Stidmatt

The United States started as a fairly loose country with a lot of power in the hands of states, but over the evolution of the country, power has become more and more concentrated in the hands of the federal government.

In a healthy democracy, ideas can be experimented with and the consequences will be felt. By feeling the consequences of decisions, countries can then reverse course when things get worse, without harming other states which did not make the harmful decisions. The damage is fairly limited, and the reversal can happen smoothly.

As power has concentrated more and more with the federal government, tax dollars have become more and more concentrated in the hands of the federal government. Two consequences of this are that there are more subsidies for lower income states. This is seen as a way to raise people out of poverty, improve schools, and many other benefits to those states. But it also creates a drain on public money from wealthier states.

This has two main effects.

• Recipient states do not see the full detrimental effects of their misguided policies because they have a constant bailout from the federal government.
• Donor states do not see the full benefits of their policies because a lot of the surplus is siphoned off to states with inferior policies.

On one hand it is easy to think that this is a good thing from a liberal point of view, since most liberal states are donor states, we have higher levels of education leading to higher incomes, and from a high-minded viewpoint we can often feel like it is just fair for us to share our surplus with the lofty ideal that every American should have access to a high quality education and high quality health care.

This would work if everyone shared our viewpoint. But the world obviously does not work that way.

For states which consistently choose to fund programs which do not bring large benefits, they get a constant bailout from the federal government. People in these states then feel like they keep paying taxes but never get ahead. The reason they never get ahead is their state continues destructive policies but they are never allowed by the federal government to fall apart because of interstate transfers. Because people often feel this way in recipient states, it is clear to me that our current model of siphoning wealth from productive to unproductive areas does not work.

It also happens at a local level as dense urban areas pay more in taxes compared to the cost of infrastructure and suburban areas typically pay less in taxes compared to the cost of maintaining their infrastructure. This phenomenon happens at every level of government.

Now, there are obviously some programs which are truly beneficial, namely health care and education. Food stamps effectively fight poverty. Universal basic income like Alaska or formerly in Canada are effective ways of fighting poverty. But often these programs go in ways which are massive federal grants for infrastructure which might not actually be reasonable, particularly highway construction, which distorts incentives.

It’s a complicated issue.

But I’m coming to the conclusion that in time we will have presidents like Donald Trump come to power. Trump won’t be the last, and this is inevitable. The South will never change.

So we must accept that as long as we remain as tight knit as we are today it is just a matter of time before Medicare is cut. It is just a matter of time before OASI is slashed. It’s a mathematical fact that if we don’t change how OASI is funded that it will run out of money within a few decades.

Regardless of how things go, it is only a matter of time before a Republican President slashes health care programs to an extreme level. There is nothing we can do to prevent this.

There is nothing we can do to protect seniors in the South long-term from these policies being harmed.

So the best thing we can do is protect those of us who live in donor states. If and when this government slashes Medicare and Medicaid, I welcome it. 46% of federal government spending goes to health care and OASI. Another 7.8% of spending goes to income security, bringing it over 50% of government spending or $3.7 trillion. If our current government slashes these programs and moves that responsibility down to the states our deficit will be covered and they can slash taxes even further. Liberal state governments can then pick up the tab. We can increase state level taxes to cover the difference and by no longer having as much money siphoned out of our states to bailout states in the South we won’t have to raise taxes as much as you think. We can implement universal health care, saving businesses more money on payroll than they are spending on private health insurance plans. Out of pocket spending by employees will drop substantially, not necessarily to 0, but it will be lower than what we have now. This will save people money and be more resilient than our current system.

There is no realistic path to implement any form of universal health care as long as the filibuster survives. It will take a lot longer to finally get the filibuster abolished than it will be to implement universal health care at the state level somewhere. Let’s take the win where we can and push for universal health care in our state capitols.

I wish we lived in a country where we could implement these common sense solutions at a national level, but the reality is that we don’t and we never will.

The federal government can move health care, social security, income security, veterans benefits, commerce and housing credit, transportation, education and more down to the state level. Cutting out 75% of federal government spending down to a budget of only $1 trillion. Half of it military, half of it paying interest on the national debt.

The gap between rich and poor states will increase, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. As right-wing states complain that their states keep falling behind the solution will always be there for them. The solution is, has always been, and always will be for them to elect a better government. Their infrastructure will fall apart, and that’s just the way it is. The federal government might take over the interstate highway system and railroads, paying for their maintenance and operations through tolls, taking that burden off of state governments, but for the rest of the operations that is up to the states. We might keep FEMA around, but insurance without conditions is rarely a good idea.

So the best step for progressive politics might actually be to have Trump slash the federal budget. End Medicare, Medicaid, OASI, federal income security, and other programs. Liberal states come in and fill the void. Conservative states languish.

After that transfer is done and conservative states see their economies failing they will need to implement these programs themselves, and we shouldn’t let them just re-implement them at the federal level.

Perhaps we should even move immigration down to the state level as well. That’s how the European Union does it and it works well. States could choose reciprocity with other states which implement work visas or choose not to. This would encourage best practices and if a state chooses detrimental policies it will minimize the damage.

Adoption of the United States dollar should be optional. If a state wants their own currency to focus on manufacturing and export-oriented development… let that be on their own grave. Just don’t take my state down with you.

Again, in an ideal world this would not be a problem. But there are enough states which vote in politicians who push for ridiculous policies at the federal level and I am tired of it. Let states be laboratories of democracy again. The scales of efficiency of having work done at the federal government only works as long as we continue to have presidents and congresses who are thinking through their policies. We clearly do not live in a country like that.

In terms of foreign aid states could choose to fund initiatives together in blocs. This would be more robust because if a state enters or leaves the arrangement it won’t be the sudden death of the program.

In summary, I think moving social programs from the federal government down to the state level will be more economical, be more resilient, and a more desirable outcome than what we are dealing with right now.

Please poke holes in my argument. I want to be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

The way for a country to move from a weak passport to a strong passport is actually quite simple.

• Crack down on corruption
• Improve your country’s human rights record
• Have a strong economy
• Visa reciprocity
• Low visa overstay rate

That’s really it. There are no other steps. With these five changes your country will almost certainly be granted visa-free status to the Schengen Area.

It’s not discrimination, it’s a matter of safety. The EU and United States cannot grant passports to countries which are not trustworthy.

Let’s say you have visa-free travel to Europe and you have a golden passport scheme which is being granted to Russian oligarchs. If your country does not crack down on corruption first and you were granted visa-free travel to the European Union you would immediately become the favorite destination for corrupt oligarchs to get a second passport. This is a national security risk.

There also is a lag between when your country democratizes and when you will start to see your passport become more powerful. This is because countries which are targets of criminals (especially the US and the EU) need to ensure the country will not regress after being granted more travel freedom.

I do not believe eVisas are necessary between low-corruption democracies no matter the cost.

The EU and the USA also want to ensure your economy is wealthy enough to reduce the likelihood of visa fraud so people will likely go back home when their visa-free period is up, and not commit tax fraud by working without paying taxes.

So for a few case studies let’s look at the Philippines. The Philippines has a very low GDP per capita and consistently has voted for right-wing oligarchs like their current president Marcos and their former president Duterte. This is despite the fact that Leni Robredo was running on an anti-corruption platform which is a time tested way to gain visa-free access to Europe.

Georgia and Ukraine saw the election of anti-corruption leaders similar to Leni Robredo in the 2000s and 2010s, leading to both countries being granted visa-free entry to the European Union. Corruption was reduced, economies improved, and democracy improved. As a result they were granted visa-free entry to the European Union.

We find the same thing in Colombia which has seen a reduction in cartel violence and corruption.

So the lesson is clear. If the Philippines wants to gain visa-free entry to the European Union they need to stop voting in right wing demagogues.

But honestly, that’s what I thought entering this thought experiment, but the reality is that citizens from the United Arab Emirates and Brunei are able to travel to the European Union visa-free.  So it sounds like it is more of an OR function as opposed to an AND function.

But this does not explain it either. There are still countries missing from European Union visa-free travel which clearly should have it, including South Africa, Cape Verde, and more.

Cape Verde does not have visa free travel to the EU because they lack visa reciprocity. Jamaica does not have full visa reciprocity with the Schengen Area.

The unfortunate reality is that visa-free access to the Schengen Area is mostly determined by region rather than any factor countries can control. If you are from Asia or Africa you can only really get visa-free waivers if your country is extremely democratic or wealthy. If you are from the Americas, you likely already have visa-free travel to the Schengen Area.

Every wealthy democratic country has visa-free travel to the Schengen Area.

So if you want visa-free travel to the Schengen Area you should improve your economy and remain democratic. This is why Filipinos need a visa to travel to the Schengen Area. Their economy has stayed weak and they continue to vote for right-wing demagogues. Reverse this trend and Filipinos will likely receive visa-free access to the Schengen Area.

I know… depressing.

Ironic ultranationalistic memes aside…

Let’s continue and be serious for the rest of this post.

Sorry for being a Millennial there.

Ukrainian officials are in Paris today discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think the following is the most reasonable path to peace.

1. France and the rest of the European Union promise to send Ukraine more aid, stabbing Trump and Putin in the back.
2. France and the rest of the European Union implement stricter sanctions on Russia, stabbing Trump and Putin in the back even further.

Ukraine can win the war this year as Russia’s economy collapses. It’s just that simple.

If you wouldn’t give Paris to Hitler, don’t give Crimea to Putin.

The next agenda for France is to get the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Union.

The first step is that the UK is trying to broker “deals” with other countries. Particularly Canada. This needs to be undermined. Macron must fly to Quebec City and Ottawa to meet with the Quebec Premier and the Canadian Prime Minister to offer a counterproposal that Canadians and Europeans should have the right to freely live and work in each other’s countries. Extend the European Economic Area and Schengen Area to Canada. This is a far better deal than anything Starmer is offering, simply because the European Union has a bigger economy, more places to go, and more job opportunities. Integrating Canada into the European Union would benefit both parties.

This leaves Starmer with no deal with Canada, as he keeps blabbering about. This one supposed “Brexit benefit” will then evaporate.

However, if the United Kingdom rejoined the European Union, it would benefit from free trade and travel with Canada and the European Union.

Macron can make this happen over the next few years.

The process of Canada integrating into the EEA should take around 4 years. The only barrier is aligning economic regulations with Europe.

With Canada in Schengen and Trump out of office, it is time for a diplomatic onslaught on the United States to moderate our extreme politics. If Russia can propagandize the United States to vote for a convicted felon like Donald Trump, then certainly the European Union can do the same to convince Americans that an open border with Canada and the European Union is not the end of the world, but actually would be beneficial to the United States.

Reducing trade barriers, aligning regulations, and enabling the freedom of movement between North America and Europe will benefit everyone. It will extend the most successful model of continental integration to show that even oceans cannot stop the process of global democratization. wordy and redundant. This will show that cooperation is more powerful than conflict. It will help moderate American politics as it will be difficult for Republicans to replace it. With a deep integration of workers moving freely across borders, there would be no easy way to undo these bonds without serious economic consequences.

Unlike the accession of former Soviet colonies to the European Union, the United States and Canada are already quite wealthy and have been democracies for over a century. Our incomes are closer to Germany than any country that was a member of the Warsaw Pact (excluding occupied East Germany). This means there wouldn’t be the same type of one-way flow of workers. This means that when designing regulations, the United States, Canada, and European Union would have increased pressure to converge to what are found to be best practices. We don’t necessarily need regulations from the European Union for many of these policies unless they are clearly for safety reasons. The best practices, by definition, give better results, and when companies and workers can freely move around, the reality will be to adopt best practices or fall behind. Workers will have the right to move to where the best practices are done. This forces countries to adopt best practices or fall behind.

Integrating the United States and Canada into the European Economic Area will be a tide that lifts all boats. It is likely the best plan for the United States to implement universal health care. It is the best way for Europe to increase its productivity to match that of the United States, which has slipped since the austerity crisis. The pressure of the market will force the European Union to adopt best practices regarding tech, just as it will force the United States to adopt best practices regarding health care.

There is no reason Australia, Chile, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea could not be the next countries to join.

But let’s start with the United States and Canada, which have the longest shared border in the world, starting with Canada.

This is a rosy future. But it is in reach. This is the best way to counter Russia’s influence. It is the best way to show a clear path towards a prosperous economy for countries moving along the path to democracy. It will counter authoritarians by extending systems which are very difficult to unravel.

Let’s make it happen. Bring Canada into the European Economic Area.

King Charles has extended a potential offer of Commonwealth of Nations membership to the United States.

I oppose it for many reasons.

Limited benefits

What exactly is the Commonwealth of Nations? It’s a loose forum of former British colonies and the United Kingdom.

There are no travel benefits to being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Everyone except Americans needs a visa to travel to Canada; Australians and Kiwis are the only nationalities that do not need a visa to travel to Australia and New Zealand. It is not an open border treaty or even a visa-free travel zone. There is no travel benefit to commonwealth membership.

It is not a free trade area.

Commonwealth citizens who live in the United Kingdom can vote in British elections and in a few other countries.

A few commonwealth nations offer preferential citizenship acquisition.

If we don’t have an embassy in a country but the British do, we could then use the British embassy. This is not an issue for Americans since we have relations with almost every country on Earth.

So, unless you are actively traveling in a country where the US does not have an embassy and the UK does, or if you live in a country that allows other Commonwealth citizens to vote, you likely will see no benefit from Commonwealth membership.

Optics

Keir Starmer has supported Brexit from the beginning. Over the last decade, it has become clear that the lauded “Brexit benefits” Labour and the Tories were going on about have never transpired. Instead, like every other third country, the United Kingdom now has tariffs with the European Union. They have lost the ability to travel freely around the European Union and the Schengen Area. It is no longer possible for a British citizen to live in Greece or Spain without bureaucratic paperwork.

I hope you enjoy cold rain if you supported Brexit!

Starmer, UKIP, and the Tories are grasping for some big story to make Brexit “worth it,” and they are failing. Staying out of the European Union has not led in the polls since 2023, and that one poll was a fluke. The last time staying out of the European Union consistently got 50% of the respondents in a poll was in 2022, and as time goes on, the trend is clear. Rejoining has a consistent 10-point gap in the polls. If the United Kingdom had a vote to rejoin the European Union today, it would vote in favor.

Brexit is a scam.

So Starmer is trying yet again to prove that he can “make a deal” just like his buddy Donald Trump. The King is breaking tradition now and stepping into British politics by offering Trump membership in the Commonwealth. This is a distraction meant to demonstrate some sort of “Brexit benefit” in order to push down support for rejoining the European Union. It’s utterly unacceptable.

Nothing precludes the United States from joining the Commonwealth of Nations even once the United Kingdom rejoins the European Union.

While Trump is creating trade wars with every commonwealth member, this is a reward for his unacceptable behavior. It strengthens Trump in a meaningless way by giving him a “victory” in a “deal” which is the only thing he cares about. It teaches a lesson that you will be rewarded if you bully the United Kingdom. This is the wrong message and will weaken Britain substantially.

Not only that, but the Trump Administration is pressuring Starmer to repeal hate speech laws that protect LGBT people in exchange for a “deal”.

It also looks like Keir Starmer agrees with Trump on LGBT rights.

It benefits all the wrong people. This “deal” is a bludgeon by the Trump administration to force the United Kingdom further away from the European Union, to make rejoining more difficult. They are pushing laws that will harm British citizens. The laws being pushed by Labour push Britain closer to Russia and further from the European Union.

If you are English or Welsh, I implore you to vote for the Liberal Democrats and protect your democracy.

A realistic proposal

I support deepening America’s ties with other countries in meaningful ways, and the Commonwealth of Nations is just not that meaningful.

Here is a chronological list of ways to meaningfully improve the foreign relations of Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

1.  Australia, Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States should drop eVisa/ETA requirements for each other. Go back to visa-free travel. The way to get to this is to drop the obsession with visa reciprocity and do the right thing. Perhaps implement extra screening for high-profile figures and politicians if visas are in place. I would love to see Donald Trump and Keir Starmer receive pat-downs at customs until they drop their nonsense!
2. The United Kingdom needs to rejoin the European Union or at least the European Economic Area and the Schengen Area.
3. The United States and Canada should implement an open border treaty.
4. The United States and Canada should join the European Economic Area and the Schengen Area.

Then maybe the United States will join the Commonwealth of Nations, but no one will care.

This is an actual plan that will accomplish my goals:

• Weaken Putin. The United Kingdom’s rejoining the European Union will harm Russian money laundering in London.
• Improve trade in ways that create jobs.
• Improve the relationship between North America and Europe.
• Free flow of labor between the United States, Canada, and the European Union. This improves the economy for everyone involved.
• Free movement of people seriously weakens authoritarians like Trump.
• Save money on the United States/Canada border. Lay off customs agents at our border, we don’t need them. Let’s save taxpayers money by cutting out wasteful spending, instead of this DOGE shit.
• Implement eGates at airports, saving taxpayer money by laying off unnecessary customs agents, not this DOGE shit.

These policies will actually improve the lives of American citizens instead of meaningless optics.

News Stories

https://www.newsweek.com/us-joining-king-charles-commonwealth-2049916

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/33954809/charles-trump-secret-offer-kier/

• Adopt best practices so your citizens stay and you attract young talent to boost your economy.
• Do not adopt best practices and do the opposite. Your best and brightest will leave, your budget will be harmed, you will not attract high-skilled foreigners, and you will become a pariah state.
• Leave the European Union. This will create tariffs and many other trade barriers with the largest economy in the world. You become less attractive for foreign skilled workers, who would rather go somewhere in the bloc. Importing and exporting become more complex, as we saw with Brexit.

Through the power of trade alone, the European Union ensures best practices.

It sounds good to liberal minded people like me that we should send aid down to states which are worse off, and the federal government should help states when they have budget problems. While I think there are very good reasons that everyone should have access to health care and education regardless of what state they live in, along with things like natural disaster insurance which we all pay into, there also is a part of me which wants to ensure every state in the United States and every member state in the European Union adopts best practices.

I am concerned that if a state has a budget deficit due to its own dumb decisions, you should let it see the consequences. Otherwise, you run the risk that states will engage in bad practices, draining money from states that observe best practices. This can create a cycle of dependency with no way out. Health care is necessary for life, and education is necessary for a modern economy; those must be available to everyone. But if your state runs out of money to keep roads paved, has to lay off public sector workers because of bad policies, then you should let them slide while preventing as much damage to children in school. Once they improve their policies, they will be more vibrant and contribute more to the national budget. I also don’t think low-income citizens should need to die from lack of health care because their state government is made up of idiots, though. I draw a line there. But if your roads are full of potholes because your governor is an idiot? So be it.

It has become clear to me that the American system of siphoning money from productive states to corrupt states is a way to enforce worst practices and can be counterproductive, outside of health care and education.

So I believe the best action is not to expel Hungary from the EU. Instead, they should end subsidies to Orban’s government. I have no problem with that. Let the market speak.

This is how you deal with leaders like Orban in the fairest way possible while minimizing damage to his dissidents.

While I know this is unlikely to happen as long as Donald Trump is in office, here are some fairly obvious AMTRAK expansions which should happen based solely off airport traffic data.

I might do a more thorough analysis later, but just pulling data off of Wikipedia which is from the FAA (because I’m lazy) here are obvious routes for AMTRAK to improve service.

In order to be on this list the two cities need to be closer than 1000 km and be in the top ten destinations from one of the two cities in the pair.

Vancouver – Seattle, WA. With over 600,000 passengers flying between Vancouver and Seattle with only two roundtrip trains per day, this route should really have hourly service on AMTRAK Cascades. But really we should have hourly service between Ashland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia on Cascades someday. It’s not a crazy idea.

Los Angeles – Las Vegas, with over a million passengers last year. Brightline will someday serve this route. It is the top destination for Burbank and Long Beach, the third highest for LAX, the third highest for Ontario, and the fourth highest from John Wayne.

Los Angeles – San Francisco has over a million passengers. Only one train per day and it takes almost 10 hours compared to 5 hours driving. This is ridiculous. This is why California HSR needs to exist, and I should write another post clearly outlining why building HSR in the United States is impossible. This is the 2nd most traveled destination for LAX, the 2nd, 6th, and 7th highest destination for Burbank, the 3rd and 7th most traveled destination from Long Beach, the 8th and 9th highest destination from Ontario, the 6th, 8th, and 9th busiest destination from John Wayne.

Los Angeles – Phoenix is the third highest destination for Burbank, the 4th most popular destination from Long Beach, the 3rd most popular destination from Ontario, and the busiest route from John Wayne.

Los Angeles – Sacramento is the 4th busiest destination for Burbank, the 2nd busiest from Long Beach, and the 10th busiest destination from John Wayne.

Over 7 million passengers flew from Los Angeles to these 5 airports in 2024. For comparison, Portland, Oregon served 8 million passengers in 2023. Moving these passengers from LA over to rail would have an equivalent carbon footprint to shutting down Portland International Airport. This is why building rail in California is so important for the climate.

Atlanta – Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and Miami would cut out 4.6 million passengers.

Denver – Phoenix has over a million passengers.

Denver – Las Vegas has over a million passengers.

Denver – Salt Lake City has over 900,000 passengers.

Denver – Dallas has around 900,000 passengers.

Chicago O’Hare – Toronto has over 700,000 passengers.

Las Vegas – Phoenix serves over 800,000 passengers.

Las Vegas – San Francisco serves around 800,000 passengers.

Las Vegas – San Diego has over 700,000 passengers.

Las Vegas – Sacramento has over 600,000 passengers.

Charlotte – Orlando, Miami, Tampa, and Fort Lauderdale has millions of passengers.

Charlotte – New York has over 600,000 passengers.

Charlotte – Raleigh has over 500,000 passengers. Driving is faster than taking the train, and this is unacceptable. With only 5 trains per day, this service clearly needs hourly service and to increase until the time taken is under 2 hours.Then passengers will move from flying to taking the train.

New York – Toronto serves over 800,000 passengers a year. We need more frequent and faster service to Toronto.

Phoenix – Salt Lake City serves over 700,000 passengers per year.

Phoenix – San Diego serves over 600,000 passengers per year.

Houston – Dallas serves over 600,000 passengers per year.

Houston – Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico serves over 400,000 passengers per year. We finally have our first Mexican city on this list.

Boston – Toronto serves over 200,000 passengers per year.

Minneapolis – Chicago serves over 600,000 passengers per year. AMTRAK just beefed up service on this route a few years ago and it was an instant success. This shows how expanding AMTRAK service where we have high air traffic between two cities which are not too far apart is a good strategy for establishing more routes. Now we just need to increase frequency on the route.

These 25 routes are from my brief overview of readily available statistics the best routes for expanding AMTRAK service by improving rail lines up to high speed standards across the country while increasing frequency.

We have already seen recognition of this, from California HSR, Brightline West and Brightline East, and the creation of a new AMTRAK route between Chicago and Minneapolis. It is clear that using existing market data to plan new train service is a good strategy which works.

This is what the map looks like in practice. The Southwest and improving the East Coast corridor south of DC are the obvious places to increase AMTRAK services, including improving connectivity to Toronto, while beefing up AMTRAK Cascades.

This is an easy way to reduce emissions while making our airports less congested.

There is no downside. Let’s do it.

Some people still think the Department of Justice is independent of the president. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the American system of government works. The Department of Justice works for the President as part of the cabinet. It is not an independent agency. It is no more independent than the Department of State or the Department of Energy.

Congress writes laws, and the President signs them, though vetoes can be overridden. The President’s primary job is to enforce the law. Through this the President has departments, the original 4 secretaries are the Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, and the Attorney General. These four departments and 11 more report directly to the President in cabinet meetings.

There are also a few other agencies and departments separate from these departments, and there are also some agencies which do not report directly to the President, such as the Federal Reserve. Some agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress report directly to Congress. But the Department of Justice is part of the cabinet.

The Attorney General is the principal legal advisor to the President. Always has been, always will be. We need to not pretend she is independent. The Attorney General has never been independent. The word independent does not appear even once in the office’s Wikipedia page, but president appears 8 times. Given how the Department of Justice is part of the cabinet it is unreasonable to expect the Department of Justice to investigate the President. The Attorney General would literally be investigating her own boss. That is unreasonable, so that is not how our government has ever worked.

If you read into the Watergate Scandal you will quickly realize that it was not the Department of Justice which investigated Watergate, but a select committee appointed by the Senate. The Attorney General was one of the people being investigated, he was not part of the investigative team. In fact, Attorney General John N. Mitchell served 19 months in prison as a result of the scandal.

The Attorney General office was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be the government’s chief lawyer. So when the Government goes to court, the Attorney General or an attorney in her department will generally represent the government. The entire role of the office is to defend the executive branch in court and provide legal advice to the president.

Point is, this idea that the Department of Justice will investigate the Executive Department is laughable and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works.

The way the law is enforced in the United States is the courts determine guilt. The President has no say in this matter. So the courts have the ability to limit the President’s power, telling the President what act he can and cannot do. The President is required to follow the courts. This is the foundation of our system of government.

But what happens when the President violates the law, is found guilty by the courts, and decides that he will just continue his corrupt actions? Well, that’s an impeachable offense. This is where the American system of government has a clever solution to solve the problem.

Since the President appoints judges who are approved by congress, our founding fathers realized that the court system could not be trusted to do an impartial investigation of the President, neither could they be trusted to be impartial in determining the President’s guilt. If they had done it that way, Presidents would deliberately pick corrupt judges who would be the least likely to rule against him. It would be too prone to corruption, so we don’t do it that way. Instead, only Congress has the power to remove the President from office before his time is up. The President has no say in who is elected to Congress, and everyone is represented in that branch, so it is the most fair way to do it. Congress has the right to setup committees to investigate the President’s behavior, they even have the power to impeach justices, even though this has only happened once. In some ways Congress is the most powerful branch of government except for how the President has the military behind him. This keeps the system balanced so no one person has too much power.

We are in multiple constitutional crises right now. I am keeping a tally of Trump’s most egregious impeachable offenses here. Congress needs to impeach and remove the President, and they will not do so, so we are down to our next check on power which comes down to the states.

There has been a long-established precedent that federal law trumps state law. This is rooted in the supremacy clause of the fourth article of the constitution. There are many court cases reinforcing this interpretation.

But here’s where we get into an interesting question. If the President instructs a federal officer to do something illegal within a state, does the state have the right to enforce federal law over a federal agent within that state’s borders?

So if a federal ICE officer who is under the executive branch abducts a US citizen from the streets of Jersey City, New Jersey, does the state government of New Jersey have the right to sue that officer on behalf of the citizen who was abducted? Not suing the executive branch deliberately, but instead suing the individual officer who has violated the law.

We should not charge the federal government directly, that will go straight to the federal courts, but if Democratic state governments directly charged federal agents for violating state law within their borders, could they issue a summons for those officers and charge them under state courts for violating the rights of the state’s citizens? The only possible reason they should not is qualified immunity, but qualified immunity should not exist. If you don’t want to do the time, you shouldn’t have done the crime, right?

So then if the federal officer then appealed to federal court and the federal court ruled the officer did violate the law, then they could be arrested in a state prison where the President has little to no power.

With stacked federal courts, a corrupt president, and a congress which is unwilling to do any oversight over the executive branch, our last remaining check on the president’s power is to enforce the law through the state courts.

It’s just a thought, but I think this is a realistic strategy, while expecting the Attorney General to investigate her boss is fantasy land even under the cleanest administration.

Geographical determinism is a theory which gets thrown around sometimes in amateur political science circles, but ultimately it doesn’t make a lot of sense, neither does it have significant predictive power.

No one geographic feature does a good job at describing any one political factor. However, political factors do a good job at describing economic factors.

When testing geographic determinism, its important to include political factors which overpower the relatively small impact geography makes in quality of government.

I just wrote How Democrats and Republicans Win, read that first.

So we have 7 keys to win control of the House of Representatives, along with my projection:

• Strong short-term economy: False
• Strong long-term economy: False
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, alienating NATO and tariff policy
• Major foreign or military success: False, Trump is not going to be responsible for what happens in Ukraine
• Charismatic president: False, Trump is highly unpopular
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: Irrelevant

As long as Democrats campaign everywhere in the Midterms, 2026 is going to be a blood bath for Republicans.

Before reading this, read 2024 Was Lost On Turnout if you haven’t already.

The secret to winning elections is turning out your base.

Republicans won in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2010, and 2014 because of a collapse in turnout for the Democrats. Republicans consistently see more consistent voting in House elections in Presidential election years vs midterms compared to Democrats.

From 2008 to 2016 Democrats saw wild swings of over 20 million votes between presidential and midterm elections. Republicans only saw a swing that large in 2006 and 2016. This is what led to Republicans winning every midterm when Obama was President. During that era the Democrats had stopped using the 50-state strategy, trying to pick races, instead of investing everywhere while Republicans were invested everywhere. The inevitable consequence is the Republicans performed well in districts Democrats did not invest in. Picking districts is like picking stocks. Sometimes you get lucky, most of the time you don’t.

The 2010 “red wave” was not so much of a red wave but a collapse of the Democratic party’s strategy.

In 2022 Democrats lost 25 million votes compared to 2020, their second largest drop in the modern party system, second only to 2010. That is why Republicans won the midterms under Biden. I need to do further investigation into the 2022 exit polls to see exactly which issues voters were unhappy with at the time and disagreed with Biden. That’s another post for the future.

In 2018 for comparison Democrats saw their vote count drop by only a million votes which gave them victory. The challenge for Biden and the DNC was how could they have governed in a way which would have led Americans to continue to keep a consistent vote for the Democrats in the 2022 midterms. That’s what it’s all about. Govern in a way that people want to keep you in office, and then communicate about it.

I define our modern party system as 1994 to present when the Southern Democrats finally defected to the Republican Party, leading to more clear ideological distinctions between parties.

A challenge for Democrats however is due to how the demographics of Democratic voters are concentrated in cities, and given our voting system we need to win by a margin of at least 2% in order to have a chance of winning the most seats in the House. If Democrats win less than 51% of the vote (excluding third parties), Republicans will win the House. This is due primarily to urban districts being heavily democratic which leads to a lot of wasted votes. So overall Democrats need to perform well in suburban swing districts which pushes our vote total over 51% of the vote.

But ultimately, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, they key to winning elections is to stay popular. Democrats have a slight disadvantage in our election system because we have so many voters in large urban areas, but it’s not impossible to overcome. The ingredients are simply a modified Keys to the White House, plus a few more. Let’s call it Keys to the House. Let’s test the following keys:

• Strong short-term economy
• Strong long-term economy
• Major policy change
• No foreign or military failure
• Major foreign or military success
• Charismatic president
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition

All of this is compared to the president’s party.

So we can now use this system to look at recent elections.

2002 Midterms

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: True, PATRIOT Act
• No foreign or military failure, True
• Major foreign or military success, True, we removed Al Qaeda
• Charismatic president: True, Rally around the flag after 9/11
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition

From this the other two keys don’t matter which makes it clear why Bush was able to be the first Republican to win a trifecta in his first midterm since Calvin Coolidge.

The system accurately predicts the 2002 midterms.

2004 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: True, it was a very productive congress
• No foreign or military failure: True
• Major foreign or military success: True, removed Saddam Hussein
• Charismatic president: True, Bush’s approval was still over 50%
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition

Unsurprisingly, Republicans won the 2004 election.

2006 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: True, Real ID, tax cuts
• No foreign or military failure: False, Iraq was collapsing
• Major foreign or military success: False, Neither wars had concluded
• Charismatic president: False, Bush’s popularity had tanked
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False, Howard Dean won this election with the 50 state strategy

The system correctly predicts the 2006 election.

2008 election

• Strong short-term economy: False
• Strong long-term economy: False
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, Iraq was seeing increasing terrorism, Invasion of Georgia
• Major foreign or military success: False, Both Iraq and Afghanistan were failing
• Charismatic president: False, Bush was horribly unpopular
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False, Howard Dean was very successful

It is no wonder Obama won a trifecta in 2008.

2010 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: True
• No foreign or military failure: True
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: True
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False

This is what this system is hiding. There is only one key which matters in how well you perform in the midterms. Are you campaigning more than your opponent, and does your strategy work. If that key is false, you will lose the election.

That’s not the only thing the election comes down to. There is only one key to the House of Representatives. Do a better job getting more ethical and qualified people nominated, support them to victory, and win.

The Fifty State Strategy is the dominant strategy to win the House of Representatives. If one party uses it, and the other party does not, the Fifty State Strategy will win. If both parties use it, look at the other keys.

2012 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False
• Major foreign or military success: True
• Charismatic president: True
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False

The Democrats almost won the 2012 election, but since the Republicans were using the 50 state strategy and Democrats were not, the Republicans won a razor thin majority. But Democrats won more votes, as the system predicts.

2014 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, Ukraine war
• Major foreign or military success: True
• Charismatic president:
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False

Republicans were using the 50 state strategy but Democrats were not. I suppose Obama was no longer seen as charismatic by enough Americans at this point, making the system accurate to the result. Having to deal with 4 years of a Republican House will do that.

2016 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: True
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: False
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False

The system accurately predicts the Republicans would win the 2016 election.

2018 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, Russian campaigning for Donald Trump was coming to light.
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: False
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False

Unsurprisingly, Democrats won the 2018 midterm.

2020 election

• Strong short-term economy: False
• Strong long-term economy: False
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, inability to contain coronavirus in China, Taliban “deal”
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: False, Trump was extremely unpopular
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: False, Democrats were using the 50 state strategy

With 51% of the two-party vote Democrats won a small majority in the House.

2022 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, Afghanistan, Ukraine
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: False
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: True

Looking at it this way, it is not surprising Republicans won the 2022 midterm. Both parties now use the 50 state strategy, as we can see with record turnout.

2024 election

• Strong short-term economy: True
• Strong long-term economy: True
• Major policy change: False
• No foreign or military failure: False, Ukraine, Israel
• Major foreign or military success: False
• Charismatic president: False, Biden was unpopular
• Campaigning in more districts than the opposition: True

Identical to the 2022 election. Biden failed to learn from losing the midterms, failed to correct his mistakes, and kept too many keys False.

Conclusion

Just like how the Keys to the White House is a recipe for winning the Presidency, we can easily take a subset of those keys, and adding in one more regarding internal party functions, we can accurately predict how Americans vote in House of Representatives elections.

Voters are not stupid. In order to keep power you have to govern well, communicate well, and have a functional party policy. This is why in other countries if a party loses the election their leader is immediately booted from office. This is a good custom which the Democratic Party should adopt. You get one shot to win an election, and if you lose, you are replaced. If you win, you may choose to stay on as long as you bring on good results.

As a trained political scientist, this is so obvious to me.

I have recorded historical congressional data beyond what Wikipedia has in this spreadsheet. Enjoy.