Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas brought two revealing Senate votes to CNN’s midterm postmortem Wednesday. Both involved legislation that had passed the House before Senate Democrats blocked the measures from advancing, as reported [1] by Red State.
One bill sought to restrict stock purchases by members of Congress. The other aimed to prevent the power costs of major artificial intelligence data centers from landing on household electric bills.
Crenshaw argued that Democrats blocked both measures because they did not want Republicans scoring a legislative victory before Election Day. Four Senate Democrats crossed party lines on the data center measure, but the bill still fell short.
Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland responded by noting that Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Crenshaw then reminded him that control alone did not provide the 60 Senate votes needed to advance either measure.
Dan Crenshaw accuses Jamie Raskin and Democrats of blocking bipartisan bills before the midterms, then betting they’ll support them once the votes are counted.
“You guys blocked all of that because the midterms were coming. And I bet you’re gonna be in favor of it after the midterms.”
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 4, 2026 [2]
“Dude, do you understand how the Senate works? You need 60 votes. Do you understand that?”
The Stop Insider Trading Act, backed by the Trump administration, would have barred members of Congress from buying individual stocks. It also applied to spouses and imposed new reporting requirements.
Only 13 House Democrats voted for the legislation in July. When the Senate considered taking up the bill on September 30, Republicans needed seven votes from Democrats or independents to reach the required threshold.
They did not receive a single one. The vote was 53 to 47, leaving every Senate Democrat and independent on the opposing side.
Senate Democrats objected to voter ID language that was already included when the measure passed the House, calling it a “poison pill.” They also argued that lawmakers should be required to sell stocks they already owned.
That second objection had merit, but blocking the legislation left senators free to continue purchasing individual stocks. Democrats rejected a bill they considered insufficiently tough, and the immediate alternative was no restriction on those purchases.
The second measure, the Ratepayer Protection Act, provided states with a framework for requiring large artificial intelligence data centers to cover their own power costs. Senate Democrats complained that states would have been allowed to decide whether to use that framework.
The bill had passed the House by a staggering 417 to 3 vote. It failed in the Senate by 57 to 43, just three votes short of the 60 needed for advancement.
Democrat Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire joined Republicans. They were the only four Senate Democrats identified as supporting the measure.
Crenshaw accused Democrats of deliberately shelving both bills for political advantage and predicted they would support the same ideas after the midterms.
“You guys blocked all of that because the midterms were coming, and I bet you’re going to be in favor of it after the midterms. Do not lie and say anything different.”
Raskin responded by attacking Trump’s finances. He alleged that Trump collected $2.2 billion during his first year from foreign governments, royalty, and crypto interests before invoking Abraham Lincoln and declaring, “Donald Trump destroyed your party, and you went down with it.”
After the interview, Crenshaw continued making his case on X. “Democrats BLOCKED bipartisan legislation on data centers… and BLOCKED bipartisan legislation to stop stock trading.”
Watch Rep. Raskin unravel when I point out what the GOP should have been doing all along: telling the truth. Democrats BLOCKED bipartisan legislation on data centers (force them to pay for their own power), and BLOCKED bipartisan legislation to stop stock trading. Why? Because they wanted to RUN ON THESE ISSUES IN THE MIDTERMS. Yes, it’s a classic cynical political ploy, and the public almost always falls for it.
Smart politics? Yes. Ethical governance? Hell no.
Raskin even admitted that he believed good policy should take a back seat to good politics. That mentality disgusts me.
Doing what’s right for the country matters more than winning elections. My insufferable democrat colleague disagrees – or maybe he understands it perfectly well and just doesn’t care.
I’m not going to apologize for defending President Trump and American national security. And I’m not going to pretend that losing an election suddenly makes those policies wrong.
And Republicans? Learn the right lessons. Yall f***ed up. Badly. You spent hundreds of millions of dollars on transgender ads instead of explaining why Democrats caused high prices and how Republican policies saved people money on their taxes and reduce costs in the long term.
I’m defending Trump because his policies are good for the long term, not designed for short term popularity. Perfect? No. But a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
Double down on your agenda, Mr. President.
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) November 5, 2026 [3]
Crenshaw said Democrats wanted to campaign on those issues during the midterms rather than allow legislation to advance. He characterized that strategy as smart politics but unethical governance.
He also claimed Raskin “admitted that he believed good policy should take a back seat to good politics. That mentality disgusts me.”
Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge in March called on companies building these facilities to pay the full cost of the power and infrastructure they require. The central question for households near a proposed data center remains who ultimately pays the bill.
Democrats won both chambers, giving them the opportunity to place their preferred legislation on the floor. They can strengthen the provisions they criticized in September by requiring lawmakers to sell their stocks or by securing a better power cost arrangement for households.
If Democrats merely put their own names on substantially similar proposals, however, they will hand Crenshaw an easy argument. Their actions after taking control will show whether their earlier objections concerned policy or simply who received the political credit.