Overview of Making Sense Episode #502, “The Rebuke”
Sam Harris and Jonah Goldberg discuss the midterm results as a broad rejection of Trump and the Republican Party. They examine why the election went as it did, how competing factions are trying to shape its meaning, and what the fallout could mean for J.D. Vance and the 2028 Republican race.
Election Results and Claims of Fraud
Goldberg praises the 60 Minutes interviewer for pressing Trump to answer questions and interrupting when he tried to evade them. He sees Trump’s brief acknowledgment of Republican losses as more revealing than his later return to unsupported claims of election fraud.
Goldberg argues that sweeping fraud claims are implausible given how decentralized U.S. elections are: ballots vary across local jurisdictions, making a coordinated scheme across thousands of places difficult to carry out unnoticed. He expects the claims to gain little traction in court or among major conservative outlets, especially as some Republicans look ahead to a future beyond Trump.
He estimates that roughly a quarter to a third of voters remain strongly supportive of Trump, while cautioning that not all are committed “cultists.” Some may be driven by polarization or distrust of Democrats, the media, and established institutions.
The Fight to Define the Results
Goldberg says political factions are racing to explain the outcome while the post-election narrative is still taking shape. Progressives, moderates, Trump allies, and future Republican candidates all have incentives to frame the results in ways that support their preferred policies and political prospects.
He warns that whichever explanation becomes conventional wisdom could shape both parties’ strategies and policy choices.
Iran, Israel, and the Limits of the “Antiwar” Explanation
Harris worries that voters may have rejected the Iran war in principle, reflecting an isolationist turn and unwillingness to accept short-term economic costs. Goldberg agrees that the war was mishandled, citing the lack of preparation, allies, and planning for Iran’s potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
But he challenges J.D. Vance’s claim that opposition to the war was the central reason Republicans lost. Goldberg argues that Vance and some allies apply anti-interventionist principles inconsistently: they supported Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his threats toward Greenland and Canada, yet condemn the Iran operation in terms that often single out Israel.
Goldberg says the election evidence points more strongly to economic pressures and turnout. In his account, Democrats benefited from a strong turnout and a sharp shift among independents, while relatively few 2024 Trump voters switched parties. Tariffs had already weakened Trump’s standing, and the Iran war compounded the damage through higher prices, including gas.
Corruption as a Voter Concern
Goldberg highlights corruption as a major issue that Vance’s election analysis omitted. He cites polling in which large majorities said corruption was a major or crucial factor in their vote, and argues that Vance’s failure to address it undermines the credibility of his account.
Goldberg also sees the debate over Israel, Ukraine, and foreign policy as a struggle over the Republican Party’s direction. He cautions that blaming the losses on insufficient distance from Israel could commit the party to a strategy that does not match the views of most Republican voters.
What the Results Mean for 2028
Goldberg considers Vance a political loser after the results, though he says a bleak outlook for Republicans could leave him with an uncontested path to the nomination. He also sees possible runs by figures such as Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Ron DeSantis.
Goldberg says Vance and DeSantis appear to share a theory that voters want a more competent version of MAGA. He doubts that this captures Trump’s appeal, which he describes as a personal following shaped by “entertainment gravity”—a force that helped Trump survive political controversies pundits expected to end his career.
The excerpt closes with Goldberg criticizing Vance for failing to condemn Tucker Carlson and people directing racist abuse at Vance’s wife. For Goldberg, that silence is a troubling sign about the direction of the right.