Imagine this: in ten days, a blue tsunami crashes into red America. Democrats capture a bigger-than-expected majority in the House. They flip the Senate with wins in places like Texas, Alaska – even Kansas. Libs are libbing out like it’s ‘08. And pretty soon, a parade of strategists, activists, and influencers declare that the results have revealed the path to the White House in ‘28:
Exactly what each one of us believed all along.
More moderates. More progressives. More populists. Fresh faces. Experienced leaders. Fighters. Unifiers. Basically, whatever validates our own ideology, policy preferences, or podcast takes.
And if the polls are all wrong and Democrats have a bad night? Worse mood. Unbearable discourse. But pretty much the same conclusions.
Which is why I want to register this* *podcast take *before *the election: let’s give voters the chance to change our minds – because knowing who won is not the same as understanding why they did.
Let’s say James Talarico wins Texas after running a populist campaign where he embraced more moderate positions on fossil fuels and trans athletes. Is that a victory for populism? Moderation? Or the strategy of running against Ken Paxton?
What if Abdul El-Sayed wins the Senate race in Michigan, but runs behind Jocelyn Benson in the governor’s race? Is that because of the positions he took, the attacks he faced, the campaign he ran, or something else entirely?
Elections aren’t controlled experiments. To understand the results, we need to know who turned out, who switched sides, and what mattered to them. Exit polls can offer clues. Focus groups and interviews can help explain how voters think and possibly cause you to lose faith in the human experiment.
But it’s worth trying to understand. Not just because political junkies like me, and maybe you, live for the post-game analysis. But because – and it gives me no pleasure to say this – we’re just a few weeks away from the beginning of the 2028 presidential primary.
That’s right. Winter is coming…
