America’s Future Will Be Decided In 2028

Without fail, every couple of years, we’re told that we’re in the midst of the single most important election cycle in the history of the country. 

It’s good marketing, for one thing — a handy way for media outlets to generate some interest in their election coverage. Plus, it plays on our natural human bias to believe that everything happening right now is more important than anything that’s happened before. 

After all, no one wants to feel like they’re living through a boring period of history. So we’re all very familiar with this kind of hyperbole. As a result, because we hear it so often, we generally tune it out. We’re told that “it’s the most important election cycle ever,” and we ignore it.

After what happened on Tuesday, we have to get out of that habit, effective immediately. 

There is no doubt 2028 will indeed be a pivotal election cycle, unlike anything else we’ve ever seen. It will be make-or-break for the United States as we know it. For the next two years, Donald Trump can use the veto power to shut down the Democrats’ worst legislation. After that, our future is entirely in the hands of the next president. 

Should a socialist Democrat win, there will be nothing stopping Democrats from packing the court, adding new states, nationalizing critical industries, and opening the borders — all of which they have promised to do the moment they return to power. And if you doubt any of that, take a look at this exit poll:

Thirty-three percent of voters had a “strongly” or “somewhat” favorable view of socialism — and virtually all of them were Democrats. Twelve percent of voters had a “somewhat unfavorable” view of socialism, meaning they saw some value in the ideology. Seventy-three percent of those voters were Democrats. 

Meanwhile, among the 41% of voters who had a strongly unfavorable view of socialism, 85% of them were Republicans. So it’s not an overstatement to say that the Democrat Party is the party of socialism at this point. And when they take power, they will do what socialists always do: They will destroy the economy and eliminate their political opponents.

The nightmare scenario at the moment is that we go into 2028 with an unpopular presidential candidate and face a similar wipeout to what just happened on Tuesday. 

I’m talking about a wipeout so substantial that Democrats don’t even need to abolish the filibuster to assume complete control over the government. There is precedent for this, of course — those of us who experienced ‘06 and then ‘08 know that. 

In this nightmare scenario, the Democrats would win the White House with a supermajority in Congress. In that scenario, they don’t even need to nuke the filibuster. They add D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, which happens with majority votes (it’s surprisingly easy to add a new state). Then they become politically invincible, for all intents and purposes. 

They will pursue federal cases against conservative politicians, activists, and public figures. People will go to jail. When they have power, they wield it. This is a “New Deal” kind of revolution that’s brewing. It would be unlike anything we’ve seen in American politics in our lifetimes. And it would be utterly catastrophic in every conceivable way. 

In the meantime, over the next two years, we know exactly what’s coming. Democrats will get into office and immediately start investigating Trump, his officials, and anyone else they can think of. 

There will be impeachments — and at least a few Trump officials are probably going down. Already, they’re talking about issuing subpoenas to the DHS secretary and every ICE official who enforced immigration laws. The harassment will be relentless. 

They will bankrupt as many Trump officials and advisers as they can. They’ll run up the legal fees, just like they did after January 6. It’ll be a reminder of just how weak and ineffective Republicans were, when they had control of both houses of Congress. 

Republicans had the chance to root out Democrat corruption, but they chose to do nothing. They had the chance to systematically dismantle and destroy Left-wing radicals and their networks and funders, and they didn’t. 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination should have led to a ruthless nationwide crackdown on Left-wing extremism, but it didn’t. So Democrats will turn around and do all of the things the Republicans were too scared to do. And if they win the presidency, they’re going to finish what Charlie Kirk’s assassin started. They’re going to imprison, kill, or otherwise neutralize any conservative who could ever challenge them.

It’s worth harping on this point for another moment. Charlie was assassinated. It was the most shocking and consequential political assassination since JFK. And it was even worse, in some ways, because many Americans spent the following months openly celebrating the murder. 

Republicans had the opportunity to respond to these events by rooting out the murderous leftists and the networks that fund and support them. Instead, they did basically nothing. 

If Democrats had been in office when one of their most prominent leaders was assassinated in front of a live audience, on camera, the ruthless crackdown on right-wingers that followed would have made their January 6 prosecutions seem like a walk in the park. That’s how they operate. Republicans don’t. 

They’re also going to break every “norm” that idiot Republicans in Congress decided to honor over the past two years. Here’s Talarico, the incoming senator from Texas:

James Talarico on the filibuster

“I believe that the majority has a right to govern in this country. And the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution, is a Jim Crow relic.”

“It is leading to gridlock in our nation’s capital.”

#TexasSenate https://t.co/s2WLYWODOs

— Politics & Poll Tracker ???? (@PollTracker2024) November 4, 2026

Source: @PollTracker2024/X.com

We all knew this was coming. Republicans in Congress pretended otherwise. Now Democrats are making it explicit. Hearing this, give me one reason why John Thune and the GOP majority in the Senate don’t abolish the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act right now? They’re still in power for a few more months. They can get a lot done. They don’t have to stop with the SAVE Act. 

Republicans could pass a nationwide ban on funding for child sex-change operations, which we’ve been demanding for years. They could codify every single one of Trump’s executive orders. They could block state-level attempts to interfere with Elon Musk’s companies, and any other company owned by a conservative. 

They could punish sanctuary cities, expand oil and gas development, cut funding for DEI, pass nationwide legislation to protect gun owners from arrest as they cross state lines, etc. 

The Republican majority in Congress, until it’s gone in January, can pass all of this by a strict majority vote if they abolish the filibuster. So why aren’t they doing it? Why aren’t they even attempting to do it? And why aren’t they calling on Alito and Thomas to resign immediately, so we can appoint replacements as soon as possible?

Republicans simply do not have any interest in fighting — they have no agenda, no purpose, nothing. But Democrats are very interested in fighting, and winning. They are ruthless, violent, and more empowered than ever. And they will tear this country apart, piece by piece, until no Republicans are left.

They are also, right now, focused on at least one important issue that Republicans are all but entirely ignoring. 

Yesterday on the show I said that AI didn’t show up in the exit polls, but by 2028 it will be the top issue for a majority of voters. I was actually wrong. I hadn’t seen the NBC exit poll, which found that, already, even as AI has only just started to wipe out jobs, it is a major factor for a majority of voters. Fifty-six percent of voters said that AI and data centers were a crucial or major factor in their vote. Most of the people who considered it a crucial or major factor voted for Democrats. So I was wrong about the exit polls, but even more right about the overall point than I realized. AI is a central political issue right now. That will be even more the case in the coming years. 

Republicans have been nothing short of abysmal on this issue. To call Trump’s handling of it “tone deaf” would be far too generous. Voters are extremely worried about the mass unemployment that has already started due to this technology. If your only response is to suggest a fun little nickname for AI, you will get obliterated in every election, now and forever. Pro-AI cultism is not a viable political position. It just isn’t. 

Here’s a post from Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari of Arizona the other day, on the other hand: 

 Top of the Democratic agenda on day 1 needs to be a pause on advanced AI development, regulation of this out of control industry, and a ban on artificial superintelligence.

I don’t know anything about Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, but I can guess with a fair amount of confidence that I disagree with almost every position she has ever held on any topic. And yet on this topic, there are two things you need to understand if you’re a Republican. 

First, this is a winning political message. That’s a fact. You may not like it, but it’s true. The inverse of this — don’t regulate AI at all, don’t slow down its advancement, don’t put any controls in place, embrace superintelligence without hesitation, data centers are wonderful, and we should build a billion more of them — is a political message that will get you trounced in every election from now to kingdom come. That’s the political reality, and it’s not up for debate. It simply is what it is. An AI maximalist presidential candidate will not win in 2028. Period. 

The other thing about this post from this congresswoman — and this is the part that will be really hard for some of you to accept — is that it isn’t just a political winner; it’s also mostly right on the merits. 

Let’s go through it, briefly. Should we regulate the industry? Yes, obviously. What’s the other option? No regulations at all? Just let Sam Altman and his trillionaire friends do literally whatever they want with no rules governing them? That’s an insane position. We can debate what the regulations should be. I’m sure Democrats have some terrible ideas for regulations. They usually do. Not every suggested regulation will be good. But clearly there need to be some regulations. 

Republicans need to be the ones to come up with the sensible, rational regulations. Or else Democrats will impose nonsensical and irrational ones. But “don’t regulate them at all” is the crazy, delusional, cucked position of someone who thinks we should all just sit back and let trillion-dollar tech companies have their way with our civilization, our country, our lives, and our children’s futures. 

What about pausing AI development? An across-the-board pause on all development is a bad idea. But slowing down certain types of AI development is probably a good idea. That’s a debate we can have. But Republicans need to be in the debate. That’s the point. As for what types should be slowed down, that brings us to her third point: banning superintelligence. Should we do that? 

This is where Trump’s insistence on rebranding AI as SI is not just superfluous and stupid, it’s also harmful in a material and significant way. It confuses the conversation. A lot of conservatives don’t know what is meant by “super intelligence” because Trump insists that all AI is super intelligence. So when they hear “ban superintelligence,” they think it means “ban ChatGPT.” It doesn’t.

Super intelligence is not artificial intelligence itself. Superintelligence is the hypothetical final stage of artificial intelligence development where it becomes cognitively superior to human beings in every conceivable way, and is recursive, in that it can improve and develop and remake itself without human involvement. 

At the point where superintelligence emerges, the technology, by definition, is outside of human control, because it will be smarter than humans and develop without humans, so there will be no way to put any reliable controls on it. 

Should we ban Big Tech companies from creating a self-perpetuating alien super mind that evolves on its own and would be, by definition, out of our control, leaving us at its mercy, and helpless to program or meaningfully guide it? 

Yes, clearly we should. Tech companies should not be allowed to fundamentally alter the course of human civilization and create a species of intelligence that could enslave us if it wanted to. Why should they have the right to upend and possibly destroy human society itself? Who died and appointed these Silicon Valley weirdos to be emperors of the universe? 

If Republicans are going to take the opposite position — which I think is political death, and maybe more than just political death — they better have a very, very compelling argument. So far they don’t. Just shouting about China is not a compelling argument. 

Telling us that this technology might destroy civilization but it’s going to happen anyway, so “oh well” — is also not a compelling argument. This is an issue we can’t escape. If Democrats are the only ones taking it seriously and trying to come up with solutions — even if you think they’re bad solutions — they will win. 

When we talk about Democrats winning, we don’t just mean on the national level. To understand the total picture, you need to consider what happened on Tuesday at the state level. 

Before we get into the bad news, I’ll mention one note of optimism I found. Pretty much the only bright spot is that, in various ballot initiatives, voters made some good conservative decisions — even in places where you wouldn’t expect it:

Voters in Washington State, Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska voted to ban so-called “trans athletes” (meaning male athletes) in women’s sports (Although Colorado and Washington are still counting votes; that’s where it looks like right now). 

Fifty-two percent of voters, in exit polls, said that “trans rights” have gone too far. Meanwhile, voter ID requirements passed by landslide margins in Nevada (by 25 points), North Carolina (by 20 points) and Ohio (by 31 points). 

Even though Republicans lost major statewide races in all three of these states, there was still overwhelming support for sane ballot measures that conservatives have been demanding, in some form or another, for several years. In fact, Democrats won the Senate race in North Carolina by 20 points, but a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID passed by the same very large margin — 20 points. 

The amendment specifically requires “all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting.”  It passed overwhelmingly, along with amendments to cap property taxes and income taxes. These are all conservative ideas that are passing with strong margins, even as voters went for the Democrat candidate.

Along the same lines, in California of all places, voters overwhelmingly rejected a wealth tax on billionaires, which the socialists had been demanding. The vote was something like 55 to 45 against the wealth tax. That was Proposition 40. 

Not only that — by the same margin, voters in California also passed a ban (Proposition 42) on “new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive state taxes.” Basically, Prop 42 would prevent any wealth taxes in the future — including “new state taxes on personal assets, including retirement accounts, investments, and business interests.” So this was a total loss for the socialists on a major part of their platform, in a very Left-wing state. 

Meanwhile, voters in Wisconsin voted to end DEI. A measure passed 56% to 43% that “prohibits government entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, contracting, and administration.”

This is all very good news, on a day that was disastrous overall for Republicans. Even in a massive blue wave election — where Democrats completely dominated Republicans and flipped Texas (and even a seat in Mississippi) — voters still made it clear that they don’t like taxes. They don’t want to cave to the insane demands of trans activists. They don’t want DEI. And they don’t want voter fraud. 

So how do we explain why Republicans were demolished, even as voters expressed a preference for various conservative principles and agenda items? The answer seems pretty obvious: It’s because this election was mainly about the fact that a lot of people hate Trump. 

He’s always been despised, but he used to have a huge, extremely enthusiastic fan base to counteract it. Now that fan base has dwindled to some degree. And he’s left being the most despised politician of our lifetime.

On the one hand, that’s a pretty demoralizing realization. A lot of people, myself included, supported Trump. We had very high hopes for his second term in office. We took him seriously when he said, at the inauguration, that we would enter a golden age, one where “Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.” We were listening when he said, “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” 

Watch:

That’s what we were promised. What we got, instead, was an extreme degree of unpredictability, along with a new war. We got new tariffs every other week, sending the stock market crashing. 

We were told about new ceasefires with Iran every couple of days, even though none of them meant anything. I think, by my count, we “won the war” about 500 times since it started. 

But here’s the important thing: the states, by rejecting Trump, also empowered Democrats to a degree most people can’t comprehend at the moment. These state-level takeovers are a much bigger deal than people realize, and they could dramatically change the way elections are conducted going forward. 

It’s true that Democrats didn’t totally dominate every state — Republicans have kept their majority in the state Senate in Texas, for example, so the new Democrat governor won’t be able to destroy the state overnight. But their victories — in states like Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Nevada, in addition to Texas — lay the groundwork for a major change in our elections going forward. Pretty much every presidential swing state is now controlled, to one degree or another, by Democrats. Here’s one way to count it, which was posted by Nate Silver: 

If the remaining results go as expected, Democrats will hold governorships in states totaling 392 electoral votes.

Put another way, around 75% of America will have a Democrat governor. This is a staggering takeover, and the implications are massive. 

For one thing, Democrats are going to gerrymander every congressional district to ensure they never lose the House majority ever again. They’re also going to change how elections are administered (since that generally falls within the authority of the states). 

That means they’re going to push the adoption of mail-in ballots and absentee voting everywhere, along with ballot harvesting and late voting. Remember what we saw with Cam Higby and James O’Keefe earlier this week when they walked into a polling place in Minnesota and were allowed to “vouch” for nine other voters with no ID? That’s going to happen everywhere. 

They’re also going to try to allow as much fraud as possible by getting rid of ID requirements, although (as we just discussed) voters in a few states have passed amendments to prevent that.

There’s another election-related downside to Democrat control over so many states, which is that we could see the end of the Electoral College in the near future. The Electoral College was set up by the Founders because they understood that direct democracy (and a popular vote) wouldn’t be consistent with federalism, where each state has its own interests that deserve representation. Democrats, of course, oppose the Electoral College because a large portion of their base (communists and foreigners) live in concentrated areas, where the Electoral College “dilutes” their vote. 

To that end, there’s something called the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” where states would award their electoral votes to whatever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, regardless of what candidate actually wins the individual state. States have individually passed this compact into law.  

The compact activates only when participating states (plus D.C.) collectively possess at least 270 electoral votes. Already, 18 states, plus D.C., have enacted the compact, representing 222 of the necessary 270 electoral votes. And now, after Tuesday, they’re going to have enough to hit the 270 threshold. This is from Axios:

Democrats’ sweeping statehouse gains Tuesday have opened a path to effectively replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote in time for the 2028 presidential election — without needing to amend the Constitution. … Democrats have won control of the governorship and both legislative chambers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada, enough to push an agreement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact beyond the 270-vote threshold required to take effect. … The five states would still need to enact the compact, and it’s not clear if it will be a priority for the new Democratic states.

This is one of the reasons a conservative Supreme Court is important. As Axios points out, various law professors have argued that the compact is unconstitutional without congressional approval, under the “Compact Clause” of the Constitution (which prevents states from entering into agreements with each other without the consent of Congress). But if Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court, none of this matters. And of course, given that John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett aren’t really conservative, there’s a chance they’ll get it done anyway, in time for the 2028 election.

There’s also the chance that Democrats fail to get this done. Michigan, as Axios points out, failed to enact the compact the last time Democrats controlled the state government. Nevada’s Democrat governor vetoed the compact in 2019 because he said it would reduce Nevada’s influence in national elections (which is true). 

2026, as we’ve seen so many times, is very different from 2019. Democrats are far more unified than ever. They will absolutely be willing to surrender their state’s influence in exchange for “the greater good of the party.” So we should expect that this is going to happen.

There are other major consequences of the Democrats’ takeover of the states. The public school system is going to get even worse, without a doubt, even though it may seem physically impossible. This is the new governor of Texas, a woman named Gina Hinojosa:

Gina Hinojosa delivers the agenda for Public Education Texas: “On Day One, I will fire Mike Morath and we will work tirelessly to repair the damage of the Texas voucher scam – And end an era in which our schools are sold for parts:” https://t.co/s7aSlnLSoR

— Gina For Texas (@texasforgina) November 4, 2026

Source: @texasforgina/X.com

She’s describing vouchers as a “scam,” which makes no sense whatsoever. Vouchers are actually the opposite of a scam. They allow parents to make the choice to send their children to good schools, or to homeschool their children — instead of sending them to the crappy public schools in Texas, which rank near the bottom in the country. 

The only reason Democrats oppose vouchers is that they recognize that, when parents have a choice, they generally don’t prefer to subject their children to the unionized, illiterate school teachers who staff the public schools in Texas. 

Now the unions are just going to shut the vouchers down and force parents to send their children to these non-competitive, dilapidated, useless schools (where, by the way, the children will be encouraged to adopt fake genders, instead of learning to read). This is going to play out all over the country, in the states Democrats have just flipped.

For some historical context, the last time the South was solid blue, Democrats held Congress almost continuously from the 1930s until 1994. From 1952 to 1992, they were counterbalanced with an unusually high number of Republican presidents who checked their power (though it’s worth noting that the parties weren’t really ideological back then). The exception was in the 1960s, obviously, which ended up being transformative (and not in a good way). We’re in for another transformative period over the next few years — there’s no question. 

What could a Republican administration do in 2028, assuming Democrats retain control of Congress, and assuming the composition of the Supreme Court stays the same? Their main tool would probably have to be executive powers, which the current administration has used effectively. 

For example, Trump has capped legal immigration through executive power and implemented successful border policies through executive order. Ten years of low immigration will actually have a major impact that could be very significant electorally — and we shouldn’t discount it.

To win, though, it’s going to take someone really good. Someone who understands the moment we’re in. Someone who has not just the right policy ideas but the skill to communicate them in a compelling and authentic way. It has never been more necessary for politicians — especially those with national ambitions — to be (or at least seem) authentic, and articulate and persuasive off the cuff. 

The new generation of Democrats includes a number of people who, even if they are totally wrong on the issues and also evil, are able to speak and engage with the public in a way that, to most people, feels genuine and unscripted. Any Republican who lacks that skill, no matter how right they are on the issues, is not a real contender. 

Timing matters, too. Timing is everything in politics, as they say. Some of the Republicans who might rush in to claim the mantle are just simply too late. They had their chance and missed it. That list includes, but certainly isn’t limited to: John Thune (our worthless leader in the Senate), Ted Cruz (who I like, but who also was an architect of the Iran war, and is closely tied to the Trump brand, and had his chance in 2016), Thomas Massie (who was rejected by his own primary voters), and also Donald Trump Jr., who has about as much chance of winning the presidency as Jeb Bush did. 

The public is moving on from the Trump brand. And that would be true even if we hadn’t just gotten blown out. The Trump name has dominated the political discussion and steered the Republican ship for the past decade. It is not going to steer it for the next decade. And shouldn’t. 

The problem is that, at this stage, there aren’t a lot of obvious contenders. Maybe more will materialize. If that’s going to happen, it better happen soon. The battle for 2028 starts officially right now. JD Vance is clearly a contender, although he faces the extraordinarily difficult task of presenting himself as a new leader with a new vision, distancing himself from Trump’s failures, while not alienating Trump’s supporters. It won’t be an easy tightrope. But it’s not impossible. Vance is a talented politician. So he might be able to pull it off. 

His task is complicated even further by the fact that Trump will happily throw him under the bus if Vance goes too far in trying to draw distinctions between himself and Trump. The high wire act for Vance is even higher, and the rope even thinner, than it first appears. And yet, again, I certainly wouldn’t count him out. 

Another contender is Ron DeSantis. In the case of DeSantis, you could make the argument that he missed his window, too. And maybe that will ultimately turn out to be the case. But it is also true that he was the best Republican governor in the country and is perhaps the only legitimate Republican success story in the entire country right now. Whether he’s able to seize the moment or not remains to be seen. But he clearly understands the moment: 

DeSantis unleashes on the Senate GOP: “I saw NO indication that the current group of Republican senators were interested in bold, conservative change. Why haven’t we shut off H1B visas? Why haven’t we codified Trump’s immigration EOs? They didn’t even ATTEMPT it.” https://t.co/5o2oe9oPhc

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) November 5, 2026

Source: @theblaze/X.com

This is the approach we need to adopt, if we’re going to have any chance of bringing this country back from the brink. Republicans have to actually demonstrate the same level of commitment as Democrats. We don’t need jokes or humor anymore. We need a candidate who understands the stakes and takes them seriously.

For his part, JD Vance put out a surprisingly honest and comprehensive assessment of the election. Here’s part of it:

The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.  Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were: 1) End the war 2) Focus on cost of living/inflation 3) Put America First 4) Change our relationship to Israel … In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you. The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost.

This is maybe the most thorough and honest diagnosis of an election defeat that we’ve ever seen from a politician at Vance’s level. And he’s right. You can quibble with some factors Vance left out — the tariffs, for example — but it’s a diagnosis that even Trump himself seemed to agree with. 

At the same time, we can’t underestimate the extent to which Democrats will undermine themselves in the interim. The president usually gets the blame when things go wrong, but given the scale of the Democrat takeover, they’ll be in the spotlight to an unusual degree. And they’ve taken on some jobs that they clearly can’t handle. 

Does anyone seriously think Keisha Lance Bottoms is actually going to be a competent governor in Georgia? Yes, exit polls and referendum outcomes show that this wasn’t ideological confirmation of Democrats, so much as it was a total rejection of Trump. But Democrats won’t see it that way. Will they overplay their hand? Will Texas try to ban AR-15s? It’s likely that they will.

It’s important to point out that, in the past, Democrat self-immolation was largely the result of frivolous and baseless investigations and impeachments. The investigations and impeachments will happen again. Will they all be frivolous and baseless this time? I guess we’re going to find out. 

One way or another, if Democrats are able to coax Republicans into spending the next two years circling the wagons around the Trump administration and defending whatever they dig up, we’re going to lose. We have to look forward. 

Meanwhile, the administration can deal with its own messes. It’s weird, for example, that the Trump family has made hundreds of millions of dollars on a crypto scheme while Trump is in office. Democrats are going to have a field day ripping that to shreds, looking for laws that may have been violated. I have no idea if they’ll find any or not. I’m not a lawyer. But it’s not my job to defend the president’s crypto scheme, and I won’t, and neither should you. He can deal with that on his own. It was his choice. 

Profiting to the tune of hundreds of millions on a secretive and volatile industry that your own administration regulates is really weird and doesn’t look good, even if it’s legal. It might be an issue for Trump. But it’s not our issue. We have to focus on the future. 

We also have to concede that there will be some luck involved. And there might be a need to try some of our own “electoral shenanigans,” without breaking the law, of course (which is what Democrats just did in Alaska). 

For example, Republicans should seriously consider voting in Democrat primaries to get them to nominate Kamala Harris again. We should import as many conservative voters from foreign countries as possible, and settle them in blue states, which is fully within the power of the federal government. Congress can’t interfere. 

Most importantly, on a related note, we need to find a way to get Texas back in the Republican column. For many years, Democrats would openly talk about their plans to flip Texas. Here’s Julian Castro in 2013, for example:

“Texas is going to become a blue state due to demographic change” – Julian Castro in 2013

It looks like that day is here https://t.co/yXSif8YGpg

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 4, 2026

Source: @EndWokeness/X.com

Well, he was right. The party had a goal. And for more than a decade — really, for several decades — they pursued it. And then they won.

I’m firmly in the camp that the GOP has no future as a national party without Texas. I’m aware of the fact that, in 2024, Trump would’ve won the presidential election even without Texas. But that’s only because Democrats ran the weakest candidate in a century — an alcoholic who could barely speak English, who spent half of her campaign talking about coconut trees and the urgent need for taxpayer-funded sex changes for illegal aliens in prison. If Democrats had run an actual candidate, Trump would’ve needed Texas to win. It’s an essential part of the political map for the GOP.

I’m not prepared to say that Texas is now permanently blue, or necessarily will be blue in the presidential election. If it is permanently blue, then we’re done as a party. You cannot be a legitimate national political party if your only path to victory is hoping that the other team runs the worst candidate in the history of the universe, and then hoping that the map works out exactly correctly, and you can squeak out a win with a razor-thin margin — which, again, is the only way Republicans can win without Texas. This is not a viable long-term strategy. 

We need a comprehensive plan, as quickly as possible, for how to win Texas back. Based on the fact that Hispanics went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2024, and broke sharply against him on Tuesday, it’s fair to conclude that the showy, public ICE enforcement theater wasn’t a good political strategy. Sending Kristi Noem out, face caked in makeup, dressed like the Tomb Raider, to call as much attention as possible to your deportation efforts was a very stupid political move.

As Vance said, it’s probably a good idea to try some alternative approaches — starting with going after businesses that hire illegals, which is something we’ve been talking about for months. 

That doesn’t mean amnesty, and it doesn’t mean we stop deporting illegal aliens. After all, Trump won the Hispanic vote in Texas in 2024, and his entire platform was deporting illegals. Tom Homan stood up at the RNC and told illegals to pack their bags. And it didn’t hurt Trump in Texas at all. 

But there are smarter and more strategic ways to go about it. Continue the deportations, but don’t call attention to them on purpose. That’s one change that should happen immediately. 

While we’re at it, we need to lift any tariffs that are currently affecting Texas, including tariffs on automobiles, copper, steel, and aluminum, Canadian imports, lumber, etc. 

We should obviously end the war in Iran, and cut off Ukraine unless they stop bombing Russian fuel infrastructure (which is raising the price of fuel for everyone). These are all steps that might help get some voters in Texas back on board. It’s clear Greg Abbott and the White House took Texas for granted. That simply can’t happen anymore.

The Trump era ended in disaster because of apathy. Trump gave up. He’s not even hiding it anymore, which is why he’s still talking about his ballroom. 

On Wednesday, hours after the worst Republican midterm defeat of all time, Trump was busy giving reporters a tour of his White House renovations. It’s baffling, until you realize that Trump isn’t at all concerned about securing the future of the Republican Party or the conservative movement. 

What’s needed now is a Republican candidate who’s not 80 years old, who has some connection to everyday Americans suffering in this economy, and who actually has something relevant to say when he opens his mouth. 

There was some charm to Trump’s rambling, discursive communication strategy in the early years. But nowadays, when Americans hear the president on stage talking about some guy’s ass, we’re tired of it. We aren’t amused. We want a leader who takes the job seriously and communicates like an adult. Believe it or not, these are not unobtainable wishlist items. They’re actually very achievable goals. 

But we’re on the clock. We have less than two years to find the polar opposite of John Thune. We have two years to find an “America First” candidate who actually understands what “America First” means. We need someone new to “come down the escalator” and put an end to the Democrat-led plunder of our country, which is going to continue unabated for the next two years. 

What we have, which Democrats don’t, is a coherent understanding of what America is and who Americans are. To win, we need to do what Donald Trump promised to do, all the way back in 2016. 

We need to oust the establishment politicians without becoming them. We need to protect our job and housing markets from the foreign flood. 

Ultimately, and most importantly, we have to be able to look every American in the eye — particularly all of the white guys that have been demonized for the better part of the past century — and explain to them how we can help them get a job and afford a house. 

If we can do that, we’ll win. If we can’t, we don’t deserve to.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org