The election outcomes were inevitable
Rarely are election outcomes more predictable than the results of the elections in Florida and Wisconsin. While politicians and political pundits created great mystery and importance in projecting the meaning of the actual outcomes, there was little mystery and relatively little meaning to be drawn from the final vote counts.
Allow me to explain
Issues and personalities aside, candidates running in special off-year elections rarely do as well as the person of their party who won the presidency. The turnout is lower – as is the enthusiasm. That is why the incumbent President’s party loses support in the off-years – and often lose control of one, if not both, congressional chambers.
Florida
I never wavered in my belief that the two Republican congressional candidates would win in Florida – and the liberal candidate would win in Wisconsin. It was a matter of numbers.
Republican Randy Fine won in Florida’s 6th Congressional District with approximately 57 percent of the vote. Republican Jimmy Patronis won in the Sunshine State’s 1st Congressional District – also with approximately 57 percent of the vote.
President Trump won the two Florida congressional districts by a 30-point margin or more. That was a huge cushion. The Republican Florida candidates could afford to lose a lot of votes compared to Trump and still handily win their races. And that is exactly what they did. But there was no way they could match Trump’s 2024 vote.
Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, liberal Democrat Susan Crawford and conservative Republican Brad Schimel were vying for a seat on the state supreme court. Trump had won the state in 2024 by a very slim margin – 49.7 percent to Harris’ 48.9 percent. There was virtually no Republican cushion. Schimel would have had to have matched Trump’s vote in Wisconsin to win – and that simply was not going to happen … period.
Summary
While there is not a lot of speculative relevancies in the outcomes for the crystal ball class, the elections did have real consequence. The politics in Wisconsin will be influenced by Crawford’s victory. It could impact future elections as the Wisconsin politicians and courts manipulate the voting maps.
In terms of the Florida races, House Speaker Johnson has padded his majority. That provides him more leeway in advancing the GOP legislative agenda – and a little more insulation against a Democrat takeover in 2026.
The influence of money
The recent elections further prove my contention that money is NOT a good predictor of election outcomes. The number one predictor is … incumbency.
In the recent elections, the candidates with the most money – by a longshot – lost. The Democrat candidates in Florida had ten times more money than the victorious Republicans. In Wisconsin, Schimel had the big bucks from Elon Musk.
Yes, it is true that overall, the candidates with the most money win – BUT that is because the candidates with the most money are mostly … the incumbents. Duh!
I do not believe that these elections portend much for the 2026 midterm election – in which, by tradition, Democrats are likely to make gains – and even take control of the House. Trump’s and the GOP’s challenge is to defy history and tradition. It is much too early to speculate about 2026 – but based on history, Republicans have every reason to be nervous.
So, there ‘tis.
Can the author explain why Musk would waste his money then?
Can you explain why Repubs lost one out of three counties in one race in FL and how badly the 30 point spread devolved to in this election? Think one of them was 14 points this time. No message in that?
Same with wisconsin. Were voters talking to Trump, Musk, or both. My vote is Musk pushed them into it. Everyone loves to give the rich guy a bad day. Especially if he’s spoofing them with a cheese hat, million dollar giveaways, and other transparent bullshit.
Frank Danger … Cannot speak for Musk. May have more to say on that later.. And I have never found the argument … “we got beaten by less than before” … to be very compelling rallying cry or an indicator of anything in the future.
Well, being 2.5 years from a meaningful vote, sure not compelling. But it is noteworthy.
Should have said 1.5 years not 2.5 years
Larry, Perhaps you would like to comment on the results of the Louisiana special election? The fact that conservative amendments were soundly defeated in a Red State? Is that to be expected to? I think it is time to start smelling the coffee as I think it is burning….
How odd that his tariffs went in just after the election. Go figure.
Feel cheated yet……..
If I thought he had a brain, and he certainly is Machiavellian, and while he’s saying the goal is “free trade,” he also said it’s to stop illegal drugs and people from getting into our country. He’s using some whacko trade deficit formula to assess trades which makes no mathematical sense whatsoever. Most experts, either economic or political, feel tariffs should be tactical, sparingly used. Trump, like his downsizing methods, he is just chain sawing foreign trade. He is a blunt tool in most things.
Now he promises that we will feel the gain if we can stomach the gain. Amazingly, he and the other billionaire elites feel no pain. The working poor will feel too much pain and will share the pain in all sorts of ways. Even death.
The stock market will crash, depression style today. This is NOT a message, this is reality. The market is not coming back without a signal, not the chat, without change. Would you build a new factory today? Would you give someone a loan to do so? Would you buy a Mickey D’s burger in Paris? Rome? Tokyo? People will diss our products for alternatives.
I am having a great quarter but the next one will be meh. OK, but only because fixed assets are still paying, they are timed to end years from now, and I have dumped most equities. However, for humor, I kept my Disney which now will be creamed twice specifically due to Trump. Got me in Trump 1.0 and now Trump 2.0.
Time to board up America, ain’t no one doing any shopping now.
So we know what he tells us he’s doing, but is that it? Remember Machiavelli? Here’s my conspiracy theory. For decades, the rabid right has wanted to end income tax and go to either a flat tax or consumption tax, both of which favor the rich and dump on the poor. Why? If you make $100, you consume you entire salary just to get by. If you make $1,000, you might consume 20% but will invest the 80% you don’t need for consumption. Same with the consumption tax.
The tariff’s are a consumption tax on the consumer. You will feel it. Trump and Musk do not. The tariff revenues hit the general fund just like income taxes do. NOW that Trump is getting revenues, he can lower income taxes, maybe even getting rid of them, or replacing them with a low flat tax that makes him look like a hero for ending income taxes.
IF he does this, note that it’s a shell game, he has only moved the pea to another shell and all shells are the same.
IF he does this, don’t be fooled again.
Mr. Trump claimed “anywhere from $600 billion to $1 trillion will be taken in over the relatively short-term period, meaning a year from now.”
Current income tax revenue is about $2.4T so he could keep the tariffs, reduced taxes by 50%, and to our General Fund and Federal Spending, it would be a wash.
Frank Dunger you must have been drinking. Your post is a word salad worthy of kameltoes Harris. Aka heels up
Seth, I understand. The passage had numbers and a few big words. Let me know what you need clarification on.