Most D.C. politicians aren’t stupid. Yes, some are (and how!), but most aren’t. 

In fact, they tend to be bright people. Smarter and better-educated than the Average Joe.

Because politics is a ruthless, cutthroat profession. Competition is fierce, opportunities are limited — and roadblocks are everywhere. If you want to rise to the top, being smart is an asset.

And being stupid is a handicap.

(Not an insurmountable handicap — quite clearly — but a handicap nonetheless.)

Recommended
Five Things That WILL Happen on Election Day Christian Adams Google’s Hilariously Obvious, Self-Inflicted Artificial Intelligence Problem Seton Motley

Furthermore, most politicians really, truly care about public policy. Seriously! It’s not a put-on!

(Hey, they might also care about power, control, money, and all the glorious perks of privilege, but the Venn diagram of D.C. politicians and strong public policy opinions isn’t small. The opposite is true: It’s what first attracted most of ‘em to a career in politics.)

But above all else, they tend to be ambitious and self-serving. Declaring yourself the best person in your district, state, or country to represent millions of Americans requires a VERY healthy ego. You’ve decided that your career — and our nation’s wellbeing — are intertwined.

That, dear readers, is hubris writ large!

Selflessness and humility are lovely talking points, but c’mon, you’re not going to subject yourself (and your family) to the misery of federal politics unless you think the juice is worth the squeeze. And usually, a D.C. politician’s ultimate goal isn’t the office she currently holds — it’s reaching the next rung of the ladder, and then the next one, and climbing as high as her talents allow.

Especially when she’s a 43-year-old congresswoman with her entire career ahead of her.

That’s the profile of most D.C. politicians: reasonably intelligent, highly ambitious people with strong public policy opinions, who almost always also put their own interests first.

Which is exactly why Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.)’s bombshell endorsement of Mike Rogers is scaring the hell out of the Democrats: It implies that the polls aren’t just wrong — they’re likely off by double digits.

Because the polls are predicting a Blue Wave tsunami that sweeps the country.

The New York Times released its final midterm polls today: The Dems are leading in EVERY battleground state, dominating in red states, and poised to gain a record-setting number of seats.

Here’s Nate Cohn’s analysis:

Democrats gained ground right to the end in the final New York Times/Siena University polls of the 2026 midterm campaign. The party is ahead in all seven states likeliest to decide control of the Senate: Michigan, Kansas, Texas, Maine, Ohio and, more narrowly, Alaska and Iowa.

A substantial Democratic lead in Texas? Kansas? Anything like these results would have been unfathomable just a few months ago.

In today’s polarized era, there’s no precedent for a party to fare this well in so many states that are generally safe wins for the other side. The only plausible comparisons are the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008, but the recent polls outpace even those. The average of all polls shows Democrats leading in the same states as the Times/Siena surveys, giving the party the edge in more solidly Republican Senate seats than it managed to flip in 2006 and 2008 combined.

How bad are the numbers for the GOP? Abdul El-Sayed, the far-left Democrat running for the Senate in Michigan, is up by 16 points (!), cruising to a landslide victory. (The Times noted it “reweighted” its polls, lowering El-Sayed’s lead to “just” 11 points.)

Here’s a list of the Times’ numbers and how they were “reweighted”:

  • Michigan: D+16 (today’s actual published result is D+11)
  • Alaska: D+6 (actual D+1)
  • Iowa: D+4 (actual D+1)
  • Kansas: D+10 (actual D+5)
  • Maine: D+5 (actual D+6)
  • Ohio: D+11 (actual D+6)
  • Texas: D+9 (actual D+7)

Ouch! If you believe the polls, it’s gonna be a GOP bloodbath!

But the polls are almost certainly wrong. Because reweighting polls isn’t a new thing; pollsters have been doing this for decades. It’s not a high-tech, scientifically verified breakthrough that guarantees accuracy; it’s a (semi-) educated guess — just like pollsters have always done.

And besides, the Times’ track record is lousy:

They were wrong in 2024. Four years earlier, in 2020, the Times’ final poll overstated Biden’s margin by 4.5 points. Time and again, the Times juices the Dems’ numbers and deflates the GOP’s numbers — which is almost certainly happening right now.

The only question is, by how much?

Because these same polls have a slew of races within the margin of error. Another 4.5-point polling screw-up would turn this so-called Blue Wave into a blue puddle.

And if the polling error is more than that? For instance, what happens if the polls are exaggerating Democratic support by double digits?

Then the Republicans will shock the world and win the midterms outright!

Remember the Times’ 16-point (later “reweighted” to “just” 11-points) edge for Abdul El-Sayed? If those numbers are real, this race is already over. Stick a fork in Mike Rogers, ‘cause his career is done. Abdul El-Sayed will be the next senator from Michigan.

Look, I don’t care how great of a closer you are — there’s just no way in Hades you’ll gain 11 to 16 points in 48 hours. It’s impossible.

Everyone knows this!

Including Haley Stevens, the 43-year-old congresswoman with her entire career ahead of her.

Three months earlier, she came within a point of winning her party’s nomination for the Senate. (And if she had won the nomination, she’d be a near shoe-in to be the next senator.) We’re talking about a woman who was elected to congress when she was in her 30s and was hired by the Democratic Party when she was in her early 20s.

In every way, she fits the profile of the ambitious, rung-climbing career politician.

Which beckons the very obvious question: Why would a young, ambitious, rung-climbing career politician throw herself atop the smoldering pyre of Mike Rogers’ losing campaign?

If Mike Rogers loses by double digits, Stevens’ career is over. That’s all she wrote: She’ll be remembered as the traitor who collaborated with the enemy and STILL got clobbered. What a buffoon!

She’ll be a national laughingstock.

But if Mike Rogers wins, she’s the American patriot who puts her country ahead of her party. It’s a modern-day profile in courage: She valiantly tried to warn Michiganders that El-Sayed was too extreme, too dangerous, and too unelectable, but her words fell of deaf ears. Finally, after giving El-Sayed every opportunity to condemn antisemitism, she was morally compelled to draw a line in the sand. 

And so, she did.

Blaming Jews for the price of bananas was a bridge too far. Too immoral. Too Nazi-adjacent.

Many Democrats, of course, will be furious with Stevens no matter what happens next. Same way many Republicans were livid with Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) when he refused to endorse Virginia’s GOP Senate nominee, Ollie North, in 1994. 

Yet two years later, Warner won his party’s nomination and was reelected to the Senate.

Because North lost his race, Warner was vindicated. North’s defeat validated Warner’s reservations, giving his political career new life. Before, he was disloyal; now, he was seen as wise, principled, and prescient.

That’s Haley Stevens’ path for redemption, too. After endorsing Rogers, she needs El-Sayed to lose.

Which is why it wouldn’t make a lick of sense to endorse him if she thought El-Sayed was cruising to a comfortable, double-digit victory.

Whether she believes Mike Rogers is going to win outright, or she thinks the race is so close, her endorsement will push the Republican over the finish line. Otherwise, she just nuked her entire career — decades of hard work, planning, and sacrifice — and got zilch in return.

That doesn’t fit the profile of the ambitious, rung-climbing professional politician. Not even a little bit!

The most likely explanation for her last-minute endorsement is that Haley Stevens was legitimately unnerved and repulsed by El-Sayed’s bigotry, antisemitism, and refusal to separate himself from radical loons like Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur. Her revulsion is real.

It’s not an act or a put-on: She endorsed Mike Rogers because she recognizes the danger of empowering Abdul El-Sayed — and mainstreaming his chilling brand of antisemitism.

And it’s also just as likely that she knows the New York Times’ polls are a hot, steaming pile of garbage. 

She lives in Michigan; she’s BFF with scores of Michigan pollsters, activists, party bosses, reporters, donors, and citizens. She’s unquestionably better-connected in Michigan than a New York City daily paper!

I don’t know all the reasons why she’s convinced the polls are garbage, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense.

Because otherwise, she’d keep her mouth closed. If El-Sayed’s victory is inevitable, her smartest play would be saying nothing, mending fences, and rebuilding her career. Then, if/when Sen. El-Sayed acts like a bigot, she could speak out, but attacking a sure-thing 48 hours before an election is career suicide. 

And that’s not how an ambitious, rung-climbing career politician behaves.

But the probability that Michigan’s polls are off by double digits, yet all the other polls are dead-on accurate, is infinitesimally small. Chances are, if Michigan’s polls are off by that much, so are all the others — because the underlying mechanisms that led to distorted results (i.e. having to call 140 random numbers to get a single response) aren’t limited to Michigan.

Instead, it’s a systemic issue that’s making ALL the polls wrong. Perhaps by 10-plus points!

Oh dear God! Maybe this means the Republicans are actually going to win!

Which is probably why the Democrats are attacking Haley Stevens with some of the most disgusting, unhinged misogyny imaginable. James Carville compared her to a “used condom.” Sen. Chuck Schumer said it was a “despicable betrayal.” The DNC black caucus chair called her a “sellout.” Keith Olbermann said she was “vermin.” Democrat activists and influencers called her a “dumb b***h.”

Or, perhaps she’s a soft-headed, weak-minded dupe, and her ((fiancé)) used his magical Jew-powers to warp her fragile Goy brain:

Which says more about left-wing “tolerance” and its sliding scale of gender equality than Haley Stevens. When the party of “Believe All Women” and “I’m With Her” calls you a dumb b***h, a used condom, and a mind-slave to your Jewish fiancé because you’re speaking out against antisemitism (!), something is seriously wrong.

I’m guessing it’s the polls.

Because most D.C. politicians aren’t stupid. They’re ambitious, egotistical, me-first, and self-serving — and 43-year-old Haley Stevens is the quintessential career politician. She’s been working in politics for 20 years, and the House of Representatives failed to quell her greater ambitions. That’s why she ran for the Senate.

And career politicians don’t usually nuke their dreams for the hell of it.

I think Haley Stevens knows something the New York Times doesn’t know. We’ll find out tomorrow if she’s right.

Because, if she’s right, the fallout won’t be limited to just Michigan.