Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a portion of a Victor Davis Hanson interview on “The Tony Kinnett Cast” on Nov. 3. Read the excerpt below, or watch the full interview above.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: We have to remember that, in the last 126 years, since 1900, when the party in the White House faces a midterm—whether its first or second—90% of the time it loses House seats. Ninety percent.
TONY KINNETT: Yes, sir.
HANSON: And 75% to 80% of those administrations lose Senate seats, depending on how you count some independents. So the odds were 90% against this administration avoiding House losses. That’s number one.
That said, I’m not sure it’s going to change much, because the presidency has evolved, for good or ill, into an imperial presidency. I’ll give you an example.
KINNETT: The Wilsonian state, yeah.
HANSON: Yes. Presidents [Barack] Obama and [Bill] Clinton had worse midterm losses in 2010 and 1994 than anyone except FDR in 1938. They came in with huge House and Senate majorities and held the White House. By the time of their last midterm, with two years left in their second terms, they had lost both the House and Senate, and dramatically so. And nothing happened.
What I mean by that is Clinton said he didn’t need congressional authority to bomb Serbia for 77 days, and he did it. He said, “I’ll work with Gingrich, and I’ll get two more years of balanced budgets,” and he did. He said, “At the last moment, I want to have a Palestinian-Israeli summit,” and he did.
Domestically, of course, they had executive orders. Obama said, “I have a pen and a phone. It’s not going to affect me,” and it didn’t. In foreign policy, the last years were the most radical of his eight. He recognized Cuba and restored full recognition to communist Cuba. Then he entered into this disastrous Iran deal and said it wasn’t a treaty, so he didn’t need the Senate. I thought the worst was the Paris climate accord.
KINNETT: Right, right.
HANSON: My point is that a few things will make a difference. I don’t think [President Donald] Trump will be able to get judges confirmed with a Democratic majority, if they take the Senate, and I think they will. I’m not sure, but I think they will. These people will not approve a single district or circuit court judge, much less a Supreme Court justice. That’s for sure.
And we know that in the House, there will be a circus of subpoenas, impeachment, and lawfare. We’ll see that nonstop.
But Clinton and Obama left office with 70% and 59% popularity, respectively. They were more popular than they’d ever been. I think part of the reason is that the party that wins a big midterm overreacts. Its members get a little crazy and say things. In 1998, I didn’t approve of Clinton’s behavior, but the economy was booming. They tried to impeach him, and that was very unpopular.
So I think the Democrats will overreach, number one. Then the presidential campaign heats up. We saw that with George W. Bush and Al Gore. Clinton just watched them beat each other over the head. Gore didn’t even want Clinton campaigning for him, and Clinton became Mr. Statesman.
The same thing happened with Obama. Trump and Hillary [Clinton] went at it. The less you saw or heard of Obama, the more popular the idea of Obama in the abstract became.
I think Trump will do what he wants in foreign policy. He’ll use executive orders and vetoes in domestic policy. He won’t get judicial nominations through.
The only caveat is how big this blue wave becomes. He has to prevent a 60-vote Senate. By that, I mean he needs his entire Republican Senate minority to stand in lockstep with him, so you don’t get a [Sen. Lisa] Murkowski or somebody else joining Democrats to override a key veto, such as one involving opening the border. Otherwise, they could end up governing the country.
The other thing I’m worried about is the ramifications for 2028. We had not seen a socialist win a statewide race. We all said, “Well, [New York Mayor Zohran] Mamdani was in New York. That’s a weird place.” Or [Rep. Darializa Avila] Chevalier, and, you know, she’s in a district that’s left-wing.
But if [Abdul] El-Sayed wins, and [James] Talarico is just as radical and may win, and [Angela] Nixon came very close, then the implications are significant. If they go into 2028 with this hold on Congress, I don’t think they’re going to nominate a Josh Shapiro. I can tell you that.
Someone like [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom is a chameleon. He’ll adapt to however left he has to be. He made it clear on a hidden recording that that’s where the energy was.
KINNETT: Yes, and someone like [Sen.] Jon Ossoff.
HANSON: Exactly. Jon Ossoff is just Newsom without the record.
If they go into 2028 in that position, the election really will be for the fate of the country, because they’re not just saying, “We want a socialist agenda.” They’re saying, “We’re going to get rid of the Electoral College without following the Constitution and amending it. We’re going to use the voter compact.”
They’re going to open the border and bring in two new states. They’re not going to say they need three-quarters of the states or two-thirds of the Senate to approve anything. They’re just going to do it.
I imagine they’ll get rid of the filibuster very soon if they win the Senate. They’ll pack the court. They’ll defund policing in cities. DEI and all of that will be back if they win the presidency. So, 2028 is going to be very important.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.
Continue reading...
[ H/T The Daily Signal ]
