
Bloomberg Opinion Executive Editor and markets columnist. Former Executive Editor for Global Markets. Opinions are my own; retweets not endorsements. @opinion
New York
Joined August 2014
- Tweets37K
- Following1.8K
- Followers11.9K
- Likes7.9K
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.
You won't want to miss this!
It's Fed Day! Is new Chair Kevin Warsh about to preside over his first rate hike?
🎥Tune in as @JonathanJLevin discusses LIVE with @AllisonSchrager and @BobOnMarkets @ 1:55 pm ET
teapaw.org/i/broadcasts/1MJgNboeX…
Robert Burgess retweeted
Ambassador Nick Burns has it exactly right. Hundreds of @NATO troops died under my command on the front lines in Afghanistan 2009-2013. I honor their memory every single day.
Robert Burgess retweeted
What if Zuckerberg and Bezos had held their nerve? What if ABC had told Trump they’d see him in court? What if the Ivy League Universities had stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Columbia? What if the fabulously wealthy law firms had joined together to sue Trump for trying to blackmail them? But that would require powerful and wealthy people to show a bit of backbone. Cowardice is contagious. Welcome to the Great Grovel prospectmagazine.co.uk/world….
Robert Burgess retweeted
Last weekend, Goldman revised its US growth and inflation forecasts in a stagflationary direction.
Now, it’s a set of even more aggressive revisions from JP Morgan.
They took Q4/Q4 growth forecast down from 1.3% to -0.3%, unemployment up to 5.3%, and PCE inflation all the way to 4.4%, 1.4 percentage points higher.
Like Goldman, JP Morgan believes the Federal Reserve will be much more sensitive to the employment part of its mandate and, as such, sees the central bank cutting at every meeting this year.
#economy #markets #growth #inflatiln #federalreserve @jpmorgan
Robert Burgess retweeted
This is the US budget. Trump/GOP say their agenda won’t cut Social Security or Medicare. They’re *expanding* military spending. And cutting taxes. Now they’re battling over whether to slash Medicaid.
There’s not a lot left for savings.
Shaping up to hugely increase the debt.
Robert Burgess retweeted
Howard Lutnick's refusal to consider the inflationary effects of tariffs shows he is out of touch with American businesses, @BobOnMarkets says trib.al/Hta1VV4
Robert Burgess retweeted
It's not just tariffs. The risks to growth are piling up under Trump.
Latest with @endacurran for @business & @economics:
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
.@elerianm:
"While still relatively low, my probability of a recession has increased from 10% at the beginning of the year to 25% to 30% today. This is a consequential and quite unsettling development for an economy with high potential..."
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
*S&P 500 ERASES ELECTION GAIN, WIPING OUT $3.4 TRILLION IN VALUE
#WINNING
4
481
Robert Burgess retweeted
This is very interesting. @clive_crook and @BobOnMarkets debate whether investors are right to forgive the US's debt addiction or whether a crisis awaits bloomberg.com/opinion/articl… via @opinion
Robert Burgess retweeted
A weather-changing La Niña has developed in the equatorial Pacific further adding to drought worries in California, as well as the croplands in South America, the US Climate Prediction Center said trib.al/hENYUZk
EXCLUSIVE: More than 800 pages of Patel's emails obtained by FOIA Files, from the Office of Director of National Intelligence, raise questions about whether he’ll weaponize the FBI to settle scores if he’s confirmed as its next director bloomberg.com/news/newslette… via @business
The truth about fire hydrants running dry? The issue isn’t California’s water management, as some including Trump and Elon Musk have suggested, but rather systems that simply aren’t designed to handle fires of such ferocity burning in or near urban areas. (1/3)
Hydrants are part of municipal water systems and many of those in California are gravity-fed, according to John Fisher, a retired battalion chief of San Diego Fire-Rescue who spent 34 years battling blazes. (2/3)
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2
257
Neighborhoods in the path of the Palisades and the other fires have been some of the hardest-hit by insurer defections. The 90272 ZIP code of Pacific Palisades saw 1,930 policy non-renewals between 2019 and 2024, or 28 of every 100 policies. bloomberg.com/opinion/articl… via @opinion
2
579
Hershey is asking the US’s top derivatives regulator for permission to BUY MORE THAN 90,000 METRIC TONS of cocoa on ICE Futures bloomberg.com/news/articles/… via @markets












