Hey everybody, happy weekend.

Quick reminder on the schedule here at The Angry Democrat: newsletters go out Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 6:09 AM. Weekends are for news roundups like this one, usually three to five stories with my take on what matters and why. Sometimes I add a live show.

If you want to send thoughts or disagreements, you can comment on Substack or email me directly at [email protected].

This week, three stories stood out:

1. The Tennessee special election

2. The Hegseth strike controversy

3. Michael and Susan Dell’s pledge to the new “Trump accounts”

Let’s jump in.

1. Tennessee’s Special Election: What It Really Means

Tennessee just held a special election in its 7th Congressional District (December 2, 2025). The Republican candidate, Matt Van Epps, defeated the Democrat, Aftyn Behn, by 53.9% to 45.1%. Wikipedia+2Tennessee Lookout+2

That’s a margin of about 9 points. What’s striking is how different that is from recent history: in 2024, the district went for former President Donald Trump by roughly 22 points. Wikipedia+1

So yes — Democrats significantly closed the gap. But before anyone calls this a sign of a “blue wave,” we need to dig deeper.

Why the Gap Closed (But the Seat Stayed Red)

• Special election turnout was far lower than a regular general election. That changes the electorate and who shows up. Tennessean+1

• In special elections, whoever mobilizes their voters first — especially in populated, urban areas — often sets the early tone. That’s how early returns seem to favor Democrats sometimes.

• Rural precincts tend to report later, especially when ballots must be transported to a central tabulation center. That delay often flips many early leads, especially in rural-heavy districts like TN-7.

• I’ve lived and run races in similar districts. In 2022 was winning on early and mail-in ballots — then rural precincts came in late and changed everything.

What the Result Means — and What It Doesn’t

• The fact that Democrats closed a 22-point gap to 9 points shows possible erosion of the GOP’s cushion. It signals that under the right conditions — lower turnout, effective mobilization, focused message — red districts can be competitive.

• But a 9-point loss in a special run doesn’t automatically translate into a 2026 wave. So be cautious about reading too much into this.

As is common in special elections, the early returns were skewed due to voting patterns. Democrats tend to vote early and are often concentrated in urban centers; since urban centers are typically closer to centralized vote counting locations (like the Board of Elections), their votes are counted and reported faster. This gives a temporary, often misleading, lead to the Democratic candidate. In contrast, conservative-leaning rural votes take longer to be transported and counted, often resulting in the initial Democratic lead flipping to the Republican.

Special elections are also highly susceptible to low turnout, as only the most “tuned in” and organized voters participate. The logistics of get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts are also easier in dense urban areas than in sprawling rural districts, contributing to the turnout disparity. Therefore, while a tighter margin suggests some “softness in the Republican coalition,” it is presumptuous and naive to conclude that a closer-than-expected special election margin predicts a shift in the political tide for the 2026 general election.

2. The Hegseth Strike Controversy

The discussion around the strike carried out under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is being handled the wrong way by Congress. For months, the administration has carried out repeated strikes on suspected drug-running boats. Reports put the number of boats struck at more than twenty, with dozens of people killed across those operations before the specific incident that is now dominating headlines. Congress should have been asking questions about the legal authority for these strikes long before a particularly disturbing video surfaced.

Only when footage appeared that looked like an execution in the water did Congress decide to react. Instead of reviewing the legal basis of the ongoing operations, they waited for the most sensational moment. That is not oversight. That is political opportunism.

My concern is twofold:

First, Congress needs to establish the legal boundary between emergency powers, war powers, and law enforcement actions at sea.

Second, the administration needs to provide transparency about what was on these boats.

If they were carrying fentanyl, the response is different than if they were carrying cocaine. Fentanyl is functionally a chemical weapon. It kills people in micrograms. It is responsible for mass death in every state in this country. If boats were carrying fentanyl into the United States, that demands an aggressive response. But we need the facts, not speculation.

The problem is that these questions are only being asked now. Not months ago when the operations began. Not when the first boats were struck. Only when the optics shifted. That is a failure of Congress, not a demonstration of its strength.

If the executive branch is carrying out strikes under emergency or war powers, then Congress needs to do its job and clarify:

• What intelligence triggered these actions?

• What rules of engagement were used?

• Were narcotics involved, and if so, which ones?

• Is there a proportional response standard?

• Is the War Powers Resolution being respected?

Also, let’s be honest about the drug issue.

Shipping cocaine across borders is not the same as trafficking fentanyl, a synthetic opioid so potent that a few milligrams can kill. Fentanyl is massacring Americans. You can party on cocaine your entire life and never OD — but one line cut with fentanyl can put you in the ground.

Fentanyl is not a “drug problem.” It’s chemical warfare on the American public.

So yes — the country needs transparency on what was being intercepted and why.

But we also need to stop pretending all “drug trafficking” is equal. It isn’t.

Congress should have stepped in long before this became a viral video moment.

3. Michael and Susan Dell’s $6.25 Billion Pledge

This one blew up online for all the wrong reasons.

The reaction to Michael and Susan Dell’s contribution to the children’s savings accounts created under the Big Beautiful Bill has been completely unhinged. The program itself creates accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028 and deposits one thousand dollars at birth. Private individuals and employers can contribute more.

Here’s what’s actually happening:

• Kids born 2025 through 2028 get a $1,000 account seeded by the federal government.

• Additional contributions can come from family, employers, nonprofits, or philanthropists.

• The accounts behave like investment vehicles similar to 529 plans.

• Funds can grow for 18 years and be used for education, a first home, or starting a business.

That’s good policy. Period.

That is a financial gift to families who would never otherwise accumulate compound investment at that scale. It is private money. It does not raise taxes. It does not cut benefits. It does not take anything away from anyone.

Yet people online decided the priority was insulting Susan Dell’s appearance.

Let me say something unpopular but necessary:

If you’re someone who talks about feminism, body positivity, and mental health — and then you turn around and tear apart a woman online because they (billionaires) donated billions to children — you’re a hypocrite and a dick.

Susan Dell lives in a world that pressures women relentlessly about aging. She is surrounded by wealth, divorce culture, and the expectations placed on the wives of billionaires. You have no idea what she deals with, and tearing her down in the middle of a charitable act is hypocrisy at its worst.

There are fair debates about the design of the policy. There are fair debates about taxation. But mocking a woman’s appearance while she is giving billions to children is not fair debate. It is cruelty disguised as political commentary. And it accomplishes nothing except proving how unserious some critics really are.

There is nothing wrong with a billionaire using a tax-advantaged structure to invest in millions of American kids’ futures. That is literally what philanthropic capital is for.

Is it the perfect system? No.
Is it unquestionably better than doing nothing? Yes.

Final Thoughts

This week’s stories all point to the same core theme:

We are in a moment where everyone is reacting to headlines instead of understanding systems.

• Tennessee’s race does not predict 2026.

• The Hegseth strike requires oversight, not memes.

• The Dell donation is a genuine investment in children not a time to make fun of his wife.

We owe it to ourselves — and to our politics — to respond with clarity instead of knee-jerk narratives.

See you Monday at 6:09 AM.

If you disagree with me, good.
That’s why The Angry Democrat exists.
Send your thoughts. I’ll respond.

Are you an ANGRY DEMOCRAT? If so, the please share with other Angry Dems.