Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @JDVance @ImdaVinman
Thanks for acknowledging these things. Better late than never. I’ll send you the hat.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @JDVance
This is a lot of words for "I'm an opportunistict asshole who once called the President Hitler and threw out my spine for a seat on the couch in the Oval."
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @JDVance
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @JDVance
You lost because you and Trump spent two years acting like a fascist regime, not because of “the war.” Voters saw the authoritarianism and rejected it. Own it.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @JDVance
How did that Ramaswamy ad that you promoted turn out? You’re done loser
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
You'll try to walk back all the hate, bigotry, and awful self-serving decisions you made just to be included in the same room as Donald Trump... but the stench is going to stay with you forever, JD.
We're going to make sure of it.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Replying to @BuckSexton
Sexually ambiguous? Do you own a mirror? Have you ever seen your own hair, Wilma Flintstone?
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
This is the hate Americans said absolutely no to last night in droves. It gives me hope that we have a chance at getting back to decency. This isn’t about red and blue. This is about what’s right and wrong.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
For the record, as much as I’ve always despised Trump I’ve also always believed JD Vance was even worse.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Last night, women broke barriers and records across the country. That incredible progress started with women who, generations ago, dared to break the mold and push open doors that had been closed to them for far too long. These milestones are a powerful reminder that when women can step into their power, they expand what’s possible for those who come next—and that our democracy is stronger when our government reflects the people it serves. nbcnews.com/politics/2026-el…
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
Woodward’s reaction to the Nov. 3rd election and the overwhelming public rejection of Trump.
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
“Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the famously anti-Trump GOP lawmaker, told CNN he plans to trigger a vote to impeach Hegseth when Congress returns next week — and multiple GOP sources said they expect it to pass.” cnn.com/2026/11/04/politics/…
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
“Collins’s stroll around the ballroom was, in retrospect, not a victory lap but a farewell. She would not return to the party. Shortly after midnight, she called the Democrat Troy Jackson to congratulate him on his win
“Collins made no concession speech” theatlantic.com/politics/202…
Elizabeth 🌊🗳 retweeted
BREAKING: SUSPECT! Pete Hegseth's wife under ethics SCRUTINY over consulting payments tied to a major Pentagon contractor.
While Pete Hegseth runs the Pentagon (poorly, we must say), his wife reportedly has a front-row seat to all he does, and she’s been collecting consulting money from a firm that works for one of its biggest contractors.
According to POLITICO, Jennifer Hegseth disclosed that she was paid for consulting by Watchtower Strategy, an influential Trump-aligned public affairs firm. One of Watchtower’s clients is Lockheed Martin. Public records show the federal government paid Lockheed more than $66 billion during the fiscal year she was paid.
This wouldn’t matter much if she were just a Cabinet spouse staying out of her husband’s work. She isn’t.
The Daily Beast describes her as an unofficial adviser to her husband who has embedded herself in daily Defense Department operations. The New York Times reported that in late 2024, before his confirmation hearing, she attended closed-door meetings with Republican senators and sat in on interviews with people who wanted jobs under him. Some senior officials and politicians told the Times her closeness to sensitive defense conversations was “not normal.”
There’s a family connection too. Her father was a Lockheed Martin executive. He died in 2009. The Pentagon says everything is fine. They would, wouldn’t they?
Spokesperson Sean Parnell said the couple is “in full compliance with all ethics laws and regulations.” He called any suggestion otherwise “ridiculous slander.” He also said the department works to “ensure senior leaders are completely screened” from private interests. He did not say whether Jennifer has been screened for a security clearance, which is a strange thing to leave out about someone sitting in on Pentagon business.
A spokesperson for Watchtower told POLITICO that “it should be no surprise” a public affairs firm would want to work with a former Fox News star producer.
The reporting doesn’t show that the money influenced any Pentagon decision, and it doesn’t say how much she was paid. But it doesn’t need to. Conflict-of-interest rules exist to prevent exactly this situation: a defense contractor’s consultants paying someone with a direct line to the defense secretary.
It’s also part of a pattern under Hegseth. His department just handed a no-bid extension to Raytheon, a company that admitted defrauding taxpayers. It paid $533 million for an artillery plant that produced no shells. And it spends its energy chasing generals over supposed leaks instead of chasing contractors over fraud.
Jennifer Hegseth said on a podcast that once her husband got the job, “We were ready to serve in any capacity.” Apparently, that includes on a consulting payroll.
With Democrats about to hold subpoena power, the Hegseths may soon have to explain all of this under oath. Whether it will be before or after Pete Hegseth faces an impeachment motion remains to be seen.
Please like and share if you think that this is all too fishy to accept Hegseth’s denials!



























