More stories

  • in

    Tears and solemnity at Cheney funeral – but no memorial for those killed in Iraq

    You suspected that Maga had not conquered the Washington national cathedral when Bill Kristol was spotted at a men’s urinal conversing with Chris Wallace. You knew it for sure when James Carville, Anthony Fauci and Rachel Maddow were seen sitting close to one another in the nave.The funeral of the 46th US vice-president, Dick Cheney, who died earlier this month aged 84, was a throwback to a less raucous and rancorous time. Ex-presidents and vice-presidents, Democratic and Republican, made small talk, but Donald Trump, who spent Thursday crying treason and calling for Democrats to be put to death, and his deputy JD Vance were not invited.More than a thousand guests saw eight military body bearers place Cheney’s flag-draped casket on a catafalque as gently as lowering a baby in a crib. Then two hours of plangent music, solemn processions and tearful eulogies beneath stained glass and a soaring vaulted ceiling amounted to a requiem for the Republican party.Cheney used to be known as its Darth Vader and, fittingly, the neo-Gothic church’s exterior boasts a hand-carved grotesque of the Star Wars character. Vader terrorised the galaxy but saved his son and renounced the dark side of the Force on his deathbed. Cheney had imperial ambitions of his own but gained a measure of redemption by defending his daughter and democracy from Trump.There is some irony because, just as Joe Biden, who attended the funeral, paved the way for Trump’s return through his own stubborn egotism, so Cheney opened a Pandora’s box and unleashed the furies by helping expand the vast presidential powers that Trump enjoys today.As probably the most consequential vice-president in history, Cheney’s prosecution of the war on terror – he championed sweeping surveillance powers under the Patriot Act and defended controversial “enhanced interrogation” techniques – handed Trump a playbook to crack down on civil liberties at home and abroad.And the vice-president’s baseless advocacy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq – stating “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” – was arguably the breaking point in public trust of the political class that fuelled Trump’s rise as an outsider pledging to drain the swamp.There were no cathedral services with pipe organs playing for the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Iraq war and its aftermath. So Thursday’s honouring of Cheney – a gathering of the Washington elite, overwhelmingly white – was also an exercise in omission, a holy lesson in what a nation sees when it looks in the mirror and the things that cannot be said.A martian landing in the cathedral with no prior knowledge would have heard of a patriotic public servant described by his longtime cardiologist Jonathan Reiner as “a still point in the turning wheel”, and of a fisherman, horseman and man of the American west who loved John Wayne films, described by one of his devoted grandchildren as “vice-president turned rodeo grandpa”.Former NBC News correspondent Pete Williams, who was Cheney’s spokesman at the Pentagon, recalled “a good and decent man” and told the story of a letter sent to Cheney from a woman in Indianapolis who found his qualities to be attractive: “I showed this letter to Secretary Cheney and he took it home to brag about it.”Former president George W Bush, his tie blue, his hairline receding, eulogised Cheney as “solid and rare and reliable”, praising a man whose “talent and his restraint” exceeded his ego and was “smart and polished, without airs”.It fell to Bush to make only the most tangential reference to Cheney’s involvement in one of America’s darkest chapters. “This was a vice-president totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interests. There was never any agenda or angle beyond that. You did not know Dick Cheney unless you understood his greatest concerns and ambitions were for his country.”Translation: Cheney was not driven by ideology like the neocons Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz but merely wanted to protect the homeland.Liz Cheney – ousted from the congressional Republican party over her opposition to Trump – gave a similarly subtle nod to how, later in life, Cheney emerged as a critic of his own party’s populist drift (he called Trump a “threat to our republic” and even endorsed Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election).Noting that John F Kennedy, a Democrat, inspired her father to enter public service, she said: “He knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defence of the constitution and defence of your political party was no choice at all.”Defending democracy at home while destroying democratic aspirations overseas was the paradox of Cheney and, indeed, of US power stretching back decades. Jeremy Varon, author of Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War: The Movement to Stop the War on Terror, speculates the double standard is based on the logic of us versus them.He said in a recent interview: “As an American, he can be covetous of the preservation of American democracy and feel that ensuring that America’s security is the best way to ensure the survival of the American democratic project. But in the name of national security, America will brutalise and run roughshod over the basic democratic right of self-determination of foreign peoples.”After sharing memories of being dragged to civil war battlefields by her father as a child, Liz Cheney rounded off her eulogy by paraphrasing Shakespeare: “Goodnight sweet dad, may flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.” An alternative might have been: “I come to bury Cheney, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones. So let it be with Cheney.” More

  • in

    Justice department investigates handling of Adam Schiff’s mortgage fraud case

    The justice department is investigating how two Trump allies handled the investigation into whether California senator, Adam Schiff, committed mortgage fraud, according to a copy of a subpoena obtained by the Guardian and a person familiar with the matter.The office of the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche is overseeing the inquiry, which appears to have developed as an offshoot of the main case into Schiff – a notable development since the justice department is essentially investigating activities of two close allies of the president.A federal grand jury in Maryland, where prosecutors are investigating the mortgage allegations against Schiff, issued the subpoena to Christine Bish, an associate of federal housing finance agency (FHFA) chief Bill Pulte and a Republican congressional candidate in California.The subpoena asked Bish, who previously filed an ethics complaint against Schiff accusing him of mortgage fraud, to provide her communications with Pulte, people claiming to work on his behalf, and people claiming to work on behalf of Ed Martin, the head of the justice department’s weaponization committee. The subpoena also asks for communications with Robert Bowes and Scott Strauss.Bish told CNN that when she went before the grand jury, prosecutors “seemed more concerned” about looking into whether “there was conspiracy or collusion between me and Pulte or me and Ed Martin”.ABC News reported that Bowes – who claims to be a financial fraud expert – reached out to Bish and spoke to her without knowledge of Maryland prosecutors or FBI agents. Strauss also reached out to her and asked that she send documents about Schiff to a private email, ABC reported.Both Pulte and Martin are strongly aligned with Trump and have helped him deploy the levers of the federal government to punish political enemies, including Schiff and the New York attorney general, Letitia James.According to MS NOW, the investigation is examining whether Pulte and Martin improperly assigned unauthorized people to help investigate mortgage fraud claims against Schiff and possibly James.Blanche and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have shown some resistance to the mortgage fraud prosecutions. Earlier this year, they tried to protect Erik Siebert, the top federal prosecutor in Virginia, from being fired after he resisted efforts to charge James. They were unsuccessful. Siebert resigned, and Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, who moved ahead with charges against James and former FBI director James Comey.The inquiry may be a pre-emptive effort by the justice department to get ahead of expected defenses from Schiff in the event he is indicted. But if misconduct is discovered on the part of Pulte or Martin, it could doom the case. The case against Schiff has stalled as prosecutors have failed to produce adequate evidence, NBC reported last month.A lawyer for Schiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the justice department declined to comment.Pulte has criminally referred Schiff, James, Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and California congressman Eric Swalwell to the justice department for alleged mortgage fraud, all deny wrongdoing.Pulte’s tactics have repeatedly come under scrutiny. He has bypassed the FHFA’s inspector general, the office usually responsible for handling mortgage fraud accusations. And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported he removed ethics officials who were looking into whether FHFA officials had improperly accessed James’ mortgage information. More

  • in

    US judge halts Trump’s deployment of the national guard to Washington DC

    A federal judge on Thursday halted for now Donald Trump’s deployment of national guard troops to Washington DC, dealing the president a temporary legal setback to his efforts to send the military to US cities over the objections of local leaders.US district judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying national guard troops to enforce the law in the nation’s capital without approval from its mayor.Cobb paused her ruling until 11 December to allow the Trump administration to appeal.The legal fight is playing out alongside several others across the country as Trump presses against longstanding but rarely tested constraints on presidents using troops to enforce domestic law.The DC attorney general, Brian Schwalb, an elected Democrat, sued on 4 September after Trump announced the deployment on 11 August.The lawsuit accused Trump of unlawfully usurping control of the city’s law enforcement and violating a law prohibiting troops from performing domestic police work.Trump has unique law enforcement powers in Washington, which is not part of any state, but local officials say he overstepped by supplanting the mayor’s policing authority and violated legal prohibitions against federal troops engaging in civilian police work.Trump administration lawyers called the lawsuit a political stunt in court filings and said the president is free to deploy troops to Washington without the approval of local leaders. The administration also claims the troops are operating lawfully and successfully reducing crime.Trump, a Republican, has also moved to deploy troops in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Oregon, to combat what he describes as lawlessness and violent unrest over his crackdown on illegal immigration.Democratic leaders of those cities and their states have sued to block the deployments, saying they amount to an attempt to punish political foes with militarized shows of force. More

  • in

    Democrats condemn Trump after he says they should be punished ‘by death’ over video post

    Democrats expressed outrage after Donald Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers of being “traitors” and said that they should be arrested and punished “by death” after they posted a video in which they told active service members they should refuse illegal orders.The video, released on Tuesday, features six Democratic lawmakers who have previously served in the military or in intelligence roles, including senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and representatives Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan and Jason Crow.“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution,” the lawmakers said in the 90-second video. “And right now, the threats to our constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders, you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”That seemed to prompt a furious response from the US president.On Thursday morning, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”In another post, he wrote: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” In a third post, he added: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also reposted a statement that said: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”Following Trump’s statements on Thursday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic whip Katherine Clark and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar released a joint statement condemning the remarks.“Political violence has no place in America,” they wrote. “Representatives Jason Crow, Chris DeLuzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan and Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin all served our country with tremendous patriotism and distinction. We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump’s disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress, and call on House Republicans to forcefully do the same.”The Democratic leaders also said that they had been in contact with the House sergeant at arms and the United States Capitol police “to ensure the safety of these members and their families”.“Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed,” the statement added.The lawmakers who appeared in the video also released a statement.“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States,” they said. “That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.”“What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” they continued. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”They added: “Every American must unite and condemn the president’s calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity.”Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, also condemned Trump’s remarks and posted on X: “Let’s be crystal clear: the President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe added: “This is an outright THREAT. Every Senator, every Representative, every American – regardless of party – should condemn this immediately and without qualification.”Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, defended Trump’s claim that the Democrats had engaged in “sedition”, describing the video as “wildly inappropriate”, adding: “It is very dangerous, you have leading members of Congress telling troops to disobey orders, I think that’s unprecedented in American history.”Johnson also reportedly told the Independent that in what he read of Trump’s posts, Trump was “defining the crime of sedition”.“But obviously attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that. What I’m saying, what I will say unequivocally, that was a wildly inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders,” Johnson added.During a White House press conference on Thursday afternoon, when asked by a reporter, “Does the president want to execute members of Congress?”, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, responded: “No.”“Let’s be clear about what the president is responding to,” Leavitt said. “You have sitting members of the US Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the US military, to active duty service members encouraging them to defy the president’s lawful orders.She said: “The sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command, and if that chain of command is broken, it can lead to people getting killed, it can lead to chaos, and that’s what these members of Congress … are essentially encouraging.” More

  • in

    Republicans warn Bondi not to bury Epstein files after law’s passage

    Within hours of Donald Trump signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, Republican senators were on the ground to issue a pointed message to the US attorney general, Pam Bondi: don’t bury these documents.The bill’s passage marked a rare moment of bipartisan support in an otherwise ideologically fractured Congress as it now sets a 30-day deadline for the release of Department of Justice files related to the actions of convicted sex offender of minors and financier Jeffrey Epstein, dubbed by a judge “the most infamous pedophile in American history”.It also marked a rare defeat for Trump, whose own contacts with Epstein have been the subject of intense speculation, along with many other powerful figures who associated with the sex trafficker who killed himself in 2019. Trump had originally been against the passage of the bill, before switching in the face of a rebellion in his own party.The bill passed the House of Representatives with 427 votes and sailed through the Senate by unanimous consent, a level of cross party support rarely seen. Rather than celebrating, many Republican lawmakers spent the week bracing for what they fear may come: a slow drip of information, justified one way or another by Bondi’s justice department.“People who feel very strongly about this will feel like they’ve been duped” if the justice department claims “we can’t release anything because of an active investigation,” said Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. “I don’t think that that will help calm the suspicions many have harbored for a long while on this.”The anxiety stems from the Trump administration’s earlier resistance to transparency, which included months of dismissing public demands – and even insults for those calling for release – before reversing course this week when its passage became inevitable.Now, with Bondi opening investigations into exclusively Democrats mentioned in Epstein’s correspondence, Republicans are watching closely for signs the department might use those probes as a reason to redact or withhold materials as they are now part of an ongoing investigation.“If you do a blanket hold, I think that they’re going to have a lot of people angry,” said Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a judiciary committee member. “It would just add fuel to the fire if they don’t produce something meaningful” he added later.The legislation mandates release of unclassified materials within 30 days in a searchable format. Yet it contains exemptions for information that could jeopardize active investigations and for material depicting minors – potential escape hatches the Justice Department could exploit.The bill requires disclosure of materials related not only to Epstein but also to his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein to abuse.Bondi acknowledged the congressional mandate on Wednesday, saying the department would “follow the law” while “protecting victims but also providing maximum transparency.”Still, her carefully measured words offered little comfort to some skeptics on Capitol Hill. Tillis pressed for clarity on any redactions. “I think they would do well to figure how to release as much as possible and then have a very well-articulated reason for that which they can’t,” he said.Republican senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, however, was more optimistic. “Congress has spoken. I fully expect the Justice Department to release all the documents. It will take a while, but I believe they’ve started,” he said, adding, “I’m hoping we’ll see the first tranche…after Thanksgiving.”The urgency reflects deep skepticism about how the justice department has handled the case historically.In 2008, then-US attorney Alexander Acosta approved a non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state prostitution charges, avoiding federal sex-trafficking prosecutions. Epstein served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a minimum-security facility with work-release privileges. That deal, later ruled to have violated victims’ rights, shielded Epstein from far more serious federal charges for over a decade until his 2019 arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges.Epstein died in federal custody in August of that year, one month after his arrest on sex-trafficking charges. His death was officially ruled a suicide.The Epstein files, so far roughly tens of thousands of pages of emails and correspondence released by the House Oversight Committee, detail the convicted sex offender’s connections across political, academic, and financial elites. Names from both parties appear, though Trump’s comes up over a thousand times, mostly linked to Epstein’s apparent obsession with the presidency.Senate majority leader John Thune, a Republican, weighed in on the side of his colleagues. “I trust the judgment of the justice department to ensure that whatever files they release protect the victims,” he said. Congress had “clear intent” to “get the information out there”, he addedThe near-unanimous support – marred by just one dissenting vote in the House – reflects both public interest and political stakes. The justice department now has 30 days to make the materials available in searchable format. The FBI has indicated its records include more than 300 gigabytes of data and evidence. Content depicting child abuse will remain sealed, and information that could compromise ongoing investigations may be withheld or redacted.The real test is now with Bondi’s department. Republican senators have made it clear they will scrutinize any major delays or broad redactions, so how swiftly and transparently the justice department acts could shape perceptions of the Trump administration’s commitment to accountability on a highly sensitive matter.Republican senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri summed it up: “All the credible information that can be released should be released.” More

  • in

    The Guardian view on devastation in Gaza: the world wants to move on, but Palestinians can’t | Editorial

    The declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza in October brought initial relief to its inhabitants. Yet officials there said Israeli strikes killed 33 people, including 12 children, on Wednesday; Israel said its troops had come under fire. Another five Palestinians were killed on Thursday. Hundreds have died since the ceasefire was declared. Even if the shelling stops, the destruction of Palestinian life will carry on as Israel continues to throttle aid, and the consequences of two years of war unfold. The World Health Organization warned last month that the health catastrophe would last for generations.Food remains in short supply. While displaced families shiver in flooded makeshift shelters, with many facing a third winter of homelessness, aid organisations say they cannot deliver stockpiles of tents and tarpaulins. Israel, which denies blocking aid, has designated tent poles as “dual-use” items that could potentially be used for a military purpose. Save the Children reports children sleeping on bare ground in sewage-soaked clothing.The Guardian last week revealed US plans for the long-term division of Gaza into a “green zone” under Israeli and international control, to be redeveloped, and a “red zone” left in ruins; a US official described reunion of the strip as “aspirational”. This vision – with international troops essentially propping up Israeli occupation, and Palestinians drawn to those areas to escape squalor and chaos elsewhere – echoes disastrous US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.This is the grim underpinning of the UN security council resolution this week, endorsing Donald Trump’s peace proposals. The “board of peace” looks like a colonial authority overseen by Mr Trump, and perhaps anchored by Tony Blair. Palestinian technocrats, somehow both domestically credible and acceptable to the US and Israel – a notable feat – would work beneath it. All this would be possible thanks to an international stabilisation force that the US hopes to see deployed by January. That would be a stretch even if countries prove truly willing to commit troops.The resolution improved on a draft text and won backing from the Arab world – and angry rejection from the Israeli right – by including references to a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal. Yet those references are couched in the vaguest terms, as an unguaranteed reward for sufficiently good behaviour, rather than as a recognition of inalienable Palestinian rights. If all goes according to plan, “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”. Israeli withdrawal would be based on standards and timeframes agreed by the military itself as well as the US and others. Countries have backed not what this text does mean but what it might conceivably mean or become.Some believe that this is the best that can be salvaged from current circumstances, given Mr Trump’s presidency; others hope that it is just possible that this unpromising start could allow something better to be forged. But it is hard not to conclude that for some governments, this is more about conscience-salving and reputation-laundering than the best interests of Palestinians. Germany has already announced that it will resume weapons exports to Israel. For Palestinians, “what looked like a forever war may be metamorphizing into forever misery”, the political scientist Nathan  Brown has warned. Countries that were complicit in a genocidal war have all the more duty to demand better. More

  • in

    Economic forecasts point to a Democrat win in the 2026 US midterm elections

    The resounding victories in recent elections by Democrats Zohran Mamdani in New York, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey has reinvigorated the party after a dismal year since Donald Trump became president.

    The victories were not a mandate for a sharp ideological shift to the left. This may be true for Mamdani, but it is not for Spanberger and Sherrill, since both are mainstream centrist Democrats. The main reason for the victories can be seen in the chart below.

    Trends in presidential job approval and Donald Trump’s handling of the economy 2025:

    Paul Whiteley/YouGov, Author provided (no reuse)

    The data comes from successive polls in the United States conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Economist magazine. All three candidates focused on the issue of the US economy which proved to be a winning strategy since it is clear the economy strongly affects Donald Trump’s job approval ratings.

    As the president’s ratings on the economy decline, so does his job approval ratings. The result is that the Republicans took the blame for failing to deal with the issue.

    The midterm Congressional elections in the US are due to take place in November 2026. Given the strong relationship between the economy and support for the president, it is interesting to examine how the economy is likely to influence support for the Democrats in those elections.

    To investigate this, we can look at elections to the House of Representatives over a long period, given that they occur every two years.

    The graph below compares the number of House seats won by the Democrats and economic growth in the US in all 40 House elections since 1946. Economic growth is weighted so that the Democrats benefit from high growth when they control the House but are penalised by this when the Republicans are in control.

    This also works in reverse with low growth producing a poor electoral performance for the party when Democrats are in charge and a good performance when the Republicans are in control.

    The relationship between economic growth and House seats won by Democrats 1946 to 2024:

    Federal Researve Bank of St Louis/Paul Whiteley, Author provided (no reuse)

    The impact of the economy on voting in these elections is clearly quite strong, but the number of House seats won declines as the party’s majority gets larger. This is what is known as a “ceiling” effect meaning that when the majority is very large it is difficult to win more seats even in a thriving economy.

    But this relationship can nonetheless be used to develop a forecasting model of the seats likely to be captured by the party in midterm elections next year.

    When forecasting seats, an additional factor to consider is the inertia of party support over successive elections. If the Democrats did well in one year, they were likely to do well two years later.

    For example, in 2008 when Barack Obama won the presidential election, the Democrats captured 233 House seats and the Republicans 202. In the following midterm election in 2010 the party won 257 seats while the Republicans won 178 and so the Democrats retained control of the House.

    At the moment the House has a Republican majority of 219 against 213 Democrats. So Republican control is quite vulnerable to a surge in support for the Democrats.

    Multiple regression analysis

    The forecasting model involves a multiple regression analysis. This uses several variables to predict the behaviour of a specific variable – in this case the number of House seats won by the Democrats.

    In addition to the two variables already mentioned, approval ratings and the performance of the economy, the fact that the incumbent president is a Republican is included in the modelling as well since this influences the vote for the Democrats.

    We know the number of House seats from the 2024 election and the fact that Trump is a Republican, so to forecast Democrat House seats we need a prediction for economic growth in 2026.

    The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis provides data which forecasts growth in the US economy up to 2028. It predicts that growth in real terms will be 1.8% in 2026 – and when this is included in the modelling, the overall forecast from these variables is 80% accurate.

    If a variable is a perfect predictor of House seats it would score 1.0 and if it failed to predict any seats at all it would score 0. The impact of growth on seats when the Democrats controlled the House was 0.75, the inertia effect of past Democrat seats was 0.26 and Trump’s presidency was 0.19.

    Low growth boosts Democrats’ prospects

    Clearly economic growth dominates the picture showing that low growth rates next year will strengthen the Democrat challenge. This is likely to happen since a recent IMF report suggests that US growth is likely to slow next year.

    Actual and predicted House seats in elections 1946 to 2026:

    The Presidency Project/Paul Whiteley, Author provided (no reuse)

    The third chart shows the relationship between Democratic House seats predicted by the model and the actual number of seats won by the party. The predictions track the actual number of Democrat House seats fairly closely and so the forecast should be reasonably accurate

    It should be noted that all forecasting models are subject to significant errors. As the chart shows, the predicted number of seats is not the same as the actual number and if something unforeseen happens the predictions could be wrong. That said, however, the forecast is that the Democrats will win 223 seats – an increase of ten over their performance in 2024. This will give them enough to hand them control of the House. More