Jia Lissa
This week on Uncanny Valley, Leah Feiger, Director of Politics and Science, hosted a special midterms episode with WIRED’s politics team, featuring Hugo Lowell, David Gilbert, and Vittoria Elliott. The discussion centered on the Democrats’ surprising and substantial victories in both the House and Senate, the ensuing blame game within the Republican Party, the significant financial misstep of Elon Musk’s super PAC, a widespread voter rebuke of data center expansion, and the unusual silence from election deniers. This comprehensive analysis offers critical insights into the shifting political landscape and potential ramifications for the 2028 election cycle.
The Democratic Resurgence: A Sweeping Victory Beyond Expectations
The recent midterm elections delivered an unexpected and decisive victory for the Democratic Party, which not only defied historical trends typically favoring the opposition party in midterms but also significantly exceeded the party’s own internal projections. Democrats secured a net gain of four seats in the Senate and three in the House, far surpassing the modest gains they had optimistically hoped for. The scale of this sweep caught many by surprise, with strategists within the party acknowledging that such a favorable outcome had been beyond their "wildest dreams."
Key battleground states, previously considered safely Republican or intensely competitive, saw dramatic shifts. In Arizona, a deep red state, races for prominent positions remained uncalled for an extended period, reflecting an unforeseen level of Democratic competitiveness. Mississippi, home to long-serving Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, witnessed an unexpectedly tight contest, shaking the perception of previously secure incumbents. Perhaps one of the most astonishing outcomes was in South Carolina, where a candidate handpicked and endorsed by former President Trump, Darline Graham, ultimately lost her bid to inherit her brother’s seat. This result underscored a significant weakening of Trump’s endorsement power, even in historically reliable Republican territories.
Further illustrating the breadth of the Democratic surge, states like Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina, and Michigan all saw crucial races swing in favor of Democratic candidates. These victories represent a stark reversal of the gains made by the Republican Party in the fictional 2024 presidential election cycle. According to Hugo Lowell, a senior correspondent covering the Trump White House, these states swung by as much as 10 points back towards Democrats. This dramatic shift suggests that the coalition Trump had built in 2024, characterized by double-digit leads in battleground states, has largely unraveled within a mere 18 to 20 months. Analysts attribute this reversal to a combination of factors, including Trump’s "vanity projects," his controversial acts within the federal government, and, significantly, his leadership in an increasingly unpopular and economically burdensome war with Iran.
The Republican Reckoning: Blame Game Begins Amidst Losses
In the immediate aftermath of the midterm wipeout, the Republican Party quickly descended into a contentious blame game. Former President Trump, whose influence and policies were widely seen as central to the party’s performance, initially attributed the losses to the "quality of the candidates" and the fact that he "wasn’t on the ballot." He also pointed fingers at Fox News, accusing the network of platforming too many Democrats and thus contributing to the unfavorable outcomes.
However, the MAGA base, typically fiercely loyal to Trump, did not entirely concur with his assessment. David Gilbert, a senior reporter specializing in disinformation and extremism, reported on how the MAGA community "went feral" online as the results poured in. Initially, there was a stunned silence, particularly evident on platforms frequented by right-wing commentators like Steve Bannon, who reportedly expressed disbelief at the unfolding results, especially in Texas. As the shock subsided, a clear consensus emerged among many in the base: the losses were a direct consequence of the unpopular war with Iran, which Trump had initiated and continued.
Figures such as Matt Walsh, an influential right-wing podcaster known for his critical stance on the war, unequivocally laid the blame at Trump’s feet. Walsh famously described Trump as "an 80-year-old lame duck president" and labeled the election results a "political catastrophe of historic proportions." This marked a significant departure from previous cycles, where criticism of Trump from within his own base was rare and often muted. Gilbert noted that the pushback was so strong and the extent of the losses so undeniable that "there really wasn’t anywhere else to look" but at Trump himself. This internal rebellion signals a potential fracturing within the MAGA movement, with significant implications for Trump’s future political standing and influence.
Inside the White House: Scapegoats and Misinformation on the Iran War
The blame game extended beyond public commentary, penetrating the inner circles of the White House and the Trump administration. Hugo Lowell’s reporting revealed an internal struggle to assign responsibility without directly implicating the president. The primary scapegoat quickly became Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense (or "Secretary of War," as he was colloquially known within the administration). Hegseth was heavily criticized for his unwavering encouragement of Trump to continue the Iran war, having been a vocal "cheerleader" for kinetic strikes, extended deployments in the Middle East, and an unapologetic champion of the conflict.
A particularly damning piece of reporting highlighted that Hegseth’s intelligence reports to the president regarding the Iran war were consistently "rosy" and "glowing." This led to a critical breakdown in trust, compelling Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to seek out their own, independent intelligence briefings. Sources indicated that Vance and Rubio, both known for their voracious consumption of intelligence products even before the Iran conflict, prioritized obtaining an "unvarnished, somber look at the situation on the ground in Iran." They recognized the necessity of arming themselves with accurate facts to properly advise the president and to safeguard their own political ambitions.
This internal dynamic suggests a profound disconnect between the information Trump was receiving and the reality of the war. Had Trump received a more accurate, less characterized assessment of the conflict, he might have been less inclined to prolong it, especially in the crucial months leading up to the midterms. The implications of such a deliberate misrepresentation of intelligence are severe, not only for the conduct of foreign policy but also for the integrity of the administration and the public’s trust. It underscores how internal political machinations and personal ambitions can distort critical decision-making, leading to profound political consequences.
Elon Musk’s Costly Gamble: A $400 Million Misstep
One of the most striking financial stories of the midterm cycle was the colossal spending by Elon Musk’s America PAC. Musk poured over $400 million into the elections, primarily targeting Democratic candidates and supporting Republican challengers. However, according to a WIRED analysis, this massive investment largely failed to deliver its intended impact. By Wednesday morning after the elections, candidates backed by America PAC had lost 20 races and secured only a single victory, with several races still undecided. To put it in stark terms, for every traceable dollar Musk invested in a decided race, more than 99 cents went to a losing effort.
Vittoria Elliott noted that just two years prior, America PAC was perceived as a formidable new force in Republican politics, attracting not only Musk’s funds but also significant contributions from prominent venture capitalists like Shaun Maguire. The PAC’s strategy, akin to venture capital investment, involved pumping vast sums of money into races with the expectation that sheer financial power would secure wins. However, this strategy "crashed and burned" in the midterms. Early indications, particularly in the months following Musk’s controversial actions on social media platforms (referred to as "DOGE" in the transcript, likely a placeholder for a fictional event or Musk’s disruptive tenure at X/Twitter), suggested that Musk himself had become a "toxic" brand for Republican candidates to associate with.
This created a "monkey’s paw situation," as Elliott described it: candidates could accept America PAC money, but in doing so, they became "tarred with the Musk brand." This association proved to be more detrimental than the financial benefits it conferred, essentially canceling out the advantage or even turning it into a liability. Hugo Lowell further contextualized Musk’s spending, noting that close to $500 million—half a billion dollars—was spent, effectively operating as a "shadow Republican national committee." While acknowledging that some losses might have been even greater without this funding, Lowell questioned what this money actually bought Musk.
Despite the immediate electoral failures, some Republican operatives suggest Musk’s long-term goal might be to establish himself as a "kingmaker" for the 2028 presidential cycle. If he continues to invest such astronomical sums, potentially half a billion dollars or more, no other individual or PAC could realistically compete on the financial front. However, Leah Feiger countered this, arguing that the midterm results demonstrate that money alone did not matter; voters were so incensed with Republicans and Trump’s mandate that even vast wealth could not sway outcomes. The crucial takeaway for many is that, at least in this cycle, an endorsement from Elon Musk might be more of a political burden than an asset. The debate over whether voters distinguish between PAC funding sources or simply associate candidates with the "toxic" brand of a billionaire remains a critical question for future elections.
The Data Center Referendum: Voters Reject Big Tech Expansion
Beyond the electoral battles for congressional seats, the midterms also saw a surprising and widespread voter backlash against the expansion of data centers and the broader AI industry. This phenomenon was widely dubbed the "data center referendum" by WIRED, and the results were unequivocal: across the country, 40 ballot measures related to AI data center projects were put before voters, and an astonishing 39 of them were restricted. An NBC exit poll further underscored the significance of this issue, revealing that almost a quarter of all voters cited data centers as crucial to their vote.
Vittoria Elliott and science senior reporter Molly Taft’s reporting for WIRED highlighted several key reasons for this profound rejection. Firstly, it tapped into a broader public resentment of the tech industry, particularly its perceived rightward swing and the influence of "unelected billionaires." Data centers and AI became the tangible embodiment of this sentiment. Secondly, significant environmental concerns surrounded these facilities, which are known for their massive energy and water consumption. This resonated particularly strongly in rural communities, where many data centers are proposed or built.
The issue transcended traditional partisan lines, becoming a "bipartisan uniting effort" even in historically Republican-leaning communities. Candidates quickly adapted to this newfound voter sentiment. In South Carolina, Darline Graham, the Trump-backed candidate, was pejoratively dubbed "Data Center Darline" due to her acceptance of money from data center PACs. In Montana, a Democratic up-and-comer, Sam Forstag, saw his opponent tarred with the "data center label" in a historically Republican district. Even the threat of a data center in a community became a potent rallying cry, as exemplified by Chris Pappas in New Hampshire, who campaigned on preventing such developments.
Voters articulated clear objections: data centers consume local water resources, generate noise pollution, drive up electricity bills amid an affordability crisis, and are perceived as job-killers in communities struggling with employment. Jon Ossoff, after winning his Senate race in Georgia, specifically used his victory speech to denounce Silicon Valley titans who "build bunkers" and warned of AI’s potential to cause "human extinction." This public outcry represents a significant challenge for the tech industry and suggests that communities are no longer willing to accept these developments without stringent regulation and public oversight. The question remains whether this rallying cry will maintain its intensity in future election cycles.
The Unprecedented Silence of Election Deniers
In a stark contrast to their behavior in previous elections, the hundreds of election deniers who ran in the recent midterms remained largely silent in the face of widespread defeat. David Gilbert’s reporting revealed that these candidates, who had consistently backed Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of a stolen 2020 election, offered no challenges, no demands for recounts, and no accusations of fraud after their significant losses.
Many prominent election deniers, including Andy Biggs (running for governor in Arizona) and Mike Rogers (running for a Senate seat in Michigan), both of whom had supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 results, lost their races. Jim Marchant, an "OG election denier" running for Secretary of State in Nevada—a crucial position overseeing state elections—was easily defeated by the incumbent, Cisco Aguilar. What was particularly remarkable was the absence of the usual "buzzwords" in their concession speeches: no mentions of election security, vote rigging, election fraud, or non-citizens voting.
The primary reason for this silence was the overwhelming margins of defeat, which made any claims of fraud appear untenable and absurd. Furthermore, the organizations that typically fuel this movement, such as Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network and True to Vote, as well as funders like Patrick Byrne, also remained conspicuously quiet. This led Gilbert to ponder whether this marked the "beginning of the end" for the election denial movement, suggesting that many might have realized that "these elections are secure, it’s just people really don’t like what Trump is doing and the policies that he has."
The stakes were particularly high in races for Attorney General and Secretary of State, positions that directly impact how elections are run at the state level. Had these election-denying candidates won, they could have significantly undermined the integrity of the upcoming 2028 election. Hugo Lowell raised the question of whether Trump’s relatively swift acceptance of the midterm results played a role in the deniers’ silence, essentially signaling to his followers that it was time to "stand down." While some skepticism remains about the movement’s complete demise, given its past resilience and the financial incentives for some involved, the unprecedented quiet suggests a significant dissipation of its energy, at least for now.
Looking Ahead to 2028: A Reshaped Political Landscape
With the midterms concluded, attention inevitably turns to the 2028 presidential election, set against a newly reshaped political landscape. On the Democratic side, a potentially wide-open field is emerging, with names like Jon Ossoff, AOC, and Gavin Newsom already circulating. Their viability will depend heavily on how the new dynamics of Congress play out and how they can capitalize on the current wave of Democratic momentum.
For Republicans, the path to 2028 is considerably more complicated. The midterm results have disrupted many timelines and strategies. Vice President JD Vance, widely considered a front-runner, had reportedly planned an early announcement post-midterms with his donor base largely secured. However, the "stench" of the midterm losses makes an immediate announcement politically untenable. Vance now faces a "nuanced and difficult decision" regarding the timing of his potential run. Similarly, Marco Rubio, another potential contender, who was previously thought to be less enthralled with a presidential bid and saw Vance as the heir apparent, must now reassess his options. The question for both is whether to wait, to announce simultaneously, or to seize what they perceive as an opportune moment if the other flames out. Analysts suggest that all potential candidates are likely to take a step back and observe how the political environment evolves over the next six to twelve months.
A critical question for Republicans is the enduring power of Donald Trump’s endorsement. While it clearly weakened for congressional candidates, with even loyalists like Lauren Boebert and Thomas Massie showing signs of independence (e.g., voting to release the Epstein files despite Trump’s position), its impact on a presidential primary remains more complex. Presidential hopefuls will still need to attract Trump’s base, a large and dedicated voting bloc. Disowning them completely is not a viable strategy, as winning the nomination likely requires at least a portion of these "super MAGA voters." Without Trump’s endorsement, securing these votes becomes a significant challenge.
However, the midterms also demonstrated the fluidity of this voting coalition. While Trump captured them in 2024, he lost them in this cycle. This suggests that these voters can be won over again, depending on the news cycle and political climate in 2028. This understanding will likely inform Republican primary strategies, focusing on how to appeal to Trump’s base while simultaneously broadening their appeal. The incoming Democratic-controlled Congress is also expected to be aggressive, with calls for "subpoena, subpoena, subpoenas" echoing through the party. However, this will likely face friction with a Trump administration Department of Justice, led by AG Todd Blanche, which may be unenthusiastic about assisting congressional oversight. The coming years promise a fascinating and potentially tumultuous political journey as both parties navigate a drastically altered landscape toward the next presidential election.
