民主党内部混乱持续，市场风险升高

Yeah, I think, uh, I think Republicans are in a position to, uh, actually hold, uh, both houses, uh, 60%. And more than that, with the Senate, probably 80%. Uh, three points. One, you know, the Democrats crazy train is still rolling on. Uh, pong may have lost in Wisconsin for governor, but you got a very sharp tongued Democrat in, uh, Flanagan, very left, kind of 2020 ish candidate, uh, in Flanagan, uh, picking up the nomination for Minnesota Senate.

That certainly makes that race more competitive. Uh, secondly, uh, on the 60%, you know, you got a situation here. We're in a battle between insurgent Democrat insurgents and Democrats, uh, establishment, uh, which you really saw in Michigan as well as, uh, yeah, Wisconsin. Uh, you know, the establishment is more interested in holding on to the control of the party. Uh, and, you know, they'd be quite happy to see some of these candidates go down.

So. Well, watch for that dynamic. I think, uh, thirdly, the stakes for markets are much higher now than they were just months ago. This is a and this is now about whether or not there's going to be 20, 27 animal spirits, uh, versus whether there's going to be a Washington Pall cast on markets through the 2028 election. And I think I got to unpack that more this month. But, uh, that's where this is headed, I think, Terry, I think a lot of folks are just kind of surprised that the Democrats haven't pursued a very simple policy, if kind of.

We're just anti-Trump. Aren't you tired? Let's take back both houses and let's move on as opposed to splitting up the party at this point, do you think that the Democrats are are missing a big opportunity here? Uh, they're missing a huge opportunity. And I think it goes beyond, uh, beyond the, uh, uh, the Trump rage. Uh, they're missing a huge opportunity to start talking about what it is that they might do and how it is that they might do it.

One reason why both parties, uh, I mean, from the public's perspective, both parties are in the toilet and Trump's not far behind, although he's a little more popular than Cruz. Uh, is that, uh, you know, they don't do stuff. Well, you know, they don't do the block and tackles like John Fetterman said. You know, just, you know, you're, um, you know, you're a mayor, go out and, like, fill potholes. Do you know, like, do the basic competence stuff and let's work on that.

Uh, Democrats have no plan on that. DSA particularly has no plan on that is, uh, The New Yorker's David Remnick, uh, unmasked here a few days ago with the DSA policy person, uh, you know, and as long as that's more than the same. Right. Uh, neither party is going to be trusted. Neither party is going to have an advantage. I know David Gerber's interview with David Remnick here recently as well for Bloomberg this week.

Ontarians, I'm all about turn out my father would sit at the breakfast table and lecture me that there's this there's that at the Terry Heinz consultancy. You know all that. But voters gotta show up, frame out the Biden Harris non turnout and then frame out the Democratic turnout you see in November. And the Republican and MAGA turnout in November. Uh, sure. Uh, firstly, uh, you know, I called, uh, as you kindly point out to your audiences.

Uh, I call them a lot of things, right? Including no, uh, no waves and different elections. Uh, I called the barest of wins for Harris in 2024. And I'll tell you why. Because I thought that the and this buttresses in earlier point I was going to make, by the way, the, uh, or I did make the if he, if she had get out the vote in swing states with the same intensity as Biden, she would have won the election. And she didn't.

She lost. Uh, she lost, uh, you know, half a million votes in Pennsylvania that she couldn't have lost. And, you know, that's, by and large, the establishment going, I'm not going to work for her, uh, quite so much. Um, in it's a tale of Two cities for Democrats this year. Uh, but there's a lot less than meets the eye with the progressives. And Michigan Senate is a perfect example that you had very high turnout in Michigan.

Over 70%. Wow. And the progressive Victor and LCA could not get more than half of those voters. Say it again. More than half of those voters did not vote for it. Uh, that's a bad sign for all sides. Bad sign for Democrats in Michigan. Good sign for the Democratic establishment in Michigan, which holds a lot more cards. Uh, in other states that had primaries. Virginia, for example. Virginia. You know, in my home city, uh, uh, in Virginia, Alexandria, Alexandria had something like 12% turnout.

Uh, you know, and uh, incumbents, by and large, kept their, uh, kept their seats. Uh, what you got here is a situation where, you know, people who are touting Democrats are putting far too much emphasis on national things like, uh, generic polls and in, in intensity, uh, in contested races, the contests, the contested intensity, the enthusiasm is a lot more even. And, uh, you know, if you've got a redistricting advantage for Republicans.

And you've got a money advantage for Republicans. Uh, you're going to start seeing that come out in the fall. Terry, in a few months time, these midterms are going to be in the rearview mirror here. Do we have any visibility for either party as to 2028 on the presidential side? Oh, I don't think, uh, meaningfully, uh, but I'll tell you a story to illustrate. Uh, from long ago, uh, Tom's good friend, Pat Buchanan, uh, was a, uh, was a wet behind the ears, uh, the sole aide to former Vice President Nixon in 1966.

Uh, Buchanan loves to tell a story on himself. Uh, right. Uh. You can't. I got all freaked out in 1966, early 67, that George Romney was leading polls and Nixon wasn't. He actually called up Nixon kind of panicked and said, you know, we got to do something. And Nixon, uh, gently laughed and said, you know, it's like, you know, two years away, like, you know, let's watch this play out a little bit. You don't want to be the first two years out.

And sure enough, you know, Romney imploded. Yeah. Uh, Nixon went so, uh. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think any jury. Let me get this in, and I'll probably revisit it four times till we get to November 2028. Yeah. One of the great moments I had was two in the morning, Margaret Brennan and I in the, in the Hanover in and in dart in Dartmouth, in Hanover, New Hampshire and Dartmouth College. And we're all on our fourth beverage.

Terry. Not that you've ever seen that at a political gathering. And it's a guy now or in the Dartmouth or in the Hanover. And for that, yeah, there's a guy named Newt in me in the back room, and we're doing history, and Newt figures out I got my act together. And Newt Gingrich told me something, the historian, that a party that's in disarray needs three cycles to recover until they decide they want to win again. Where are the Democrats now in Gingrich's three cycles, to straighten it out and win like they did with Clinton and Obama?

Newt was certainly right then. And, uh, back when he said that to you. And what I think Newt was thinking about at that time was, uh, uh, how Democrats took forever to come back after Reagan won in 1980. And I mean forever, right? 12 years in a, uh, kind of a Clinton upheaval. Um, what do they need? They need, uh, they need coherence. In other words, they need to be one party instead of two. Uh, the present, a united face.

Uh, they need to present, uh, united, uh, do united policies. And I say that not as some sort of policy wonk, but somebody that, uh, thinks that one big part of the problem with Democrats is the lack of trust that they will make things better. They don't point to anything that will, uh, that will encourage people to think that. So nobody does. Um, and finally, uh, they need to be a little and not just a little, a lot calmer.

Um, and right now they are, uh, kind of full of sound and fury signifying, uh, nothing is, uh, there's the sage, put it, and, uh, that's not a good position for a party to