“Sex assault allegations? Blame “left-wing” media.
Issues with drinking? Those are anonymous smears.
No women in combat? That’s not what I said.
Pete Hegseth used a pattern of denials, memory holes and attacking the “left-wing” media at his Tuesday confirmation hearing for Pentagon chief as he sought to counter controversial issues in his past. And that strategy may work for him — along with Donald Trump’s other troubled nominees.”
Cato helped end the Roman Republic by abusing the norms of the Roman Senate to make it impossible to pass legislation. Senators today do something similar, which, rather than stopping the use of power, just incentivizes other branches to execute it with their own wills, further bending the norms of U.S. democracy.
“Heading into 2026, Republicans have about as favorable of a Senate map as they could hope for under the circumstances. This is true despite the fact that the incoming presidential party must defend 22 of the 35 seats that will likely be up for election (including Vance’s and Rubio’s seats). Strikingly, though, only one of those 22 Republican-held seats — held by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — is in a state that outgoing Vice President Kamala Harris carried in the 2024 presidential election. The other 21 seats are all in states that Trump won. In contrast, Democrats will be defending just 13 seats overall, but two of them are in states that Trump won this year.”
“Kamala Harris lost the presidential election and Democrats lost control of the Senate.
But when you zoom in on the details of that result, there’s a striking pattern: Democratic Senate candidates are outperforming Harris. Or, put another way, Republican Senate candidates are doing worse than Trump.
In recent years, the outcome of a state’s US Senate race has increasingly matched the outcome of its simultaneous presidential race. Ticket-splitting has decreased in our era of polarization and partisanship. The vast majority of people voting for a presidential candidate also vote for their party’s Senate candidate.
But not everyone does that. And there’s still some variation in how much better or worse Senate candidates do compared to the top of the ticket. Looking at that variation can provide clues about what sorts of candidates overperform (even if they don’t actually win).”
…
“Some might argue for racism or sexism explaining Harris’s struggles, but I’d note that several of the Democratic candidates who overperformed Harris were nonwhite or female. Others might argue that she was a uniquely flawed candidate or campaigner, but President Joe Biden was on track to do much worse if he’d stayed in the race.
My suspicion is that Harris’s electoral struggles were more about Biden’s unpopularity and her association with his administration than any newfound love of the American public for the Republican Party generally.”
…
“Call them the “I don’t like Republicans much, but the economy was better under Trump” voters. Biden lost them, and Harris failed to get them back.”
“That 53-seat majority will be a boon to the GOP agenda next year. But three of Republicans’ wins were in solidly red seats in West Virginia, Ohio and Montana. They flipped a true swing state in Pennsylvania but suffered losses in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. That means they’ll fall well short of the 57 seats they might have had, thanks to undervoting, smaller Trump coattails and well-funded and disciplined Democratic opponents.
This was the fourth straight cycle in the Trump era that Senate Republicans struggled to win purple states. In theory, Trump could have pulled some of their top recruits over the finish line — he outperformed Senate GOP candidates in every single battleground state.”
“Recess appointments were once controversial, last-ditch efforts for presidents to install their nominees after facing long confirmation odds in the Senate. President George W. Bush appointed John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations via a recess appointment, for example, as it was unlikely he would have made it through the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrat leading the Senate under Bush, then decided to make it so that the chamber simply never recessed long enough for such an appointment to be made. When senators left town, the Senate held a “pro forma” session to prevent any recess appointments.
This was continued under then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and then-President Barack Obama — a clash that made it to the Supreme Court. And after the court ruled in favor of the Senate’s powers, the pro forma sessions continue today.”
…
“Trump’s demand for recess appointments resurfaces a decades-old clash between presidents and Capitol Hill leaders — one in which the Supreme Court has previously weighed in favor of the Senate’s powers.
Both chambers have to pass a resolution to go into recess, which would give Senate Democrats an opportunity to filibuster the resolution and essentially block its passage. During Trump’s first term, for example, he was blocked by the Senate from using recess appointments to replace then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
But the incoming Senate GOP leader backing the idea would be a notable support for expansion of presidential power, even for a leader in the same party as the president-elect. In past decades, senators of both parties have been skeptical of the practice.
Florida Sen. Rick Scott — the long-shot candidate who is winning support of a handful of conservative senators and MAGA influencers — on Sunday quickly posted on X endorsing Trump’s post: “100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible.” Trump ally Elon Musk then praised the Florida Republican, writing on X: “Rick Scott for Senate Majority Leader!”
Over the weekend, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Vivek Ramaswamy announced they’d back Scott, while Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested he did as well, posting on X that without Scott, the Trump agenda would be “wobbly.” Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee and Marco Rubio of Florida have also come out for Scott.
Most senators have not made their positions known, but Scott is still a significant underdog, with GOP Whip John Thune of South Dakota and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas seen as the favorites. Both Thune and Cornyn also suggested on Sunday they’re open to Trump’s demand for recess appointments.”
“The filibuster allows a minority of senators to veto virtually any legislation, unless the majority can convince 60 of the Senate’s 100 members to break that filibuster. Because it is quite rare for either party to control 60 seats in the Senate — the last time it happened was a seven-month period in 2009–10 — this means that the minority party can block nearly all bills.
Filibusters used to be exceedingly rare. One common method used to measure the frequency of filibusters is to count the number of “cloture” votes, the process used to break a filibuster, taken every year. And from 1917 until 1970, the Senate held less than one a year.
That number started to rise well before McConnell became his party’s Senate leader. But the rate of cloture votes doubled in 2007, when McConnell first became minority leader. And it has grown rapidly since then. Between 2010 and 2020, the Senate took more than 80 cloture votes every year.
This escalation in filibusters, a tactic spearheaded by McConnell, has transformed the role of Congress in society. And it’s similarly transformed what kind of legislation governing parties even attempt to pass.
In the two years when President Joe Biden had a Democratic majority in Congress, for example, all of his major legislative accomplishments — the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the American Rescue Plan — were spending bills and not regulatory legislation such as a minimum wage hike or a new voting rights law.
A major reason why is that it is sometimes possible to bypass a filibuster of spending legislation through a process known as “budget reconciliation,” but reconciliation cannot be used to regulate. So presidents who wish to accomplish anything at all in Congress must limit their ambition to taxing and spending unless they can convince their opposition to play ball. Parties try their best to get creative within those categories (and sometimes succeed), but it is a huge constraint on policymaking.
Yet, while McConnell essentially eliminated Congress’s ability to regulate, the Republican Party has still enjoyed tremendous regulatory policymaking success over the last decade or more. And the reason why is that Republicans don’t need a functioning Congress to set policy, so long as they control the courts.”
…
“While McConnell was busy cutting Congress out of the policymaking process, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees racked up an impressive array of conservative policy victories.
The Court dismantled much of America’s campaign finance law. It neutralized key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, allowed red states to opt out of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, gave religious conservatives a sweeping new right to defy federal and state laws, sabotaged unions, laid waste to US gun laws, abolished affirmative action at nearly all universities, and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion.
Perhaps most significantly of all, the Court has rapidly consolidated power within itself, at the expense of the two elected branches of government. In many existing federal laws, for example, Congress delegated significant policymaking authority to federal agencies such as the EPA or the Department of Labor. But the Supreme Court gave itself a largely limitless veto power over any of those agency regulations — as long as five justices deem an agency’s action to be too significant.
And so the Supreme Court is now the locus of policymaking in the United States.
This happened in no small part because of McConnell’s Senate leadership. Under President Barack Obama, McConnell’s Republican caucus aggressively blockaded judicial nominees, including holding a Supreme Court seat open for more than a year until Trump could fill it with the archconservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Then, once Trump came into office, McConnell transformed the Senate into a factory that rolled out newly confirmed judges almost as fast as the Trump White House could find conservatives to nominate to the bench. The result is a judiciary that routinely engages in political hardball to advance the GOP’s policy priorities.”