If the Republicans Lose the Midterms, Who's Really to Blame?

I agree with Speaker Mike Johnson to a point: if the Republicans lose the midterms, it really could mark the end of the Trump presidency. But he's wrong about the why.

A president's agenda only becomes durable when Congress codifies it. Executive orders are a great tool. But they can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

Remember day one of the Biden administration? Anyone?

Johnson's latest remark on the midterms suggests Republicans might lose because of Trump's recent State of the Union remarks about potentially cutting federal Medicaid funding in Minnesota over fraud concerns. And sure, that may influence some voters. But it's not the real issue.

The real problem is that Republican voters are frustrated. They feel like the party has been sitting still since Trump was elected. What major legislation has been passed? How much has Congress actually done to advance the president's agenda? Did they codify the DOGE findings?

No.

What did they do to eliminate the filibuster—something they could have done during the prolonged government shutdown? Something they should have done, given that Democrats have made it abundantly clear they have zero interest in helping Trump move anything forward. Compromise of any sort is out the window, even if it something actually makes sense.

Sure. The filibuster does have its purpose. Even I can agree with that. It encourages debate and compromise. In a rational political climate, it even makes sense. It's a way to balance power and give both sides a voice on bills.

But we're not in that climate. Democrats are angry, defiant, and convinced Trump is an existential threat. They're not budging on anything, even if it's reasonable. They couldn't even stand in support of putting American's safety in front of the safety of illegal immigrants, for Heaven's sake.

Ending the filibuster would have allowed the Republicans to pass the SAVE Act and other key parts of Trump's agenda.

What Johnson—and frankly much of the GOP leadership—seems to miss is that voters elected Trump for a reason. Despite what the media suggests, and what Democrats want to deny, it was a mandate. Yet Republicans in Congress have often acted just as resistant to Trump's agenda as Democrats. That's a problem, because Republican voters don't show up just to keep a party in power. They want results. And when they don't see results, they hold their own side accountable.

So, if Republicans lose the midterms, it won't be because of anything Trump said. It will be because Congress refused to act.

Johnson is right about one thing: if Democrats win in November, they've already told us what's coming—two years of investigations and potential impeachment hearings, their own end to the filibuster, endless legislation designed to box in the president, and total gridlock. It would turn this administration into one of the most powerless lame-duck presidencies in modern history. Any hope of advancing Trump's agenda at all would evaporate.

That's why Johnson's comments concern me. They suggest he doesn't understand why Republicans are actually at risk. If you don't know why you're losing, you can't possibly strategize how to win.

It's not too late. The SAVE Act is already in the Senate. It just needs to be brought to a vote. Yes, getting 60 votes under the current filibuster rule is unlikely. Even reverting to a talking filibuster might not be enough. But at least voters would see Republicans trying—showing urgency, showing fight, showing they understand the stakes.

If the Republicans lose the midterms, it won't be because of Trump. Forget what the polls say. Americans want Trump's agenda. That was made clear when he was elected, because his agenda is exactly what he campaigned on that got him elected. If the Republicans lose it will be because they refused to hear the voters who elected them to do the work to codify the mandate.

Voters gave Republicans their trust in 2024. They expected action. They expected progress. They expected the mandate to be honored. If Republicans squandered that, and they mostly have, they shouldn't expect voters to hand them another chance.

Republicans only win when they act. They don't get the free passes Democrats do. They have to listen to their voters. They have to do the work. And they have to earn every vote.

So, to Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune, the question is simple:

What are you going to do to win the midterms? We, the voters, are ready to do our part. When will you do yours?

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2026 Jim Bauer

The Responsibility We Keep Forgetting When We Stop Thinking

Sometimes you stop and wonder. What's gone wrong with our system? On paper, it's representative government—the voice of the People. And yet, that's exactly where the trouble begins. Or it's at least where a lot of it is now.

There's an old saying. Bad data in, bad data out. If we feed a system the wrong inputs, we shouldn't be surprised when the outputs disappoint us.

We complain endlessly about ineffective mayors, governors, and local officials who seem to make everything worse. They mismanage, they mislead, they muddy the waters. But when the dust settles, who's really at fault? Is it the politicians who fall short—or is it us, the voters who put them there?

Because at the end of the day we're the ones making the choices. We're the ones who accept the promises, overlook the failures, or ignore them entirely. And when a leader faces serious criticism yet still wins reelection, it raises a hard question: how seriously are we taking our responsibility as voters?

Yes, elected officials hold power. But that power originates with us. And that means the real issue isn't just leadership. It's the quality of the electorate. As a society, we've grown less skeptical, less curious, and far too willing to accept whatever the mainstream narrative tells us, even when we suspect bias is baked into every angle.

Social media hasn't helped. Oh, sure. We think it does. We think it counters the dishonest media. The truth is, instead of encouraging open dialogue, it often creates and rewards echo chambers. People don't want to ask questions anymore. They want to be affirmed. They want to block out anything that challenges their worldview. That's not empowerment. That's self-imposed silence.

There's a quote—I can't recall who said it—that goes, "Every dollar we spend casts a vote for the kind of world we want to live in." It was meant about commerce and environmental choices, but it applies just as well to voting. If we end up with poor leadership, it's because we collectively chose it. Or, on the flip side, we allowed ourselves to make a bad choice.

Our vote matters. It shapes what comes next. It determines who holds power and what they do with it.

Blaming officials when things go wrong is easy. It lets us dodge responsibility. We can always say, "Well, I didn't vote for that person." And sometimes that's true. But the deeper question is, when we made whatever choice we ultimately made, how did we vote? Any of us. All of us. On either side of the aisle.

How did we make our choice?

Did we listen carefully? Did we research? Or did we rely on a party label, a news outlet, a social media circle, or a blogger who already agreed with us?

Ultimately, voters decide the direction of the country—right or wrong, good or bad. So, when things fall apart, at what point do we admit that some of the blame belongs to us? When do we acknowledge that maybe we're part of the problem?

People often argue for term limits. But in a way we already have them. We always have. They're called elections. If we had a more informed, more engaged, more discerning voting public, we wouldn't need set limits. Leaders who fail would simply be voted out.

But there is a catch there. It's in how we evaluate successes and failures as much as anything. Are we honest about what's a successful thing and what's gone wrong? Or do we determine that by the same cues offered from our political biases, news outlets, social media circles, and a closed mind way of thinking?

The founders never intended for unfit leaders to rise to power. They intended for the People to choose wisely—to be the penultimate safeguard of the Republic.

Which means, ultimately, that if the system is failing, it's because we are failing. We're the ones checking the boxes. We're the ones shaping the world we live in. And we're also the ones who have allowed ourselves to be so divided that critical thinking and compromise are like relics.

If we want to climb out of this mess, the solution isn't louder voices—it's sharper minds. We need to listen more carefully, think more independently, and stop outsourcing our judgement to whatever source shouts the loudest—or simply shouts the things we prefer to hear.

Do you like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Argument Against Voter ID in Wisconsin Is Silliness

If ever there was a word in the english language that has been overused, and frankly misused in the last few years, it is the word 'disenfranchise.' And it happens to be a word often used when opponents of the voter ID laws in Wisconsin try and make their arguments against the law. "Requiring voter ID," they say, "infringes on the rights of certain people to exercise their Constitutional right to vote in an election."

I say this is a load of hogwash because the way I see it, making that claim could be applied to any number of opportunities we may wish to take part in. For example driving a car, or buying a pack of cigarettes, or a six-pack of beer. In Wisconsin, and I'm certain this is also the case in other states as well, one must have a valid photo ID to receive food stamps, to cash a check, to make a withdrawal from a bank account, and the list goes on.

The bottom line comes down to something very basic for me. Participating in certain things requires us doing the basic things to actually do it.

While it's not along quite the same line, if I want to start a business for example, I have to obtain a license. I may need to find investors or obtain a small business loan to get started. Using the argument of the opponents of the voter ID laws, making me do these basic things may disenfranchise me. Requring me to do these things may make it harder, or impossible to actually start a business.

The simple fact is that if I want to start a business I must do the basic things to do this. Just like if I want to drive a car I must obtain a license. Heck, you need a license to fish or hunt too.

And how hard is it really to obtain some form of legal photo ID I wonder? If one really wants to cast a vote and exercise their right, they should not be looking for a way to play the role of the victim and cry woe-is-me I can't vote. They should be looking for a way to do the basic things they need to do to go to the polls and vote. If they are not willing to that, these people are not disenfranchised. They are creating their own circumstances. The tools are there. The opportunities are there, and the argument against voter ID laws in Wisconsin is just nothing more than silliness and whining.