I have heard this theory over the last few decades. I do believe that it we had term limits for our representatives we wouldn’t have people like Pelosi, McConnell, Collins, etc… staying in power for as long as they are. Doing more than just trying to hold on to their job.
"Susan Collins (R-ME), the only Republican Senator up for re-election next year in a state Kamala Harris won, blasted Trump’s Canada tariffs in a floor speech Wednesday, before voting to repeal the national emergency declarations that underpins them."
This is a great example of how money talks in both directions. Senator Collins has had her job since 1997 and still wants to run again in 2026. Until this point, she's been able to make some symbolic gestures toward being moderate that don't really amount to much substantively, and of course Elon Musk would like every Rep and Senator to believe that he can handily fund their defeat at the hands of another GOP challenger when it comes down to it, but now Musk is a liability and tariffs are set to potentially devastate the livelihoods and wallets of Mainers (especially in the much poorer and more rural northern part of the state where she is from and which normally hands her the reelection. Harris might have won the state overall, but Trump won northern Maine). If the public perception switches toward her *not* caring if her neighbors and constituents are hungry and freezing next winter, she's going to lose in 2026. Any GOP challenger wanting campaign support from the GOP donors would have to run on loyalty to a president who is impoverishing our state, and that's not going to be a winning proposition either. So the options are that Susan Collins stands up to Trump/Musk and maybe defends her job, or the seat simply switches over to an Independent or Democrat. It'd be incredible if this is the thing that finally breaks her 30-year winning streak.
Today, the day after Liberation Day, is a new day. This guy we call President has now made it a certainty that our economy will enter a recession. Thank you, Mr President, for proving me right that a vote for you was a vote for a crazy billionaire who is reckless and irresponsible. Let me write the ending here: our economy tanks (stagflation or recession) that’s long and deep and painful. Then the Dems take back control and try to undo all of this (if they’re capable). The pendulum of democracy can be an awful ride. Wisconsin is just the beginning of the swing back to “normal”.
It would really be something to see Collins be more like former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith in actuality rather than just aspiration. What was it MCS said in a fiery speech on the Senate floor, when very few had the courage to speak out against McCarthyism? She didn’t want “a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty” nor did she want “to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.”
WOW...Emily and Kate, thanks for bringing this speech to our attention and for sharing. Spot on for today, so much so it gave me chills. History keeps repeating itself however this new chapter now includes villifying government and it's departments and employees and gutting it from within. I wish more people understood government IS NOT A BUSINESS and should and cannot be treated as such. It's for us, the people, and the departments, laws and loyal employees are there to serve us and the greater good of the country.
This theory relies on the U.S. holding and honoring free and fair elections. Based on Trump’s terrible track record, the election reform EO discussed yesterday, and recent comments about “finding ways” to give Trump a third term, I feel less and less hope by articles such as this. Sorry, Gabe, but until someone puts checks on Trump, our future is looking pretty red.
This is exactly my concern. The thermostat only works if it's hooked up to the heating and cooling machines that actually make the temperature change. Otherwise, the signal goes nowhere. We won't be the first democracy to die. Just the longest functioning one
Thank you for this analysis, Gabe! This thermostat metaphor makes so much sense, though it's worth noting what an anomaly the 2022 midterms were in this pattern. Not only did a “red wave” that should traditionally occur not materialize, despite the fact that Democrats had won the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but specifically Trump's endorsed candidates got absolutely trounced in races that should have been easy Republican wins. He wasn't technically in power in 2022, but the party was not yet willing to put distance between themselves and him, so he was still as much of a presence as ever.
Remember how Dr. Oz lost to Fetterman in Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano was defeated by Josh Shapiro by over 13 points, and Don Bolduc lost to incumbent Senator Maggie Hassan by over nine points in New Hampshire? These losses were so bad that Trump actually distanced himself from Bolduc after the race was called, claiming the candidate lost because he didn't advocate enough about voter fraud in the 2020 election - classic Trump deflection.
And who could forget Herschel Walker in Georgia? Trump pushed Walker to run despite serious and obvious personal baggage, with Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan later admitting on CNN, 'Herschel Walker won the primary because he scored a bunch of touchdowns back in the '80s and he was Donald Trump's friend.' Then they watched as the candidate got exposed for paying for his girlfriend's abortion while pushing for a nationwide ban with no exceptions. What a mess.
The post-midterm period was when Republicans finally seemed ready to break from Trump. Conservative outlets like Fox News were actively promoting headlines like "Ron DeSantis Shows He's Future Of The GOP" while Trump was fixated on DeSantis and his positive coverage, even threatening to "release damaging information" about the Florida governor. The party establishment was clearly searching for an off-ramp from Trump - Mitch McConnell pointedly declined to back him, and DeSantis' landslide victory made him look like the rebrand that they needed. This was not normal for the pattern Gabe just explained.
But then, for some reason, they decided to go back to what didn’t work in 2020 or 2022 by picking Trump. It might have won them a sweep in 2024, thanks to the thermostat effect, but look how quickly people are getting sick of it.
What's unnerving about our two-party system is how nakedly opportunistic it feels. Take Susan Collins opposing Trump's tariffs – of course she's responding to her constituents in a Harris-won state, which is technically a representative democracy functioning properly. But doesn't it feel gross? Are we supposed to believe it's coincidence that exactly ONE Republican senator feels this way? It highlights how politicians aren't responding to policy merit but political survival calculations, including threats of being primaried for not being sufficiently loyal to Trump, even when policies being enacted by Trump go far beyond what voters thought they were signing up for with their tepid "let's try something different" votes last November.
I keep thinking about Sharon McMahon's post "My Proposal to Improve Elections in the United States" – so many of her prescriptions would change the political survival calculus, making politicians think more about constituent power than intra-party threats. And not to kick Democrats when they're down (as Gabe notes, even though they're polling decently on generic poll questions, they’re still widely disliked with only 29% of Americans having a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party), but any lasting solution shouldn't focus on strengthening the party specifically. If we're tired of this wild thermostat swinging, we need to wrest power from parties generally, introduce more ballot options, and demand Democrats win by persuading people they're actually listening to voters, not just "not fascism." That slogan might win elections when the opposition is this toxic, but it clearly doesn't sustain power for more than a couple of years.
And of course, with Republicans seemingly ready to tear up the Constitution to remain in power, none of this is destiny without a LOT of enthusiastic energy from people who believe in an alternative.
I like the second map with all the blue arrows. But I don’t really agree with Gabe if he’s implying that the backlash we’re seeing to Trump and Musk’s extreme actions is just the normal thermostat thing. I hope it’s much more than that. In the meantime, with federal law enforcement primed to go after whatever and whoever Trump wants, and with the hundreds of billions of dollars of alleged fraud that DOGE supposedly discovered, has anyone actually been arrested or even indicted for fraud? I know, it’s only been 2 1/2 months (😱) but where are the arrests? Maybe it’s DOGE that’s been committing fraud this whole time and lying to the American people while ripping away the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of civil servants who perform vital functions for the rest of us. I hope that realization, along with whatever economic disaster on the way from the trade war, sends the thermostat soaring.
I understand the thermostat argument - after all, it has a lot of years of data behind it, and the supporting evidence that the American people quickly tire of the party in office (especially because, as Gabe points out, presidents tend to act as though they have sweeping mandates when they...don't.) A lot of the voters for Crawford were voters for Harris, a deep dive of the numbers suggests this was 'predictable', not necessarily an indicator for much, etc, etc.
But all I want to say is: this is not normal. WHAT IS HAPPENING IS NOT NORMAL. These times are not normal. We measure them with the same tools (and temperature sensors) that we always have because they are what we have handy - but we are so far from normal we can't find it in the rearview. This isn't your average presidential overreach, or the general mood shift that comes when a party spends time (by the way typically much longer than this) in office. This is not normal, and we cannot afford to treat it as such. I understand and appreciate the need to place things in a historical policy lens, but it seems so, so narrow to me right now.
This election was a test of Musk's power, sure. It will likely change how he is framed by the administration (though whether it changes his impact in the shadows is debatable). It also doesn't matter because Musk has fundamentally broken how our government works. The damage is done. I appreciate the win over oligarchy in Wisconsin. But I cannot look at the typical policy wonk analysis and say - sure, that's it. That's all this is. This is not normal. It can't be. Attempts to frame it that way (though I appreciate the work that goes into it) - to me - diminish the incredible impact this administration is having on so many people right now. This isn't normal, and we need to show up in a way that hasn't been seen in a long, long time.
You said what I was trying to say in my comment, but I think I missed the main point that you've more clearly hit here, thank you! The thermostat analogy makes sense throughout history, but we can see that Trump's effect doesn't fit that pattern. I think the thermostat analogy better explains why Democrats lost in 2024 than voters being on board with what is currently happening.
Very well said. I do appreciate the historical context, but you are right that this is so not normal that we can't even remember what normal feels like.
I work for a large academic medical center on the west coast. The uncertainty and chaos that this administration is causing is effecting our ability to provide care. Please tell me when we start winning again?
I’m sorry… and I work in tech, and an order for equipment was just cancelled by a large supplier yesterday “because of the tariffs”. This equipment would have arrived in a few days, so likely exists in a warehouse somewhere already. How are we supposed to do our jobs in this environment???
I have always believed the reason Trump won his first election was because Obama was president. When people don't like something, they tend to do the opposite. What's more opposite of a black president than one who is/ supports racists? All of that to say, I think this article better explains why I always thought that.
This is somewhat surprising to me. Personally, my ethics and political views stay the same regardless of who is in office. It's interesting that many people change their beliefs based on which party is in charge.
That is an interesting point. I also feel like I stay pretty close to the same in my views. I've always ended up voting Democrat even though I do fully research both candidates to be sure I know what I'm voting for. Democrats always have ended up aligning with my political and social views more. I have also liked some independents but felt they didn't have a chance of winning. So maybe it's the more moderate or independent voters who swing back and forth. I know my husband considers himself more fiscally conservative but more liberal with social policies, and would not say he is one party or the other. But he is firmly in the Democratic camp ever since Trump came on the scene. So Trump being so extreme has pushed him towards Democrats.
Interesting. I wonder if this also is a reflection of the seeming inability of the parties to work together. There pendulum swings from left to right and back again. But it never settles in the middle where compromise lives.
Honestly, this is the most depressing thing I've read yet. Basically the electorate just swings back and forth and no matter what policies are being offered by what party, the electorate just votes for the other guy. (And it does have to be a guy, or the model likely breaks)
The thermostat analogy is interesting, and I believe better than the 'pendulum' -- with one exception. While the thermostat allows only a slight move away from center before correcting, the pendulum is more characteristic of politicians of late, moving from one extreme to the other. There is an old adage, "Campaign from the right/left...govern from the center." That appears to have gone by the wayside. It is now, "Campaign from the right/left...govern from the extreme." A question I used to pose to my students (regarding my lesson on the political spectrum), "How do your parents feel about politicians, in general?" Students' responses overwhelmingly represented a negative sentiment--even for those politicians that their parents supported. This became more pronounced in the latter part of my days in the classroom. From that information, I would attempt to explain 'why' people have a negative view of politicians. Today's article referencing the thermostat theory pretty well validates my lesson: While the majority of the electorate fall within the 'moderate' (just right/left of center) area of the spectrum...the majority of legislators fall in the 'extreme' areas.
And, just to add a little levity to the conversation, I'll share this tidbit from the 1980's. During Reagan's 2nd term, I had a friend who was politically astute...and a confirmed "independent." I'm not sure where he came up with this theory--nor have I ever heard it espoused since--but he believed that you could predict women's fashion trends based on the current president's party affiliation. He surmised that Republicans being more akin to the 'traditional' roles of men and women, that when a Republican president was in office, women would gravitate to more gender-neutral clothes; use less makeup; and overall, present themselves as less effeminate--all in sub-conscious effort of protest. And, when a Democratic president was in office...the opposite was true. In that case, with regard to women's fashion, the pendulum would swing and accentuate a more-effeminate posture...again, in protest. Maybe someone has actually researched this theory. Any Fashion Design/Poly.Sci. double majors out there?
This is an interesting article and I appreciate the statistical history provided. Question is, if folks vote for it, why are they suddenly against it? Especially now when we have Google to research things (see: how do tariffs work?). What is the psychology behind the FAFO mentality described here?
To use the thermostat analogy, Rachel, I think it's because most people fall in the 68-72 degree range--which is also where politicians campaign. Then, once elected, politicians govern within the 30-40 degree, or 90-100 degree range.
I’ve been seeing a lot of posts on social media from democrats blasting the Wisconsin Election with how Elon shouldn’t be able to “buy the election”
However, Susan Crawford was also backed by wealthy supporters. I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy. Am I missing something here? I’m legitimately wondering. By the way, I don’t identify as Republican or Democrat but lean more towards Democrat.
I think we can all agree that the amount of money it takes to play the game in politics right now is sickening. Even down to the school board races that used to spend hundreds and now spend tens of thousands or more! But Musk and his PAC offering those million dollar checks plus promising "$100 for each Wisconsin voter who signs the petition [opposing activist judges] and another $100 for each signer they refer" (from an AP article) feels like the next level of buying elections.
They were discussing this on "The Next Level" podcast today, and it echoes a lot of what I've seen from many right-leaning folks as well: the optics were all bad. Elon didn't donate to a PAC, or even create his own PAC. He put himself out there and made Elon Musk the center of attention, claiming that this was a vote "for the future of civilization" and then personally campaigning and writing big checks. It made the subtext text, if you will, by removing any pretense of donating "to a cause" and instead making it clear that this one rich guy thought he could come to Wisconsin and buy their election. It really put a bad taste in folks' mouths.
Yes! Musk spent reportedly around 25 million on this race alone. Yes, it was an incredibly high dollar race for a state Supreme Court election, but Musk spent far and above any other individual donor, period - not just donors to Crawford's campaign. Add in the million dollar giveaways, that in my opinion were so transparently illegal - folks were over it. Furthermore, it was reportedly seen in the White House as a test for Musk's strength - and now rumors are increasing that after the special gov't employee time limit of 130 days, he may move much farther into the background than originally anticipated. After all, if he can't buy elections, his use as an enforcer in the GOP is much diminished.
I think this one was far more about optics than the substance of actual dollar amounts. That much money *especially* in a what’s supposed to be a non partisan Supreme Court election is nothing short of foul. Elon has become the symbol for much of the disruption in govt so it’s not surprising that when he injects himself into the equation, people aren’t hyped on it.
This was only a snippet of the article, but I remember as a very young child the phrase “melting pot” being used. I loved that analogy and the fact that so many people came to America with different backgrounds and traditions that we could all take apart of. I am so sad that a good portion of our nation is against that. I know “melting pot” is an outdated phrase and there is probably a better one out there now.
As for the rest of the well written article, I think most Americans are not as informed as us governerds and that may be the biggest reason for the shifting temperatures. I worry that so many think things are politics as usual but I worry more that a lot of people want Trump’s policies. So, I guess that gives me a little hope for future elections.
What pains me is that so many of us are buried in work and responsibilities or tied to our screens that we don’t know how to use our power to stop the bad policies or at least lessen them!
The mega wealthy are generally able to ride the recession wave a bit more smoothly than the rest of us, and there's always the possibility that they can "buy the dip" (invest in stocks while prices are low for a good ROI when prices rise again).
I have read on marketwatch.com that he may want a weaker dollar and lower Treasury yields in order to help finance his tax cuts (primarily designed to benefit the rich of course).
I have heard this theory over the last few decades. I do believe that it we had term limits for our representatives we wouldn’t have people like Pelosi, McConnell, Collins, etc… staying in power for as long as they are. Doing more than just trying to hold on to their job.
"Susan Collins (R-ME), the only Republican Senator up for re-election next year in a state Kamala Harris won, blasted Trump’s Canada tariffs in a floor speech Wednesday, before voting to repeal the national emergency declarations that underpins them."
This is a great example of how money talks in both directions. Senator Collins has had her job since 1997 and still wants to run again in 2026. Until this point, she's been able to make some symbolic gestures toward being moderate that don't really amount to much substantively, and of course Elon Musk would like every Rep and Senator to believe that he can handily fund their defeat at the hands of another GOP challenger when it comes down to it, but now Musk is a liability and tariffs are set to potentially devastate the livelihoods and wallets of Mainers (especially in the much poorer and more rural northern part of the state where she is from and which normally hands her the reelection. Harris might have won the state overall, but Trump won northern Maine). If the public perception switches toward her *not* caring if her neighbors and constituents are hungry and freezing next winter, she's going to lose in 2026. Any GOP challenger wanting campaign support from the GOP donors would have to run on loyalty to a president who is impoverishing our state, and that's not going to be a winning proposition either. So the options are that Susan Collins stands up to Trump/Musk and maybe defends her job, or the seat simply switches over to an Independent or Democrat. It'd be incredible if this is the thing that finally breaks her 30-year winning streak.
Today, the day after Liberation Day, is a new day. This guy we call President has now made it a certainty that our economy will enter a recession. Thank you, Mr President, for proving me right that a vote for you was a vote for a crazy billionaire who is reckless and irresponsible. Let me write the ending here: our economy tanks (stagflation or recession) that’s long and deep and painful. Then the Dems take back control and try to undo all of this (if they’re capable). The pendulum of democracy can be an awful ride. Wisconsin is just the beginning of the swing back to “normal”.
It would really be something to see Collins be more like former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith in actuality rather than just aspiration. What was it MCS said in a fiery speech on the Senate floor, when very few had the courage to speak out against McCarthyism? She didn’t want “a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty” nor did she want “to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.”
Yes! Her "Declaration of Conscience" is a must-read, but especially for this moment: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretchasesmithconscience.html
WOW...Emily and Kate, thanks for bringing this speech to our attention and for sharing. Spot on for today, so much so it gave me chills. History keeps repeating itself however this new chapter now includes villifying government and it's departments and employees and gutting it from within. I wish more people understood government IS NOT A BUSINESS and should and cannot be treated as such. It's for us, the people, and the departments, laws and loyal employees are there to serve us and the greater good of the country.
This theory relies on the U.S. holding and honoring free and fair elections. Based on Trump’s terrible track record, the election reform EO discussed yesterday, and recent comments about “finding ways” to give Trump a third term, I feel less and less hope by articles such as this. Sorry, Gabe, but until someone puts checks on Trump, our future is looking pretty red.
That's what is so concerning. When all signs are pointing a blue wave in 2026, what will some be willing to do to ensure that doesn't happen?
This is exactly my concern. The thermostat only works if it's hooked up to the heating and cooling machines that actually make the temperature change. Otherwise, the signal goes nowhere. We won't be the first democracy to die. Just the longest functioning one
He won’t have more than a handful of followers left after this stunt. Dems just won the midterms. No worries 😆
Oh, I believe the people will dump Republicans. I just don’t believe Trump will accept that rejection.
Thank you for this analysis, Gabe! This thermostat metaphor makes so much sense, though it's worth noting what an anomaly the 2022 midterms were in this pattern. Not only did a “red wave” that should traditionally occur not materialize, despite the fact that Democrats had won the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but specifically Trump's endorsed candidates got absolutely trounced in races that should have been easy Republican wins. He wasn't technically in power in 2022, but the party was not yet willing to put distance between themselves and him, so he was still as much of a presence as ever.
Remember how Dr. Oz lost to Fetterman in Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano was defeated by Josh Shapiro by over 13 points, and Don Bolduc lost to incumbent Senator Maggie Hassan by over nine points in New Hampshire? These losses were so bad that Trump actually distanced himself from Bolduc after the race was called, claiming the candidate lost because he didn't advocate enough about voter fraud in the 2020 election - classic Trump deflection.
And who could forget Herschel Walker in Georgia? Trump pushed Walker to run despite serious and obvious personal baggage, with Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan later admitting on CNN, 'Herschel Walker won the primary because he scored a bunch of touchdowns back in the '80s and he was Donald Trump's friend.' Then they watched as the candidate got exposed for paying for his girlfriend's abortion while pushing for a nationwide ban with no exceptions. What a mess.
The post-midterm period was when Republicans finally seemed ready to break from Trump. Conservative outlets like Fox News were actively promoting headlines like "Ron DeSantis Shows He's Future Of The GOP" while Trump was fixated on DeSantis and his positive coverage, even threatening to "release damaging information" about the Florida governor. The party establishment was clearly searching for an off-ramp from Trump - Mitch McConnell pointedly declined to back him, and DeSantis' landslide victory made him look like the rebrand that they needed. This was not normal for the pattern Gabe just explained.
But then, for some reason, they decided to go back to what didn’t work in 2020 or 2022 by picking Trump. It might have won them a sweep in 2024, thanks to the thermostat effect, but look how quickly people are getting sick of it.
What's unnerving about our two-party system is how nakedly opportunistic it feels. Take Susan Collins opposing Trump's tariffs – of course she's responding to her constituents in a Harris-won state, which is technically a representative democracy functioning properly. But doesn't it feel gross? Are we supposed to believe it's coincidence that exactly ONE Republican senator feels this way? It highlights how politicians aren't responding to policy merit but political survival calculations, including threats of being primaried for not being sufficiently loyal to Trump, even when policies being enacted by Trump go far beyond what voters thought they were signing up for with their tepid "let's try something different" votes last November.
I keep thinking about Sharon McMahon's post "My Proposal to Improve Elections in the United States" – so many of her prescriptions would change the political survival calculus, making politicians think more about constituent power than intra-party threats. And not to kick Democrats when they're down (as Gabe notes, even though they're polling decently on generic poll questions, they’re still widely disliked with only 29% of Americans having a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party), but any lasting solution shouldn't focus on strengthening the party specifically. If we're tired of this wild thermostat swinging, we need to wrest power from parties generally, introduce more ballot options, and demand Democrats win by persuading people they're actually listening to voters, not just "not fascism." That slogan might win elections when the opposition is this toxic, but it clearly doesn't sustain power for more than a couple of years.
And of course, with Republicans seemingly ready to tear up the Constitution to remain in power, none of this is destiny without a LOT of enthusiastic energy from people who believe in an alternative.
I agree with you 100%. Improving the systems will be much more effective in the long term and the two-party system is terrible for us voters.
I like the second map with all the blue arrows. But I don’t really agree with Gabe if he’s implying that the backlash we’re seeing to Trump and Musk’s extreme actions is just the normal thermostat thing. I hope it’s much more than that. In the meantime, with federal law enforcement primed to go after whatever and whoever Trump wants, and with the hundreds of billions of dollars of alleged fraud that DOGE supposedly discovered, has anyone actually been arrested or even indicted for fraud? I know, it’s only been 2 1/2 months (😱) but where are the arrests? Maybe it’s DOGE that’s been committing fraud this whole time and lying to the American people while ripping away the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of civil servants who perform vital functions for the rest of us. I hope that realization, along with whatever economic disaster on the way from the trade war, sends the thermostat soaring.
I understand the thermostat argument - after all, it has a lot of years of data behind it, and the supporting evidence that the American people quickly tire of the party in office (especially because, as Gabe points out, presidents tend to act as though they have sweeping mandates when they...don't.) A lot of the voters for Crawford were voters for Harris, a deep dive of the numbers suggests this was 'predictable', not necessarily an indicator for much, etc, etc.
But all I want to say is: this is not normal. WHAT IS HAPPENING IS NOT NORMAL. These times are not normal. We measure them with the same tools (and temperature sensors) that we always have because they are what we have handy - but we are so far from normal we can't find it in the rearview. This isn't your average presidential overreach, or the general mood shift that comes when a party spends time (by the way typically much longer than this) in office. This is not normal, and we cannot afford to treat it as such. I understand and appreciate the need to place things in a historical policy lens, but it seems so, so narrow to me right now.
This election was a test of Musk's power, sure. It will likely change how he is framed by the administration (though whether it changes his impact in the shadows is debatable). It also doesn't matter because Musk has fundamentally broken how our government works. The damage is done. I appreciate the win over oligarchy in Wisconsin. But I cannot look at the typical policy wonk analysis and say - sure, that's it. That's all this is. This is not normal. It can't be. Attempts to frame it that way (though I appreciate the work that goes into it) - to me - diminish the incredible impact this administration is having on so many people right now. This isn't normal, and we need to show up in a way that hasn't been seen in a long, long time.
You said what I was trying to say in my comment, but I think I missed the main point that you've more clearly hit here, thank you! The thermostat analogy makes sense throughout history, but we can see that Trump's effect doesn't fit that pattern. I think the thermostat analogy better explains why Democrats lost in 2024 than voters being on board with what is currently happening.
Very well said. I do appreciate the historical context, but you are right that this is so not normal that we can't even remember what normal feels like.
I work for a large academic medical center on the west coast. The uncertainty and chaos that this administration is causing is effecting our ability to provide care. Please tell me when we start winning again?
I’m sorry… and I work in tech, and an order for equipment was just cancelled by a large supplier yesterday “because of the tariffs”. This equipment would have arrived in a few days, so likely exists in a warehouse somewhere already. How are we supposed to do our jobs in this environment???
I’m so sorry. I’m in healthcare too. The cuts and attacks on science are devastating and very personal.
I have always believed the reason Trump won his first election was because Obama was president. When people don't like something, they tend to do the opposite. What's more opposite of a black president than one who is/ supports racists? All of that to say, I think this article better explains why I always thought that.
This is somewhat surprising to me. Personally, my ethics and political views stay the same regardless of who is in office. It's interesting that many people change their beliefs based on which party is in charge.
That is an interesting point. I also feel like I stay pretty close to the same in my views. I've always ended up voting Democrat even though I do fully research both candidates to be sure I know what I'm voting for. Democrats always have ended up aligning with my political and social views more. I have also liked some independents but felt they didn't have a chance of winning. So maybe it's the more moderate or independent voters who swing back and forth. I know my husband considers himself more fiscally conservative but more liberal with social policies, and would not say he is one party or the other. But he is firmly in the Democratic camp ever since Trump came on the scene. So Trump being so extreme has pushed him towards Democrats.
Interesting. I wonder if this also is a reflection of the seeming inability of the parties to work together. There pendulum swings from left to right and back again. But it never settles in the middle where compromise lives.
Honestly, this is the most depressing thing I've read yet. Basically the electorate just swings back and forth and no matter what policies are being offered by what party, the electorate just votes for the other guy. (And it does have to be a guy, or the model likely breaks)
Yep-it is so depressing to see how many people don’t seem to take the time to understand what is going on.
The thermostat analogy is interesting, and I believe better than the 'pendulum' -- with one exception. While the thermostat allows only a slight move away from center before correcting, the pendulum is more characteristic of politicians of late, moving from one extreme to the other. There is an old adage, "Campaign from the right/left...govern from the center." That appears to have gone by the wayside. It is now, "Campaign from the right/left...govern from the extreme." A question I used to pose to my students (regarding my lesson on the political spectrum), "How do your parents feel about politicians, in general?" Students' responses overwhelmingly represented a negative sentiment--even for those politicians that their parents supported. This became more pronounced in the latter part of my days in the classroom. From that information, I would attempt to explain 'why' people have a negative view of politicians. Today's article referencing the thermostat theory pretty well validates my lesson: While the majority of the electorate fall within the 'moderate' (just right/left of center) area of the spectrum...the majority of legislators fall in the 'extreme' areas.
And, just to add a little levity to the conversation, I'll share this tidbit from the 1980's. During Reagan's 2nd term, I had a friend who was politically astute...and a confirmed "independent." I'm not sure where he came up with this theory--nor have I ever heard it espoused since--but he believed that you could predict women's fashion trends based on the current president's party affiliation. He surmised that Republicans being more akin to the 'traditional' roles of men and women, that when a Republican president was in office, women would gravitate to more gender-neutral clothes; use less makeup; and overall, present themselves as less effeminate--all in sub-conscious effort of protest. And, when a Democratic president was in office...the opposite was true. In that case, with regard to women's fashion, the pendulum would swing and accentuate a more-effeminate posture...again, in protest. Maybe someone has actually researched this theory. Any Fashion Design/Poly.Sci. double majors out there?
Your last paragraph might explain shoulder pads. :D
This is an interesting article and I appreciate the statistical history provided. Question is, if folks vote for it, why are they suddenly against it? Especially now when we have Google to research things (see: how do tariffs work?). What is the psychology behind the FAFO mentality described here?
To use the thermostat analogy, Rachel, I think it's because most people fall in the 68-72 degree range--which is also where politicians campaign. Then, once elected, politicians govern within the 30-40 degree, or 90-100 degree range.
I’ve been seeing a lot of posts on social media from democrats blasting the Wisconsin Election with how Elon shouldn’t be able to “buy the election”
However, Susan Crawford was also backed by wealthy supporters. I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy. Am I missing something here? I’m legitimately wondering. By the way, I don’t identify as Republican or Democrat but lean more towards Democrat.
I think we can all agree that the amount of money it takes to play the game in politics right now is sickening. Even down to the school board races that used to spend hundreds and now spend tens of thousands or more! But Musk and his PAC offering those million dollar checks plus promising "$100 for each Wisconsin voter who signs the petition [opposing activist judges] and another $100 for each signer they refer" (from an AP article) feels like the next level of buying elections.
They were discussing this on "The Next Level" podcast today, and it echoes a lot of what I've seen from many right-leaning folks as well: the optics were all bad. Elon didn't donate to a PAC, or even create his own PAC. He put himself out there and made Elon Musk the center of attention, claiming that this was a vote "for the future of civilization" and then personally campaigning and writing big checks. It made the subtext text, if you will, by removing any pretense of donating "to a cause" and instead making it clear that this one rich guy thought he could come to Wisconsin and buy their election. It really put a bad taste in folks' mouths.
Yes! Musk spent reportedly around 25 million on this race alone. Yes, it was an incredibly high dollar race for a state Supreme Court election, but Musk spent far and above any other individual donor, period - not just donors to Crawford's campaign. Add in the million dollar giveaways, that in my opinion were so transparently illegal - folks were over it. Furthermore, it was reportedly seen in the White House as a test for Musk's strength - and now rumors are increasing that after the special gov't employee time limit of 130 days, he may move much farther into the background than originally anticipated. After all, if he can't buy elections, his use as an enforcer in the GOP is much diminished.
I think this one was far more about optics than the substance of actual dollar amounts. That much money *especially* in a what’s supposed to be a non partisan Supreme Court election is nothing short of foul. Elon has become the symbol for much of the disruption in govt so it’s not surprising that when he injects himself into the equation, people aren’t hyped on it.
I think it was the show of handing out 1 million dollar checks to voters that Elon tried. Because you're right they both have wealthy supporters. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-breaks-spending-record-fueled-out-state
This was only a snippet of the article, but I remember as a very young child the phrase “melting pot” being used. I loved that analogy and the fact that so many people came to America with different backgrounds and traditions that we could all take apart of. I am so sad that a good portion of our nation is against that. I know “melting pot” is an outdated phrase and there is probably a better one out there now.
As for the rest of the well written article, I think most Americans are not as informed as us governerds and that may be the biggest reason for the shifting temperatures. I worry that so many think things are politics as usual but I worry more that a lot of people want Trump’s policies. So, I guess that gives me a little hope for future elections.
What pains me is that so many of us are buried in work and responsibilities or tied to our screens that we don’t know how to use our power to stop the bad policies or at least lessen them!
Real question-what is the game for Trump and other mega wealthy Americans to tank the economy and put us into recession?
The mega wealthy are generally able to ride the recession wave a bit more smoothly than the rest of us, and there's always the possibility that they can "buy the dip" (invest in stocks while prices are low for a good ROI when prices rise again).
I have read on marketwatch.com that he may want a weaker dollar and lower Treasury yields in order to help finance his tax cuts (primarily designed to benefit the rich of course).
*gain