polecat news and views

Monday, November 9, 2026

Democrats Just Quietly Won the Power to Sideline the Electoral College by 2028 — *AP Photo/Tommy Martino*

Democrats didn’t just pick up a few statehouses following Tuesday's midterm elections — they may have just won the power to sideline the Electoral College by 2028. If they follow through, the next president could be chosen by a nationwide popular vote instead of the system the Constitution very clearly laid out.

Remember when we talked about Elon Musk warning that the 2026 elections could lead to a cataclysmic chain of events that leads to permanent one-party rule down the line? Yeah, this is the kind of thing we were referring to.

Axios is reporting that “sweeping statehouse gains” have “opened a path to effectively replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote in time for the 2028 presidential election."

I'll give you the CliffsNotes version of how this works:

Democrats now control the governor's office and both legislative chambers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada, and are poised to do the same in Arizona. Already terrifying, right? If those five states sign on to a deal already on the books in 18 states and Washington, D.C., they would send their electoral votes to whoever wins the nationwide popular vote — even if their own voters chose someone else.

That deal, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, already covers 222 electoral votes. Axios notes that it “only kicks in when participating states collectively control at least 270 electoral votes,” and that these five new Democratic trifectas “could bring the total to 283.”

In other words, they wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment, or a single red state, to change how America picks a president.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, as my colleague Teri Christoph has written, "should make every voter's blood boil."

"Once enough left-leaning states sign on, the mechanism is in place. At that point, voters in blue states may wake up one day and discover that the election outcome in their own state no longer determines where their electoral votes go," Christoph explained. "And that is a breathtaking betrayal of the voters."

This isn't a matter of if; it's now a matter of when. Democrats don't like any constitutional concept that checks power. They don't like rules. And if the rules prevent them from stealing power (Hillary comes to mind in 2016), then they change them. They're not feckless like the Republican majority that simply refused to nuke the filibuster and push legislation a vast majority of Americans wanted to see in the SAVE America Act.

Incidentally, y'all might as well kiss the filibuster goodbye while you're at it. It'll take weeks, tops, for them to drop that power check for the minority party.

None of this should be shocking. The Democrats have been very open about wanting to drop the Electoral College. Former presidential candidate Kamala Harris pointed to its abolition as part of her party's wish list just a few weeks ago.

As a New Yorker, I can't stress how bad this could be.

The Empire State is a microcosm of the necessity of the Electoral College. All of NY is controlled by small left-wing swamps when it comes to elections. Former gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin, for example, lost to Hochul in 2022 despite winning 49 of New York's 62 counties.

Even with Bruce Blakeman getting embarrassingly slaughtered by Hochul on Tuesday, he still managed to paint most of the New York map red.

Now extrapolate that to a map of the United States. A vast majority of red America, beholden to liberal cesspools like New York and California.

Axios says the midterm results “could give Democrats the legislative power to fundamentally change how America picks its president, potentially ending the possibility of winning the White House while losing the national popular vote.”

The five states would still have to pass it, and the outlet claims “it’s not clear if it will be a priority,” but lawmakers in all five have already introduced bills to join.

I'll just address that right now. It'll be a priority. Only a matter of time. There's little doubt this workaround would go live just in time for 2028.

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2026/11/06/democrats-just-quietly-won-the-power-to-sideline-the-electoral-college-by-2028-n2209102?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Sunday, November 8, 2026

Abdul El-Sayed Gave His Victory Speech. He Said Something Absolutely Chilling.

Abdul El-Sayed Gave His Victory Speech. He Said Something Absolutely Chilling.

Kyle Becker Follow @kylenabecker

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed defeated Mike Rogers in Michigan's U.S. Senate race Tuesday, becoming the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate.

During his victory speech, the Democrat senator-elect made it clear whom he thought won the election.

His people.

He used Arabic religious expressions, including Inshallah, meaning "God willing," and Alhamdulillah, meaning "Praise be to God." The crowd applauded enthusiastically.

El-Sayed grinned smugly throughout the speech. And why not? He has successfully infiltrated the “liberal” Democrat Party and brought his Islamist extremism with him.

El-Sayed received overwhelming support in Dearborn, Michigan, which has a large Arab American and Muslim population.

According to a November 4 report from The Detroit News, unofficial election results showed 82 percent of Dearborn voters backed El-Sayed, compared with 17 percent for Rogers.

That’s a Bashar al-Assad level of support. The newspaper reported that voters in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck, communities with large Muslim populations, turned out in support of El-Sayed.

The chilling thing about all of this is that the Democrat Party is successfully balkanizing America into foreigner-led communities (or communities led by the children of immigrants) whose loyalties are more tribalistic than patriotic.

But there is another thing that is absolutely baffling about this election. Jewish voters even rubber-stamped this Democrat candidate, despite his documented ties to Islamist extremists like Hasan Piker.

According to The Forward, a Mercury Public Affairs survey of 482 Jewish voters conducted October 25–31 found:

60 percent supported El-Sayed.
36 percent supported Rogers.

Among Michigan Jewish early voters, Abdul El-Sayed underperformed other Democrats by more than 20 points (57% vs. 78% for Jocelyn Benson), with a sizable share splitting their tickets to vote for Republican Mike Rogers while supporting Benson. Interestingly, 92 percent of surveyed Jewish Democrats who rejected El-Sayed cited his positions on Israel and concerns about antisemitism as major reasons.

Were the Jewish voters simply not aware of his antisemitic views? This is like a flock of sheep voting for a wolf for mayor. Dumbfounding.

The controversy also prompted his former Democrat primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, to endorse Rogers shortly before Election Day. It turns out, that wasn’t enough to ward off Democrat voters.

Tribal loyalties override appeals to reason. Republicans better start getting used to this fact of American politics.

But the danger is that the American right starts retaliating with its own version of identity politics. Once the in-group/out-group dynamic of politics starts settling in, it tends to turn ugly. Very ugly. Anyone who lived in the Balkans during the Yugoslav Wars can vouch for that.

The right needs to start finding ways to appeal to in-group candidates who can speak the language of these tribes and appeal to their self-interest. Otherwise, it will continue to lose elections to candidates in the “in-groups,” no matter how bad their ideas are.

Even more importantly, we need to push hard against further immigration, and push harder for assimilation. But expecting foreigners to be "colorblind" and to advocate for meritocracy is increasingly unrealistic.

Simply repeating phrases like "freedom of opportunity" and "equality under the law" is not persuasive to people who are given the greenlight to discriminate against white Americans.

Take what Texas Democrat Gene Wu said, for example:

"The day the Latino, African American, Asian and other communities realize that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning," he said. "We have the ability to take over this country and to do what is needed for everyone and to make things fair."

It looks like they just did.

https://redstate.com/kyle-becker/2026/11/04/abdul-el-sayed-gave-his-victory-speech-he-said-something-absolutely-chilling-n2209023?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Hakeem Jeffries Is Such a Lying Snake About Impeachment

Hakeem Jeffries Is Such a Lying Snake About Impeachment

Matt Margolis Follow @mattmargolis

Democrats have wanted to impeach Donald Trump since before he ever took the oath of office. They promised it before his first inauguration in 2017, followed through twice, and never let go of the idea once voters sent him back to the White House in 2025.

In fact, plenty of them have already reached a verdict.

Last month, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Trump has "already committed numerous impeachable offenses" in his second term, including usurping congressional authority. So what grave crime does Raskin have in mind? Back in September, he pointed to the new White House ballroom.

"I would say even just bulldozing the East Wing of the White House. If you can bulldoze the East Wing, he can bulldoze the West Wing. He believes that he is a king," Raskin said.

A construction project that past Democrat and Republican administrations have wanted — that's the high crime threatening the republic.

So when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) claimed Wednesday morning, the day after the midterms handed his party the House, that Democrats have no interest in impeachment, I had to laugh.

"I haven't had a single member of the House Democratic Caucus talk to me about impeachment," Jeffries told reporters. "We've been relentlessly focused on affordability and on accountability because the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government."

Accountability. We all know that word is a dogwhistle for impeachment, and Jeffries knows it better than anyone. He kept the act going on MSNOW's Morning Joe, where he laid out the agenda for the new Democrat House majority and claimed that going after Trump isn't a priority.

"The American people don't want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive," Jeffries insisted.

That's a ridiculous line, coming from him. Democrats created the affordability crisis in the first place, and now they expect voters to believe that fixing the mess they made is their top objective?

Nobody who paid attention the last few years buys it.

Meanwhile, Jeffries' own House members spent election night sharpening their knives. Democrats in Congress were already promising subpoenas and investigations and telling Trump and the GOP to "lawyer up."

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who will take over the House Oversight Committee in January, put out a statement celebrating the win and spelling out his plans.

"The Trump Crime Family" — that's the language of a party that assumes Trump is guilty and decided on the punishment long before it bothered to find an actual crime.

ICYMI: You Really Need to Hear This From Rush Limbaugh Right Now

To be fair, Democrats have an open door if they want to prove me wrong. The White House made clear that Trump remains willing to work with them, even as it blasted the prospect of a partisan witch hunt.

"As the President has said, he's willing to work with anyone to continue delivering victories for hardworking Americans. If Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people," White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told Fox News Digital.

"If crazed Democrats want to abuse their power and politicize their process of investigations, subpoenas, and destroying lives, they should be reminded that we still control the federal government and all of its powers," a White House official added.

We'll see if Democrats take Trump up on his offer. My money says they'll pick the sham investigations every time.

So what's really going on here? Democrats are itching to impeach Trump again, and they've lined up endless investigations so they can dig up anything they can spin into a crime. Jeffries just wants everyone to believe impeachment is the furthest thing from his mind, so that when the articles drop, Democrats can pretend they had no choice and that they aren't weaponizing the process.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/11/05/hakeem-jeffries-is-such-a-lying-snake-about-impeachment-n4959051?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Trump’s Next Act

Trump’s Next Act

And America’s

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

I wrote last week that rather than living in “late capitalism,” we were actually living in “late democracy.” Late capitalism is a communist fantasy created over a century ago. Late democracy is very real.

Democracy — even in a democratic republic like ours, rather than pure democracy — is contingent. When you try it in the less developed parts of the world, you typically get “one man, one vote, one time.” And by less developed I don’t mean less economically developed — though that generally applies too — as less morally and civically developed. But now that kind of “less developed” describes us too. . . .

We used to say “politics ain’t beanbag,” but there were limits, on both behavior and rhetoric. The opposition was a political movement to be defeated, not an evil to be extirpated. The stakes in elections may have been high, but they weren’t existential. Nobody feared death or prison just for losing an election.

That sort of thing was for banana republics, like Brazil.

Now we have prominent Democrats talking about throwing their opponents in jail, seizing Elon Musk’s companies — after throwing him in jail for, I dunno, the crime of being in opposition I guess — and enacting various changes, like packing the Supreme Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, and opening the borders to ensure that no election can remove them from power again.

That’s “late democracy.” Very late.

As I wrote then, John Adams said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral and religious people doesn’t crow about imprisoning or executing its political opponents, or locking politics down to ensure that they reign forever.

And people who do that sort of thing lose the protecting cloak of legitimacy (though they will try to cling to it). If norms don’t protect their opponents, what’s the argument for not seizing power by force and stringing them up? The paper walls of court-packing and state-adding are no protection against the universal political solvent, force.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon and took Rome because his political opponents were going to subject him to sham trials and probably take his life. The last residuum of the old Republic couldn’t stop him, and Rome became a less lawful place. (Arguably, this was just the final step after Marius and Sulla, and maybe the Gracchi, started wrecking the Republic.)

Some of you out there may nod your heads and approve the idea of regime change by force. But it’s nothing to hope for. At best it’s a perilous necessity that is very likely to make things worse — like hitting the hyperspace button in the old “Asteroids” game. It might save you, or it might destroy you.

The American Revolution was a perilous enterprise, but they had a much better ruling class than we do. I mean, just look around.

Anyway, I’d say for now to listen to the Hitchhiker’s Guide and “don’t panic.” As many people are noting there have been successful presidencies even after worse midterm losses.

Cecile Shaw@CecileShaw

🚨What happens if Trump loses the House and Senate? Clinton & Obama already set precedent. They weren't done at all in their last 2 years. Victor Davis Hanson explains: Clinton fell to 37% approval but left office at about 66%. In between, he was impeached but not convicted …

8:34 PM · Nov 3, 2026 · 1.06M Views

266 Replies · 2.84K Reposts · 10K Likes

(By the way, impeaching Clinton was idiotic. If it had succeeded, it would have just meant Al Gore could have run as an incumbent in 2000, which probably would have put him over the top in what turned out to be a super-close election.)

Our system has survived many threats, though it’s true that we had a Civil War over one of them, and in some sense the original political/constitutional system did not entirely survive it.

But here’s a cautionary note. Just a few election cycles ago, Mohammed Abdulrahman El-Sayed and James Talarico would have been utterly unelectable. Now they’re winning candidates. In this world, much conventional wisdom based on politics in the old world is no longer valid.

That’s life in Late Democracy. Be well.

https://instapundit.substack.com/p/trumps-next-act