Friday, January 31, 2025

Trump's Evolution


Recently, I communicated thoughts to a friend on the evolution of Trump and dealing with “Berkeley Liberals.”

The Achilles heel of the left is their inability to separate policies from personalities. The Left loved Trump when he was a New York real estate developer with all his panache and bravado and being somewhat of a playboy, all the while donating to politicians. When Trump became a Republican candidate, his brash/rude/semi-weisenheimer traits made him an easy target for criticism. His rude insults (e.g., "Little Marco" and "Look at That Face” re Carly Fiorina) may have carried the day to get the nomination but damaged his reputation as a bully.

During his first term, he was totally misled by the UniParty Deep State and undermined (some would say treasonously) by the Intelligence Community, the FBI, and the corrupt Hillary Clinton organization. His success in the first term was due to his being a tough New Yorker who had been through economic ups and downs, including bankruptcies and restructurings. Amazingly, he accomplished a lot with his policies the first time around. Great tax cuts coupled with a growth economy along with strength abroad and a secure border.

COVID, Biden corruption, and Intelligence Community lies re laptop, along with rabid government lies, censorship, and evil corrupt media, did Trump in in 2020.

2024, however, is a new day, and Trump is a different person. In 2024, I believe some of the most important things about Trump are:

1. He almost got killed, but for the Grace of God.  He has acquired, amazingly, a little humility and the realization that he wanted to leave the world a better place when he has left us.

2. He, at his very core, wants to solve problems and do great things.  Look at his advice four years ago to Gavin Newsom regarding the Paradise Fires in California.

3. He is an “authentic" leader (along with FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan). He totally relates to people, from the richest to the dishwasher in the kitchen. Look at how Trump interacted with the McDonald's employee who showed him how to process the French fries and how he treated the people in the cars at the drive-in window.  

In one car, an Indian-origin couple stated to Trump, "Mr. President, thank you so much for making it possible for you to meet such ordinary people like us. We pray for you.” His response: "You are not ordinary people." The wife said, "You took a bullet for us." Trump: "I guess I did."

4.  Look at Trump in North Carolina and Los Angeles. He brings ordinary people to speak up about their experiences and frontally challenges and interacts with ordinary people and stakeholders in the LA Fire Panel (where, thank God, Gavin Newsom was not invited).

5.  He now knows how things work in Washington and will not be a victim of the UniParty this time.

6.  His actions not only to end DEI but also to rescind Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246, which led to racial quotas throughout the fabric of our country, is one of the most significant things he or any other politician has done this century.

7.  He is forward projecting American power on the world stage.  No more appeasement of Iran. He also appears to be undertaking "asymmetrical economic" warfare against Putin (to undermine his “Petro” Economy).

8.  He is restoring the border and removing the worst kind of illegal alien rapists/gangs/murderers, etc. Tom Holman is PR gold against the foolish "Sanctuary Democrats.”

9.  His cabinet choices are "disruptors." Coupled with DOGE, they have an opportunity to do some real good. RFK Jr., if he can curtail the obesity epidemic prevalent since around the late 70s, would be a blessing.

10.  His decision to pardon all the Jan 6 victims was afforded by the gross overreach of the DoJ and the FBI. The DoJ and FBI were using facial recognition and bank records to sweep up and charge anyone who so much as walked into the Capitol (even at the invitation of the police) or was standing outside.  Over 1600 of them.

If the DoJ had only gone after the violent ones or ringleaders, the pardons would have been more difficult or problematic. The fact that many of the Jan 6 people had been held for three to four years in the nearly two-century-old D.C. jail without trial militates to closing that chapter of history.  Jan 6 would have never happened, but for the deep state (DoD, Mayor Bowser, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) refusing/failing to provide the 10,000 National Guardsmen Trump asked for to be present at the Capitol on that day.

11.  Trump clearly has his act together this time. Susie Wiles (the great Pat Summerall's daughter), along with Howard Lutnik and Stephen Miller, have done a great job in assembling the Executive Orders, developing the immigration strategy, and filling out not just cabinet nominees but all the many subordinate appointees in various departments.

12. Getting rid of the EV Mandate Corrupt Scam and pursuing a rational Energy policy and "Drill Baby Drill" will help us hopefully to grow the economy to reduce the percentage of debt to GDP.

If you do need to engage with the "Berkeley Liberals," one suggestion might be to ask them what they think about the various policies Trump puts forward rather than his personality. 

Do they think forest management is bad? 

What do they think about removing the illegal alien criminals? 

Would they agree with the Democrats who voted against the Laken Riley bill? Why?

Where do they think energy for our growing energy needs will come from? Wind?

What about the weight and carbon footprint of EV cars, trucks, and buses? Much less getting rid of lithium batteries as well as EV performance? 

Should we continue to give the mullahs free rein to sell oil without sanctions to fund the terrorists?

Would they like America to succeed?



at

FDA Approves Novel Non-Opioid Treatment for Moderate to Severe Acute Pain


First Drug Approved in New Class of Non-Opioid Pain Medicines; Agency Continues to Take Steps to Support New Approaches for Pain Management

For Immediate Release:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Journavx (suzetrigine) 50 milligram oral tablets, a first-in-class non-opioid analgesic, to treat moderate to severe acute pain in adults. Journavx reduces pain by targeting a pain-signaling pathway involving sodium channels in the peripheral nervous system, before pain signals reach the brain.  

Journavx is the first drug to be approved in this new class of pain management medicines.

Pain is a common medical problem and relief of pain is an important therapeutic goal. Acute pain is short-term pain that is typically in response to some form of tissue injury, such as trauma or surgery. Acute pain is often treated with analgesics that may or may not contain opioids.

The FDA has long supported development of non-opioid pain treatment. As part of the FDA Overdose Prevention Framework, the agency has issued draft guidance aimed at encouraging development of non-opioid analgesics for acute pain and awarded cooperative grants to support the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pain conditions.  

“Today’s approval is an important public health milestone in acute pain management,” said Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, J.D., M.D., acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “A new non-opioid analgesic therapeutic class for acute pain offers an opportunity to mitigate certain risks associated with using an opioid for pain and provides patients with another treatment option. This action and the agency’s designations to expedite the drug’s development and review underscore FDA’s commitment to approving safe and effective alternatives to opioids for pain management.”

The efficacy of Journavx was evaluated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trials of acute surgical pain, one following abdominoplasty and the other following bunionectomy. In addition to receiving the randomized treatment, all participants in the trials with inadequate pain control were permitted to use ibuprofen as needed for “rescue” pain medication. Both trials demonstrated a statistically significant superior reduction in pain with Journavx compared to placebo.

The safety profile of Journavx is primarily based on data from the pooled, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trials in 874 participants with moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty and bunionectomy, with supportive safety data from one single-arm, open-label study in 256 participants with moderate to severe acute pain in a range of acute pain conditions.

The most common adverse reactions in study participants who received Journavx were itching, muscle spasms, increased blood level of creatine phosphokinase, and rash. Journavx is contraindicated for concomitant use with strong CYP3A inhibitors. Additionally, patients should avoid food or drink containing grapefruit when taking Journavx.

The application received Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track and Priority Review designations by the FDA.  

The FDA granted approval of Journavx to Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.


Addendum:

What is Journavx?

Journavx (suzetrigine) is a new non-opioid pain-relieving tablet used to treat short-term (acute) moderate to severe pain. Journavx is a sodium channel blocker that relieves pain by blocking pain-sensing nerves around the body from transmitting pain messages to the spinal cord and brain. Since it does not affect the brain, it is not expected to have addictive potential, unlike other pain treatments such as opioids.

Journavx's mechanism of action is by selectively blocking NaV1.8, a sodium channel on pain-sensing nerve cells (neurons), this inhibits pain signals going to the spinal cord and brain. 

Journavx tablets are taken twice daily, every 12 hours after the first dose.

Journavx FDA approval was received on January 30, 2025, for treating moderate to severe acute pain in adults. This approval was based on positive results from Phase 3 clinical trials (VX21-548-101 and VX21-548-102), which showed that it effectively reduced acute pain for 48 hours after surgery. [more]

https://www.drugs.com/journavx.html



Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

X22, And we Know, and more- Jan 31

 



We Wrestle For Control | On The Fringe
0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

at

Donald Trump Praised The Agreement As “The Largest, Most Significant, Modern, And Balanced Trade Agreement In History

Now He Claims Canada & Mexico:

 Have “Never Been Good To Us On Trade”

This is why pandering to Trump’s whims only leads to more demands. He is not negotiating in good faith.

While most Canadians can see Donald Trump’s dishonest ‘negotiating tactics’ (AKA outright lies) for what they are, there are some who continue to imagine that Donald Trump is negotiating in good faith.

Whether out of fear of criticizing the U.S. President, or a deep need to deny the possibility that our powerful neighbour has chosen to deliberately undermine Canada’s economy to wipe out our sovereignty, some Canadians continue to claim that if we just give Trump what he wants, all will be well.

The problem with this is that Donald Trump is a dishonest broker.

We cannot rely on what he says.

Past commitments seem to have little meaning for him.

Truth can become lies, and lies can become truth.

For example, let’s look at how Donald Trump praised the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement at the signing ceremony on November 30, 2018:

“The USMCA is the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history. All of our countries will benefit greatly. It is probably the largest trade deal ever made, also. In the United States, the new trade pact will support high-paying manufacturing jobs and promote greater access for American exports across the range of sectors, including our farming, manufacturing, and service industries.

As part of our agreement, the United States will be able to lock in our market access to Canada and Mexico, and greatly expand our agricultural exports — something we’ve been wanting to do for many years. This is an amazing deal for our farmers, and also allows them to use cutting-edge biotechnology, and eliminates non-scientific barriers.

Our nations have also agreed to innovate new measures to ensure fair competition and promote high wages, and higher wages, for U.S. and North American autoworkers. The autoworkers are a tremendous beneficiary.”

Read this part again:

“The USMCA is the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history. All of our countries will benefit greatly. It is probably the largest trade deal ever made, also. In the United States, the new trade pact will support high-paying manufacturing jobs and promote greater access for American exports across the range of sectors, including our farming, manufacturing, and service industries.”

The largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history.

This is what Donald Trump said about a trade agreement that was renegotiated at his request. He signed it. He praised it.

And it’s still in place.

This is essential to understand.

NAFTA 2.0 (AKA, Trump’s trade deal) is still in place at this very moment.

The trade relationship between Canada, the United States, and Mexico is thus the relationship Donald Trump wanted.

Canada has not violated the agreement.

Mexico has not violated the agreement.

It remains in force.

Yet, none of that matters anymore to Donald Trump.

He has decided to try and rewrite reality.

He now says Canada and Mexico have “never been good to us on trade.”

“Mexico and Canada have never been good to us on trade. They’ve treated us very unfairly on trade and we’ll be able to make that up very quickly because we don’t need the products they have,” Trump says.”

Once in a while, Trump throws in some other concerns like the border when trying to justify his violation of the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement. But his claims are undermined not only by his past praise for the deal he signed but also by the fact that he is threatening tariffs on a stunning number of countries.

For example, Trump just threatened tariffs on the BRICS countries:

He is also threatening the European Union with tariffs:

Canadians must understand this and internalize this: Donald Trump doesn’t like trade. He sees it as zero-sum. To him, there is no mutually beneficial trade. Someone must be a winner, and someone must be a loser. He intends to try and replace domestic U.S. tax revenue with tariff revenue. Though that is not possible, even an attempt to move in that direction would require huge tariffs on countless nations.

Trump also wants to divide Canada internally and weaken our nation, to soften us up so we’ll give in to tariffs without retaliatory counter-tariffs, to pit one region against another, and potentially erase our status as a sovereign nation altogether.

This means that fawning attempts to appease Trump’s claimed concerns will only encourage more demands.

The real leverage we have as Canadians is the fact that a reduction in Canada-US trade will drive up prices for consumers on both sides of the border, and the fact that Americans view Canadians quite positively. If American consumers see their prices going up, and if they see their government acting hostile towards a friendly nation, political pressure will build on Trump to reverse course. And Trump ultimately wants to be popular, and elected officials want to get re-elected.

This is why Canada must show strength and must be unified in our response. We must be prepared to retaliate with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on the U.S., and we need to publicly reach out to the European Union, India, Australia, Japan, and other nations/trade blocs to deepen our trade ties with more reliable partners.

We must take these actions because Donald Trump is a dishonest broker, and we can’t afford to stake Canada’s economic future on believing what he says.

Spencer Fernando

https://spencerfernando.com/2025/01/30/donald-trump-praised-the-canada-us-mexico-trade-agreement-as-the-largest-most-significant-modern-and-balanced-trade-agreement-in-history-now-he-claims-canada-mexico-have-never-been-goo/

at

Trump’s Winning Streak Is Totally Discombobulating The Democrats


We thought we would never get tired of all the winning, but we had no idea. Tired? We have more energy than the freshly unleashed Permian Basin. In a mere ten days, our new president has comprehensively repudiated everything the left has tried to build over the last half-century. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored – appropriately since the Democrats are almost as mad about us deporting their illegal alien serfs as they were about us freeing their slaves. He has destroyed the Potemkin village to save it. Donald Trump has not only gotten inside their OODA Loop – observe, orient, decide, and act – but he’s taking their loop and is running around with it like one of those old-timey kids rolling a hoop with a stick. This is amazing. This is glorious. Summon a surgeon – it’s been a little over a week and you’re supposed to call the doctor after just four hours.

He has completely routed the Democrats. Back when I was coloneling, when I went someplace new, the first thing I always wanted to know was who was in charge. That’s the guy who was making the decisions. That’s the guy I wanted to talk to. Now, let’s try a little thought experiment. Who’s in charge of the Democrats right now? Who’s the boss, the kingpin, the godfather, the Duke of New York, A-number one?

The hell if I know. And the hell if they know. Is it Barack Obama? No, according to sources, he’s focused on the female-identifying Jennifer Aniston, which is surprising for several reasons. Is it Joe Biden? No, he’s been dragged off-stage with a shepherd’s crook and is back at his Delaware compound picking fights with that squirrel who keeps giving him the stink eye. Kamala Harris? Supposedly, she’s busy getting mad at her slappy husband for blowing her election, and you at least have to give her credit for physical courage. How about Nancy Pelosi? Hey, I don’t like her, but she was a political genius once upon a time. Now, she’s super old, and she broke her hip. That dowager is down for the count. Chuck Schumer, when he’s not pretending to cheddar-up raw hamburgers, has been reduced to haplessly fulminating on X about Trump‘s nominees. And Hakeem Jeffries is as impotent as a Lincoln Project member in the presence of an adult woman.

They have no leader, which means they have no agenda. They have no coordinated response because they have nobody at the front of the symphony conducting. Trump is hitting them so fast and furious with so many things that so many people want that they don’t know what to react to, and by the time they decide on something – look, Elon Musk lifted his arm, so he must love Hitler! – Trump is already driving a stake through the heart of one of their other beloved commie initiatives. 

The regime media is trying to help – hey, Trump made them hide the forbidden truth about the Tuskegee Airmen for some reason! – but this junk is just not resonating like it used to. The few people still exposing themselves to that garbage don’t actually believe it. They have a real problem because Trump is doing what he promised to do. There are no surprises here. He said he was going to end DEI, and he is ending it. He said he was going to deport illegal aliens, and he is deporting them. He said he was not going to take guff from uppity Third World potentates, and Trump treated El Presidente of Columbia like Ned Beatty in “Deliverance.” I don’t know how to say “Squeal like a pig” in Spanish, but this Marxist upstart squealed about 30 minutes after Trump tweeted that he was about to flick Colombia’s economic off-switch.

Of course, the Democrats fell right into the trap. Because Trump is bad, they decided that they had to side with some foreign politician against America on the issue of whether that foreign country should take back its rapists and murderers. You don’t need a degree in political science to know that you probably don’t ever want to be the guy siding with foreigners on the issue of whether rapists and murderers should stay in America.

They’re trying to gin up outrage and no one cares. Trump is doing the things he said he would do, the things we elected him to do. It’s hard to get people upset at a politician for doing exactly what he promised to do. It’s kind of amusing that when the left spins itself up about the things he does, they end up publicizing how Trump is keeping his word. This helps Trump while it erodes the crumbling credibility of the Democrat Party to the extent it still had any credibility with people who don’t lick windows and eat paste. Thanks, regime media – you just got played.

The Trump shock and awe strategy is working better than we ever hoped it would, but it’s not exactly a genius ploy. It’s simply a matter of him using the power invested in the office to keep his promises and promote his agenda. The big change is that he is no longer constrained by the dead norms and guardrails that kept other Republicans, and even Trump 1.0, from doing what had to be done. See, there’s a consequence when you break the norms and breach the guardrails to take out someone and you don’t finish him off. They tried to frame Donald Trump and put him in jail for the rest of his life. And when that didn’t work, they set up the conditions for him to be murdered. Their allies tried to do it twice. So, Trump has a unique perspective on the proper application of these obsolete norms and guardrails because he’s personally experienced how they’ve been bulldozed out of the way by the left. It’s insane to imagine that he’s somehow going to respect them now. 

We keep being told he is being too aggressive, too mean, and he’s a bully. OK, what else you got? Do they imagine Donald Trump is going to stop because his success is aesthetically displeasing to people who literally want to see him locked up forever or dead? No, that’s not going to happen. What’s going to happen? Trump is going to keep going. He’s going to keep driving on. Oh, there are plenty of spineless Republicans in the House and Senate who are getting nervous at the prospect of not failing – success is outside their comfort zone. But pain is an outstanding teacher, and they have learned something, as the narrow win by Pete Hegseth demonstrates. They have learned that Trump is serious, and so are we America First patriots. We’re going to win. We’re going to use our power ruthlessly to do what must be done. Those who fool around by getting in our way are going to find out good and hard. 

No, we will never get tired of all the winning.



at

Donald Trump Is Emphatically Correct About Birthright Citizenship


Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. "He can't do it!" the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Donald Trump's landmark day-one executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump's order is "blatantly unconstitutional" and that it "violates settled law." Perhaps it's even "nativist" or "racist," to boot!

Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly -- it's dead wrong on the law. Trump's Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. The maestro of Mar-a-Lago deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his very first second-term acts.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The clause's purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and thereby ensure that Blacks were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens.

But Blacks were here from America's beginning. The ruinous slavery debate aside, in 1868 Blacks were thus universally viewed -- unlike, for example, American Indians -- as "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally granted birthright citizenship to American Indians, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, aliens -- legal or illegal -- were considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

They weren't.

In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had passed two years prior. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading 14th Amendment drafter, emphasized that the amendment was "establishing no new right, declaring no new principle." Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, described it as "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."

In other words, the 14th Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And the citizenship clause of that law reads: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." In other words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" necessarily excludes those "subject to any foreign power." As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the 14th Amendment ratification debate, "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the United States' "complete" jurisdiction -- that is, "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

The 14th Amendment thus constitutionally requires that neither legal nor illegal aliens be afforded birthright citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws of its own volition is a separate matter.)

This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the citizenship clause as "intended to exclude from its operation children of ... citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." And in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that "subject to the jurisdiction" means "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

It's true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of "resident aliens" who were under "the allegiance" of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding only applied to those legitimately "domiciled" here.

In no world whatsoever does Gray's pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of illegal aliens. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the court dropped a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark applies to the children of illegal aliens too. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the "law of the land" make.

Fourteenth Amendment-mandated birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear: The amendment's draftsmen would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws and entered our soil illegally could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy.

The so-called legal eagles are wrong. And Trump, yet again, is right.



at

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Speculations about the Senate 2026 Midterms


Adam Turner reporting for RedState 

With the 2024 elections rapidly receding in the background, political hacks like me are also increasingly focused on the upcoming 2026 federal elections for the 35 U.S. Senate seats.  This includes two special elections in Florida and Ohio – for the seats vacated by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  23 of the 35 seats are held by the Republicans.  Democrats would need a net gain of four seats to retake control of the Senate.

So, it's time for another handy-dandy chart, partially “lifted” from Wikipedia, detailing the Senate races that will be in the eye of the storm, either competitive or potentially competitive.  This includes those races that are only competitive in the primary.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Senate races do not necessarily go against the incumbent president’s party.  For example, in 2018, during President Trump’s first term, he lost huge in the House but also gained 2 seats in the Senate.  

Normally, whichever party has momentum in the year wins many of the competitive seats.  However, the party shift will depend on which party has more competitive seats, and especially, which party has more open seats (which are always more likely to flip).  

State

Senator

Last
election

My Rating


Comments






Florida
(special)

Ashley Moody

Appointed
(2025)

Likely R


Moody was appointed, but she was elected statewide before as the Florida Attorney General, she is popular, the Democrats have collapsed in the state, and no strong Democrat is considering this race.  GOP Rep. Corey Mills had announced he would run for the seat before Moody was chosen; it is unclear if he really will give up his House seat to challenge her.  The Democrats need to get lucky here to win the general.






Georgia

Jon Ossoff

50.62% D

Tossup if Kemp runs or Tilt D


Ossoff is very endangered.  If Gov. Brian Kemp challenges him, Ossoff may even be the underdog, with a conservative poll showing him down by 6 points.  If Kemp doesn’t run, it is likely that the GOP will have a strong candidate – maybe a congressman like Rep. Buddy Carter or a lower-level statewide elected official – but then Ossoff should have a narrow edge.  Ossoff will have a fundraising edge over any candidate but Kemp and the state is a total dead heat at this point.  The national environment will certainly matter in this race.  






Illinois

Dick Durbin

54.93% D

Solid D, unless Durbin retires when it drops to Likely D


Although Trump won a respectable vote here in 2024, Durbin is very safe, assuming he runs for re-election.  If he retires, the Democrats have a big edge, with several lower-level state officials and congressmen being possibilities.  The GOP would have to get lucky here, as it has only a handful of congressmen, and these officials would be very unlikely to run in a tough race.  






Iowa

Joni Ernst

51.74% R

Likely R


Although Ernst has angered some MAGA types on Twitter with her cabinet concerns, this will likely all be forgotten in the race.  There are no strong Republicans likely to challenge her – especially if there is an open Governor’s race – and the Democrat bench is very thin.  Only if things swing heavily against the GOP and she makes mistakes could she lose to the likely 3rd tier Democrat that will oppose her.






Kentucky

Mitch McConnell

57.76% R

Solid R, or if Beshear runs it drops to Likely R


McConnell’s decision to vote against Hegseth shows that he likely plans to retire in 2026.  Otherwise, he would probably lose to another Republican.  If he retires, there are several GOP congressmen and lower-level statewide officials who might run.  The Democrats only have Gov. Beshear, who is unlikely to run, as he knows he would be a solid underdog to a decent Republican. 






Louisiana

Bill Cassidy

59.32% R

Solid R


Cassidy has a primary problem.  He voted to impeach Trump, and already, John Flemming, the state treasurer and former congressman, has announced.  Other Republicans may join.   The Democrats are basically moribund on the federal level, so there is no danger of the seat flipping.  Cassidy will probably try to curry favor with President Trump to avert any strong challenge.






Maine

Susan Collins

50.98% R

Lean R


Even if the economy is bad, Collins should have the edge here.  She has developed a strong independent reputation, which is important in a Democrat state.  Despite her votes against the GOP and Trump, she is unlikely to face repercussions in the primary.  (As my old boss Sen. Rick Santorum once said, Collins is with us when we need her to be.)  President Trump is unlikely to oppose her.  Democrats who would be 1st tier challengers are the governor and two congressmen.  Rep. Golden, who worked for Collins, is likely to run for governor.  Gov. Mills and Rep. Pingree are probably too old to run.  So, it is more likely a state legislator or another 2nd tier challenger will have to step up.  It should help Collins that she is the new chair of the Appropriations Committee. 






Massachusetts

Ed Markey

66.15% D

Solid D


Markey, approaching 80, and firmly stuck in the decade of the 70s, is safe in the general election but may face a challenge in the primary.  Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a former Marine, who is much younger, appears to be considering a race.  Markey would start out with the edge, but as an outdated politician, he could be outhustled by a fresher face.  No credible Republican is likely to run.






Michigan

Gary Peters
(retiring)

49.90% D

Tilt D


Peters recently announced his retirement, throwing the situation into chaos.  There are potentially large numbers of ambitious politicians of both parties who may make the race.  Gov. Whitmer has said no, but several lower-level statewide officials are considering, including the Lt. Gov., as well as some Democrat congressmen like Rep. Haley Stevens.  Pete Buttigieg, the Indiana politician who ran for President and then served as U.S. Secretary of Transportation, is also considering.  Meanwhile, the GOP candidates may include Rep. John James, who ran twice before for Senate unsuccessfully, but who has rebounded with two narrow House wins.  Since James’ House seat is not safe, this might prod him into running for Senate.  Former Rep. Mike Rogers, who only narrowly lost the Senate race last year, would also be a strong candidate.  Rep. Bill Huizenga is also considering and has overperformed in his district.  Assuming both parties get strong candidates – which seems likely – the Democrat should have a slight edge, assuming there is any sort of tide against the GOP.






New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen

56.64% D

Lean D


Shaheen is likely to run for reelection – she has been voting like she will – although at her age things could conceivably change.

Former Gov. Sununu, the strongest potential GOP challenger, will not run.  Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown has been considering it, and he ran against Shaheen in 2014 when he barely lost to her in a very pro-GOP environment.  However, Shaheen, who also served as a New Hampshire governor, should have the edge over Brown, unless she makes major mistakes.  






North Carolina

Thom Tillis

48.69% R

Tilt R, or Toss Up if there is a bitter primary, a bad environment, or Gov. Cooper challenges him


Tillis is in danger in both the primary and the general in a state that has only a slight Republican edge.  As a RedState colleague of mine has shown, Tillis played dirty in the Senate drama over Secretary of Defense Hegseth.  He also has earned the ire of MAGA types and conservatives before.  A Republican has already been announced, but this candidate is not credible.  Former Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper has hinted that he may run against Tillis; if so, the general becomes a toss-up. There are also many congressmen and lower-level statewide officials of both parties who could potentially challenge him.  It seems likely that another Republican will jump into the race, and if President Trump endorses that Republican, this could be the end of Tillis.  If he makes it to the general, a non-Cooper Democrat could also bump him off if the primary was especially bitter, or the environment is anti-GOP.  The only reason I have the seat still tilting GOP is that in federal elections, the GOP seems to have a narrow edge.






Ohio
(special)

Jon Husted

Appointed
(2025)

Likely R


Husted was appointed as the sitting Lt. Gov.  He also served in other minor statewide offices and in the state legislature.  He was already preparing to run for governor, so he has already set up a statewide campaign.  Husted is close to Gov. DeWine but also gets along with MAGA types. Unless he antagonizes President Trump, a strong primary opponent is unlikely. Ohio is probably a solid Republican state at this point, although it is possible that Trump not being on the ballot will hurt the GOP.  Ousted (in 2024) Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown has hinted he might run; he would get a respectable number of votes, but few ousted incumbents are able to win back Senate seats.  They are often considered yesterday’s news (and Brown is rather old at this point).  If Brown doesn’t run, there is no obvious 1st tier candidate on the Democrat side.






South Carolina

Lindsey Graham

54.44% R

Likely R


Graham is safe in the general election but could face an opponent from the conservative and/or MAGA side in the primary.  However, Trump is unlikely to endorse another Republican in this race, as he and Graham get along, and Graham will have a lot of money to spend.  Also, no prominent Republicans have yet announced their intention to challenge Graham.  There are no strong Democrats to run against Graham.






Texas

John Cornyn

53.51% R

Likely R but Lean R if he isn’t the candidate


Cornyn has already announced he is seeking another term, but that was before he failed to win the majority leader position.  Thus, it would not be unheard of if he retired.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is widely considered a potential challenger to Cornyn.  Paxton is considered more MAGA, but it is unclear that President Trump would support him over Cornyn.  In fact, Trump might end up endorsing Cornyn, if he fears a bitter primary could cost the GOP this seat.  Paxton also has a corruption scandal hanging over his head.  The Democrats will probably have a strong, 2nd tier candidate here – they don’t have any statewide officials right now – but in the last election, Trump and Sen. Cruz won more solidly than they did before.  






Virginia

Mark Warner

55.99% D

Likely D, or Lean D if Gov. Youngkin runs


Warner is the stronger of the two Democrat Senators in Virginia, and he is very safe, unless (by then) former Gov. Glen Youngkin challenges him.  Youngkin is unlikely to do so, as federal races are tough for the GOP to win, thanks to the massive presence of liberal-leaning government workers in Northern Virginia.  A 2nd or 3rd tier Republican will likely break 40%, but not by much.  







Right now, the competitive seats, in the general election, are limited to Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and possibly New Hampshire, Florida, and Ohio.  Four GOP seats, and three Democrat seats.  With these numbers, the Democrats will need a bad national environment, or a lot of luck, to win back the Senate.



at