They are disciplined and tenacious. But they aren’t as big or as powerful as Michigan.
The equalizer is the Huskies coach, Dan Hurley. This is his third trip to the championship game in the past four season Since the John Wooden-UCLA dominance ended a half century ago, the only other coach to achieve that is Duke’s legendary Mike Krzyzewski.
A word about Michigan coach, Dusty May. He took Florida Atlantic to the Final Four three years ago. A year later he was hied by Michigan who had won only eight games that season. He then led them to a Big Ten Championship and, in his second season, to the finals.
He may turn out to be a Hall of Fame coach.
For now Dan Hurley is sui generis, as entertaining as he is brilliant.
He comes from basketball royalty. His father, Bob Hurley, sr. arguably was the greatest high school basketball coach, winning over 1,000 games and 28 New Jersey state championships at a small Catholic school. His brother, Bob Hurley jr was an All-American player at Duke though a less successful coach.
One of my favorite stories out of Indianapolis was an ESPN piece by Ryan McGree who did nothing but track Hurley in the semi-final game. The coach, who head bumped a referee after they beat Duke, dropped a F-Bomb less than a minute into the game. During one “amazing stretch,” McGree wrote, “ Hurley managed to cram a real time on the clock two minutes with 96 steps, one mini-leap, six one-finger points, a pair of two handed calm downs, and a 30 second crouch next to his stool, during which he drank from two cups of water and took seven looks at the play sheet. When he finally stood up he did it with such force that he nearly launched himself backward off the floor into the sunken bench area.”
These antics sometimes overshadow his coaching brilliance, He successfully rebuilds rosters, the intensity of his practices are off the charts, no one is better at in-game adjustments, and he retains the loyalty of his players.
If you want a good taker on tonight check out my two favorite analysts, ESPN’s Jay Bilas or TNT Sports Charles Barkley.
From the amateur seats, at the risk of angering my friend Esther Newberg, a prediction: Michigan 77-UConn 74.

There’s no Slotkin among the Democrats’ three candidates. Bernie Sanders backed liberal activist Abdul El-Sayed is running. But the primary probably will come down to congresswoman Haley Stevens, the establishment choice backed by a number of colleagues and the increasingly conservative pro-Israeli AIPAC, versus Mallory McMorrow, a media savvy state Senator who has gotten support from some Senators, surprisingly Eizabeth Warren, and by J Street, the more liberal pro-Israeli group.

This primary could get ugly. The Democrats have to come out of the August 4 primary unified to hold the seat of retiring Sen. Gary Peters.

There were appealing personal stories about each of these Republicans. They could convey compassion, provide comfort during tragedy and didn’t make everything about themselves. While all were basically conservatives -- especially Reagan -- they weren’t haters.

Trump possess none of these qualities. So I guess like my partner, Carville, I’m afflicted with the syndrome too. Except it’s neither irrational nor deranged.

To capitalize on their midterm election advantages, Democrats, in a familiar refrain need to offer a positive agenda, not just opposition to Trump..

“This cycle isn’t just about what we’re up against,” says Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona. “We’ve got to present a real plan.”

Actually, history and politics today suggests that’s wrong. If the Democrats capture control of Congress -- probable -- they won’t be the governing party with Trump in the White House. A new agenda will be the mandate for the 2028 presidential aspirants.

With rare exceptions midterm elections are about the incumbent President. Trump and most of his policies are unpopular, creating a plethora of opportunities for the opposition.

Like most elections 2026 starts with the economy and affordability. Trump promised to end inflation “rapidly” to make America “affordable again.” The cost of living is down only marginally in 14 months; most voters think he hasn’t kept his promises.

The White House contends when big tax cuts kick in alongside sizable interest rate cuts with a new Federal Reserve chair the economic picture will look better this fall. Just as likely with the Iranian War and energy shocks it could look worse.

On specifics, the health care card is a gold mine for Democrats. Promising to try to restore the huge cuts in Medicaid and the Obamacare tax subsidies are powerful affordability arguments.

Another is raising the $7.25 minimum wage which hasn’t increased since 2009. Already more than 30 states have a higher state minimum wage with half over $15.00. Campaigning on raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is an easy one.

Taxes, usually a GOP advantage, are not this year. The Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill passed tax cuts that favor wealthier taxpayers.

A simple campaign proposal for any Democrat is to return the top tax rate to 39.6% from 37% with a smaller surcharge on incomes over $1 million. More revenue can be raised from closing corporate loopholes, like carried interest, and real estate loopholes.

These then can be accompanied by tax cuts for those making less than $200,000. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Bernie Sanders propose an even more liberal measure.

Immigration is another place where Trump has blown a big advantage with a zealous and brutal crackdown on migrants and even murdering some U.S. citizens. This mayhem dominates the immigration discussion much more than the success of closing the border.

Most Democrats can embrace immigration measures that echo the Obama policies, a tighter border, deport illegals with criminal records while expanding legal immigration, including a rational pathway to those who’ve been here and been good citizens.

For credibility, candidates have to disown the failed Biden Administration immigration record.

On foreign policy with continued opposition to the Iran War and the glaring incompetence of the administration, Democrats can more than hold their own on national security as long as they don’t turn to left wing isolationism. Also, there is a strong case that the fate of Ukraine, which is being hurt by the Iranian adventure, should be a more important priority.

Israel is a sensitive issue for Democrats who enjoy solid support with Jewish voters and are courting young voters, many of whom have turned on Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Voicing support for Israel while opposing Netanyahu and going to war at his behest will draw fire from staunchly pro-Israeli forces including the powerful American Israeli Political Affairs Committee which has become more conservative and pro-Republican.

As Republicans lose most of their advantages they already are running to divisive social issues such as banning transgender people from playing in women’s sports. Trump’s current priority is a voter suppression bill which includes anti-transgender provisions. This is a bogus issue, should be left to schools and some athletic conferences, not politicians.

But in some districts it puts Democrats on the defensive and dominates more important issues. It’s worth noting that even some liberal activists like former tennis star Martina Navratilova oppose allowing transgender women to play in women’s sports.

Every Democrat should embrace tough ethics reforms, including banning stock trades for any top government official in the legislative and executive branch while in office.

Two phrases for Democrats to avoid: Impeachment and defund ICE. Even with control of Congress, impeachment is a non-starter, a distraction from the other matters. Reforming ICE should focus on getting rid of some thugs and instituting better training; abolishing the immigration and customs agency would be crazy and chaotic.

Ok this is overwhelmingly an anti-Trump agenda. That’s normal. Oft-cited is the 1994 Republicans’ Contract for America; that was a brilliant political ploy that galvanized GOP candidates that year, while leaving very little future mark.

The Democrats in the 2018 midterms and Republicans in 2022 both successfully took back the House. Both campaign strategies were dominated by opposition to Trump the first time and Biden the second.

That’s what midterms are about.

From trying to change the rules to make it harder to vote, curtailing mail voting, threatening to send forces into selective precincts or even impounding voting machines, he is exploring multiple avenues to illicitly stave off defeat in the midterms.

It’s redundant to cite these threats over and over again. It gets more likely, however. It’s remarkable how many serious folks -- including some Republicans -- wonder whether the midterm elections might be called off. There’s a recognition that Trump has no use for the rule of law and fears the consequences of a Congress that would try to hold him accountable.

He may try to defer the elections though I don’t think he would get away with it. The Democrats are starting to get their legal act together, hopefully bringing in the first team as the Biden campaign did after the 2020 election. They won 60 of 61 cases in the President’s unsuccessful effort to overturn the election. (Trump’s Attorney General dismissed charges of widespread fraud and his Homeland Security Agency called it “the most secure election in American history.”)

Trump’s latest theatric is to claim he won’t sign any legislation until the Senate passes the so-called SAVE Act requiring proof of citizenship, a passport, birth certificate or military ID, to vote. This would necessitate breaking the filibuster rule, requiring 60 votes, which almost all Republicans have vowed to maintain. It also would need the vote of seven Democrats; none have indicated support.

Trump is trying to peddle this as a voter ID safeguard. But 38 states already have voter ID requirements. As the Brennan Center reports more than 20 million Americans lack these identifications, passport or driver’s license. Moreover, married women who took their spouses names would have to jump through extra hoops to vote.

The lack of seriousness is attested by Trump’s insistence that the SAVE Act include a ban on transgender participation in sports. That would take care of all those hordes of transgender illegal immigrant basketball players !.
The clear purpose is voter suppression and Trump, desperate as he is, will have to back down and find a new ploy.

It’s extraordinary that anyone takes this premise seriously, the demagoguery that millions of illegals flock to the polls to elect Democrats. It has been demonstrated conclusively in studies that this is bogus, including surveys in conservative red states:

-- A study in Utah, which votes largely by mail, found that of two million votes only one was cast illegally.

-- Louisiana a while back reviewed returns back to the 1980s and concluded there is “no systemic problem.”

-- Of 8.2 million registered to vote in Georgia, the Secretary of State found only 20 were non-citizens.

-- A Brennan study of 42 precincts where illegal votes might be suspected of 23.5 million cast, there were only 30 incidents of possible non-citizens voting.

There is no more damning indictment of the voter fraud lie than Trump’s own commission -- The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity -- launched in his first Administration, chaired by Vice President Pence and stacked with voting fraud zealots. After less than eight months it was disbanded with no findings.

Even more than the many surveys refuting the centerpiece charge of “illegal immigrants” overwhelming the polls, is simple common sense. Do you really believe undocumented workers, scared stiff of deportation, would risk it all to cast one vote?

One morning twenty three years ago, with America on the verge of war in the Middle East, I went to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, chaired by the estimable Richard Lugar.

Two top Administration officials, the State Department’s Marc Grossman and Douglas Feith of the Pentagon, testified the Bush Administration had carefully prepared for war in Iraq, expected to be welcomed as liberators when the brutal Saddam Hussein regime was toppled and weapons of mass destruction destroyed. The country then could be rebuilt in two years.

Those claims were devastated by the next panel with Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. They didn’t doubt the likely effectiveness of the initial attacks, but the planners grossly underestimated the perils and challenges of the aftermath, and a two year rebuilding was a fantasy. To those who argued anything was better than Saddam, Zinni reminded that we helped drive the old Soviet Union out of Afghanistan only to be replaced by the militant Taliban who provided sanctuary for the plotters of the 9/11 attack on America.

I wrote a column -- “The Toughest Test: Apres Saddam“ -- with a lead if the hearing had been a prize fight it would have been a TKO.

It is impossible not to see a deja vu with President Trump’s bombing strike on Iran. The similarities and differences are striking and not encouraging.

Both were massive bombing attacks that were said to be designed to head off existential threats. President Bush declared Iraq had advanced weapons of mass destruction, a global threat. This weekend President Trump claimed Iran was close to possessing a nuclear bomb which threatens allies and America.

In both cases the initial attacks were highly successful. In Iraq, Saddam and his henchmen were driven to hiding; Iran’s Supreme leader and top officials were wiped out by the American and Israeli bombings.

Both Administrations called for a popular uprising.

Of course the Bush WMD claims proved false and the Trump charges about an imminent nuclear weapon threat likewise is untrue. The differences are even more pronounced.

Bush prepared the nation for war, emphasizing it in his State of the Union address that year, dispatching top officials including sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. As required, he won bipartisan congressional approval for the military action.
Trump ignored Congress, but got the encouragement and ok from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The President gave short shrift to Iran in an historically long State of the Union speech. He reportedly became displeased with the ongoing talks with the Iranians by his novice negotiators, real estate mogul Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law.

The countries are dramatically different in size. Iran has almost four times the population and geographically is three and a half times larger. Even with the dismantling Iran has more military and terrorist capacities than Iraq had.

This is a war of choice. Years ago Richard Haass wrote a good book on the differences between wars of necessity and choice. The first Gulf War in 1991 to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait was a war of necessity and successful. Every recent war of choice -- from Vietnam to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Afghanistan and Libya -- has failed. Regime change doesn’t occur through bombing; it takes ground forces which Trump says he has ruled out.

Which raises the question why did Trump choose to start this war? Going back to his first presidential campaign, he has criticized American interventions and “endless wars.” I’ve always thought rather than a deeply held view this was situational opportunism as usually is the case with Trump.

Also after his first strike against Iran last year and then forcing governing change in Venezuela, Trump’s chutzpah escalated; hey this stuff may not be that hard.

There’s the Wag the Dog explanation. That was a 1997 movie where a President staged a war to get a sex scandal off the front pages.

I don’t have any top Administration sources on this and probably wouldn’t believe them if I did. My two best sources are the David’s -- Ignatius of the Washington Post and the New York Times’ Sanger -- two terrific reporters. Their analysis doesn’t make me feel better.

Nobody knows how this will play out. What Trump cares most about is his political standing and minimizing American casualties; if Iran is in chaos it won’t much bother him.

Many years ago when my alma mater, the Wall Street Journal, was expanding its international coverage a young staffer reportedly asked, “Is our style Iran or Iraq?”

Maybe that reporter was more prescient than we realized.

This is such an inferior collection many candidates shouldn’t want them. It’s very difficult to find any Democrat or neutral voice who respects this cabinet. Generally, it’s not about ideology, it’s about a lack of character and competence.

This contrasts with every recent Administration, Republican and Democrat, where leading cabinet members were admired by some members of the opposition party.

As Trump gives his State of the Union tonight -- expected to be interminably long -- he is in deep political trouble. He’ll be his own worst enemy with narcissistic falsehoods and vitriolic insults. He can’t look to the yes-people around him for help.

The cabinet focus is on the most prominent offices, the big Four; Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense and Attorney General.

A few of the second tier might be doing an ok job, but do any of you know who is the Secretary of Energy or Housing Secretary?

You’d be better off if you didn’t know Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is dismantling one of the world’s best public health systems and endangering thousands of lives. Or Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence who’s a conspiracy nut; or Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, best known for his link to sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

To those who say Commerce Secretaries usually are mediocrities, Lutnick’s predecessor Gina Raimondo is a political and policy heavyweight.

Of the top four, start with two considered the best or least bad: Secretaries of Treasury, Scott Bessent and Marco Rubio at State.

Bessent, a successful Wall Street money manager, was thought to be a safe choice. He quickly learned he has to be a Trump sycophant.

He gave Elon Musk’s marauders access to the Treasury’s private payment system, overseeing the firing of a top official who opposed this action. Placating Trump, unlike most Treasury chiefs he has openly assailed Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell, even criticizing him for attending a Supreme Court argument over whether the President has authority to remove a Fed Governor.

Unlike Democrat Bob Rubin or Republican Hank Paulson, Bessent has little bipartisan support.

Marco Rubo is often depicted as the good cop, the sensible foreign policy advocate to Vice President Vance’s bad cop. I’ve long thought Rubio, while clever and politically shrewd, is weak.

Thirteen years ago he was a leading Senator for immigration reform. He did a full Ginsburg (named after Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer who once did five Sunday talk shows) plus two more, advocating for reform. Within a year as the GOP tides switched so dramatically did the Florida Senator. In a 2016 New Hampshire Presidential primary debate I saw another candidate, Chris Christie, eviscerate him.

Thus it was no surprise when Rubio, once a champion of Democracy, defended the German right wing, pro-Putin AfD party and embraced Hungary’s autocratic President, Viktor Orban, two months before he faces a tough reelection.

As Secretary of State he is no George Shultz or Jim Baker or even Madeleine Alright or Hillary Clinton.

Rubio, however, looks like a gold standard next to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who was a Fox News weekend anchor.

He breached security by discussing war plans on a digital app, purged respected military officers who he deemed insufficiently loyal to him and the President, sought to inculcate a Christian culture at the Pentagon and barred reporters who won’t obey his rules in coverage.

He is an embarrassment in contrast to Defense chiefs in Republican Administrations, Dick Cheney or Bob Gates or Democrat Leon Panetta. More pointedly, in the first Trump term, Defense chiefs James Mattis and Mark Esper both stood up to unwise or illicit Trump policies or orders, resigning or getting fired as a result. That’s not going to happen with the current Secretary.

There never has been such a rule-of-law-challenged Attorney General as Pam Bondi. Hundreds of qualified attorneys have left or been fired from the Justice Department; fourteen leading U.S. Attorneys just left the Minneapolis office rather than follow what they considered lawless orders.

She has appointed other unqualified U.S. Attorneys who couldn’t be confirmed by even this Republican Senate, ridiculed by numerous federal judges, sought baseless indictments against Trump’s adversaries, a half dozen of which have been rejected by grand juries, a rarity.

Even many Republicans agree she has totally botched the investigation of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell in an effort to protect Trump. She instead has assured the issue won’t go away.

It’s unimaginable that Bondi sits in an office once occupied by Robert F. Kennedy, Elliot Richardson or Edward Levi. While she loves to take cheap shots at her predecessor Merrick Garland, she fails to mention that under his stewardship the Justice Department successfully prosecuted a senior Democratic United States Senator, Robert Menendez, and the son of the Democratic President and named a special counsel to investigate that President. That’s not going to happen with this AG.

If watching the State of the Union tonight, the pool cameras likely will focus on the Supreme Court Justices, the recent target of Trump’s venom, who’ll be sitting in the front row of the House chamber. Across the well will be most of the cabinet in seats once occupied by historic figures.

I am a technological Luddite. Our new streaming television system frustrates me.

So why am I writing a column about artificial intelligence? Good question.
Most everyone agrees AI will be transformative. I’ve talked to very smart people who suggest the benefits of AI will be enormous, while the downsides are exaggerated, as we invariably adapt to new technologies. Others say it will be game-changing, but tens of millions of Americans could lose their jobs with racial and economic disparities exacerbated.

Then I read an Atlantic piece by Josh Tyrangiel who really knows the subject. With deep reporting he makes a compelling case for both views.

As ignorant as I am about technology, I know a bit about politics. Over the next eight months this may well become a major issue.

The public already is worried. In a Pew Research Center survey last fall most Americans said AI will worsen their ability to think creatively and are more concerned than excited about the possibilities, saying they want more control over how this affects their lives.

Even more striking, with young people 18 to 29 years old, Artificial intelligence is their top concern, with 59% saying it is a threat to their job prospects, according to a Harvard University youth poll.

Moreover, says John Della Volpe, who conducts the survey, it’s equally true of college educated and noncollege citizens.

The advocates have clout and an appealing story. Realistic promises of better health diagnoses and outcomes; more efficient financial services; adding content in areas like the media, education and the legal profession among others.

They bring considerable resources including plans to spend big in political campaigns against opponents. And there’s the Chinese scare that the U.S. can’t let its major adversary take the lead in artificial intelligence. China has a few advantages the U.S. can’t replicate like a massive surveillance state.

Then there’s their all-out champion in the White House. Donald Trump, who no doubt somehow gets a piece of the action, has declared artificial intelligence a prime national priority with hardly any restrictions. He and congressional Republicans have gone a step further: seeking to ban any state regulation over the next ten years.

“The industry has long warned about the ‘risks’ or ‘costs’ of a fragmented patchwork of state laws,” notes the liberal Center for American Progress. “But those same companies have often been the first to oppose serious federal proposals, particularly comprehensive privacy [laws.]”

This should be a winning issue for Democrats and any of those remaining traditional Republicans who believe in some states rights. The most robust state effort probably is in California where the state legislature has passed multiple bills regulating chatbot disclosures, data broker transparency and health privacy. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) could be a model for other states.

However, facing fierce opposition, the Democrats pulled back from a more sweeping measure that would require individuals to be notified when any AI decisions would impact their lives.

The industry also faces pushback about the huge data centers around the country. Critics charge these are driving up electricity costs. There are particular tensions with some farm communities as these centers can take up to 1,000 acres, potentially crowding out prime farmland.

In Washington, a handful of congressional Democrats -- including Ted Lieu, Ro Khanna, and Don Beyer in the House and Ron Wyden and Gary Peters in the Senate -- are sounding the alarm over an unregulated AI. About the only congressional action this year will be defensive.

But the politics will heat up and may transcend ideology. Tyrangiel captured the odd couple opponents, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and right wing provocateur Steve Bannon, a sometime confidant of both Trump and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Both see cataclysmic changes with unimaginable numbers of workers losing their jobs if there is no regulation.

Bannon goes even further and says the federal government should own up to 50% of the artificial intelligence companies.

I’m not sure that many candidates this fall will go that far, but given the possible stakes the pro regulation advocates will have a decided advantage.

With that not so fearless prediction I have to prepare for my AI tutoring session. An American University student majoring in AI is trying to teach the basics to me and four other seniors. Fortunately, she is very patient.

Democrats are heading to decisive wins in the November midterm elections, taking the House and possibly the Senate.

That is unacceptable to President Trump, more so than the normal desire to retain control; he knows congressional investigations to hold him and his Administration accountable pose grave dangers. He will do most anything, no matter legalities, to stave off a damaging defeat.

That sets the stage for ferocious political and legal battles in the most critical midterms in more than half a century.

Trump and his team have already telegraphed their plans: suppress the Democrats’ vote, based on fictional claims of voting fraud with hordes of undocumented migrants flocking to the polls. There have been scores of studies suggesting almost non-existent voting fraud, less frequent than getting hit by lightning. And why would an undocumented immigrant risk detection by voting which would be committing a crime ?

The Trump team is trying to curb early voting, get ahold of voter files, require a passport or birth certificates to vote, threatening to send forces into heavily democratic voting venues, challenge ballots, even possibly impounding voting machines.

On our podcast James Carville and I hosted Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School and a leading expert on voting rights. He is worried: “What’s different is the federal government itself and the President are trying to undermine our elections.”

Amid his concerns, he’s encouraged by the growing opposition, less worried that constant warnings about voter suppression might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. “People are so ..... that it’s having a mobilizing effect.”

Waldman believes major rallies like No Kings -- after two last year that attracted millions around the country, the next one is scheduled for March 28 -- are elevating the stakes, enlisting more participants. If Trump steps up voter suppression, he is even open to the notion of a nationwide strike, advanced by Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego.

The economy, specifically affordability, will be the driving issue in the elections, but Waldman encourages candidates to talk about the threats that voter suppression poses for democracy. “Some consultants say don’t talk about democracy, Biden did and he lost,” he notes. “Biden’s problem was the way he talked about it, like mainly just vote for him.”

The legal challenges will be profound, he acknowledges, variations in different states but a common thread. He says there is plenty of legal firepower ready to take on Trump’s actions. The Brennan Center will be involved. Among others, high powered Washington lawyer Abbe Lowell is helping, but don’t expect previous partners like major New York law firm, Paul Weiss, to be involved. That was one of the white shoe firms that capitulated to Trump.

Waldman says these massive legal efforts will need more resources. It’s also unclear if, like the successful Biden post-election legal team that defeated Trump in 60 cases, there will be a lead team.

Elections in America depend on local officials and volunteers and there are fears of intimidation. “There is reason for people to be worried,” Waldman says. He suggests they work in groups and seek the important protection of local law enforcement.

At the very top of Michael Waldman’s list: “Vote, vote early, vote by mail.”

In a legitimate election, Democrats are going to win big. In practically every 2025 election, from statewide contests in New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin to special congressional and state legislative contests in states as diverse as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Louisiana and Iowa, Democrats are winning, by double digits, ahead of previous elections.
Preference polls consistently show Democrats with a four or five point preference for Congress. Yet in these earlier contests, including two Governor’s races -- New Jersey was supposed to be a tossup, yet Mikie Sherrill won the Governor’s race by more than 14 points -- Democrats consistently outperformed the polls. In general, that’s a hallmark of a wave or semi-wave election.

This is the 14th midterm election I’ve covered. Based on those experiences, the 2025 contests and the data, look for Democrats to gain up to a couple dozen House seats. Conventionally, the opposition party focuses on incumbents who won by five percentage points or less. There are fifteen in this category, but another 13 the GOP won by less than 15 points. Many of those seats are in play this fall. (The Republicans essentially hold a 220-215 advantage in the House.)

The big gains Trump expected from Republican redistricting didn’t materialize. Depending on whether Democrats’ gerrymandering wins approval in Virginia, the overall partisan effect will be either a draw or a gain of only a couple seats.

In the Senate, Democrats need to pick up a net of at least four seats. That’s possible especially if the March 3rd Texas Senate primaries are won by right wing, ethically challenged Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton and Democratic newcomer James Talarico.

The White House spin that an economic surge, spurred by tax cuts, will create a winning political environment, is just that, a spin. The only way Trump and Republicans can turn around the 2026 political outcome is to steal it.

As much as citizen involvement and crucial legal challenges matter, the best way to prevent this is a huge voter turnout.

This affords Democrats a chance to get back in the game on the issue in the midterms and the next Presidential election.

They had the same opportunity at the end of the first Trump term and they screwed it up.

To help avoid a rerun, I turned to one of the smartest, most knowledgeable, realistic and passionate immigration advocates who I’ve been talking to for fifteen years: Frank Sharry, who led a major advocacy organization America’s Voice, advised foreign governments and Kamala Harris’ short-lived Presidential race and has written several insightful pieces on what Democrats got wrong and how to get it right.

President Clinton wasn’t able to get much done on immigration, but Sharry notes he framed the essence of what Democrats should embrace and repeat often: “We are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws.”

Obama instituted a tough border policy, with lots of deportations -- he was dubbed the deporter-in-chief amid allegations there was some racial profiling -- while supporting more legal immigration and seeking a pathway for citizenship. It all didn’t work but politically he and most Democrats held their own.

Then after Trump 1.0’s abuses, especially family separation, Democrats veered sharply left, responding to vocal immigration activists. In the 2019 presidential debates almost all Democratic candidates, including Joe Biden, supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings. The first three years of the Biden Administration were marked by a porous border, placating the advocacy groups with White House political aides advocating to mainly ignore immigration, it’s not our issue.

Politics 101: don’t ignore an issue that is one of the three foremost in voters’ minds.

“They were playing to the sweet spot of the immigration groups rather than the sweet spot of the American electorate,” Sharry notes. “That was a fatal mistake.”

Although the Biden Administration rectified its immigration policies in its final year, it was too little too late. Looking ahead, Sharry says, to be credible Democrats have to acknowledge Biden’s mistakes.

He says they have to advocate a tough border policy, not one that relies on artificial numbers or walls, but addresses the major issue of asylum. In general, this would mean stricter standards to qualify and an easier and quicker process for those that do.

Sharry, who has spent his entire adult life working on behalf of refugees and immigrants, doesn’t warm to the subject of deportations -- except for violent criminals -- but says Democrats have to acknowledge there will be some non-violent migrants sent back. It’s the law.

But the indiscriminate and brutal Trump policies can and should be forcefully rejected. It isn’t just the murders that shock. The picture of that little five year old boy, Liam Ramos, in a snow suit and backpack being carted off by ICE agents in Minneapolis could be front and center for most Democratic campaign this fall.

Sharry wants to expedite legal immigration and favors a pathway to citizenship but believes it may be necessary to accept some way stations. Immigration advocates, he says, “need to be creative,” with more companies, unions, religious organizations and communities sponsoring immigrants.

Maybe, he ponders, a Federal Reserve type system to oversee different situations with different employees and different states. He warns Democrats above all don’t repeat the mistakes made five years ago responding to the evil Trump policies. He cringes at left wingers who call for “abolishing ICE,” the equivalent of the earlier “abolish the police,” which still haunts Democrats although almost no major figure in the party advocates that.

“We need an immigration enforcement arm,” Sharry notes, “but we need one that needs to be appropriately focused and accountable.”

Don’t abolish, reform, and get rid of the thugs and incompetent leaders.

This longtime champion of liberal immigration, soldier of the immigration +wars for decades, realizes change has to be incremental and bipartisan. There are bipartisan bills floating around: in the House the “Dignity Act,” offered by Republican Maria Salazar of Florida and Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat, with tougher border controls and better treatment of migrants. In the Senate, liberal Connecticut senator Chris Murphy and James Lankford, a conservative Oklahoma Republican sponsored a broader bill. It was attacked by both left wing immigration advocates and by Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

For the foreseeable future, immigration advocates should keep the spotlight on the Trump abuses, build on the opposition to these policies, embrace the legal and humane components of the issue while preparing for a day -- it will come -- post Trump.

Memo to Bari Weiss, Christopher Rufo, JD Vance and other anti-woke warriors.

The good news: you have succeeded in eliminating or tamping down some of the liberal/woke dictates.

Universities are under pressure to diversify faculty and students; shouting down conservative speakers is less likely; social media sites are more reticent to censor right wing messages, and diversity, equity and inclusion projects are being disbanded.

The conservative critics had a case: There was too much ideological bias at elite universities with hostility to the political right. Antisemitism and reverse racism dominated some circles. Ridiculous politically correct language was demanded like Latinx for Hispanics or pregnant persons rather than pregnant women.

What is emerging in its place, however, is a more prevalent and pernicious right wing, Trump-dominated crackdown on free speech, curbing academic freedom and crafting ideological litmus tests for the 250th anniversary of America.

With the leverage of withholding federal grants, the Trump Administration forced changes at some leading colleges. Under the guise of ending discrimination they forced the end of diversity programs, brought pressure for curricula reform and for more open discourse.

Today, at other schools, responding to political conservatives, there’s not just pressure, there’s censorship. At Texas A&M, the largest public university in America, a course on ethics and public policy was cancelled when the professor declined to say when and how the class might address race or gender issues. Another professor was required to remove a passage from Plato for fear it might violate the school’s ban on these issues.

It’s not just Lone Star state right wingers. At New York University a student, in his graduation speech, decried “the atrocities currently happening in Palestine.” The University withdrew his diploma. Whatever your views on the Middle East, that’s a free speech issue; NYU should be ashamed.

The anti left wing crowd, led by Bari Weiss, now the rightward-leaning President of CBS News, and history scholar Niall Ferguson helped launch the University of Austin, as a beacon for free expression, open and civil discourse; wealthy donors rushed to the cause. Today, according to accounts in the Chronicle of Higher Education -- must reading these days -- and Texas outlets, UAustin faces a “raft” of resignations, including the President and the Provost and is in academic chaos.

There is nothing more disturbing in higher education than Trump’s politicalization of the academic and social life at the United States Military and the Naval Academy. These young men and women, the future leaders of our forces, suffer from political litmus tests for professors, restrictions on teaching and even some book banning.

Pen America, an organization that champions free expression, notes there has been a surge in book banning chiefly relating to race, gender or sex. Before the past year, this was underway, mostly in conservative states, but has been intensified by Trump’s executive order which has been used to justify removal of more than 600 books.

Trump is hostile to a free press and the First Amendment. He has brought legal actions against ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Des Moines Register and its pollster, Ann Selzer. These weren’t about legitimate defamation; they were about intimidation, to suppress criticism. ABC and CBS capitulated to his shakedown.

The Federal Communications chair Brendan Carr is a spear carrier for the cancel culture right threatening government action against media content with which he disagrees.

The overall hypocrisy is stunning. As a Senator, JD Vance sought to block ambassadorial and diplomatic nominees until they answered a range of questions including views on LGBTQ and other “woke” issues. He questioned whether the U.S. can build “stronger relationships” with countries that have traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu moral values by promoting rights for LGBTQ.

The Trump-Vance Administration’s Ambassador to France is Charles Kushner, father-in-law of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka. The wealthy real estate executive was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. The latter arose from Kushner hiring a prostitute to arrange a sexual encounter with his brother-in-law who was cooperating with authorities. He secretly recorded it and sent it to his sister. The U.S. Attorney, Republican Chris Christie, called it one of “the most disgusting crimes” he prosecuted.

Wonder what the French, even with their more laissez-faire attitudes toward sex, think of their ambassador’s moral vaalues ?

Trump wants the celebration of America’s 250th anniversary to reflect his ideas, he wants a “patriotic education” that skips over shortcomings. A monument to slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence square was removed by the National Park Service.

This bothers Joe Ellis, a foremost scholar on the founding fathers. “They were the greatest generation and their achievements were the most extraordinary,” he says. “But there were mistakes made in dealing with slavery and Native Americans and it’s a disservice to history to ignore that.”

Ellis has written multiple acclaimed books on the founders and given their disdain for King George III suspects they also wouldn’t have regard for Trump since he “thinks of himself as a King.”

If Washington’s Shakespeare Theater stages King Henry VI, Stephen Miller would be perfect for the role of the villain Jack Cade who wanted to “kill all the lawyers.”

The lawyers, for the most part, have risen to challenging the Donald Trump-Miller unchecked use of government power.

This is vitally necessary: the Justice Department has turned into a wholly owned Trump subsidiary and congressional Republicans have abdicated any oversight role. Much of the business community and even major media organizations are tempering criticism of Trump.

One of the first orders of authoritarian regimes is to break the lawyers, wrote Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the murdered Russian dissident Alexei Navalny: “Lawyers document repression and slow down its momentum, offering moral oxygen to those resisting the regime.”

Only weeks into his second term Trump, with Miller, began fleecing big law firms for employing or defending people Trump considers enemies. Disgracefully, many of these major firms capitulated, paying off Trump and carefully avoiding any actions that might offend him, including some pro bono work for those that can’t afford it.

However, the Washington firms that successfully fought Trump’s shakedown are taking him on as are smaller firms.

“This is a very exciting challenge for lawyers; with big stakes the legal profession has done really well,” says Greg Craig, a prominent Washington attorney. He is representing the National Historic Trust’s challenge to Trump’s unilateral decision to build a massive new ballroom without seeking required approval from the relevant commissions and Congress.

The senior counsel at Foley Hoag also is involved in successfully overturning the Administration’s illicit firing of the director of the Voice of America.

A number of high powered legal groups have formed this year for the explicit purpose of protecting against the Trump threat.

When Trump challenged the legitimate 2020 election results, Melissa Moss, a Democratic activist, formed The 65 Project to file complaints against Trump lawyers who were violating the code of professional conduct. With the more expansive threats in Trump 2.0, they expanded to the Legal Accountability Center with the broader mission to hold accountable a plethora of Trump lawyers.

“We are filing a number of complaints against (Trump) lawyers not just to hold them accountable but to deter future actions,” says Michael Teter, the executive director. They have filed two complaints against Ed Martin, a Trump lawyer who was so incompetent his nomination for U.S. Attorney in Washington was pulled. He now has a position at Justice.

The first complaint was that as a government official he tried to absolve a defendant he represented in private practice; the Missouri bar association dismissed that. Still pending is another for stalking the home of New York Attorney General Letitia James, a top Trump target.

Last summer the Washington Litigation Group launched to take on Trump’s actions. The high-powered group includes Ellen Huvelle who was a federal judge for 20 years and Peter Keisler who has impeccable conservative credentials: co-founder of the Federalist Society, law clerk for Judge Robert Bork and even a short stint as acting Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration.

Among others they’ve filed a suit over Trump renaming the John F. Kennedy Center to put his name on there, ahead of the martyred President for whom the iconic center was named six decades ago without getting the required congressional approval.

There are countless other challenges on spending actions, questionably legitimate appointments and executive actions. When the White House outrageously threatened to indict Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman enlisted Williams & Connolly, the powerhouse Washington law firm.

This all is in stark contrast to those establishment New York law firms who gave their soul to Donald Trump. This has contributed to the American Civil Liberties Union’s problems getting enough lawyers to work on pro bono cases.

The greatest concern, however, is the midterm elections. Currently, there’s about an 80% chance the Democrats win the House and the Senate is a toss-up.

As much as he’d like to, I don’t believe Trump can call off the elections. But he’ll do everything else to sabotage a likely defeat, irrespective of legal impediments. This might well include sending in forces -- national guards, ICE, even troops --to intimidate voters before the election. Then impounding voting machines and ballots in Democratic precincts. Of course, they will peddle the canard that illegal immigrants are flooding the ballot boxes. Just look at Minneapolis to appreciate that absurdity.

The Trump team is much better prepared than 2020, especially with the full force of the Justice Department, FBI, Pentagon and Homeland Security ready to help.

The question then is are the Democrats?

The most visible Democratic election lawyer is Marc Elias who recently tweeted that he had beaten Trump 64 times. In reality, in 2020 the Biden campaign decided Elias, a Chuck Schumer confidant, wasn’t good enough to lead the post election legal battle.

They brought in Seth Waxman, of Wilmer Hale and former Solicitor General who enlisted two other former SG’s, Don Verrilli and Walter Dellinger, who passed away in 2022. Bringing in scores of lawyers, they led the effort in winning 60 cases against Trump. Elias and his law firm weren’t involved in most of these.

Don’t forget, some optimists note, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s claims after the 2020 election. Yes, but those Republican judges, like most, thought Trump then was a dead man politically. This time don’t count on those Republican judges, like Brett Kavanaugh, going against their party.

To head off what really might be a steal, Democrats have to utilize the best lawyers and win decisively.