Chris Cillizza: My Five BIG Takeaways From Election 2025

"The 2025 election is over — and the results weren’t even close.

Democrats dominated across the board, from the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races to key ballot measures in California. But what does it all mean?

In this video, I break down my five biggest takeaways from Election Night 2025 — what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the political landscape heading into 2026 and beyond.

Here’s a quick preview:

1️⃣ Donald Trump lost — and his reaction says everything.

2️⃣ Gavin Newsom quietly had the best night of anyone in politics.

3️⃣ Latino voters have officially become the ultimate swing vote.

4️⃣ Why Democrats shouldn’t mistake 2025’s wins for a 2028 coronation.

5️⃣ The GOP’s Trump problem isn’t getting smaller — it’s getting worse.

Plus, a bonus takeaway: the 2025 results could reshape how both parties approach 2026." 

Source:Chris Cillizza on the Democrats great night.

From Chris Cillizza

Just a personal observation, first and then I'll get into what I actually want to talk about and try to sound serious... just for a little bit. 

Either Chris Cilliza was in a hurry today and had to be somewhere else, (like 60 seconds after this video was completed) or he lives in a coffee house and has been drinking nothing but coffee all day. Because this was a 12 minute video and he just zipped right though it. Or maybe that's what you have to do to sound cool on YouTube today... you have like 5 points, get to the point and finish what your saying. Like someone who is trapped in a water tank and is running out of air.

So here is my takeaway and I'll respond to what Chris Cillizza said.

So it's not just Donald Trump who lost last night and might be the biggest loser. It's really his MAGA movement (which is really just MDTG: Make Donald Trump Great) that lost, everywhere. I mean the 2 governor races with New Jersey and Virginia, and NYC.

New Jersey: 

New Jersey is a state of 9.5 million people or so. That equals about 5 million eligible voters, perhaps less, if not everyone is an American citizen. And Democrats have about 900,000 more voters than Democrats. That's a major advantage. 

Yes, Republicans can win statewide there, but not by pretending you are so some good ole boy from Hickville, running for Governor of Mississippi, or some other some other MAGA red state. Or Blue Collar Joe from Hackensack, who thinks anyone with a college education, and wealth, is some type of elitist, American traitor or something. 

The so-called "angry white man" campaign, doesn't work in New Jersey, when you have a unpopular Republican President and New Jersey voters are pissed off at the national government because the high cost of living and all the government closures, which cost them good jobs. 

But this is all news to Republican nominee for Governor Jack Ciattarelli, who if you looked at his campaign for Governor, you might think he was running for Governor of West Virginia, maybe Kentucky. 

But the only way a Republican wins statewide in a sate like New Jersey, is running as a Reaganite. You focus on economic issues and affordability. You paint Democrats as tax and spend, fiscally irresponsible leftists. And you tell New Jersey voters how you are going to make the state more affordable and talk about expanding economic freedom and opportunity. That's how Chris Christie and Christine T. Whitman won 2 governors races, each, in New Jersey. Not about making their whole campaign about gay teachers in public schools, boys in girls bathrooms, or claim that Democrats want Sharia Law to take over the America, etc. The whole, damn, MAGA culture war. 

Virginia: So let's  talk about my neighboring state just across the Potomac River. 

So the political makeup in Virginia, is roughly 3 million Democrats and 1.7 million Republicans. That's in a state of about 9 million people. But try to convince Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears (Republican nominee for Governor) of that. Again, wrong candidate, in the wrong state. In a state where she has a deficit of over million voters going into the election, she's talking about transgender issues and trying to tie the Democratic nominee, U.S, Representative Abigail Spanberger, to Jay Jones texting scandal. 

Look, if this were Kentucky, the Earle-Sears culture war, might work. Probably not because they care about affordability and jobs as well. In West Virginia, definitely. Because education and economics, really "ain't their thang", just as long as you are with them on religious and cultural issues. But Virginia, just like with New Jersey, and New York City... highly wealthy and educated states, that have both lost a lot of jobs under President Trump and places where it's expensive to live. But Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears thought, that the way you win Virginia is try to convince Virginians that they're wrong and Virginia should just become part of West Virginia culturally, politically, and educationally.  

This is just me, but I think the MAGA leadership in the Republican Party thought that the way you win in Virginia, is not to "moderate" (which means sounding like a Conservative Republican) but to change the gender and complexion of the MAGA candidate. I'm sure that's tough to hear, but I think that's obvious. 

New York City:

Look, not everyone in New York is a Socialist. At the end of the night, Zohran Mandani only got 50% of the vote and Andrew Cuomo got 41%, and Curtis Silwa got 9%. And if Mamdani gets off to a slow start and his agenda becomes unpopular or stalls, because the City Council doesn't want it, the new Mayor's numbers will fall way under 50%. But in a city like NYC, that tends to be way to the left and everyone in the country, that's east of the West Coast, even a Socialist can win there, when economic times are tough and you have an unpopular Republican President. 

And to talk about Chris Cillizza's broader point about who won and lost that night and what that means going forward, I have 2 points here: 

1. As the late, great former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (Thomas Tip O'Neill) so famously and accurately said: all politics is local. So what does that mean? Of course Republicans are going to try to tie the broader Democratic Party, including the real Liberals and Progressives, with the Socialists, now that NYC is going to have a Socialist Mayor and that 1 of their U.S. Reps. (Alexandria O. Cortez) is a strong, potential, contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 28. But they were going to do that anyway. And they have nothing else going for them right now, anyway. They're completely in charge in Washington and their leader has a 37-40% job approval, depending on what polls you look at. 

2. But as DNC Chairman Ken Martin told CNN last night, the Democratic Party is a big tent party. So that means Liberals (like The New Democrat) and most mainstream Democrats. But it also means a party that has Socialists, as we saw last night in New York. And since neither faction is big enough to govern this country by themselves, they need their center-right, their center-left, and their left-wing, working and getting elected together. Instead of 1 faction of the party trying to wipe out the other faction, before they try to defeat the Republicans. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: The Dirty Little Secret That Led Democrats To a Government Shutdown

"The government shutdown isn’t just about policy fights over Obamacare subsidies or Donald Trump. At its core, it’s about politics — and one politician in particular: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In this video, Chris Cillizza breaks down how AOC’s pressure on the left has shaped Chuck Schumer’s decisions, why the Senate Minority Leader is looking over his shoulder at a potential 2028 primary, and how that fear is influencing Democrats’ shutdown strategy. 

Could this really be the AOC shutdown? 

Why Schumer’s March vote still matters today

🔹 The growing tension between Democratic leadership and the progressive left

🔹 What AOC’s 2028 options — Senate or White House — mean for the party’s future...

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, Bronx, New York) not even glasses make AOC look older and look experienced.

From Chris Cillizza

My colleague Fred Schneider mentioned what Chris Cilliza said here, yesterday. And this was his argument: 

"But I actually think there's something else going on here. I don't like questioning political motives of people, especially who are currently in government, even members of my own party where you would have more credibility in doing that. But as the Minority Leader said so himself for why he didn't go through with the shutdown back in March, when talking to Sunny Hostin on The View:

“First I’d say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart. It is not true — that bill had far less — it was bad, I hated it,” Schumer said. “But it does far less damage to — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are far more susceptible to being eliminated, which is what that horrible Musk — can you imagine this guy Musk, a billionaire, saying $1,100 for a senior citizen is not necessary? Or a Ponzi scheme...

Leader Schumer's official reasoning for not shutting down the government in March... he didn't want Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Office of Management and Budget to get to decide who gets fired, laid off, has to work for free, who gets paid and who doesn't, who gets their public assistance checks, who doesn't, while the government is shut down. So what's changed? 

What has changed in the last 6-7 months, is after the government funding debate in March, where Senate Democrats just let that bill go through with a majority vote and didn't block it... is Chuck Schumer took a lot of political heat from his left-wing of the party... The Squad and their supporters. There was talk about U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez challenging Schumer in the 2028 New York Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. 

Chuck Schumer is 75 years old, he's been in Congress since 1981, he's been in the Democratic Leadership since 2005. He's the definition of a career politician. Take him out of public office, would be like forcing fish to swim without water. Being a politician and a political leader is the only thing he knows and wants to do. 

And Leader Schumer apparently thinks the way for him to save his Senate seat, is too look cool and tough for "The Squad" and look like he's fighting for them, even if that means putting the future of the Democratic Party at risk and quite frankly the country, if voters think Democrats aren't ready to govern again next year...

From The New Democrat

So this was my argument for why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and company for not shutting down the government back in March: 

"I hate to break it to the far-left in America, but the U.S. Government is not the administration building at Columbia University, or any other preppy, Northeastern, elitist, university. You can't just shut it down and then go home, or go back to your dorm and wait for someone else to clean up your mess for you. 

And if you shut down the government... sure, you can claim to be "badasses" and the coolest people on campus. But then what? The mainstream media and MAGA can't blame the Democrats for a government shutdown this week? Why? Because there isn't 1. 

So what does the far-left do instead? They attack the Democratic leadership for not shutting down the government and call Chuck Schumer to be replaced, because he wouldn't shut down the government. And then they wonder why they're never in charge of anything serious and important, at least in Washington. But I've never wondered that." 

From The New Democrat

I'm going to start off with something that's going to sound really harsh here and then I'll get into my stronger argument. I think Chuck Schuner is having a Joe Biden moment. (I know that sounds really mean) 

But remember after June, 2024 debate, where President Biden looked like he was half asleep on the debate stage with Donald Trump, for most of that debate... struggled to just finish his own sentences and fill out the time that he was given to speak. And the Democratic activists were already calling for the President to step down the presidential race that night. 

But how does President Biden react? Like any other career politician who is way past his prime and now has a very good look at the end of his career. For about 10 days, the President bunkers down and essentially telling people he's going nowhere. But reality sets in: 

he's told that if he stays in he race, his campaign funds will be cut off. 

His own campaign staff telling him he's not only already lost all the swing states, but would now lose Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, even... New Jersey would be close, etc. 

And reality finally set in and the President finally dropped out. And perhaps you also remember the rest of the 2024 campaign yourself. 

Because Leader Schumer made the right decision not to shut down the government in March, the so-called Squad (which most of the time looks no more professional and experienced than the Columbia chapter of Students For a Democratic Society) threatens his job and tells him he has to step down, or face a primary challenge... probably from U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028. She's probably not just the most popular and powerful Socialist, inside of Congress right now (sorry, Senators Sanders and Warren) but probably the most powerful and popular Socialist outside of Congress as well. 

So the reason why the government is shut down right now, even though it gives the power to the President to cut and layoff at will as many people as he wants, during the shutdown, because 75 year old Chuck Schumer (who has been in Congress since 1981, served 9 terms in the House, now in his 5th term in the Senate) is worried about losing his job 3 years from now. So this is just 1 reason why The New Democrat is calling this government shutdown, the Schumer shutdown. Because it's not based on what's good for the country, or even the Democratic Party next year, but what's good for Chuck Schumer's political future. 

My colleague Derik Schneider made the political, as well as policy argument for why Leader Schumer and company shouldn't have gone through with this, last Friday: 

"So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown. 

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I'm fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two "gentlemen" in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown? 

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington? 

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there's no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown...

From The New Democrat

You would think that someone who has not just been in Congress as long as Chuck Schumer, but in he leadership as long as Leader Schumer, would know about The Ant-Deficiency Act. But that's not what the Democratic Leader is reading right now. He's reading his own poll numbers, especially in New York. And that's all he seems to care about right now. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Why Republicans Are Suddenly PANICKING Over Jeffrey Epstein

"Republicans in Washington are sounding the alarm over a move that could force the release of the Department of Justice’s files on Jeffrey Epstein. Kentucky Rep. Tom Massie says he now has the magic number — 218 votes — thanks to support from every Democrat plus a small group of breakaway Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert.

That means, for the first time, the House could vote on whether to compel the DOJ to make its Epstein investigation public — a vote Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP leadership have tried to block. So why are Republicans in such a panic? And what happens if this really goes to the floor... 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Donald Trump's big House fire.

From Chris Cillizza

The New Democrat has already made the case for why DOJ should have already released the Epstein files. As Fred Schneider said back in August: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released...

From The New Democrat

And as Derik Schneider said 2 weeks later: 

"As far as the Epstein files, it's hard to imagine a sitting U.S. President being more unpopular than Donald John Trump. He's now in Joe Biden's range as far as political unpopularity, with his low 40s and upper 30s approval rating. Releasing the Epstein files even with him all over them, couldn't hurt himself anymore than what he's already done to his own political standing. If anything, it would probably just make him seem cooler with his reality TV base and perhaps even Independents who voted for him, because they think he's a "badass" or something: 

"Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He's even a bigger badass than we thought".

From The New Democrat

I'll get to what Chris Cillizza said... later. But first I want to make more of an observational and practical point about the problems with trying to govern a 435 member institution, with just a 3 seat majority (Speaker Mike Johnson must feel like he's president of a high school student council, instead of the U.S. House of Representatives) and the weakness of running a scorched-earth  political campaign, where the ultimate goal is just to have 1 more Electoral College vote, than your opponent. 

Just go back 20 years... President George W. Bush had a 15 seats majority in the House of Representatives. Even that, is a small majority, by modern standards, but if G.W. Bush was all over the Epstein files, like water in a pool, ketchup on fries, gold diggers on wealthy men, etc... (let your imagination run wild on that) imagine (if you will) that George and Jeff met somewhere in Texas in the 1970s... maybe Epstein visits Texas looking more more female recruits and they became friends during G.W.'s drinking days... 4 votes Republicans wouldn't be nearly enough to get a discharged petition passed about anything. House Democrats, or maverick Republicans, or a combination, would've need 16 House Republicans to vote with all 202 House Democrats, to pass a discharge petition about anything, back in 2005-06. 

But unlike Donald John Trump, George Walker Bush (whatever you think of the man personally and politically) was a big tent Republican. It wasn't just the far-right and center-right Republicans who didn't like him, but who voted for him anyway, and 1 more independent than what John Kerry got back in 2004. President Bush locked down all the Republican base and won the independents with a solid majority. Why? 

Because he was more trusted on national security than the Democrats

He was pro-legal immigration, who didn't scare minorities, gays, or women. 

He wasn't a wannabe dictator, or a criminal, not a convicted felon, or insurrectionist, fraudster, womanizer, etc.

At least before Hurricane Katrina, Americans tended to like G.W. Bush, at least personally, even though his 2nd term was very rough for him and his party, politically.  Donald Trump doesn't have any of the political attributes that even President Bush had. Outside of his Anglo-Saxon fundamentalist base, his professional, urban reality TV people, and his MAGA bros... no one in America even thinks that Donald J. Trump is even a decent man. 

So when you run a political campaign that's only geared to your base and no one else and you treat anyone who even dares question you, about anything, as nothing but traitors, criminals, and terrorists,... sure, you can win a presidential election doing that in our social media political climate, but your governing majority in Congress, will be very slim because you got the other half of the country and more people, who are always against you. 

You win the election going scorched-earth, but you don't expand your party, even in Congress. And when you get in trouble politically, like with the Epstein files, that puts pressure on your own party to do something about it. And when you are only working with a 3 seat majority in the House, out of 433 seated members, (as of today) it doesn't take much for your party to act against you, in the House. 

Now if anyone is still awake after reading all of that, I'll get into what Chris Cilliza is talking about as well. 

So with Adeliate Grijalva's (daughter of former U.S. Representative, the late Raul Grijalva) winning her father's old House seat, House Democrats now have 214 out of 433 seated members in the House. So, yes, unless Speaker Johnson calls for a permanent vacation and House recess for the rest of this Congress, Representative Massie will get his discharge petition sighed and passed, with the help from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries delivering all 214 House Democrats to vote yes. 

But don't break out the cigars and champaign just yet. (Especially if you don't smoke or drink alcohol) The Mike Johnson permanent vacation and recess crack, is just a half-joke. The House Republican Leadership might try something like that, just to prevent the House from voting on this resolution. But it probably won't work. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump's Attorney General Doesn't Understand How Free Speech Works

"Pam Bondi just made a big mistake when it comes to understanding free speech and the First Amendment. In a recent podcast interview, she claimed that “hate speech” isn’t protected under the Constitution. That’s just not true.

In this video, I break down:

What Bondi said — and why it’s wrong

The actual history of free speech and hate speech in America

Key Supreme Court cases that prove hate speech is protected

The real (and narrow) exceptions to the First Amendment, like incitement and threats

The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect speech we all agree with. It exists to protect the speech we hate — and that’s a point Pam Bondi, as Attorney General, seems to have missed."

Source:Chris Cillizza making the case for free speech.

From Chris Cillizza

Here is Attorney General Pam Bondi's quote on free speech: 

"The Trump administration will be targeting hate speech... 

This will be part of a 3-part series on The New Democrat this week about free speech and how we define it. My post and then Rik Schneider will have something tomorrow and then Derik on Thursday. 

Anyone familiar with this blog knows that we're what liberal columnist Kirsten Powers call "free speech nuts". She doesn't call us that, but how that's how she describes her own support for free speech in America. And we feel the same way about free speech as well. We even have a section in this blog called Free Speech (of all things) where we write about... well, free speech. (The cat is finally out on the bag on that 1) 

Whether you like the humor here or not, it's very quick, pointed and even at times dark. We don't swear as much as you see from a lot of other blogs (even though we believe swearing is covered by the First Amendment) but the freedom to offend (to paraphrase George Carlin) is also covered by the First Amendment. And we take advantage of that right whenever we feel it's justified. 

When you write about politics and politicians for a living.... unless you want to be 1 yourself, (I guess no one is hiring Kamikaze pilots right now, just politicians) if you don't make fun of politicians, you don't have a sense of humor, because they're so corrupt as a profession and in many cases their voters are even worst. 

And if you care about how our tax dollars are spent, you'll go crazy by not releasing some of that frustration on the people who give us the government that we all pay for and you'll go crazy. So when you see my argument here for free speech, hopefully it doesn't sound foreign to you, at least based on what you've seen from this blog before. But hopefully it at least looks like English. 

Now, on to what I really want to say here. I have some recent personal experience here from last Thursday, where I posted something that actress/comedian Nancy Lee Grahn (for you General Hospital fans) said about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She said on Threads: 

"The Presidential Medal of Honor is now equivalent to the Walmart Shopper of the Week." In response to President Trump announcing that Charlie Kirk will be rewarded with the President Medal of Honor. I reposted that on Threads and Facebook as well. 

Someone responded to my Facebook post with this in referring to the fact that Charlie Kirk will be rewarded with the PMH: 

Kimberly Eident Chytil: "She needs to be fired".

And I responded with: "For what?"

And then Kimberly Eident Chytil responded with: "For comments about Charlie Kirk".

And I responded with: "So you are saying she (meaning Nancy L. Grahn) should be fired for expressing an opinion about Charlie Kirk. 1 thing that Mr. Kirk claimed to be in favor of, was free speech". 

You can see that whole discussion (loose definition of discussion) on my Facebook page. 

I'm just getting to Chris Cillizza's point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful. 

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech... then we have an Attorney General who doesn't even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has. 

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is... we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison... have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous.  

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump Said No Lewd Letter To Jeffrey Epstein Existed

"That looks a WHOLE lot like what the Wall Street Journal described back in July:

The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

At the time, Trump insisted the whole story was a fraud. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he told the Journal. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

Trump went on to sue the Journal’s reporters, Journal publisher Dow Jones and its parent company News Corp for defamation. He is seeking $10 billion — yes with a “b” — in damages. The suit claims that the letter was “nonexistent... 

Source:Chris Cillizza on The Wall Street Journal's breaking story about President Trump.

From Chris Cillizza

Also from Chris Cillizza: 

"Donald Trump long insisted that the infamous Jeffrey Epstein “birthday book” letter didn’t exist. He even sued The Wall Street Journal for reporting on it. But this week, the House Oversight Committee obtained the actual letter — and it looks exactly like what was originally described.

So what does this mean? Did Trump lie about writing the letter, or is it somehow a forgery? In this video, Chris Cillizza breaks down the evidence, Trump’s track record with the truth, his history with Epstein, and what this revelation could mean for the broader fight over releasing the Epstein files." 

From Chris Cillizza

Our whole point here... or 1 of our 2 major points (to go along with the fact that convicted felons aren't good spokespeople when it comes to morality and what is appropriate and they don't make credible witnesses, especially when they're serial liars) is the whole Watergate lesson: the coverup is always worst than the crime. Which is why Fred Schneider and Derik Schneider have been arguing for The White House and DOJ to just put it all out there, instead of pretending that it doesn't even exist at all... or it's just some "Democratic hoax." As Fred Schneider wrote 2 weeks ago: 

"But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released. 

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release."

From The New Democrat

And as Derik wrote last week: 

"As far as the Epstein files, it's hard to imagine a sitting U.S. President being more unpopular than Donald John Trump. He's now in Joe Biden's range as far as political unpopularity, with his low 40s and upper 30s approval rating. Releasing the Epstein files even with him all over them, couldn't hurt himself anymore than what he's already done to his own political standing. If anything, it would probably just make him seem cooler with his reality TV base and perhaps even Independents who voted for him, because they think he's a "badass" or something: 

"Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He's even a bigger badass than we thought" 

Or phrase that last part anyway you want."

From The New Democrat

But when you don't get everything out there that's against you, before the other side (including people in your own party) and the media does it to you, you are now the armed robber who decides to shoot the people in the bank, because he doesn't want any witnesses and you don't decide to do that until you have the money. You just added not just multiple murder 1 counts to your criminal conspiracy, on top of your armed bank robbery. You just made it worst for yourself. 

The White House and DOJ already know how much of Donald Trump is in the Epstein files, from the case that the first Trump DOJ put together against Jeffrey Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell, from back in 2018-19. Now it's just a matter when the Congress and the people will get the whole story themselves, or most of it. And how the public gets that story. 

Donald Trump could lie literally until American football is played on the Moon in real life. He's literally capable of doing that. But the more he lies about this and the more the people know what's actually the truth instead, the worst he and his party look. Which isn't a good thing for a President with a low 40s approval rating, presiding over a weak economy, with weak job growth and rising inflation, going into an election year. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

Chris Cillizza: How The Los Angeles Protests Made Gavin Newsom a 2028 Power Player

"In this video, Chris Cillizza breaks down how California Governor Gavin Newsom is using the ongoing protests in Los Angeles—sparked by Donald Trump’s deportation policies and the deployment of National Guard troops—as a political springboard for his likely 2028 presidential run. Cillizza argues that Newsom is positioning himself as the “leader of the opposition” to Trump, capitalizing on the media spotlight and leaning into direct conflict with the former president. Newsom’s viral messaging, including a defiant response to a Trump ally's suggestion he be arrested, has elevated his national profile.

While this benefits Newsom individually, Cillizza warns it could backfire on the broader Democratic Party if the unrest turns violent. He notes that images of chaos and law enforcement clashes typically help Trump politically, especially on immigration—a core strength of his. In sum, Cillizza sees this as a clear example of how political opportunity grows out of national crisis, with Newsom playing the moment skillfully, even if it's risky for Democrats overall." 

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at LA Law & Order with Governor Gavin Newsom.

From Chris Cillizza

As The New Democrat said yesterday: Donald Trump is doing Gavin Newsom huge favor by making the California Democrat look like he's the 1 standing for the rule of law and Constitution. Why DJT plays Dictator Don.

From The New Democrat

As we posted yesterday on The New Democrat: 

President Donald John Trump: 

"Look, I like Gavin, he's a nice guy. But he's doing a terrible job... and then the President went on to talk about some building project in California that he's claims is very late and well over budget."

Ederik Schneider:  And then he claimed everything that he builds is always done under budget and finished early. 

From The New Democrat

As Kire Schneider wrote yesterday: 

"This is exactly what we're talking about. Let's say (God forbid) that Governor Newsom is the Democratic nominee for President in 2028... that's how Republicans are going to want to paint the Governor politically: some out-of-touch, California, hippie-leftist, who thinks the police are the real criminals, who wants the national government to run everyone's lives for them. But then you got President Trump coming in and threatening to arrest the Governor, because Newsom disagrees with how the President is responding to the Los Angeles protests. 

Democrats in 2026, 27, and 28, even 25, want to run against Donald Trump because they see him as a wannabe dictator and real threat to our Constitution, republic, our form of government, the rule of law, etc. And the President just made that job a helluva lot easier by making Governor Newsom look like the guy who is standing for our Constitution, checks and balances, and rule of law. That's the real point of this story. Not what Jesse Dollemore or some other left-wing commentator thinks about Gavin Newsom on social media." 

From The New Democrat

I think Chris Cillizza is really just stating the obvious here. I mean he starts off his video by saying: 

"National crisis's creates political opportunity. Always has, always will". Not what you would call a brilliant observation. 

I mean Jimmy Carter got elected President of the United States because of Watergate in the mid 1970s and the fact that he was an outsider Democrat, from Georgia, who also had strong record on civil rights and was popular with African-Americans, as well as rural Anglo-Saxons. And there many other examples like that. And this is not a brilliant observation on my part, but it makes my point. 

So why am I'm writing a blog post in response to what Chris Cillizz's  unenlightening video here? Because the weather is once again very warm, sunny, and gorgeous in Washington and it's a slow news day. And with all due respect to MSNBC: Gavin Newsom saying that Donald Trump is endangering American democracy, is not "breaking news". Unless you have nothing else to talk about and we want to keep the left-wing of the Democratic Party as part of your audience. Which is probably why they're saying that. 

But The New Democrat made this point on Monday and Chris Cilliza sort of backs up what we are saying here. Donald Trump is a political Christmas gift for Governor Newsom right now. And maybe privately Donald Trump and the rest of MAGA wants the Governor to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2028. Especially if the economy is crashing with the records deficits, debt, inflation, and interest rates (unless Republican change fiscal course here) because they think they can paint the Governor as some out-touch, hippie-leftist, elitist, California Democrat, who looks down at the rest of the country, especially Americans who live in the middle part of the country and Southeast. 

But, when you are threatening and just use the National Guard against protestors, simply because you don't think that people who disagree with you have a right to protest, (meaning you don't believe in the First Amendment) and then you also threaten to arrest people simply for disagreeing with you, especially the Governor of the most populated state in America, who happens to also be from the opposition party, you end up painting yourself as the out-of-touch extremist. And open the door for even a left-wing California Democrat, to come in looking like the champion of rule of law, the Constitution, and free speech in America. Which is the exact, unintentional, political favor, that Donald Trump has done for Gavin Newsom. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Here's The Dirty Little Secret About Karine Jean-Pierre Everyone in DC Knows

"In this video, Chris Cillizza dissects the surprising announcement from former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that she is now an independent and is releasing a book titled Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside of Party Lines. Cillizza argues the move reeks of opportunism, noting Jean-Pierre was known for being a loyal Biden defender—even after the disastrous 2024 debate—and was not highly regarded within the White House. He criticizes the timing of her political rebrand as a convenient marketing ploy, reinforced by a scathing Politico article quoting former colleagues who describe her as ineffective and self-promotional. Cillizza concludes that her new stance confirms what many already thought: this was always about building her personal brand." 

Source:Chris Cillizza on KJP's grift.

From Chris Cillizza

I agree with Chris Cillizza about POLITICO's headline here: 

"Karine Jean-Pierre’s announcement that she’s leaving the Democratic Party — timed with the rollout of a new book — has detonated long-simmering grievances among her former White House colleagues about Jean-Pierre’s pursuit of celebrity and personal media exposure while serving as then-President Joe Biden’s press secretary.

The attention-grabbing ploy lit up Democratic and Biden alumni texting groups and reignited frustrations that burned for years about Jean-Pierre, according to seven former Biden administration officials granted anonymity to describe private conversations.

One former official recalled that Jean-Pierre had joked about becoming an independent even while on the job in the Biden White House, an off-key comment for someone ostensibly serving as a major messenger for the Democratic Party. Another former official said that Jean-Pierre had begun working during the Biden administration with a New York-based publicist and had copied that person on official emails before some of Jean-Pierre’s White House colleagues intervened.

“Everyone thinks this is a grift,” the first former official said of Jean-Pierre’s book project.

As Biden’s press secretary, Jean-Pierre’s halting, ineffectual briefings exasperated reporters and routinely offered material for the Republican Party’s main account on X. She frustrated colleagues throughout the West Wing for focusing on raising her own profile while leaving the hands-on management of media relations and the White House press shop to other aides.

While it’s unclear how she will portray Biden or her time in the White House in the book, titled “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,” several former colleagues expressed confusion at how Jean-Pierre seemingly intends to paint Biden as a victim while pinning her own decision to leave the party on his “broken” White House... 

Jean-Pierre’s former staffers offered withering criticism of what they see as an opportunistic grift.

“She made a joke about being an independent last year and now it’s a book. All ideas are monetary — even the dumb ones,” said one of the former staffers...

From POLITICO

From the Daily Mail: 

"Jean-Pierre, 50, has frequently been seen shouting down journalists and descending into hostile back-and-forths since she assumed the high-profile role in May 2022. 

Just weeks before election day, Jean-Pierre had perhaps her most fiery moment at the lectern, as she stormed out of the press room accusing reporters of spreading misinformation about FEMA's response to Hurricane Helene... 

From the Daily Mail

As Fred Schneider wrote yesterday: 

"And as far as Karine-Jean Pierre: before the Biden White House, she was part of the left-wing group MoveOn. She's not a Democrat in ideology anyway. More like a Berniecrat, or a member of the so-called Squad in the House. She was a registered Democrat, because she thought that party was the best way to advance her left-wing, social democratic brand of politics. And according to... 

And as Jim Acosta and Don Lemon both said, what KJP is doing here, is a very Trumpy thing to do. You work for the man as long as you can, you compile a lot of information about him and other people who worked for the President, then you leave The White House and spill the beans (so to speak) about what you saw when you were there. Most of the information that you compiled probably being very negative about who you worked with and for. And you make a lot of money as a result. But this is Donald Trump's Reality TV America now. So why not? Because this is how his game is played. 

From The New Democrat

Fred touched on this yesterday, but the reason we believe she only had the job that she had at The White House, was to appease the left-wing of the Democratic Party, who saw Joe Biden as too mainstream, too establishment, to "moderate" (whatever that means at this point) back in 2019-20. And this was a favor from the President to them, along with all the environmental actions that President Biden signed, to keep the left-wing off his back while he did what he really wanted to do as President. Which is probably why only the left-wing of the Democratic Party stayed behind the President, when everyone else in the country ditched him last summer and wanted him to drop his presidential campaign. 

But, when you do political favors for people, those come with real political consequences: 

The one big not really gaff, but more like Karine Jeanne Pierre caught being honest and letting people know what her real politics is, on a hot mic, was when Hamas attacked Israel in October of 2023 and the press wanted to know what the President and White House thought about that and instead of just answering that simple question and condemning the Hamas attack on Israel, she pulled a Kelly-Anne Conway and totally ignored the question and instead talked about what Israel has done to Palestine. Almost as if she was justifying the Hamas attack. 

Anyone else who showed such horrible, lack of political judgment and communications, whether it's about Israel and Hamas, or any other key issue in the country, probably gets fired the next day for being so politically stupid. But Karine Jean-Pierre keeps her job because the President had already decided that he was going to run for reelection in 2024 and didn't want to risk offending the left-wing of his party. 

So, look, this is nothing new. Thanks to Donald Trump, politics and government, is just another division of realty TV and celebrity culture in America, where everyone is looking to "go viral" and grift people off of that. And why not, when you worked in The White House for 4 years and were the press secretary for 18 months and have no much insider information that you want to profit off of, in Donald Trump's America? 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Is The Senate Filibuster On The Brink of Extinction?

"Chris Cillizza discusses a New York Times piece by Carl Hulse that argues the Senate filibuster is on the brink of extinction. Cillizza explores this claim by examining a recent, largely unnoticed event: Senate Republicans, led by John Thune, overrode the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on a California emissions waiver using only a simple majority—despite it traditionally requiring 60 votes due to the filibuster.

This, Cillizza argues, is a major signal that norms protecting the filibuster are weakening. He traces the filibuster’s history, from its formalization in 1917, to threshold changes in 1975, to Democrats and Republicans both carving out exceptions for judicial nominations over the past decade.

He predicts that with key opponents of reform like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema leaving the Senate, Democrats may finally eliminate the legislative filibuster the next time they have a majority. He also flags the upcoming “one big beautiful bill” to fund Donald Trump’s agenda—passed under budget reconciliation rules—as another key test of whether the filibuster will be honored or further eroded."

" 

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at the Senate cloture rule.

From Chris Cillizza

The sun is finally back out in Washington, so that means it must be another slow news day in the nation's capital, because I'm writing a piece about not just Congress, (which could put any insomniacs convention to sleep) but the Senate filibuster in particular, (which could put any convention of insomniacs conventions to sleep) and the possible future about it. But hey, I'm Congressional junky myself: so what the hell. 

So it only took Chris Cilliza about 7 minutes, or more, of his 10 minute video here, to get into what this is really about. The California environmental laws I believe was just a test, or dry run, a workout, a practice, to get to what Senate Majority John Thune and company are really considering here. The Big Ugly Debt Bomb (that MAGA calls the Big Beautiful Bill) But I have a theory that explains why I think Mr. Cilliza might be wrong here.

So, if you are not asleep yet from this, I congratulate you, because it's important, even if it dull enough to put a team of insomniacs to sleep. But if you are still trying to sleep after seeing this, maybe this will help. I'm just going to give a possible scenario for what could happen if Senate Republicans can't agree on what to cut to pay for the House Republican Big Ugly Debt Bomb and they get stuck somewhere between trying to pay for their own bill and not trying to pay for anything and just putting $3 trillion on the national debt: 

So if that happens and the Senate Parliamentarian rules that this bill violates Congressional reconciliation and the Majority Leader simply just tries to overrule the Parliamentarian with a simple majority, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer still has 1, big, play, in his playbook, that he could call, that every Senate Democrat would back him on and maybe even 2-3 Republicans as well. The Majority Leader brings his motion to the floor to overrule the Parliamentarian on reconciliation, the Minority Leader simply officially objects to that on the floor:

"The Minority Leader can object on the floor if the Majority Leader attempts to override the Senate Parliamentarian with a simple majority vote. The Senate rules, particularly those related to standing rules and cloture, are designed to protect the rights of the minority, and the nuclear option provides a mechanism for them to challenge such actions." 

From the Senate.Gov. 

And guess what: you need 60 votes to overcome any objection on the floor by any Senator, not just the Majority or Minority Leader. 

But here's why I think we may not get to this point: 

Senate Republicans, including Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, I believe even Ted Cruz (no one's moderates) are already saying that the House bill can't pass in the Senate. They don't have enough votes to even pass it with 50 senators and the Vice President. They're saying it's too big, borrows too much money. And Senator Hawley, as well as Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, don't like the Medicaid cuts as well. 

And this could all just be political talk and they could go down faster than a deadman in a championship fight. But even if that last part is true, Chuck Schumer could just object to the overrule motion made by John Thune, to override the Parliamentarian, because their bill violates reconciliation and Thune would need 60 votes to bypass that objection.  

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump’s Not Playing 3D Chess — Maybe Not Even Checkers

"In this video, Chris Cillizza explores a long-running debate about Donald Trump: Is he a master political strategist playing "3D chess," or is he simply improvising and reacting in the moment? Drawing from a recent Atlantic interview and Trump's own words in "The Art of the Deal," Cillizza argues that Trump operates without a long-term plan, instead reacting instinctively to media, public reaction, and his own impulses. Like a stand-up comedian testing material, Trump gauges what resonates and doubles down on it, making his presidency more about tactical day-to-day reactions than strategic foresight." 

Source:Chris Cillizza has 10 words for Donald J. Trump.

From Chris Cillizza

This is the part of "The Art of The Deal" that Chris Cilliza is talking about: 

"Most people are surprised by the way I work. I play it very loose. I don’t carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.

 

There is no typical week in my life. I wake up most mornings very early, around six, and spend the first hour or so of each day reading the morning newspapers. I usually arrive at my office by nine, and I get on the phone. There’s rarely a day with fewer than fifty calls, and often it runs to over a hundred. In between, I have at least a dozen meetings. The majority occur on the spur of the moment, and few of them last longer than fifteen minutes. I rarely stop for lunch. I leave my office by six-thirty, but I frequently make calls from home until midnight, and all weekend long.

 

It never stops, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. That’s where the fun is. And if it can’t be fun, what’s the point... 

From Penguin Random House

So "The Art of The Deal" came up during 1 of Karoline Levitt's "press conferences" 2 weeks ago. Safe bet she's never read the book either: 

"She never lets facts get in the way of whatever partisan argument that she's trying to make. 

I'm willing to bet that Karoline Leavitt has never read "The Art of The Deal" either. Or, she's just lying about that. Either 1 could definitely be true. It's easy to see why a businessman who went bankrupt 6-7 times, who is looking at a debt in New York State of 500-million-dollars because of how they did business in Manhattan, would try to run a federal government and national economy like this. To put it simply: President Trump doesn't know what the hell he's doing...

From The New Democrat

I don't completely disagree with what Chris Cilliza is arguing here. I guess I would just put it differently and risk sounding more humorous. I don't think Donald Trump plays chess or checkers. 

I'll tell you who Donald J. Trump reminds me of in how he operates and does business:

Cillizza and I are both Gen-Xers and we both remember the 1980s and 1990s fairly well. There was a popular ABC sitcom back then called Growing Pains. Kirk Cameron (who perhaps is famous for different reasons today) played Mike Seaver, the oldest child in Seaver family. His character was an immature, underachiever, born to be professional conman: 

You could catch Mike Seaver redhanded walking out of store with a truck load of unpaid for merchandise, on videotape  and he could lie his way out of that. He would say the truck is not his, someone stole his receipt, he would claim a casher ranged him up but now the cashier has either forgotten that, or is lying about not ringing him up in the first place. 

And 1 of Mike Seaver's favorite cons that he used to get people to do things for him, that they don't want to do, or wouldn't do for him voluntarily, would be tell his sister or brother: "Let's flip a coin to decide who does this". But Carol or Ben wouldn't know that Mike's coin is a one-sided coin and Mike always picks the correct side. It always comes up tails or heads. 

To make a long example and reference shorter: Donald Trump also plays one-sided coin as well... but he always picks the wrong side, which is why he screws up so badly. He's like the head football coach, whose team never even bothers to practice, let alone puts any game plan together: 

So no thought put into the costs of unilateral, across the board tariffs on everyone, (except Russia, of course) and the economy retracts 1st quarter 2025. 

President Trump talked about firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell a couple weeks ago, even though he legally can't fire Chairman Powell... the Stock Market suffers a huge loss that day and the President backtracks on that the following say. And then are many more examples like that. 

My point here is Donald Trump's off the cuff, make things up, take things as they come, strategy, works for him as an entertainer and reality TV star. But it didn't work for him as a businessman. How many 6 time bankrupt successful businessman do you know of, who has to rely on the tax code and all the credits and deductions in it, just so he can pay his bills are you aware of? And it's not working as President of the United States either. It didn't work the first time and he's now more unpopular than ever. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Is This The End For Pete Hegseth?

"Pete Hegseth, who [checks Truth Social] is still the Secretary of Defense, woke up to some brutal headlines today.

In the wake of the revelation that he had gone around Pentagon protocols and had Signal installed on an office computer and the news that his chief of staff was resigning to become a part-time government employee, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal dropped stories that suggest the end may be near for Hegseth.

Here’s the Journal headline: “Polygraph Threats, Leaks and Infighting: The Chaos Inside Hegseth’s Pentagon.”

The piece details how Hegseth, enraged by the leak that he was planning to give Elon Musk a briefing on war plans related to China, threatened several top Pentagon officials with a polygraph test to prove they had not done the leaking.

“I’ll hook you up to a f**king polygraph,” Hegseth allegedly told then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Chris Grady.

Not a great look!

The Post story paints a similar — and unflattering — portrait of Hegseth. This paragraph, in particular, is rough:

Defense officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the situation, have described Hegseth, 44, as paranoid and increasingly isolated. He is surrounded by only a small team of people whom he trusts and has become keenly focused on daily news coverage dissecting his missteps and decision-making.

Having been reporting on and observing politics for the last two-plus decades, I can tell you that this is how it looks near the end. An embattled political figure, driven to the point of distraction by all of the negative media coverage about him, bunkers in with only the people who tell him what he wants to hear.

That story very rarely ends well — for the person in Hegseth’s shoes that is.

Now, this is a whole new political world. Hegseth has been utterly defiant — publicly — in the face of the spate of negative stories. And Donald Trump likes fighters — people who don’t just wilt when the media horde comes for them.

So, maybe Hegseth survives! But man does it look bad for him at the moment... 

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at the Pete Hegseth story.

From Chris Cillizza

"Pete Hegseth is under increasing scrutiny as reports of dysfunction and controversy within the Pentagon mount. He reportedly bypassed security protocols to install the Signal messaging app on a government desktop and has become increasingly isolated, relying on a small circle of trusted allies. Two major reports—from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal—describe him as paranoid, obsessed with media coverage, and quick to accuse staff of leaks, even threatening polygraph tests. Several top aides have resigned, including his chief of staff. Critics argue that Hegseth is focused more on his image than on his responsibilities, and while Donald Trump appreciates loyalty, his patience may be tested. The video suggests this could be the beginning of the end for Hegseth’s tenure." 

From Chris Cillizza

From The New Democrat earlier about Pete Hegseth: 

"If you privately polled the Senate Republican Conference, or slipped some truth serum in their favorite coffee or favorite alcohol beverage, (according to Senator Mullin) or they were under oath, they would privately tell you that Pete Hegseth has no business serving as a Defense Department intern, let alone as Secretary of Defense. That he's better qualified attending Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, and attending anger management meetings, then being responsible for America's national security. But President Trump wants Hegseth, so that's who he gets, according to a sold majority of the Senate Republican Conference. That's my guess... 

From The New Democrat

And from The New Democrat on Tuesday about Pete Hegseth: 

"And to respond to a point that Jane Harman made on CNN: Donald Trump only fires his loyal staffers and cabinet members, when they become a problem for him personally. The President firing people has nothing to what with what's in the best interest of the country, because he doesn't care about that. (To be real) 

And as former Representative Harman said, Pete Hegseth is now embarrassing The White House and the President because he was Donald Trump's original choice for Secretary of Defense. But it's now quite obvious that the Secretary of Defense can't even be trusted with classified information. And it's becoming harder for Congressional Republicans (House & Senate) to defend him against anything that comes up against him, especially if they're in for tough reelection battles in 2026." 

From The New Democrat

I would respond this way: 

If Pete Hegseth cared about Donald J. Trump... I mean, actually cared about him, at least wanted him to do well politically and is not just at The Pentagon right now because he thinks it's great for his career in the MAGA movement, I think he resigns a month ago. I mean sharing classified information on a chat app... why not just Tweet that information instead? If that's not a fireable offense for a national security official, what is? And now it's happened again, a month later. And he could've easily saved face on that and said something like: 

"The Un-Americans in the media are out to try to destroy our great leader and I've become too much of a distraction in our great cause to save America from the Un-Americans and therefor I'll resign as Secretary of Defense." That could've been his resignation letter to President Trump and the President probably accepts that.

I think that's what Secretary Hegseth's resignation letter to President Trump would look like, if he actually cared about the President and simply wasn't trying to hang on, because he thinks stepping down would be bad for his career or something. 

Yes, I'm sure MAGA voters, just everyday Americans who don't make they're living in and out of politics, probably do love Donald J. Trump. But his associates, his career allies, his MAGA soldiers... Donald Trump is just a launching pad for their business and political careers. The more they're loyal to him and the more they claim to love him, (even though to them in private, he's a big loser, who actually knows very little, if anything about government policy) the better these Trump associates do for themselves. 

If Pete Hegseth leaves The Pentagon, it won't be voluntarily. The White House Chief of Staff or Vice President Vance will tell him that he can either resign or be fired, because he's become too big of a distraction and the Defense Department can't work with him anymore because of how much of a security risk and leak that he really is. But I don't see Secretary Hegseth resigning for the reasons I just gave. That's my theory. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.