Politics Politics Politics

Donald Trump's approval ratings have entered their roughest stretch of his second term, with three separate polls showing him hitting new lows after months of a seemingly bulletproof floor.The pattern itself is not unusual. Presidents in their second term often experience a dip once the early burst of post-inaugural goodwill fades. But Trump's decline is sharper than expected, sliding from the mid-forties into the high thirties. That puts him back in the territory he occupied for much of his first term, except this time he lacks the external crises that once helped explain his numbers. For better or for worse, he has defined the narrative of this second term so far, and voters are judging him on the results.It's no secret what the cause is for this drop: the economy. For months, Trump framed the United States as operating in a “golden age,” yet affordability remains a pain point. Tariffs have become an easy messaging target for Democrats, who argue that the disruptions fall hardest on consumers. Trump's core Republican base hasn't budged and Democrats remain consistently opposed, with the movement almost entirely coming from independents, many of whom appear to be remembering the volatility of Trump-era governance.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Whether this downturn is temporary or the beginning of a deeper slide will become clearer after the holidays. For now, the numbers are unambiguously weak. If Trump wants to regain altitude, he will need more than assurances about economic strength. He will need voters outside his base to believe it. Just ask Biden.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:32 - Trump Approval Ratings06:05 - The State of the Economy with JD Durkin42:33 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I came back from the UK expecting to ease into the week, and instead I walked straight into one of the wildest legislative twists I have seen in years. The Epstein files bill (HR 4405) cleared the House by way of a discharge petition and did so with only a single vote against it. I'll admit — did not take this seriously when it first appeared. I assumed it would stall in committee or die somewhere between the House and Senate. And now that I'm holding the text of the bill in my hands, it is obvious that this is very real and very close to becoming law. Donald Trump has already said he will sign it, and with a nearly unanimous House vote, it's hard to imagine the Senate blocking it.This portion of our story really begins last Tuesday when House Democrats released a new batch of Epstein related emails. The headline was an email in which Epstein told an associate that Donald Trump knew about his behavior and had spent time at his house with a girl later identified as Virginia Giuffre, though crucially, this email did not accuse Trump of participating in abuse. However, with the House reopened and Adelita Grijalva finally sworn in as its newest member, the discharge petition managed to mass on the exact same day — despite reports that Trump immediately called people like Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace urging them to pull their signatures.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump's reaction also says a lot here. On Thursday, Trump was furious, calling allies to warn them that he would rescind endorsements if they voted for the petition. The White House framed the anger as frustration that Republicans had given Democrats a politically useful victory. But by Friday, Trump reversed himself and said everyone should support the release since there was nothing to hide. Late Sunday, he doubled down again, telling reporters the files were long overdue and that Pam Bondi should open new investigations into Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman. It was at that point that it became obvious that the bill was going to sail through. Even Speaker Mike Johnson voted for it — an unusual action considering discharge petitions are mechanisms designed to bypass the Speaker.The bill itself is sweeping. It orders the Attorney General to turn over internal DOJ communications related to charging decisions, investigations, destruction of records, detention details, and Epstein's death. It blocks the government from withholding records due to embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. Only material that qualifies as child sexual abuse imagery or details an active investigation can be withheld.The winners in all of this are obvious. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna get enormous credit for pushing the discharge petition from the beginning. They stared down the White House and they won. The losers are just as clear. Trump took the biggest political hit because this never needed to become a fight in the first place. If he wanted the files released he could have released them. The notion that people like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi were acting on their own is nonsense. They do not freelance on something this sensitive. Trump might be trying to rewrite the narrative, but the timeline speaks for itself.Personally, I think the files have never been released because the conclusion reached is messy rather than clean. We know Epstein abused underage girls. We know Ghislaine Maxwell helped facilitate it. The open question is whether other powerful people committed crimes that can be clearly proved. If the files contain only partial hints or ambiguous associations, releasing them will satisfy no one. People will assume something is missing, especially considering just how conspiratorial this entire story feels. People build their own conclusions in the absence of official clarity, as we've seen since the death of Epstein himself.Still, the fact remains that this administration took an enormous and unnecessary political loss by fighting transparency that it had promised during the campaign. They went from inviting influencers to the White House for binders labeled Phase One to issuing a one page memo suggesting there was nothing further to see. We do not know what will emerge when the full set of records is released. We do know that the political consequences of this episode are locked in place. Everyone who pushed for transparency won. Everyone who resisted it lost. And once the documents are public nobody will be able to put the lid back on whatever comes next.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:38 - Epstein Files00:20:44 - Update00:22:36 - Saudi Crown Prince00:26:51 - Texas Maps Blocked00:28:09 - Tariff Checks00:31:10 - UK Politics, AI, and More with Tom Merritt01:09:36 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We've got ourselves a good old-fashioned legislative brawl over hemp. The Senate just shut down Rand Paul's amendment that tried to strip out restrictions on intoxicating hemp products from the new government funding deal. This is the kind of hemp that doesn't quite fall under marijuana, the THCA and Delta-9 stuff that's skirted federal legality thanks to a 2018 farm bill maneuver. Paul, joined by Ted Cruz and a solid group of Democrats, argued this would gut the hemp industry in Kentucky and beyond. Mitch McConnell, of all people, led the charge in cracking down — he wants to shut down what he sees as a loophole before he exits stage right in 2026.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The hemp industry is pissed. They lobbied hard, warning this will lead to job losses, ruined crops, and wiped-out businesses. But some law enforcement groups, anti-drug organizations, and even alcohol and legal marijuana folks were all in favor. They argue the current situation puts minors at risk and needs to be cleaned up. Rand Paul says his fight wasn't about holding up the government funding, but rather making sure someone in the Senate stood up for hemp farmers. Still, the amendment failed, and the broader bill — restrictions included — is going to move forward. And unless something magical happens in the House, it looks like the loophole days are done.Personally, I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that we're one bad gummy away from chaos in the streets. I've never bought the whole “kids are going to die if we don't regulate this tomorrow” pitch. That's not to say we shouldn't have age restrictions and public usage laws — we definitely should — but we need to be real about this. America needs a consistent weed policy. We're in this weird limbo where it's both legal and illegal, regulated and unregulated, and the result is that nobody really knows what's what.The 50-Year Mortgage PlanDonald Trump floated the idea of a 50-year mortgage on Truth Social, and it immediately got dragged on cable news. Fox Business host Charlie Payne slammed the plan as a bad way to fix housing affordability. The math doesn't lie: you might pay less per month, but in the long run, you'd nearly double the total cost of the house. That didn't stop Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, from calling it a game-changer. But Pulte's now facing heat because this idea just doesn't have a lot of fans.The appeal is pretty simple. You give younger buyers a way into the housing market with a lower monthly payment. Maybe that helps them get in the game earlier, buy a house in their twenties, start building equity. But let's be honest — the problem isn't just the monthly payment. It's the cost of everything. I didn't buy a house in my twenties because I wasn't ready, and I wanted to live a little. That's not a mortgage issue. That's a culture issue.And when I finally did buy, I didn't care how long the mortgage was. I cared about location, timing, and whether I actually wanted to settle down. A 50-year mortgage might help on the margins, but it's not the silver bullet for housing affordability. Maybe it gets a few people in the door earlier. Maybe not. But it's certainly not going to fix the system.Schumer on the Hot SeatChuck Schumer is taking incoming fire from all directions. After eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the shutdown, a lot of progressives decided enough was enough. Groups like MoveOn and Indivisible are now calling for Schumer to resign. Even some moderates are joining the chorus. They say he's out of touch, ineffective, and unable to confront Trump in any meaningful way.MoveOn claims 80% of their members want Schumer out. Representatives like Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna, and Seth Moulton have all voiced their displeasure. But over in the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is standing by Schumer. He gave a full-throated endorsement, saying Schumer is the right man for the job and that his fight during the shutdown was valiant. So at least publicly, Schumer isn't going anywhere.But this does shine a spotlight on the growing rift within the Democratic Party. The progressives want more aggression, more resistance, and less compromise. Schumer's old-school Senate style — the backroom deals, the procedural wrangling — doesn't cut it for them anymore. Whether or not this turns into an actual leadership challenge is still up in the air. But the frustration is loud and growing, and Chuck is smack in the middle of it.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:39 - Latest on Shutdown00:04:21 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:29:16 - Update00:29:52 - Hemp Products00:33:57 - 50-Year Mortgages00:37:58 - Calls for Schumer to Resign00:41:41 - Interview with Kirk Bado (con't)01:08:10 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It looks like the longest shutdown in American history is on the verge of finally reaching its conclusion — and let's be honest, it's ending exactly how these things always end. The Democrats didn't get what they wanted, and now everyone's pretending this was the plan all along.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Let's start with the facts. Between ten and twelve Democratic senators are reportedly on board to end the shutdown with a deal that's functionally the same as what was on the table from the beginning. That means a continuing resolution, the same one Republicans proposed, just tweaked to extend funding until January 30. The only extra carrot for Democrats is a promised vote on ACA subsidies in December. Not an actual extension — just a vote. And unless something big shifts, that vote won't mean much in the House. It's a pretty dismal reward for shutting down the government.Meanwhile, we learned that some actual work happened behind the scenes. Three of the appropriations bills needed to fund the government were worked out and included in the agreement. There are a few sweeteners too — a couple tweaks on SNAP, and a guarantee to hire back people fired during the shutdown. That's it. That's the list. Democrats came out strong on Friday saying they wanted a year-long ACA extension tied directly to reopening the government. Republicans said no. And then, bam — Democrats packed it up within 48 hours.If you're a Democrat looking at this thinking “we should've kept fighting,” well, that's a rough sell. Are you really telling me the smart move was to drive air travel into the ground before Thanksgiving to make a point you were never going to win? There's just no upside. Shutdowns don't work. They never do. Republicans have learned this over and over. You can scream about messaging all you want. You can say you're winning, but you're not. The polling never matters. You never get what you want.And now, within the Democratic Party, there's going to be some real reflection — or at least there should be. Maybe not about whether the shutdown was worth it, because the answer is clear. But about why they believed it would go differently this time. I'll tell you what the answer isn't: good strategy. It's the same outcome every time. You hold out, you get tired, and you walk away with the thing that was already waiting for you on day one.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:22 - Shutdown07:32 - Economy16:54 - Elections29:55 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It's been building for weeks, but after this week's election results, Republican infighting has officially hit a fever pitch.It's like any anxious period in life, the kind where you don't even realize something big is coming until you look back on it in hindsight. Over the past two weeks conservative movement has quietly been eating itself alive with a fight that, on the surface, was about Tucker Carlson's podcast interview with Nick Fuentes. But with this issue finally breaking containment after Tuesday, well, let's be honest — this wasn't really about that. It's about a party that knows, deep down, Donald Trump won't be on the ballot ever again, and they're worried they have no idea what to do next.This wasn't just any dumb online spat. Tucker Carlson, once the crown jewel of Fox News, now runs his own operation, and his guest list has been getting increasingly controversial. Nick Fuentes certainly falls into that category; he's the dead center of outright racism and anti-Semitism, and he's not particularly quiet about it. And yet, here he is, being given a platform by Carlson.Now, I don't think this was surprising. Tucker once interviewed the president of Iran, after all. No, here, the outrage was less about the specifics and more about what it revealed. The conservative world is split between those who want to double down on the bomb-throwing populism and those who would very much prefer a nice, quiet, electable figure in a navy blazer.And look, the fear is justified. When Trump isn't on the ballot, Republican turnout tanks. Nobody has yet figured out how to get those same voters off their couches and into a polling booth. JD Vance is trying to play crown prince to the MAGA throne, but we still don't know if he's got the juice. And sure, someone like Marco Rubio might look good on paper, but 2016 already taught us what happens when you try to play establishment kingmaker in a populist uprising. Meanwhile, the fringes of the movement are getting louder. The Fuentes crowd isn't interested in compromise — they want the whole thing, and they'll torch the place if they don't get it.The result? A Republican Party that's stuck between an ever-unpredictable Trump and a base that only shows up for him. A coalition that used to rely on reliable suburban voters now hopes that low-propensity working-class Americans will carry the load. That's not a gamble you want to be making blindly. The anxiety isn't just about who says what on a podcast — it's existential. Who inherits this movement, and can they actually win anything with it?Trump isn't going to unite anybody. He'll back whoever flatters him most and ditch them the second they falter. There's no Mar-a-Lago summit where everyone hugs it out and agrees on a future. There's just this slow-motion car crash of conflicting ambitions, bad blood, and rising panic. And, yes, it might just get worse before it gets better.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:59 - Republican Problems00:14:01 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:26:21 - Update00:27:23 - Shutdown Deal?00:29:41 - Maybe Not...00:30:24 - Unless... Filibuster Nuke?00:33:23 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con't)00:58:34 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Well, what a night that was.The 2025 off-year election came and went, and I don't think anybody on the Republican side was quite ready for how hard it hit. I expected Virginia to go blue — I didn't expect it to be a total decimation. Abigail Spanberger didn't just win, she boat-raced it, besting Winsome Earle-Seares by a whopping 14 points. That momentum was even enough to carry Jay Jones, dogged by scandal after scandal, to a smaller (but no less impressive) six-point win. That's despite having an opponent with a compelling ad campaign and a story that, in a different climate, might have turned heads. It didn't matter. The wave swallows all.What stands out to me the most is how broad this Democratic surge really was. In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill handed Jack Ciattarelli a 13-point loss, completely rewriting the expectations I had going in. I thought if Republicans were going to find any traction, it would be in the Garden State. It wasn't. In Latino-heavy areas like Passaic, New Jersey — areas that just barely swung for Trump in 2024 after 2010s results in the D+50 space — saw a reversion back to near-2020 Democratic margins. Republicans had a shot to build a new working-class coalition in those towns, and right now, it looks like they blew it.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The real story of the night, though, was New York City. Zohran Mamdani didn't just win. He crushed. He did it with style, focus, and an eye for narrative. His campaign was slick, and his messaging was clear. He connected with voters who felt left behind — people priced out of housing, worried about jobs, unsure about their future. Mamdani was speaking directly to them. He predicted headlines, embraced viral moments, and even handled scrutiny around some of the more potentially-controversial moments of his name with grace and wit. His vote totals show him cracking 50 percent, a number that Cuomo and Sliwa together couldn't touch. It's an out-and-out victory for a campaign that, initially, seemed like a pipe dream for the left.What we're seeing now is a Democratic Party that knows how to win and a Republican Party still figuring out how to respond. And with the 2026 midterms now less than a year away, it's only going to get crazier.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:30 - Virginia04:50 - New Jersery09:37 - Prop 50 in California11:36 - Mamdani in NYC18:51 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I've seen my fair share of shutdowns over the years. Loud ones, quiet ones, dumb ones, strategic ones. But this one? This is just sad.I spent the day on Capitol Hill talking to anyone who would meet with me, bouncing between offices, looking to understand how close we are to any kind of resolution, and the mood is absolutely lifeless. Nobody knows what they want, and nobody's talking to each other. The word I keep hearing is “aimless,” and that's exactly what it feels like to be here.I had the opportunity to attend Speaker Mike Johnson's press conference earlier today, and what stuck out to me was just how defensive it was. Republicans seem genuinely irritated that Democrats have managed to set the tone on this one, especially with their own base. Johnson spent most of his time pushing back against “false narratives,” but in doing so, he basically confirmed that the narratives are working. And I'll be honest — if I were him, I don't know that I would've spent that much time sounding frustrated.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What did break through, though, was something more interesting. A change in who the Republicans are pointing fingers at. It used to be Schumer and AOC. But now, it's Zohran Mamdani, and this — Election Eve 2025 — was the day it shifted. You're going to hear his name a lot more from Republicans. According to them, he's now the face of the Democratic Party, at least the one pushing for this shutdown. That's a big change, and it tells you where they think the real energy on the left is coming from.This all traces back to March, when Schumer passed a clean CR and got torched for it by the left flank. The idea now is that Schumer and Jeffries are shutting things down not because they want to, but because they're scared of losing their jobs. That's the same vibe I got from conversations on the Hill — they're being pushed around, and they don't have the political juice to stop it.Like I said… I've seen dumb shutdowns before. But even dumb ones usually make sense if you squint. This one doesn't. It's got no internal logic. The Democrats don't want to own it. The Republicans are scared of their shadows. The base isn't fully convinced by either side. And while everyone blames everyone else, regular folks — the people running out of ways to pay for groceries, unsure of whether they can afford insurance next year — are the ones dealing with the fallout. Chapters00:00 - Intro01:48 - Shutdown09:10 - Update09:42- Nancy Pelosi10:49- Supreme Court IEEPA Case12:00 - Thomas Massie12:49 - 2025 Polls16:42 - Interview with Andrew Heaton33:08 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump and Xi finally sat down for the first in-person meeting of this new administration, and I won't lie — there was a lot of hype going into this one. There were whispers about a grand bargain, even murmurs of a complete game-changer announcement. Maybe China would distance itself from Russia. Maybe there'd be some kind of century-defining move on Taiwan. Earlier this week, anything seemed possible.What we got was something a lot less dramatic: a truce. Not a full-blown trade deal. A trade truce. And honestly, I was a little disappointed.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.So here's what went down. China made a few big concessions. They agreed to immediately buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans and promised to keep it going at 25 million tons per year for three years. They also agreed to suspend their new rare earth export controls for a year and curb fentanyl precursor production — a big issue in the U.S. Beyond that, China made a surprise move by signaling interest in American energy and even hinted at joining a natural gas pipeline project in Alaska. That last bit came totally out of nowhere.In return, the United States is lowering tariffs on Chinese goods by 10 percentage points, which still leaves them at a hefty 45 percent. We're also postponing an investigation into Chinese shipping practices, which would have imposed new port taxes. There's a delay on export restrictions for blacklisted Chinese firms for one year. Now, don't get too excited — Trump made clear that China won't be getting its hands on Nvidia's top-shelf Blackwell chips, though some older GPUs will still be allowed to be sold. There was talk about ending Russia's war in Ukraine, but nothing about China stopping its oil purchases from Russia. And most notably, no mention of Taiwan at all.Honestly, when I look at this, I think Trump and Xi were made for each other. Normally, trade deals take forever, get wrapped in ceremony, and then quietly fall apart when China decides not to follow through. U.S. leaders usually just shrug and move on, chalking it all up to classic maneuvers on their part. But Trump doesn't play that game. If he doesn't like a deal, he changes it. If China doesn't hold up their end, he goes right back at them. And I have to say, there's a certain clarity in that approach. It's not exactly stable, but it's a little more to-the-point.I'll admit, I got a little swept up in the pre-meeting hype. I thought maybe we'd see something big, something that could define this administration's approach to foreign policy. But now that I've had time to let it all sink in, here's what I'm left with: this matters. Maybe not as much as I hoped it would, but it still matters. Because the American economy — and by extension, our elections — are tied so closely to what happens with China. If this truce brings even a little stability, it could have ripple effects that shape 2025 and beyond.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:18 - US-China Deal00:09:39 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher00:31:10 - Update00:31:27 - Shutdown Progress00:33:59 - Jasmine Crockett00:37:02 - Elise Stefanik00:40:13 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher, con't01:08:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We're just about a week out from Election Day, and I have to say, this is what I live for. These are the kind of stories that really scratch the itch for anybody who loves the game of politics as much as I do. We've got real contests, real dollars behind them, and actual electoral stakes. Yes, I know it's not a presidential year, but this is the sandbox where some serious groundwork gets laid. And for as much as I hate the off-off-year calendar, I love election season more than anything. Here's my breakdown of where I think the chips are going to fall in November.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Starting in California, we've got Prop 50. Gavin Newsom has staked a big chunk of political capital on this one. It's pitched as a pushback on Republican redistricting, with the messaging ultimately landing on “protecting America from Trump.” What started off messy got refined quickly, and with Newsom's team sticking the landing, I see a 10 to 15 point win. McCarthy was supposed to pour in $100 million to fight it, but as of now, the actual spending is suspiciously light. All that adds up to a clear Democratic win.Now onto Virginia: Winsome Earl Sears vs. Abigail Spanberger. I'm heading up to D.C. this weekend, and originally thought I'd be bouncing around Virginia to catch campaign stops. But Sears? She's nowhere to be found. Spanberger, while not the most electrifying candidate, has managed to avoid major blunders post-Jay Jones scandal. The polling tells a consistent story; Spanberger holding a lead that's grown since the scandal broke. I'm calling it Spanberger by eight. Could be tighter, but it's hard to see Sears overcoming the fundamentals working against her.As for Jay Jones, man, what a collapse. DUI, community service for his own super PAC, and leaked texts about shooting a rival politician? That's how you lose an election. Miyares hasn't trailed since that story broke. Nate Silver might be holding out hope, pointing to early voting and ticket-splitting, but my money's on Miyares by one. A close one, but still a loss for Jones. This scandal made a difference, period.New Yorkers better get ready for Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He hasn't been behind at all in public polling, all while Cuomo is clawing for relevance. Meanwhile, Curtis Sliwa isn't pulling enough Republican support to matter to anyone but Cuomo. The energy just isn't there for a last-minute surprise. Mamdani by 13.And then there's New Jersey. The Mikie Sherrill vs. Jack Ciattarelli race is the sleeper of the night. Sherrill has led for most of the race, but recent polling has things tightening. Trafalgar and Coefficient both show her up by one. Republicans are feeling bullish, and if this ends within three points, they'll have reason to. That would mean New Jersey, at minimum, becomes a fringe battleground in 2028. Not quite Arizona-level swing, but enough to force Democrats to spend real money defending it. I'm predicting Sherrill wins — but just barely.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:32 - Election Predictions00:23:08 - Update00:24:53 - Trade Deals00:30:58 - Shutdown00:38:10 - Israel00:44:36 - Interview with Austin Padgett01:38:03 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

This Graham Platner saga just keeps delivering. Every time I think we've hit the ceiling on oppo drops, the elevator dings and we're in a whole new suite of controversy. It's not that the content was entirely new in tone. We've already seen him refer to himself as an Antifa supersoldier and admit to having an SS tattoo (which, to his credit, he covered up). But the latest batch of Reddit posts that surfaced added a thick layer of ugly homophobia. Explicit posts. Graphic anecdotes. And not from his teenage years or during some misunderstood youthful rebellion. These posts span several years, even continuing into the Biden administration.I've always said that if you're running as an outsider candidate, having some skeletons in your closet isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can actually help. Nobody expects a populist outsider to be perfect. The electorate doesn't want a robot. They want someone who talks like them, even if it means sometimes saying the wrong thing. And even as Platner tests the outer limits of that rule, here's the twist: the polling. A new University of New Hampshire poll of likely voters in Maine had Platner at 58 percent. That's not just a lead. That's a blowout. Janet Mills is at 24 percent. If those numbers hold up, then Chuck Schumer and company are right to be panicking.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Still, Platner's campaign has been running scared. Apology videos. Zoom interviews. Carefully worded statements about how he doesn't think that way anymore. But from where I sit, this guy is doing everything but what he should. If I were advising his campaign, I'd be yelling: go on offense. The proper response to all of this should be simple — I deleted the posts before you ever knew my name. I deleted them because they didn't reflect who I am anymore. That's growth. That's accountability. And that's all anyone should expect. Instead, we get these soft, hedged statements. You're not going to convince anyone that you're the perfect candidate — stop trying.What kills me is how obvious the pressure is from the Democratic establishment. You can feel Chuck Schumer's fingerprints all over this. They're running the classic drip-drip-drip strategy, hoping to humiliate Platner into dropping out. But if you're Platner — and especially if you believe those polling numbers — why would you flinch? Schumer and Mills are the ones who should be sweating. They've failed to unseat Susan Collins time and time again. They trot out the same kind of “perfect” candidate every cycle and lose. And now, when someone is actually running strong in the polls, they're scrambling to blow it all up.I'm not defending what Platner posted. It was gross. And people are right to be upset. But this is a high-stakes game, and the voters of Maine seem willing to give him a shot. The question now is whether Platner will take the opportunity and run with it — or keep playing defense while the party machine steamrolls him. Personally, I'm tired of watching him take these hits and not swing back. I've been saying it all week. If you want to win, you have to punch. You can't win a Senate seat on your heels. So please, for the love of political strategy — say their names, take their power, and act like you're trying to win this damn thing.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:19 - Graham Platner00:17:55 - Update00:18:57 - SNAP00:21:40 - White House East Wing00:28:36 - Beef Prices00:31:08 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke00:59:39 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It's not every day that the most interesting story in American politics is a Senate primary in Maine, but here we are. This race, at least for now, has everything: a populist outsider, a messy internal fight, a supposedly safe Democrat, and a very unfortunate tattoo. If the Democrats blow a winnable seat in 2026, you can probably trace it back to this moment, and to one name: Graham Platner.Platner launched his campaign with the kind of fire Democrats usually dream of and then quickly move to kill. He's ex-military, tattooed, and came out swinging against the party establishment. Think Fetterman with a more overtly socialist bent — and the endorsements to match. Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, a digital team built for viral insurgency. His launch video was raw and effective, casting him as the only one who'd fight Collins like it meant something. But before he could define himself, the knives came out. Old Reddit comments. Unpolished statements. And most notably, a chest tattoo that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to an SS death's head symbol.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Now, he says the tattoo was a drunk decision made while serving overseas — something picked off the wall at a shop in Croatia. That tracks. Plenty of service members come home with something dumb etched into their skin. But politics isn't fair. The second it surfaced, it became a narrative — a “secret Nazi” smear that, while ridiculous, is now baked into every conversation about the guy. And that's not something most voters are willing to fact-check. The perception — not the reality — becomes the problem.Still, the bigger issue isn't the ink. It's how Platner handled it. His entire appeal is built on strength and authenticity — and he responded like a nervous staffer trying to keep his job. The apology video was soft. It was long. It was careful. None of that fits the image he's built. If you're running on being the guy who doesn't back down, you can't fold the first time someone calls you a name. He needed to come out swinging — not just at the press, but at the party that clearly doesn't want him there.Because make no mistake, they don't. Janet Mills is the Schumer pick. She's the “safe” one — a proven fundraiser, a party loyalist, and the kind of candidate who rarely wins a general in a state like Maine but always gets through the primary. That's why the long knives came out for Platner. And if he doesn't wake up and fight them like they're already trying to end his campaign — which they are — then he doesn't deserve the spot. Not because he's a bad guy, or because he's unelectable. But because he misunderstood the moment.This is a fight. Not a conversation. Not a listening tour. A fight. And if he doesn't start treating it like one, he's already lost.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:26 - Graham Platner00:16:10 - Interview with Josh Jennings and Andrew Heaton00:45:58 - Update00:46:13 - Trump-Putin00:49:03 - Israel-Hamas00:52:30 - Shutdown00:56:30 - Interview with Josh Jennings and Andrew Heaton, con't01:23:09 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump is once again talking about Vladimir Putin — this time setting up a meeting in Budapest to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. That's according to Trump himself, who said the two agreed on a phone call to meet, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other U.S. officials would begin prep meetings with their Russian counterparts. No date has been set, but Trump described the call as productive.He also mentioned they'd loop in Zelensky during his upcoming White House visit, which adds another layer of complexity. Earlier in the week, Trump floated sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine as leverage. Whether that was serious or just bluster is up for debate, but the message was clear — he's still playing both sides. One thing he did emphasize on Truth Social was how eager Putin seemed to be about post-war trade. According to Trump, that was the real focus — not the war itself, but what comes next.This is the kind of move that makes sense if you assume Putin is trying to preempt whatever message Zelensky hopes to deliver later this week. It's also a reminder that Trump sees all of this through the lens of dealmaking, not diplomacy. He's playing to his base — the voters who see “getting a deal” as a win, regardless of what's actually in it. But as past attempts have shown, any momentum gained by just talking with Putin tends to evaporate as soon as the bombs keep falling.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Shutdown MathSenate Majority Leader John Thune hinted that the White House might walk back some of its shutdown-related moves if Democrats agree to vote for a continuing resolution. He didn't lay out specifics, but the implication was that things like furloughs or aggressive reduction-in-force orders could be reconsidered. Thune said passing a full-year appropriations package would make more clawbacks unnecessary — but until then, it's unclear what Democrats would get in return.The rumor mill is working overtime — and the story making the rounds is that Democrats will vote for the CR, then hold a vote on Obamacare subsidies separately. Chuck Schumer says that's not the plan, but let's be real: it sounds like a deal in the making. Everyone knows the play here. The question is how quickly the Democrats can make it look like they won.At the end of the day, this is all about messaging. Democrats want to go back to their base and say they got something out of this. And if a CR plus a later vote on subsidies is the path to that — well, they'll probably take it. Everything else is just noise.John Bolton IndictedJohn Bolton's been indicted. Eight counts of transmitting and ten counts of retaining national defense information. This case centers around his handling of classified documents tied to his book, which he apparently shared through personal email and notes. The FBI raided his home, and now it's up to the courts.The Biden administration says politics aren't involved, but Bolton's been a vocal Trump critic, which puts this in awkward territory. It comes on the heels of indictments for James Comey and Letitia James — all of them known Trump opponents. In those cases, the Comey case seems flimsy, while the one against Letitia James has more substance. Meanwhile, the Bolton charges had been floating around since before Trump left office in 2021.Here's where I land: this whole mess reflects the same double standard we've seen for years. People working with classified material always say the same thing — if they did what these folks are accused of, they'd be in jail. There has to be a better way to handle these documents. Until then, we'll keep getting stories like this.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:04 - Interview with Tom Joseph00:22:23 - Russia-Ukraine00:24:43 - Shutdown00:26:21 - John Bolton00:28:26 - Interview with Ryan McBeth01:13:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We've officially entered the phase of the shutdown where things stop being polite and start getting real. Missed paychecks are happening this week for federal employees, and while everyone knows they'll eventually get paid, it doesn't matter. Missing a paycheck now still hurts. It gets gritty fast. Both parties are struggling to manage this moment, and honestly, neither of them is very good at what they're trying to do.On the Democratic side, they're bad at being the ones who stop the machine for a righteous cause. You can tell because half of them aren't even taking credit for the cause they're supposedly fighting for. The public explanation is that this shutdown is about Obamacare subsidies and funding for regional hospitals, but those subsidies don't expire until the end of the year. That means this fight is more about symbolism than urgency. The Democrats are also trying to repeal parts of what Trump calls the “one big beautiful bill,” though they won't say that directly. Instead, they're focused on a message that doesn't connect cleanly — and that's showing.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Then there's the filibuster angle. Democrats keep saying Republicans can end the shutdown by devolving the filibuster and voting the government open again. That's dangerous thinking. Republicans don't want to touch the filibuster because doing so would force them to start passing a lot more legislation — the kind Democrats could easily overturn later. I get the strategy. Democrats want the filibuster gone so Republicans have to own the bills they pass. Then they can campaign against them. But that's a high-stakes game to play in the middle of a shutdown.Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't handling this much better. They're out of practice at playing defense on a shutdown. Their usual posture is that government is bloated anyway, so maybe turning it off isn't the worst thing in the world. That might play well in theory, but when paychecks stop going out, people stop laughing. The White House hasn't done much to apply pressure either. No press events. No imagery. No clear sense that anything's different. To the average voter, it just feels like business as usual — and that's not how you win a messaging battle.So where does that leave us? Probably in this standoff for a while. I'd bet on this dragging past Halloween, maybe into mid-November. The continuing resolution being floated now would keep funding through November 15, which would only buy about a month before we're right back here again. The pattern is familiar. You stop one shutdown, swear never to do it again, and then do it again anyway.The most realistic off-ramp is a handful of Democratic senators breaking ranks and agreeing to a handshake deal — reopen the government now, vote on the Obamacare subsidies later. But so far, that hasn't happened. Instead, we have Chuck Schumer saying every day of this shutdown is “better for Democrats.” That's the kind of sound bite that will haunt you when paychecks are still missing and airports start slowing down.I thought this would be over already. I really did. A week ago, I said Democrats should have sold high — wrapped it up while they still had good poll numbers and claimed a moral victory. But they didn't. They thought they had more to gain by holding the line. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. Either way, we're all about to find out together.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:12 - Shutdown00:10:35 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:37:30 - Update00:37:59 - Maine00:44:40 - Ukraine00:48:01 - Argentina00:51:58 - Interview with Kirk Bado, con't01:16:41 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A conversation with friend of the show Will Harris got my wheels turning. He pointed out something he was seeing in the UK press — Trump getting credit for what many are calling Biden's Gaza peace deal. And yeah, I had missed that particular discourse, but it didn't take long to see that the split wasn't just overseas. It's right here too. Some are arguing that the framework for this agreement was already in place under Biden, but now it's Trump stepping in and sealing the deal. That's not an unusual pattern in politics — one team builds, another finishes — but the way the Biden side is reacting is worth exploring.Let's be honest: getting a Middle East peace deal done is about the hardest thing you can try to accomplish in diplomacy. Saying you have a plan is one thing — implementing it in a region with as much distrust and complexity as the Middle East is a whole different story. It's like drafting a diet and fitness routine and assuming the results will match the spreadsheet. Biden's people floated frameworks, sure, but they couldn't make the deal happen. I suspect that's because they thought it would require applying pressure on Israel to end the war — and they didn't want to be seen doing that. They wanted the outcome without owning the action.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Then there's the idea that Biden deserved the credit even if Trump got the win. And this is where I find it all a little rich. Because I remember 2020. The Trump administration rolled out Operation Warp Speed — arguably one of the biggest policy successes of his term — and when Biden took over, they went out of their way to discredit everything Trump did. The narrative was that Biden had to rebuild the whole vaccination effort from scratch, even when it would've been politically smart to share credit or even use it to jab Trump from the left on vaccines as that issue started to shift.Now the roles are reversed. The Biden team worked on the peace framework and now wants credit — even though the Trump administration finished the job. It's not that I think they deserve nothing. There's a case to be made that this deal, if it holds, spans both administrations. That the effort to find a resolution to an ugly, years-long war included meaningful contributions from both. But if you live by the sword of discrediting your predecessor at every turn, don't be shocked when you die by it too.I don't think we're about to see the Trump team break out the thank-you cards — and if a Nobel Peace Prize comes out of this, it's going to have Trump's name on it. Still, if they were smart, they'd acknowledge — maybe off the record — that having a working framework didn't hurt. But the real lesson here is that a plan is just that — a plan. The deal is what matters. And once again, it turns out being the closer counts more than drawing up the play.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:13 - Gaza Peace Deal11:47 - Update12:04 - NYC Polling13:58 - Letitia James18:18 - Texas21:14 - Interview with Kenneth Vogel54:28- Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Ceasefire in GazaPresident Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, marking the beginning of a multi-phase peace process. The first phase slated to begin Monday includes the release of 20 hostages, a halt to active fighting, and Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza. Hamas is expected to return the remains of deceased hostages as part of the deal.The agreement, brokered with the help of Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, represents a shift in regional diplomacy. Qatar's role is especially significant, given its previous support for Hamas. Observers suggest that recent Israeli strikes in Doha (looking more and more like an approved strike by Qatar) indicate a broader effort to isolate Hamas.Key details of the peace plan, which aligns with a Trump proposal presented at the UN, include:1. Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after 7 October 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the 19 January 2025 agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under 19 January 2025 agreement.9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform programme, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump's peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration programme all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbours.14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.—The long-term viability of the deal remains uncertain, but initial signs suggest a realignment of regional priorities. This deal has Trump's fingerprints all over it. As I am typing this I am speaking with friend of the program Wil Harris who is telling me that the UK press is presenting this as Biden's plan Trump is taking credit for. That's a bit rich, in my opinion. To paraphrase The Social Network:If Biden was the inventor of the Gaza Peace Plan, he would have implemented the Gaza Peace Plan. Katie Porter's Viral Meltdown Raises Political StakesCalifornia gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter is under fire following a viral interview where she appeared combative with a reporter. The incident was compounded by resurfaced footage of Porter harshly reprimanding a staffer during the COVID-19 lockdown.Porter's opponents, including Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee, have seized on the moment to question her temperament and fitness for office. Strategists warn that although her base remains strong, such optics could threaten her standing as the Democratic frontrunner in a crowded 2026 race.Despite the controversy, many believe Porter's progressive bona fides will carry her through. The Democratic primary electorate, historically more tolerant of combative behavior if aligned with ideological purity, may ultimately overlook the episode.James Comey Arraigned in Politically Charged CaseFormer FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty this week to charges of lying to Congress and obstruction, charges filed by the Department of Justice under Trump's newly appointed U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan. Comey's legal team is expected to challenge the basis of the prosecution, citing political retaliation.Legal experts widely anticipate the case may be dismissed before trial, but the optics alone are significant. The indictment illustrates the fraught landscape of prosecutorial partisanship in the post-Trump era, where legal actions against political adversaries risk becoming a norm rather than an exception.Chapters and Time Codes* Introduction & Return to Austin — 00:00:41* Gaza Ceasefire Overview — 00:05:10* Trump's Role and Regional Dynamics — 00:08:18* Implications for Hamas and Israel — 00:14:11* Katie Porter Controversy — 00:20:31* Political Impact of Porter's Behavior — 00:24:06* James Comey Indictment — 00:29:11* Wrap-up & Preview of Ken Vogel Interview — 00:32:23 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I want to start today by explaining why my audio sounds like garbage. I don't have my usual mic — or my webcam, or laptop, or clothes — because everything was stolen out of our rental car while we were eating at Burma Superstar in Oakland. I lived in this city for nearly a decade and never once got ‘bipped.' This time, someone smashed the window, glass flying right over the car seat where my baby had just been sitting, and took every bag they could find. My wife's stuff, my stuff — all gone. They even took the bag of stuffed animals. Apparently, those don't fence for much.Now, I don't bring this up for pity. I know full well that parking a rental car in Oakland is like drawing a target on your back. But that's exactly what bothers me — this idea that we deserve it. That the cost of living in a beautiful, culturally rich city like Oakland is rampant, normalized crime. And it's not just Oakland. I don't buy that this is the price of admission for living in cities like Chicago or New York either. These are cities with strong tax bases, vibrant economies, and in some cases — like here in San Francisco — literal gold rushes. I'm speaking to you now from the Bay Park, right next to the Chase Center, where the Warriors play. OpenAI's offices are here. And yet one garage over, you're stepping through fentanyl, addicts, and filth.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What really got me was the reaction. When I told friends what happened, no one was surprised — just a shrug and “yeah, rental car.” No outrage. No concern. This isn't just about me getting my stuff stolen. It's about the fact that this kind of thing is treated as an unavoidable fact of life. And I get it — people here have empathy. But that empathy's being weaponized. Because this isn't just random desperation. If it were, they'd have taken the diaper bag. No, I think what we're dealing with is organized crime. And no one seems interested in doing anything about it.There's no political will. I'm not calling for a police state, but I am saying that the city should want to stop this. It's not just bad for tourists — it's not good for the locals either. The criminals aren't the ones getting rich. The neighborhoods that need better-paying jobs aren't helped by a tourism industry that doesn't exist because no one wants to visit a city where this is just what happens. I don't think it's generous to ignore that — to write this all off as unavoidable.The kicker? When I called 911, they told me to go to a website. That was it. And look, I'll be fine. My car rental's covered by Amex we're going to get home okay. But what does that say about the city — when a middle-class family gets robbed, and no one even pretends to care? There's something broken here, and it's not just the window.Chapters00:00 - Intro and Crime Thoughts08:12 - Interview with Bill Scher45:42 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Shutdown Senate VoteThe shutdown rolls on, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already said it is unlikely the Senate will vote this weekend. That means the government shutdown will extend into next week unless something changes Friday morning. He criticized Democrats for demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies in the stopgap bill and insisted negotiations must begin only once the government reopens. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is predicting GOP unity will falter as the shutdown drags on, but I'm not convinced.From where I sit, the numbers tell the story. Three Democrats voted with Republicans last time. Rand Paul opposes continuing resolutions, so Republicans will need eight Democrats to reach 60 votes because J.D. Vance is the tie breaker. Every time the Senate votes, I'm watching to see if more than three Democrats side with Republicans — that's the real signal of where this is going.I don't believe Democrats are built for shutdowns. They're posturing as if they're ready to see this through, but the longer it goes the more likely rank and file members will embarrass Chuck Schumer into ending it. The real pain — furloughs, firings, and cuts to the federal workforce — is only going to show up if this lasts into next week. That's when the Russ Vought part of the story kicks in, and that's when this gets serious.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Abigail Spanberger in VirginiaFormer Representative Abigail Spanberger is leading Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earl Sears by 10 points in the governor's race, 52 to 42, according to a new Emerson College and Hill survey conducted September 28 and 29. Early voting is already underway with more than 146,000 ballots cast. Among those voters, Spanberger leads 60 to 38 and still holds a 50 to 43 edge among those yet to vote.Her gains have come from independents, men, and younger voters. Independents back her by 19 points, men are evenly split, and voters under 50 favor her by 27 points. History suggests the party that is not in the White House usually wins the Virginia governor's race. Based on that, I'd bet Spanberger, even though this isn't exactly an electric matchup.The only real advantage Sears has is the men's and women's sports issue — a culture war topic, not a kitchen table one. I don't think that will be enough, especially in Northern Virginia, which is heavily government dependent and angry at the president. Add on Sears not being a great candidate and Spanberger looks far stronger heading into November.Bailouts are BackTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the Trump administration will announce substantial support for U.S. farmers next week, likely funded by tariff revenue. Soybean growers have been hit hard as China has halted U.S. purchases during their trade war. Bessent accused Beijing of using farmers as hostages in negotiations but pledged aid, noting their loyalty to Trump.He discussed the plan with the president and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, but details and costs remain unclear. Argentina's discounted soybean sales to China have undercut U.S. farmers and stoked tension. Bailouts are back, and this is classic Trump — he's never been a fiscal hawk and has no problem using the federal government's pocketbook to shape the world as he sees fit.That's where things stand. Farmers are hurting, the administration is signaling payouts, and we'll see next week how big the support really is.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro and Synagogue Shooting00:03:47 - Interview with Gloria Young00:34:28 - Update00:34:44 - Shutdown00:38:08 - Abigail Spanberger00:40:18 - Farmers00:41:49 - Interview with Gloria Young (con't)01:03:18 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

As I record this episode, we are on the edge — maybe already over it, by the time you read this — of a government shutdown. And I want to give you a bit of the behind-the-scenes intel I picked up that helps explain how we got here. According to one of my sources on the Hill (a Republican, for the record), the read is that Chuck Schumer is locked in. He's in a “dark place,” unwilling to budge, and if anything's going to change, it'll come from other Democrats. That's been the drumbeat here: Schumer can't blink. If he does, he opens himself up to a leadership challenge. And that's the one thing a Senate leader absolutely cannot do.The Democrats are trying to pitch the shutdown as a way to stand up for healthcare — that's the messaging. But the problem is that if the government shuts down, there are a lot of healthcare extensions and services that begin to expire immediately. I read off a list of them: community health centers, Medicare adjustments, ambulance payment programs, disaster medical systems — the works. The irony is that the parts Democrats hate the most about the Trump administration don't shut down. ICE doesn't go anywhere. Deportations still happen. Those are essential — and Trump's people decide what counts as essential.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The fight, according to Democrats, is over Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But those cuts don't even kick in until after the midterms. Meanwhile, essential Democratic priorities lose funding the moment the lights go out. And that's the trap. They're betting that Trump wants to make a deal — that he wants to look like a bipartisan dealmaker. Maybe they believe they can spin this into a win. But let's remember what happened the last time Trump tried that in 2018: he got nothing.If they're hoping for Trump to ride in and rescue them, that's a risky game. The GOP Senate and House leaders — Thune and Johnson — are more than happy to let this ride. Hell, there are people in that party who love a shutdown. It's a stress test for them, a chance to see what happens when the government turns off. And the data doesn't look good for Democrats. A New York Times/Siena poll had just 27% of all respondents — and only a slim plurality of Democrats — supporting the idea of a shutdown if demands aren't met. That's a brutal place to be when you're the one pulling the trigger.So here we are: Schumer boxed in, the party divided, and the shutdown clock striking midnight. Maybe there's a backdoor deal. Maybe Trump throws them a rope. But right now? The only guaranteed outcome is pain.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:41 - Shutdown00:08:42 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw00:30:33 - Update00:31:21 - Hegseth's Meeting00:34:42 - Schweikert for Gov00:36:09 - NYT Polling on Shutdown00:37:06 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw (con't)01:15:30 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The looming government shutdown — now just days away — has escalated dramatically. Russ Vought, Trump's former OMB director and the key architect behind the original administration firings, circulated a memo this week warning agencies to prepare for a “reduction in force” if funding lapses. The message was clear: if there's a shutdown, he plans to fire as many people as possible and make those firings stick. In his words, the Democrats would be handing him a gift. It's what he's always wanted to do, and he's daring them to let it happen.Democrats, for their part, view this as a scare tactic, a way to push them into passing a clean continuing resolution. They've been offered essentially the best deal possible under GOP control: Biden-era spending levels and no controversial riders. Still, they're rejecting it. Even lawmakers from districts and states with large numbers of federal employees — Chris Van Hollen, Glenn Ivey, Patty Murray, Mark Warner — are standing firm. For them, this is about resisting what they see as Trump-aligned plans to gut the federal workforce.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Some Republicans are framing the mass firing threat as leverage, not a goal. Bernie Moreno said he supports the memo as a negotiating tactic but wants to avoid a shutdown. Susan Collins and Mike Lawler both expressed discomfort with using federal workers as bargaining chips but pointed out that the solution is simple: just vote for the clean CR. Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, is pressing hard, accusing Democrats of preferring illegal immigrants to federal employees by insisting on funding Obamacare and Medicare subsidies that Republicans argue benefit non-citizens.So where does that leave us? A shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass, and the President fails to sign, either the full appropriations bill or a continuing resolution before the start of the fiscal year. When that happens, agencies are prohibited from spending money, except on activities deemed essential to life, property, or national security. Non-essential employees are furloughed, contractors go unpaid, and essential workers like the military and TSA keep working without pay. We're set to enter this world on October 1st.Everything from passport processing to regulatory enforcement gets paused. Federal contractors, especially in areas around DC, take a huge financial hit. Social security checks, Medicare, and mail delivery continue. And while federal workers usually get back pay, contractors often don't. A shutdown only ends when Congress passes and the President signs a funding bill. That's why I say this isn't an “if,” but a “when.” The government will shut down; the only question is how long Democrats are willing to hold out before taking the same deal they're rejecting now. I don't think it'll be long. This isn't their kind of fight, and they're about to find out why.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:12 - 107 Days06:30 - Gov Shutdown15:30 - Update15:49 - Hegseth Meeting18:04 - Kimmel Ratings19:44 - TikTok20:43 - Interview with Tom Merritt55:49 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The government is shutting down. I guess I don't know for sure, because it hasn't happened yet, but… it's happening. The clearest sign came early: Trump said he's not meeting with the Democrats. That officially pulls the plug on the last off-ramp. And while I can't say it's definite until it's on the books, every indicator points in that direction.Leadership on the Democratic side isn't exactly riding high right now. Hakeem Jeffries is under pressure from both his left and his center — the progressives want more progressive action, and the moderates are feeling the heat from MAGA-friendlier districts. It's not a great time for him to be vulnerable, especially with redistricting battles looming. Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, still has the earliest months of this Trump administration burned into his memory, failing to shut the government down back then that got him absolutely roasted by his own side. He knows what time it is. If he doesn't want to lose his job, he needs to be seen doing something. That something is this shutdown.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Democrats usually enjoy the shutdown game — when Republicans are the ones pulling the trigger. It lets them run the “they hate government” narrative. But now they're the ones doing it, and that's unfamiliar ground. It's not their comfort zone — and it comes with a risk. They tried every angle. They talked to Johnson. They talked to Thune. And then, in what was probably more performance than real strategy, they tried Trump. Trump publicly laughed it off. So now, what are they left with?The clean CR that already passed the House is still sitting there. That's funding at Biden levels — not exactly a win for Republicans. But because the Democrats need to do something, they've started trying to wrap ACA subsidy extensions and Medicaid cut reversals into the mix. The strategy is a little muddled: are they playing offense or just avoiding looking weak? Either way, without Trump at the table, they've got no play left except one. And that's how we get to where we're at.Here's the question that's not being asked enough — how does it end? Democrats aren't built for long-term shutdowns. Their base doesn't rally around it the same way. The longer it goes, the more Trump gets to talk, and he will talk. If it drags out past a month, Democrats lose. So that means the shutdown won't last past a month. And if they're going to vote for the clean CR in the end anyway, what's the point of all of this? We'll see. But from where I'm sitting, there's no chance the government doesn't shut down.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:07:13 - Gov Shutdown00:16:47 - Update00:18:00 - Kimmel00:26:26 - Tylenol00:34:25 - TPUSA00:38:22 - Interview with Claire Meynial01:23:40 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Jimmy Kimmel is currently on indefinite leave from his late-night show after a string of events involving remarks he made about Charlie Kirk, a response from the FCC, and a decisive call from Disney leadership. This all unfolded quickly and, frankly, explosively. Brendan Carr of the FCC went on Benny Johnson's podcast and said Kimmel's comments were some of the “sickest stuff” he's heard — and strongly implied that the FCC could take action against affiliate stations airing the show. That's not subtle, and even if Carr didn't spell out a punishment, the intent was clear enough to light a fire.What wasn't initially emphasized — but I think is even more relevant — is what Carr said at the end of that podcast appearance. He laid the pressure squarely on affiliate stations, reminding them that it's their licenses that are under the FCC's purview. And it wasn't long before two affiliate groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, pulled Kimmel from their airwaves. That's a big move. Deadline later reported that Disney's Dana Walden personally told Kimmel his show would be preempted. Sources say Kimmel refused to apologize, and Disney feared that letting him go further might make the controversy even worse.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Disney's version, delivered through Deadline, painted it as a measured decision — that they were protecting Kimmel from himself. But the reality is, affiliate pressure likely had more to do with this than the FCC ever did. Nexstar, for example, owns affiliates in places like Hartford, Augusta, Rockford, and Sioux City. These aren't New York or LA. These are markets where a majority of the viewership is conservative. Nexstar and Sinclair didn't just blink. They jumped — and demanded an apology and even donations to Turning Point USA before they'd consider letting Kimmel back on air. That's not just a request. That's an ultimatum.Capitol Hill responded almost immediately. Eric Swalwell wore a Jimmy Kimmel hat on CNN. Jasmine Crockett called for his return. The concern from Democrats is clear — they see this as a chilling of speech, a federal agency leaning on a private company to silence a critical voice. And Kimmel has long been one of the most visible anti-Trump figures in mainstream media. This isn't out of nowhere. It's part of a longer arc — one that started when his monologues became Claptor-heavy political salvos, and even his own writers started peeling off.Here's what I think. Carr's comments went too far. I've listened to that podcast more than once. Maybe he meant to be more cautious, but it didn't land that way. When you hold a job like FCC commissioner, your words carry weight — and in this case, they were taken very seriously. That said, I also don't think this was a one-man takedown. Kimmel has probably been a thorn in the side of these affiliate stations for years. This may have just been the opportunity they were waiting for.These affiliate networks serve a lot of red-leaning districts. That's just reality. And when Kimmel's show becomes a lightning rod, they have every incentive to bail — especially when broadcast TV isn't the financial powerhouse it used to be. ABC and Disney might be saying they want Kimmel back on air, but I think they're daring him to quit. This could easily end with a quiet settlement and a new direction for the network. Twenty-two years is a long time. Maybe too long for a show that's increasingly out of step with its audience — or at least the parts of it that keep the lights on in places advertisers care about.If this had happened in 2017, I think Disney would have fought. They would have leaned into the resistance branding, defended Kimmel publicly, and gone head-to-head with the FCC. But the landscape has shifted. Those same resistance-aligned outlets that thrived post-2016 have been struggling for attention ever since 2024. Maybe this isn't a cave to authoritarian pressure. Maybe it's just chasing a different audience — one that wants less fire and more quiet. Either way, the message is clear. Kimmel's position isn't as solid as it used to be. And neither is the appetite for that kind of voice on network television.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:17 - Jimmy Kimmel00:31:57 - Update00:32:50 - Eleanor Norton00:34:01 - Tariffs Head to Supreme Court00:35:33 - Erika Kirk00:38:06 - Interview with Michael Cohen01:42:11 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Utah prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The charges include obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and multiple firearm offenses. According to the affidavit, Robinson confessed to both his roommate — with whom he was in a romantic relationship — and his father. Investigators say Robinson admitted that the motive was political. He told his roommate that “some hate cannot be negotiated” and accused Kirk of “spreading hatred.”Prosecutors allege that Robinson carved antifascist slogans into the bullet casings used in the shooting. They say he left behind clothes and a backpack at the scene, both of which tested positive for his DNA. A bolt-action rifle was found nearby. Surveillance footage and Discord messages allegedly link Robinson to planning the attack, though he has not spoken directly to police. His roommate, someone transitioning from male to female who has not been publicly identified, is cooperating with investigators.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Also at the scene was a second man, George Zinn, who approached police with a knife and told them to shoot him. Zinn allegedly said he had been trying to help Robinson escape. He has not been charged in the shooting, but prosecutors say he was found with child pornography. The two men were not known to each other before that day.This case does not follow the familiar patterns of mental instability or mass shooting chaos. Prosecutors have outlined what they describe as a deliberate, targeted act with ideological motivation. Robinson allegedly stated that he believed the shooting would be “the only way” to stop Kirk. The firearm used was a bolt-action rifle, which indicates planning rather than impulsivity.Governor Spencer Cox, in his television appearances, struck a more composed tone than in his initial press conference. That earlier moment felt like a political speech. Over the weekend, however, he appeared more focused on unity and de-escalation. That stands in contrast to Trump, whose responses were angrier and more inflammatory. The White House has not issued a formal statement, but administration officials have been briefed.One of the major talking points emerging in political media is whether this attack fits into a broader pattern. Names like Paul Pelosi and Ashli Babbitt have been floated — but what happened here is categorically different. The suspect allegedly had a motive, a plan, and a clear ideological framework. This was not senseless. According to prosecutors, it was intentional and politically driven.It's still early, and these are only allegations. But the details laid out so far paint a clear picture: a targeted political killing, carried out in public, with motive stated directly. That's rare. And it's something we'll be forced to grapple with as the trial unfolds.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:15 - Charlie Kirk Suspect Arrested00:09:53 - Interview with Karol Markowicz00:53:28 - Update00:54:01 - Pam Bondi Hate Speech00:57:39 - Epstein01:00:15 - Hakeem Jeffries and Zohran Mamdani01:02:53 - Interview with Ryan McBeth01:52:45 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I needed to sit down and talk with you — just you and me. This isn't a guest-heavy episode, there is no news roundup. This is something different. This is something more personal, more direct, and honestly, more painful. I want to talk about what this moment means, why it matters, and what we do next. Because we're at a crossroads, and that road cuts directly through our online and offline realities in ways we can't ignore anymore.Charlie Kirk was shot with a rifle while on stage at Utah Valley University. The shooter is still unidentified, and the motives are still unclear. But there's no denying what that moment was meant to signal: if you talk like this, we'll kill you. And while that “we” remains unknown, the message it sends is loud and clear. This wasn't a private act of violence. This was political. This was a statement. And the target wasn't just Kirk — it was anyone who might stand where he stood or say what he said.Kirk wasn't someone I always agreed with, but I did see what he built. Turning Point USA grew into a major player, replacing many of the institutions that shaped college conservatism before him. He blended the Buckley model of organizing with the showmanship of Limbaugh and became influential not just in youth politics but in the Trump movement itself. His voice mattered. His platforms mattered. And whether or not you liked what he said, it's impossible to ignore that many young conservatives saw themselves in him.So much of what's happened since his death has disturbed me. The edgelords on the internet doing their worst, cracking jokes about the bullet that hit him, pretending he wasn't a person with a wife and children — that's not just tasteless, it's dehumanizing. And when you dehumanize someone in death, you're justifying violence against the living. It's not a good look. It's not principled. It's cruelty dressed up as politics.We've seen attempts to paint political violence as something that only comes from one side, but that's not how any of this works. Whether it's a left-wing shooter or a right-wing pipe bomber, we've got to stop turning every horrific act into a team sport. Every time someone uses violence as a form of political speech, it pushes the line further, normalizes the unacceptable, and opens the door for more of it. And that's the real danger — the escalation, the dehumanization, the cheapening of life itself.Now look, I understand that people hated Charlie Kirk, and saw him as a cartoon villain solely taking up space on the internet. But if your first instinct when someone is murdered is to dig up their worst take, maybe it's time to reevaluate what you stand for. Did Kirk say provocative things? Sure. But we're either going to live in a country where bad takes are met with debate or one where they're met with bullets. And if it's the latter, none of us — not me, not you — are safe.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Among those edgelords and the calls for retaliatory violence, though, I saw hope. A YouGov poll found that 78% of Americans think it's unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure, even one they dislike, and only 9% answered in the affirmative. That's good. That's a big majority, especially in today's political climate, and it points to a baseline of decency in this country that hasn't been completely eroded by the internet's worst tendencies.And then there was Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks and someone who battled Kirk publicly. He posted something beautiful, something real. He talked about sharing a beer with Kirk, about choosing unity over hate. That matters. Because it shows that humanity still exists across the aisle. That you can disagree without celebrating someone's death. That maybe — just maybe — we can start tending our own gardens before trying to burn someone else's to the ground.So, what do we do now? We lead by example. We reject political violence — loudly, clearly, and without exception. We treat each other like people, not caricatures. And we remember that even in a polarized world, the line between democracy and something far darker is thinner than we think. Let's not cross it. Not now. Not ever.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:42 - Who was Charlie Kirk?07:40 - Reaction clips13:09 - Discourse23:08 - This is different30:26 - The internet is not real life37:44 - What now? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

UPDATE: President Trump posts that Kirk is dead.UPDATE: Initial suspect not the shooter. Suspected shooter fired from 200 yards away. Still at large.This was originally filmed Wednesday afternoon on September 10th, 2025.TRANSCRIPT:Charlie Kirk, shot, condition unknown. Hello and welcome to the Politics, Politics, Politics Extra for what would be September 11th, 2025. Justin Robert Young joining you here. This one is going to be an abbreviated edition that we're going to get early and we're going to put out publicly because among all the news that is happening in the world of politics, there is one that is breaking right now, and that is Turning Point USA's founder, Charlie Kirk, shot at a public event at Utah Valley University in what appears in video online to be an extraordinarily serious, if not likely fatal, assassination attempt. Assassination being specifically defined as a premeditated murder with political motives.And first and foremost, let me just say that all thoughts and prayers to Charlie Kirk and his family. He had a wife and two kids. Obviously, the details on his health will be forthcoming. I will keep an eye on social media as I record this to get you the latest information before I put this out. The reason why I wanted to do this right now is because oftentimes, when this happens, and you have a murderer who commits an act of unspeakable violence, it's usually hard to map their motivations onto mainstream politics. And I make sure that those points are made because what I don't want is for aberrant violence to cloud what is otherwise a public dialogue about advocacy, rights, faith, belief, and ultimately the American dream—the desire to live a life that is better than those that came before you and to create a pathway for somebody after you to lead an even better one.And while we don't know what the motives are of this shooter (who looks to be at least the man who was detained in an extraordinarily public setting was an older white man) what we don't know is his exact motives. It is hard, at least at this stage, and this is again breaking news, it would seem likely that Charlie Kirk was attempted to be executed, if not successfully executed, as a public sign that he is somebody who was too dangerous to live for political purposes. This was not an act of violence that was taken out in secret. This was done to cow, to show as a demonstration that this is what happens when you stick your head up. You should live and be afraid.Now, we don't know that for sure. Maybe this guy was just deranged and, you know, he did have whatever bizarre motivations that are beyond the world of mainstream politics. Maybe. Maybe. And if that is indeed the case, the next time that I do a show, I will bring that to you. I will bring that context to you. But in this moment, right now, it sure doesn't look like it.We'll take a moment right now to understand Charlie Kirk's significance on the political landscape. He is somebody that has a very important role in the conservative ecosystem. Not only has Turning Point USA been a tremendous organizer for conferences, for student activism, but also in this cycle wound up taking on a more traditional vendor role for voter registration and door knocking, something that many people didn't really believe they had the experience to do. And yet it did seem to be at least successful, as much as you can credit a vendor for the success of something like the Trump campaign.He is an unabashed political conservative. He is somebody that comes from the Rush Limbaugh mold. He has been important in the world of Arizona politics, where he lived. And while I have certainly had my commentary on the Arizona Republican Party, there's no doubt that he plays a large role in that.It's hard to imagine where this goes beyond Charlie Kirk being a martyr, alive or dead, that will be held up as somebody who was slain by left-wing violence. That will be a large talking point in the media. Okay. There is no doubt that we are living in a world of heightened tension. And so all I will say to you, anyone who listens to my voice or watches this video, is my goal has always been to make you understand and comprehend how politics—the mechanism by which we enact democracy—can work for you. My goal is to highlight campaigns and strategies that are working and ones that are not working.Now, obviously, there's a swashbuckling element for me that likes being right and likes being able to comprehend the system. But the utility for you that I've always wanted to offer when I call myself the scoreboard and not the pep rally is to give you an understanding so you can interact with this system the way that you want and get what you want out of it. I do not believe that political violence has any place in our world. To be totally honest, I would go even further than that. I don't believe that you should be cutting people off out of your life that you politically disagree with. I believe that there needs to be healing. There needs to be dialogue with people that care about you. Not every random stranger on the internet needs a friend, but I'm talking about friends, family, people that enrich our lives. Because when we are cut off from them, we only wither. We become less than.And as somebody who spends an inordinate amount of time following politics and politicians, trust me when I tell you from the inside, it is not worth it to trade them for the people that you know and love. Not to be all Marianne Williamson here, but the only way that we climb our way out of a world that has weaponized hate to the point where something like this can happen is through caring for our fellow man. Nobody should get that mad at a podcast. Charlie Kirk did not elect Donald Trump. The people of America elected Donald Trump. Everybody had a small piece of it, but it is the people that willed in the person, and then everybody else takes credit for it afterward. Charlie Kirk might have been successful in speaking to an audience about issues that they cared about, but he did not invent the issues. Dare I say, nor did he necessarily shape them. He talked about them in a way that his audience wanted to hear it. Sometimes when you're as influential as he is, you can introduce new ideas, but there's no guarantee that they're going to take. You're offering them to a populace, and they decide whether or not they care. Anybody who's been in this game for any amount of time knows that to be the truth.Silencing Charlie Kirk through murderous violence does not stop the ideas. In fact, it likely emboldens those that are looking to change the country in the way that Charlie Kirk is looking to change the country to do so. I wish I had a regular episode for you. Obviously, any plans that I had for Friday's episode are kind of out of the window. We'll figure out what we're going to do for that. But until next time, just know this: for anybody who is listening or watching me, I very much treasure and appreciate your time. And I would just say, love each other. Thank you very much. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A Trumpian CollisionOver the weekend, Donald Trump addressed a pretty strange situation involving a Hyundai plant in Georgia. ICE conducted a raid there, detaining over 475 people allegedly working illegally — including over 200 South Korean nationals. The site's still under construction, which makes the whole thing even weirder. There's now an ongoing diplomatic mess as South Korea tries to repatriate those detained. Trump's response hit both of his usual notes: yes to foreign investment, but also yes to enforcing immigration law. A rare moment where his priorities clash in real time.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Signs from Buenos AiresIn Argentina, President Javier Milei took a hit in the provincial elections in Buenos Aires. That's often seen as a signal of what's coming in the congressional races. While there's been some economic improvement under his government, it's clear he still has to fight off the Peronists. I don't have enough background here to give you more than the headlines — I'll need to bring on someone who actually follows Argentine politics. But if you're tracking libertarian movements worldwide, this is one to watch.An Attempted Assassin Faces CourtOn Monday, the trial began for Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump on a golf course last summer. He's facing charges including attempted murder of a presidential candidate. Based on his online behavior — including attempts to recruit people to fight in Ukraine — he's definitely a character. I don't know how much of the trial will be public, but if past is prologue, he's probably going to try and make a spectacle of it. Whether or not his lawyers let him is another question entirely.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:49 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:48:00 - Update00:48:19 - Immigration00:50:23 - Argentina00:51:21 - Trump Trial00:52:39 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw01:48:28 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

There's a growing expectation that the National Guard will soon be deployed to Chicago. It hasn't happened yet, but signs are pointing to it. Several weeks ago, the Guard was sent into Washington, D.C., and now there's enough time and distance to measure the results — carjackings down 80 percent, violent crime down over 30 percent. That's not just coming from the White House. Muriel Bowser, the Democratic mayor of D.C., is also saying it. She doesn't want to be on the wrong side of public sentiment. She's even making overtures to the White House about keeping some form of Guard presence to avoid a crime snapback.But Washington is a special case. It's a federal district, and its autonomy is only delegated by the government. Chicago is not. In a federal system, cities like Chicago are under the control of their state governments — in this case, the governor and mayor, neither of whom want the National Guard there. That's what makes this next move, if it happens, such a flashpoint. If Trump sends in the Guard — and I do believe it's a when, not an if — the legal and political battle will hinge on the how, the how many, and the where.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And then there's the question of when they leave. Lawsuits will be filed. Injunctions will be issued. But I'm convinced this is going to happen because it's good politics for Trump. He sees the Nixon playbook from 1968 — using force to control urban unrest — and believes it worked then. He believes it'll work now. And if you look at the RealClearPolitics numbers, there's a logic to it.Trump is underwater by 9.3 points on foreign policy. On the economy, he's down 11.5. On inflation, it's nearly minus 20. The country doesn't think he's doing a good job on the issues that normally shape campaigns. Foreign policy numbers can shift — if hostages are released or a ceasefire happens in Ukraine, those could bounce. But economic sentiment is more stubborn. And the danger is that Trump falls into the same trap Biden did: saying the economy's fine while people feel like it's not.That disconnect isn't abstract. It's felt at the gas pump, at the grocery store. It's the pain of realizing you don't have the money to cover the tab, of pulling items from your cart while your kids ask why you're crying. It's a humiliating, personal experience, and telling people it's not real only makes it worse. Trump's not winning that argument.But he is closer on immigration. It's loud, it's polarizing, but he's only down 1.3 points in aggregate. Polls in August were a split: tied in Harvard Harris and YouGov, down eight in Reuters, up ten in Morning Consult. Two ties, two outliers. For an issue that gets as much airtime as immigration, that kind of polling tells you Trump's message still resonates.And then there's crime. The only issue where Trump is in the black — plus one. That's after the Guard was deployed to D.C. He sees this as the cornerstone of his pitch: what if government actually worked for you? What if America came first? He wants to frame Democrats as soft, as willing to defend criminals while waving spreadsheets that say crime is technically down. And he wants to pit that against your lived experience — that you don't feel safe, that your neighbor's car got broken into, that you hesitate before getting on the subway late at night.It's federally illegal. I believe the courts will eventually force a pullback. But not before Trump gets the message out. Because on this issue, unlike all the others, the American people are with him.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:40 - Trump Crime Ratings00:13:31 - Update00:16:23 - RFK Jr.00:23:21 - Eric Adams00:26:42 - Free Press Deal00:31:11 - Interview with Jen Briney01:04:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Prop 50 Messaging BlitzProposition 50 is one of the most nakedly strategic plays in this cycle. It exists for one purpose: to eliminate California's independent redistricting board so Democrats can gerrymander five seats back — a direct response to Republicans doing the same in red states. That's the whole game. Strip away the messaging, and it's a power move. The ads hitting the airwaves now make it clear how the campaign is going to run: targeted, segmented, and intensely focused on turnout.Gavin Newsom's out front, naturally. The first ad is just him — classic ego-forward strategy. The second ad is aimed squarely at the Bay Area and Los Angeles liberal base, the same model they used to win his recall election. It's all about maximizing favorable turnout in deep blue pockets. They've run this play before, and they know it works — but back then, they had a longer runway. This time, they're racing the clock.Then there's the third ad. That one's for the independents, and its existence tells you everything. The campaign knows that gutting an independent redistricting board is a tough sell outside the bubble. They say it's temporary. I don't buy that. Nobody gives up control once they get it — not in politics. The only way this doesn't work is if moderates see through the language and call it what it is. That last ad shows they're worried that might happen.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Jerry Nadler's Long ExitJerry Nadler is stepping down after more than 30 years in Congress and 50 years in public office. He's one of those figures who's always just sort of been there — a Manhattan political mainstay who most recently made headlines during Trump's first impeachment. That might end up being his most lasting national footprint. He barely held onto his seat after being redistricted into a brutal primary with Carolyn Maloney. He survived that one, but it felt like the end of something.Now he's officially retiring. He says it's time to pass the torch, and he's backing his former aide, Michael Lasher, to take over. That makes sense. It's a controlled handoff. The district will stay blue. The torch will stay in the family. Nadler might not have been the flashiest member of Congress, but he was consequential — particularly in the Judiciary Committee, where he held the gavel through some of the most heated partisan fights of the Trump era.He stepped aside from that leadership role after Jamie Raskin challenged him, and that felt like the start of the wind-down. There wasn't really a lane left for him in this current version of the Democratic Party. He's not the TikTok-friendly progressive, and he's not the compromise-seeking centrist. He's just an old-school liberal from New York. And now, like a lot of others in his generation, he's finally closing the book.Virginia Foxx and the Epstein FilesRepresentative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, announced she won't use her panel to block Thomas Massie's discharge petition demanding the release of the Epstein files. That's a big move — maybe even a signal. The Republican leadership has been slow-rolling this whole thing, not wanting to get too close to whatever comes out of those documents. But Foxx just let it breathe.Massie's move has bipartisan cover — he's working with Democrat Ro Khanna — and it's gaining momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports “maximum disclosure,” but that there need to be protections for victims. That's the dodge. That's how they're all trying to walk this line — publicly in favor of transparency, privately praying it doesn't land on their doorstep.The buzz on the Hill is that DOJ will release just enough of the Epstein files to make the issue go away. Maybe that works. Maybe not. But one thing's clear: the discharge petition isn't just symbolic anymore. It's a real threat. And the fact that leadership isn't moving to squash it says a lot about how much weaker those levers of control have gotten. Foxx's choice here wasn't just about process — it was a quiet acknowledgment that the old rules don't apply. Not with this. Not anymore.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:25 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty00:45:49 - Update00:48:02 - Prop 50 ads00:53:05 - Jerry Nadler00:55:08 - Virginia Foxx00:56:47 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty, con't01:35:24 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Democratic National Committee just wrapped up its meeting in Minneapolis, and one of the big ideas floated behind closed doors was a midterm convention. The logic is clear. Democrats are dealing with a brand problem. They want to reset, energize, and show that the party still has fresh faces and energy. That means television time. That means spectacle. So: midterm convention. And I'm all for it. I would love to cover one. I love conventions. Give me a big show with music, lights, messaging — I'm there.I don't know if Trump caught wind of this plan early or just read it when the story dropped, but it's clear what happened next. He jumped on Truth Social and declared that the Republican Party would also hold a midterm convention. Because if the Democrats are getting a big TV moment, then he's going to get one too — and he's going to make it better. That's how Trump operates. If you're doing a spectacle, he's doing a bigger one. The man knows television, and conventions are made-for-TV moments. So now we might have two of them.What would those look like? For the Democrats, expect the same tightly-scripted, ultra-managed production they've always delivered. Nobody does a convention script like the Democratic Party. For all their other dysfunctions, they know how to build a prime-time political package. The Republicans? Expect a Trump rally — but bigger, glossier, and even more overloaded with segments, guests, and applause lines. Multiple nights, probably. A celebration of Trumpism that looks less like a traditional political event and more like an awards show.The Path to a Shutdown is ClearMeanwhile, Axios also reported that Democratic leaders in Congress have landed on their key demand to avoid a government shutdown: the reversal of Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And this is where things get interesting. Because while I'm not here to defend either side — I come from media, not partisanship — I can tell you that this is exactly the kind of story that drives conservatives crazy. This is what fuels the belief that the media covers these fights with blinders on. Because here's the reality: Democrats want to shut down the government. They are choosing this. They want a shutdown — not because they think it will solve something, but because they think it's a strong midterm frame.That frame is Medicaid cuts. Specifically, Medicaid cuts for rural hospitals. That's the message. Not the whole bill, not the fiscal fight — just the healthcare piece. That's the issue they believe will mobilize their base and let them go on offense. So everything that happens next, from press statements to floor speeches, is about setting up that narrative. The Republicans will try to pass a continuing resolution. Democrats will have to decide: do they agree, or do they shut it down?I don't think Schumer or Jeffries can survive politically if they don't let their caucus go through with this. That's the point we've reached. The shutdown is happening, and this is why. The date to watch is September 30 — that's when the funding runs out. And unless a miracle happens, we're going to see this showdown play out just like they've mapped it. And the messaging is already here. Elizabeth Warren said, “If Republicans want Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires.” That's the line. That's the campaign.It's already baked in. Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune saying this has to be bipartisan — while knowing full well that their demands are nonstarters. It's the same dynamic we've seen from Republicans in the past: throw out a demand that won't be met, use the denial to justify the shutdown. The only difference is that Democrats usually don't do this. But this isn't the same Democratic Party as it used to be, now is it?Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:06:42 - Midterm Conventions00:09:35 - Dems Shutdown Plan00:15:34 - Update and Minneapolis Shooting00:18:28 - Epstein00:22:56 - CDC00:24:33 - Mark Teixeira00:27:01 - Interview with Howard Mortman01:04:10- Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

But I don't want to focus on the Democrats right now. I want to focus on the Republican Party because one of the big things that's going to shape the midterms — which, make no mistake, are going to be nationalized — is how the American public feels about the GOP. That includes the party's overall image, the fact that they currently hold the House, Senate, and the White House, and the role of Donald Trump as president. Historically, that's usually the kiss of death in a midterm. The public looks at single-party control and, whether consciously or not, pulls back a bit. It's a check on power, and more often than not, it happens.I still believe, sitting here in late August of 2025, that Democrats are in a good position to take the House back in 2026. The redistricting mess adds some chaos, but even assuming that plays out neutrally or slightly in their favor, the historical precedent is clear — they should be competitive. That said, if we were heading toward something other than a typical midterm correction, you'd start to see signs. Not signs that Democrats are collapsing — that's already evident in other areas — but signs that voters are unusually comfortable with Republican governance.And you know what? Those signs are there.If I had to judge the early terrain by three hard metrics, I'd go with national fundraising, party registration, and the president's approval rating. Let's start with the money. The Republican National Committee currently has $65 million in cash on hand. That's not an overwhelming total, but it's strong — especially with a year to go. More importantly, it's four times what the Democratic National Committee has. The DNC is sitting on just $15 million. That gap alone is bad enough, but it gets worse when you factor in spending decisions like Proposition 50 in California. That fight — to temporarily override the independent redistricting commission — is going to vacuum up cash from the same organizations and donors who would otherwise be investing in House flips. So the Democrats are undercapitalized, and they're committing resources to side projects.Then there's registration data. According to a recent New York Times report, Democrats have lost 2.4 million registered voters in swing states that track party affiliation. In the same set of states, Republicans have gained nearly that same amount. That's a five million voter swing. It's not just that Democrats are losing — Republicans are growing. That kind of shift doesn't usually happen in the middle of a polarizing presidency. People don't suddenly start checking the box for the incumbent party unless something is resonating. And considering the kind of term Donald Trump is having — rapid policy implementation, constant headline churn, immigration crackdowns, inflation waves, even distractions like the Epstein debacle — you'd expect backlash. Instead, you get a net positive in party affiliation.That brings us to approval ratings. Trump's RealClearPolitics average stands at 46.3 percent. He's still underwater, with 50.8 percent disapproving. But let's add context. That number is higher than Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Ronald Reagan had at this same point in their second terms. That's unusual. And while being underwater is never ideal, that 4.5-point spread is about what you'd expect for Trump when you factor in how he's consistently undercounted in national polling. And the range of poll results is all over the map — Rasmussen has him up one, Harvard Harris has him down two, YouGov has him down 12, and Gallup just released a poll with him down 16. But even Gallup's number is an improvement from previous weeks, which suggests that Trump's “tough on crime” stance — especially in DC — is landing.So when I step back and look at the full picture, what I see is a Republican Party that isn't being punished. That might sound basic, but it's a big deal. Historically, you'd expect that by now — with the administration moving aggressively, Democrats hammering every misstep, and inflation rising — the electorate would be turning. But instead, Republicans have a funding advantage, a registration advantage, and a president who's polling better than most of his second-term predecessors.That doesn't mean they're going to hold the House. The historical pattern still favors Democrats picking up seats. But it does mean that the GOP is better positioned than it has any right to be under these circumstances. And if your theory of the midterms is based on Trump's agenda — the one big, beautiful bill, cutting Medicaid, handing out tax breaks, and all the rest — then you have to reckon with the fact that, at least for now, it isn't hurting them. Maybe that changes. But if this were going to backfire, I would have liked to have seen a little something from it by now.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:20 - Early Midterms Thoughts00:16:21 - Update00:16:42 - Abigail Spanberger00:23:47 - Trump's Chinese Students Plan00:27:55 - Lisa Cook00:33:54 - Interview with Amanda Nelson01:26:10 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Katie Porter's Surge in the California Governor RaceWith Kamala Harris opting out of a gubernatorial run, Katie Porter is reaping the benefits. New polling from Politico shows Porter pulling ahead, with 30 percent of Harris's former supporters now backing her. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra trail behind at 16 and 11 percent, respectively. Porter's advantage comes from her visibility and defined ideology — she's well known and clearly positioned on the progressive spectrum.California's jungle primary system means all candidates run on the same ballot, and the top two — regardless of party — face off in the general. Right now, two Republicans are splitting their share of the vote, which adds up to something in the thirties. Porter is in the driver's seat, but with that comes the expectation of incoming fire. Her reputation for detail and sharp questioning in Congress could cut both ways — she's admired for precision but rumored to have a temper and staff issues that may resurface.If you ask me, I'd rather be in her shoes than anyone else's in this race. Governor Porter is no longer a long shot — she's a top contender. Sure, she's not universally loved, and her style is a sharp contrast to someone like Gavin Newsom, who leans more on charisma than policy depth. But Porter's grounded, process-oriented approach might resonate with voters ready for a different kind of leadership. It's early — but she's clearly in the lead.The Freedom Caucus ExodusChip Roy is heading home — not just to Texas, but into the state attorney general race. He's leaving behind his role in the House and with it, another domino falls in the dissolution of the Freedom Caucus. He's not alone. Byron Donalds is going for Florida governor. Barry Moore wants a Senate seat in Alabama. Ralph Norman is aiming for South Carolina's governor's mansion. The list goes on — and the pattern is clear.These were the hardliners — the names you heard when Speaker fights broke out or when high-stakes votes were in play. Now, they're moving on, seeking promotions or exits. The Freedom Caucus' influence, once loud and obstructive, is quietly fading. They all bent the knee to Trump eventually, and now it seems like they're cashing out or repositioning for relevance in state politics.In Texas, the AG job is a powerful one. Ken Paxton used it as a springboard and wielded it aggressively. If Roy wins, expect more of that hard-edged, action-first governance. But nationally, their exodus signals something more — the end of a chapter. The Freedom Caucus isn't what it was, and its main voices are scattering. Their watch has ended.Tulsi Gabbard's Deep State OverhaulTulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, has unveiled ODNI 2.0 — a major restructuring plan that slashes staff and consolidates units focused on countering foreign influence and cyber threats. The goal is to cut $700 million annually — a bold move, but one in line with this administration's mission to slim down government operations. It's another signal that this White House doesn't operate under old assumptions.The intelligence world, long a target of Trumpian criticism, is being gutted — not just for size but for perceived bias. There's a strong undercurrent here about the so-called deep state and its relationship with the press. This move isn't just administrative — it's cultural. It's about information control. Gabbard is targeting the pipelines that leak classified narratives to shape public perception.Living in D.C., you feel the impact of this. It's a company town — when the company is laying off hundreds, the town shifts. Longer happy hours. People breaking leases. Uncertainty hanging in the air. But if you're in this administration, it's not about sympathy. It's about loyalty — or the lack thereof. And for many who see Trump as the duly elected CEO of the U.S. government, trimming the fat is justice, not politics.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:43 - Interview with Alex Isenstadt00:27:40 - Update00:28:54 - Katie Porter00:31:49 - Chip Roy00:34:28 - Gabbard Cuts00:41:23 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw01:31:52 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Graham Plattner is running for Senate in Maine. He's not a career politician. He's not a household name. He's a newcomer, and he's coming in with the kind of video that's designed to break through the noise. It's everything you'd expect from someone trying to signal that they're different — kettlebell lifting, scuba diving, oyster farming, military gear. This is Fetterman-core, and I mean that in the pre-stroke, media-savvy, meme-friendly way. It's intentionally loud, intentionally masculine, and intentionally designed to get people talking.But this isn't just a vibe campaign. Plattner's already built a real team. He's working with the same media shop that did ads for Zohran Mamdani in New York and helped elect Fetterman in Pennsylvania. These aren't DCCC types. They're insurgent operatives with a history of getting attention — and winning. That tells me Plattner's not just here to make a point. He's running to win. And in a state like Maine, where ideological boundaries don't map neatly onto party lines, he might actually have a shot.Democratic leadership, though, has other plans. Chuck Schumer and his operation would clearly prefer Janet Mills. She's the sitting governor, she's 77 years old, and she'd walk into the race with a national fundraising network already behind her. But that's exactly the kind of candidate a guy like Plattner is built to run against. If she enters, it turns this race into a referendum on the Democratic establishment. And it gives Susan Collins exactly what she wants: two Democrats locked in a bitter primary while she gears up for a calm general election campaign.Maine is weird politically. I don't mean that as an insult — I mean it's unpredictable in a way that defies national modeling. This is a state that elects independents, splits tickets, and shrugs at coastal assumptions. A candidate like Plattner, who's running a progressive but culturally savvy campaign, could actually catch fire. He's already signaling that he's not going to run from the Second Amendment — which would make him a unicorn among progressives — and he seems to get that guns, culture, and economic populism all intersect here in a way that's not neat or clean.It's early, and most people outside the state probably haven't even heard of him. But he's getting coverage. And he's trying to frame himself as the guy who will show up everywhere — from left-wing podcasts to centrist fundraisers to gun ranges in rural districts. If he pulls it off, it won't just be a Maine story. It'll be a signal that Democrats are still capable of producing candidates who can speak across class and cultural lines without watering down the message. We'll see if he holds up under pressure.Trump, Zelensky, and the Shape of a Ukraine DealTrump's pushing a peace summit with Russia and Ukraine, and the location that's gained traction is Budapest. That's not a random choice. Budapest is where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that turned out to be meaningless. Putin invaded anyway. So now, years later, trying to broker a peace deal in that same city feels almost poetic — or cynical, depending on how you look at it. Macron wants Geneva. Putin wants Moscow. Orbán, who runs Hungary, is offering Budapest as neutral turf. That offer seems to be sticking.The terms of the talks are shifting. Zelensky isn't being required to agree to a ceasefire before negotiations begin — which is a major departure from the Biden administration's stance. Trump's team seems to believe that real movement can happen only if you start talking now, without preconditions. That's risky. But it's also more flexible. The Russians are now suggesting they might accept something like NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine — just without the name “NATO.” That's a big shift. If they're serious, it opens up a lane for something that looks like independence and protection without triggering all-out war.Zelensky, for his part, is in a bind. His approval rating has dropped. His party just lost ground. The economy is on life support. And the longer the war goes on, the harder it is to keep Ukrainians fully on board with total resistance. That's not a moral failing — it's exhaustion. What Ukraine wants now, more than anything, is certainty. If they're going to give up territory — and no one's saying that out loud, but everyone's thinking it — then they want to know they'll never have to fight this war again. That's where the Article 5-style guarantees come in.Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, is reportedly testing those waters. And Marco Rubio said the quiet part out loud — that if Ukraine can get real security commitments in exchange for ending the war, it's worth exploring. This isn't the “bleed Russia dry” strategy the Biden administration backed. That was about regime change through attrition. This is something else. It's about containment, closure, and trying to make sure the region doesn't explode again five years down the line.No one's pretending this is clean. Crimea isn't coming back. Parts of the Donbas are going to remain contested forever. But if a deal gets Ukraine real protection, even without NATO branding, and gets Russia out of the areas it's willing to surrender, that's movement. And right now, movement is the only thing that separates this from another decade of trench warfare and broken promises. Whether it holds is anyone's guess. But it's on the table now — and for the first time in a long time, that actually matters.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:42 - Maine Midterms00:18:08 - Update00:19:04 - Trilateral Meetin00:30:04 - DC Fed Takeover00:33:24 - Epstein Files00:36:00 - Interview with Alex Epstein01:34:40 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A short update this week while I'm on the road. Trump will join European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for an emergency virtual summit Wednesday ahead of his Friday meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The talks, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will focus on pressuring Russia, addressing seized Ukrainian territory, securing guarantees for Kyiv, and sequencing peace talks. Merz insists on a ceasefire before any negotiations or land swaps, and Europe is pushing for stronger sanctions on Russia's banking sector. Three sessions will bring together EU leaders, NATO chief Mark Rutte, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukraine's military backers. I've been struck by how closely Europe and NATO are aligned with Trump here — but we've been down this road with Putin before. He's not a trustworthy guy. My bet is Zelensky ends up in the summit, and Trump pushes for a wrap-up.Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union, long a Democratic stronghold, is broadening its political giving under President Sean O'Brien, donating to Republicans as well. It's a big story — a sign that Democrats' hold on organized labor's money and loyalty is eroding, and it's going to be something we need to watch as we move forward.Finally, a judge denied the DOJ's request to unseal grand jury material in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, saying the public would learn little new. The DOJ's handling — including interviewing Maxwell, transferring her to a less restrictive prison, and not notifying victims — has sparked outrage. The public want more answers, but it's unclear what new revelations could satisfy that demand. Would naming names in exchange for a pardon be worth it? That's the moral trade-off now on the table.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:00 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 100:30:00 - Update00:34:24 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 200:57:46 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Netanyahu's latest move isn't subtle. He wants Israel to take full control of the Gaza Strip — dismantle Hamas, free hostages, and install a non-Hamas civilian government. On paper, it sounds like a decisive endgame. In practice, it's a minefield. The UN, the UK, and even some of Israel's own military leaders are warning this could be catastrophic, both humanitarian and legal. We're talking about tens of thousands of troops pushing into Gaza City, uprooting a million residents to the south, and expanding a controversial aid network that's already replacing the UN in distribution.I can't say I'm shocked. From the moment October 7th happened, this was always one of the plausible end states — Hamas removed from power entirely. What I didn't anticipate was Iran's weakened state factoring into the timing, or the fact that Israel might see that as a green light to act more aggressively. The trouble is, any operation that moves into the areas where hostages are held risks killing them outright. That's going to split Israel politically, because it forces a brutal question: if you were willing to risk their deaths now, why didn't you do it immediately after the attack?And that's before you even get to the problem of what comes after. Hamas leaders can't make a deal and then just go live quietly in Gaza. They'd have to leave. But where? You don't walk away from martyrdom rhetoric on Monday and spend Tuesday at Mario World in Orlando. Gaza under Hamas isn't just a state — it's a criminal syndicate, and that makes any negotiated exit almost impossible. Which means, if this plan goes forward, it's going to be bloody, messy, and controversial from the start.Trump's Putin PlayTrump's continuing to signal he'll meet with Putin “very soon,” possibly in the UAE. Early talk was that Zelensky would be part of a three-way summit, but Trump has apparently dropped that stipulation. Predictably, the Kremlin is treating this like a win, while critics warn it could legitimize Russia's aggression and undermine NATO. That's the Beltway framing.From what I'm hearing, it's not that simple. Trump has actually been harder on Putin lately than some people realize — moving nuclear subs into range, green-lighting sanctions, and generally signaling that he's done being strung along. This isn't 2018 Helsinki. It might be Trump testing whether Putin will only make a deal after feeling genuine pressure.None of this means a breakthrough is coming. It probably isn't. But it does mean Trump wants to own the narrative — that he's the guy who ends wars through direct negotiation. And until Ukraine or Gaza is resolved, his foreign policy record will feel incomplete. I think he knows that, and I think that's why this meeting's on the table at all.FBI Assisting in Locating Texas DemsIn Texas, the Democratic walkout drama is back, with Senator John Cornyn confirming the FBI is helping locate them. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is playing host, calling the state's collection of Democrats “refugees,” which is absurd. They're not refugees. They're political props in his own long-term campaign plans.Here's the thing — if you believe in what you're doing, you should want to get arrested. That would make this story bigger, not smaller. It's the most potent form of protest they've got. Instead, they're hiding out in hotels, funded by Beto O'Rourke's PAC, doing nothing to energize the very voters they're supposedly defending.They could be knocking on doors in the districts that are about to be carved up, rallying people who are about to lose representation. If they got dragged back to Austin by Texas Rangers in the middle of that, it'd be front-page news. Instead, we've got photo ops in Chicago. It's the same mistake they made in 2021 — swapping a real fight for a symbolic one, and then acting surprised when nothing changes.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:48 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt00:21:29 - Update00:21:57 - Gaza00:29:30 - Trump and Putin00:32:41 - Texas Dems00:36:07 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt (con't)01:01:12 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Texas is right outside my window. I live just a short drive away from the statehouse, and yet, I'm physically closer to it than most of the Texas Democratic Party right now. Because while redistricting votes are going down, they've skipped town. Some are in Chicago, some in New York, some who-knows-where. They're avoiding quorum on a vote that could give Republicans five more congressional seats in the next midterms. That might sound dramatic, but the stakes are that high. This isn't about making a point. This is about shaping the entire balance of the House.Let's set aside the tired talking points about whether gerrymandering is good or bad, or whether California and Illinois are just as guilty. I don't want to have that conversation right now. I want to talk about the Democrats in this state — the ones who keep losing, keep retreating, and somehow keep thinking that symbolic resistance is a strategy. It's not. It's performance. And worse, it signals to Texas liberals that their party isn't willing to stand and fight. Not even in the state they claim to want to flip.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Texas doesn't see itself as part of a broader movement. It sees itself as Texas. It doesn't think of itself like the South, and it sure as hell doesn't take cues from New York or Illinois. If you want to win here, you have to respect that. You have to show up and deliver for voters — on Texas terms. And skipping town because you're mad about a vote doesn't read like courage. It reads like cowardice. It says you don't believe in the fight enough to have it on home turf.Democrats did the same thing back in 2021 over a voting rights bill. They went to D.C., got tons of national media, and nothing changed. In fact, they lost ground. Their already thin hold in the statehouse got thinner. Republicans strengthened their grip. So this idea that leaving the state is some kind of protest with teeth is pure fantasy. It's been tried. It failed. And now they're doing it again — not with new tactics, not with a new message, just the same tired escape hatch.What could they have done instead? I've got an idea. Take those same 50 Democrats and spend 72 hours barnstorming the neighborhoods that are about to be gerrymandered out of blue representation. Knock doors. Shake hands. Livestream the whole thing. Go to Frisco, Plano, East Houston, McAllen, Pflugerville, the Fifth Ward, and tell people what's happening. Tell them they're losing their voice in the Texas legislature. Register voters on the spot. Raise money. Make noise. Make it impossible to ignore you because you're in Texas, not because you fled it.You want a viral image? Try getting hauled back to the Capitol in a Texas Ranger squad car. That's real drama. That's a story that cuts through. And it puts a spotlight on the very system you're protesting. But instead, we get hotel bar selfies in Albany — and no movement on the map that's about to tilt the state even further red. The public doesn't want passive resistance. They want a fight. And Texas voters — especially liberals — want to believe that their side still knows how to throw a punch.It's not enough to blame the system. You have to build a response that feels real, rooted, and local. Texas is a massive media market. It's expensive to campaign here. But if you don't make Republicans spend, if you don't at least make it look like a fight, they'll never take you seriously, and they'll never pay the price. Right now, all the Democrats have shown is that they're not even willing to lose the right way.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:00 - Texas00:13:46 - Update00:14:29 - Treasury Secretary 00:19:36 - Gaza00:24:36 - Moon-based Nuclear Reactor00:26:31 - Interview with Kirk Bado01:23:11 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Georgia's back in play, and this time it's John Ossoff's seat on the line. Everyone remembers how both Senate seats flipped blue in 2020, arguably the biggest down-ballot upset of that cycle. Now Ossoff is up for re-election, and while a lot of people in Democratic circles have high hopes for him, I'm not one of them. I think he's competent, but in a low-turnout election, he's vulnerable — especially against a Republican who can straddle the MAGA base and suburban swing voters. And the one guy who could have done that with ease? Brian Kemp. But Kemp says he's out.That opens the door to speculation — and apparently, to Derek Dooley. I didn't believe it at first. Dooley is a football coach. He's never held elected office, never coached a team in Georgia, and hasn't been politically active in any public sense. But people in Kemp's orbit kept saying his name. Supposedly, he's a close family friend. That's fine. It just doesn't make him Senate material. Especially not in a race where Georgia Republicans need a serious contender to take out an incumbent Democrat.Meanwhile, Buddy Carter and Mike Collins have both declared. Of the two, Collins has more momentum. People I talk to say Kemp World isn't enthusiastic about rallying behind Dooley, and they're not thrilled about having to realign with someone new. Collins could benefit from that vacuum — especially if he secures Trump's endorsement. And if Kemp doesn't step back in or offer a viable replacement, Collins may very well end up the nominee.The tension between Trump and Kemp adds another layer. These two have never been close — their feud goes back to Georgia's certification of the 2020 election and the high-profile primaries that followed. Trump tried to run challengers against both Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, and they destroyed them. So if Trump goes all-in on Collins, and Kemp World is still wandering around trying to sell people on Dooley, it's going to be a messy primary.But let's game it out. If Dooley fizzles and Collins gets hot, then by the fall, we might be looking at Mike Collins versus Jon Ossoff in a high-stakes Senate race. Collins will make Ossoff answer for the border, for crime, and for culture war issues like trans athletes — all while wrapping himself in the Lake and Riley Act. That law, named after a murder victim killed by an undocumented immigrant, is going to be the core of his messaging. It's brutal. It's effective. And it could work.Still, there's one wild card left: Brian Kemp himself. He made his announcement back in April, but if the economy is strong and the polling is tight come Thanksgiving, could he reconsider? Stranger things have happened. And Kemp is the only Republican in Georgia with a proven statewide machine, broad appeal, and a serious shot at clearing the field. If he's still lurking in the background, this race isn't over. In fact, it hasn't even started.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:40 - Georgia Senate Race00:20:32 - Update00:20:54 - Kamala Harris00:24:06 - South Korea Trade Deal00:26:24 - Trump's White House Ballroom00:28:07 - Interview with Josh Jennings01:18:15 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump signed an executive order last week that could fundamentally reframe the way the federal government deals with homelessness. Titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets,” the order pivots away from housing-first strategies and toward public safety and mandatory treatment. That includes prioritizing funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, loitering, and open drug use, and it supports civil commitment — involuntary hospitalization for those with severe mental illness or addiction. Harm reduction programs are effectively defunded under this order, and treatment becomes a prerequisite for federal help.This didn't get a lot of attention in the media. That's a mistake. Homelessness is one of the most visible problems in American cities, and it's not going away. I've lived in Oakland, San Francisco, and Austin — three cities that have all struggled mightily with this issue. San Francisco in particular is the worst I've seen. It's not hyperbole to say that its homelessness crisis overshadows the city's stunning architecture and rich culture. Visitors walk away talking about tents, not the Golden Gate Bridge.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.This isn't a lecture about policy. I don't think there's an easy solution. From everything I've read and seen, roughly half of people living on the streets are there because of financial collapse — bad luck, bad decisions, and no safety net. The other half, though, don't want to reenter society. Some of them are dangerous, many are mentally ill, and addiction is everywhere. That's especially true in places like the Bay Area, where cheap or even free drugs are plentiful, and the spiral from one substance to the next ends in death more often than we acknowledge.Even in liberal cities, the political lines are shifting. When I moved to Austin in 2021, the city had rescinded its ban on urban camping. The results were immediate: tents on sidewalks, more street homelessness, and public parks taken over. A citywide referendum eventually reinstated the ban — not because Austin became more conservative, but because people across the political spectrum wanted cleaner streets. They didn't necessarily care how it happened. That's the political space Trump's executive order moves into.It's controversial, yes. And there are real concerns about forcing treatment and stripping funding from programs that do help some people. But the public mood is changing. People are frustrated. They want their cities back, and they're running out of patience for ideological purity tests. Trump, love him or hate him, is filling a leadership vacuum here. I don't know if his order will work — or if it'll be implemented at all in places that oppose him. But I do think it's a sign that this issue is far from settled, and it's about to get a lot more attention.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:09 - Trump's Homelessness Plan00:14:56 - Update00:15:18 - EPA Rollbacks00:20:09 - North Carolina00:23:12 - Epstein00:26:58 - Interview with Dan Turrentine00:59:56 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I just spent three hours watching Hunter Biden, and I have a lot of thoughts. The interview, done by Andrew Callahan for Channel 5, is something like a confessional crossed with a stand-up set crossed with a Twitter thread that never ends. It's raw, it's chaotic, and weirdly, it's compelling. If you're a politics junkie, a media analyst, or just curious about the human side of scandal, there's a lot to pick apart.First off, the man is online. Not just vaguely aware of what's being said about him — he's terminally online. He knows the jokes, the subtext, the usernames. I'm convinced he has burner accounts. He's tracking how people talk about him in real time, and it bleeds through every answer. He's got a list — Tapper, the Pod Save crew, Alex Jones, Stephen Miller, and on and on. He names names, and he torches them. It's Seth Rollins with a flamethrower.But what's interesting is how seriously he talks about addiction, sobriety, and crack — yes, crack specifically. He draws lines between drugs, dives into the stigma, and explains how being labeled a “crack addict” shaped public perception of him. These are by far the most honest and lucid parts of the interview. And they reveal someone who's done the work of recovery — while still slipping into the old reflexes of deflection when the political heat turns up.He has this quote about “an evil symbiosis between money and power” — and I couldn't help but think, does he hear himself? He's talking about systems he's literally a product of. And yet, he stays focused on everyone else's money. When he brings someone up, it's almost always first by how rich they are. Soros, Tapper, Bannon — doesn't matter who it is, the cash comes first. There's this constant undercurrent of scorekeeping.He also confirms, in his way, that the laptop is real — then turns around and champions the “hallmarks of Russian disinfo” letter like it was gospel. The tension never resolves. He owns up to some things, skirts others, and delivers just enough contradiction to keep everyone debating. Even when he talks about Burisma, he says the quiet part out loud: “I had connections.” That's the trick, the real reason he was on that board. And he knows it.What stuck with me, though, was his resentment. Not anger — that's expected — but a deep, lingering bitterness toward the people he feels used him, abandoned him, or dismissed him. It gives the whole interview a kind of edge that goes beyond politics. When he talks about the media, about Democrats who've distanced themselves, or even about his father, there's a tension. Like he's still waiting for someone to publicly say they screwed him over. He wants vindication as much as he wants attention.And that's where it lands. This wasn't an attempt to reset the narrative — it was a live demo of the very chaos people accuse him of embodying. He wants to be understood, but not too clearly. He wants to admit things, but only on his terms. He wants to lash out, but still come off sympathetic. It's maddening, self-aware, and oddly human. If anything, the interview shows us who Hunter Biden is — and exactly why nobody in the Democratic Party knows what to do with him.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:09 - Epstein00:05:56 - Hunter Biden00:32:18 - Update00:33:34 - NC Senate Race00:36:40 - Wisconsin Gov. Seat00:38:19 - Florida Redistricting00:39:08 - Interview with Mary Ellen Klas01:17:30 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We're heading into another potential government shutdown, and the maneuvering is already underway. Schumer is strategizing with his caucus on how to handle the September 30 deadline. It's a familiar script: Democrats want Republicans to commit to avoiding additional rescissions and to agree on the broader budget process before Democrats give their votes. The ask isn't outrageous — a few basic guarantees in exchange for the seven Democratic votes Republicans would need to hit the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.The tension, of course, is baked in. Some Democrats want to force a shutdown, not avoid one. They think it's time to show their base that they'll stand up to Trump and his agenda. But Schumer doesn't want to lose the optics war. If Democrats are the ones who initiate a shutdown, he knows they'll never be able to claim the high road again when Republicans try the same play. That framing matters — especially in an election year.Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to push another round of budget cuts. They already passed an $8 billion rescissions package and want more. That's what Schumer is trying to block, while also keeping his own party from turning a funding debate into a loyalty test. It's a messy balancing act, and the countdown has already started.Public Media Hits a WallEdith Chapin stepping down from NPR is getting attention, but the real story is the billion-dollar rescission Congress just passed — a cut directly targeting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's the pot of money that gets divided among outlets like NPR and PBS. Chapin insists her departure isn't related, and maybe that's true. Thirteen years is a long run. Still, the timing speaks volumes.For years, public media has downplayed its reliance on federal dollars. They'd argue they only receive about 1% of their funding from the government, so budget cuts shouldn't matter. But now that Congress has actually slashed that funding, the narrative changes. If they're not publicly funded in any meaningful way, how do they survive? And if they are, then why haven't they done a better job of building public goodwill to protect that funding?I don't think the model holds up much longer. If you rely on taxpayer money, you have to make your case — constantly. You have to give people something they can see, something they can repeat. You can't just be vague and institutional and assume the funding will continue. It's not the '90s anymore. The party's ending, and there's a new bartender who's ready to close the tab.UNESCO and the American PullbackAnd then there's UNESCO. Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — again. It's a reversal of a reversal from his first term. He says it's too “woke,” too biased, too ineffective. Whatever the justification, it fits a larger pattern: the U.S. retreating from its role as primary funder of global institutions.There's always a debate about whether this kind of move opens the door for China to step in and fill the void. That argument has merit. But I'll say to UNESCO what I said to public media: if you depend on the American public — directly or indirectly — for your funding and relevance, then you have to win public support. You have to tell your story well, and often. You have to make people care.Some of these global organizations got comfortable. They assumed the checks would keep coming, and the U.S. would always foot the bill. But now they're running out of room. The music's fading. And if they can't answer why they matter in plain language, they'll find themselves cut off without much fanfare.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:25 - Justin's BART Experience00:08:52 - Interview with Michael Tracey00:39:40 - Update00:40:17 - Gov't Shutdown?00:43:32 - NPR00:45:09 - UNESCO00:47:35 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con't01:18:40 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Let's talk about Liberation Day — and more importantly, how it's going to end. Back in April, Trump rolled out what looked like a trade war on steroids: a flurry of tariffs aimed at countries big and small, with no clear structure except for one thing — disruption. It was pitched as a three-pronged strategy. First, if you want to sell into the U.S., we should be able to sell into your markets too. Second, we need to re-onshore American manufacturing. And third — and let's be honest, this was the loudest part — Trump wins.For a minute, it wasn't clear whether this was a real attempt to fundamentally restructure trade or just a way to set the stage for a bunch of “deals” later. The tariffs went out, the clock started, and everyone was told they had until August to make a deal or face serious costs. And yet, here we are in mid-July with just two completed agreements: Vietnam and the UK. None of the big players — China, the EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico — are done. So the question becomes, what's the endgame?Here's what I've been told: the White House is prepping a three-phase process that's all about creating the appearance of momentum. Phase one is joint statements — political handshake documents, not legally binding deals. These are meant to say, “Hey, we're working on it, don't hit us with the tariffs yet.” It's what they did with the UK, and it's what they want from everyone else by early August. These aren't trade agreements. They're vibes.Phase two is an interim agreement — maybe 40 to 50 pages, with some of the real trade language baked in. This is where you'll start seeing things like rules of origin pop up — basically, making sure countries like China can't skirt tariffs by routing goods through friendlier ports. It's technical, it's dry, and it takes time, but it's a necessary step toward real enforcement.And phase three, the big one, comes way down the road — probably after the midterms. These are the actual full trade agreements, hundreds of pages long, with all the boring but essential rules locked in. But here's the twist: if you think countries will bother going through phase two and three after they've already locked in the tariff rate during phase one, you're missing the enforcement tool — Section 232. The White House is making it clear: if you slack off, we'll start making noise. We'll investigate. We'll embarrass you. Think Mexican tomatoes — everybody knows they're breaking the rules, and we've just been letting it slide. But not anymore.So when all these joint agreements start rolling out at the end of this month, remember what they are: theater. The deals are political stunts to buy time, stabilize markets, and let Trump declare victory. The real work — the real meat — comes later. And that's how Liberation Day ends. Not with a bang, but with a bunch of bullet-pointed PDFs.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:05 - How does Liberation Day end?00:16:24 - Interview with Jack Gamble00:41:30 - Update00:41:46 - Epstein Discharge Petition00:50:44 - Virginia Polls00:52:18 - Rescissions Package Passage00:53:36 - Interview with Jack Gamble (con't)01:15:25 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Andrew Cuomo is still trying to matter.That's the clearest takeaway from his latest appearance — a campaign reboot so empty and unconvincing it bordered on parody. After blowing a 60-point lead in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor to Zohran Mamdani, Cuomo continues to operate as if he didn't just have — and squander — his best shot. It wasn't a close race. It wasn't an upset. It was a humiliation, and it made Mamdani a star. Cuomo didn't just lose; he handed the spotlight to the person who beat him.What's most baffling is Cuomo's unwillingness to run as anything other than himself. His latest ad is a watered-down version of Mamdani's campaign. Mamdani talked to people across the city about affordability — and even if his ideas were divisive, they were ideas. Cuomo's pitch? Affordability. No vision. No contrast. Just a stale echo of a message he neither originated nor sharpened. If Cuomo wanted to offer something Mamdani couldn't, he had options. He could've leaned into public safety, into the fear felt by many New Yorkers. He could've campaigned from a synagogue, framed himself as the candidate who would safeguard Jewish communities, and tied Mamdani to the left wing of the party in a way that forced a choice. Instead, we got nothing.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.There's no attack line, no clear point of differentiation. Cuomo could've said: this is de Blasio 2.0. He could've framed Mamdani as a performance artist backed by a failed administration. He didn't. Instead, he gave voters a lifeless, mimicry-driven campaign with no policy edge. And that brings us to what he is actually running on: his name. For a sliver of voters — the “Cuomosexuals” who liked Mario, liked Andrew, maybe even liked Chris — that might be enough. But for everyone else, Cuomo looks like a man clinging to a legacy that no longer serves him.This also highlights why “Stop ‘X' Candidate” movements almost never work. Ego ruins coordination. Eric Adams isn't dropping out — he's the sitting mayor. Cuomo still acts like running is beneath him. Curtis Sliwa isn't a serious enough contender to pull votes in a general election. And despite the specter of Mamdani's ideology frightening national Democrats, no consensus candidate has emerged. If there were a moderate Republican hedge fund type — pro-choice, socially liberal — that person could shake things up. But they don't exist here. Not this cycle.Ultimately, national Republicans are thrilled. They see Mamdani as a gift. Mike Johnson and Donald Trump will seize on his victory to cast New York as the face of socialism in America — a symbol of excess, decline, and failed progressivism. It's a setup for the midterms. They're ready to prey on any misstep, real or imagined. And unless something changes fast, the ‘Stop Zohran' movement isn't materializing. Not because it couldn't — but because no one in the race knows how to make it happen. Cuomo had his chance. He whiffed.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:37 - Cuomo Stays in NYC Race00:11:36 - Update00:12:05 - Inflation Report00:15:26 - Recissions Package00:18:45 - Israel00:19:55 - Interview with Emily Jashinsky00:59:15 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

As the 2026 election cycle takes shape, three stories signal how the political terrain is shifting: the return of Iowa to early-state relevance, the emergence of an independent challenge in Nebraska, and the Republican Party's willingness to get aggressive — fast.Iowa Democrats are pushing to reclaim their first-in-the-nation status — and they're doing it with or without national party approval. Senator Ruben Gallego is already promoting visits, and the message is clear: Iowa is back. For Democrats, this matters. The state has long served as a proving ground for insurgent campaigns, offering low costs, civic-minded voters, and a tight-knit media ecosystem. Barack Obama's 2008 breakthrough began in Iowa for a reason. It rewards organization, retail politics, and real ground games.The party's 2024 decision to downgrade Iowa was framed as a gesture to Black voters in states like South Carolina and Georgia. In reality, it was a strategic retreat by Joe Biden to avoid a poor showing. That backfired when Dean Phillips forced an awkward New Hampshire campaign and Biden had to rely on a write-in effort. Now, Iowa's utility is being rediscovered — not because it changed, but because the party's strategy failed. For candidates who want to win on message and mechanics, Iowa remains unmatched.In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is trying to chart a different kind of path — not as a Democrat, but as an independent with populist instincts. Running against Senator Pete Ricketts, Osborne is leaning into a class-focused campaign. His ads channel a blue-collar ethos: punching walls, working with his hands, and taking on the rich. He doesn't have to answer for Biden. He doesn't have to pick sides in old partisan fights. He just has to be relatable and viable.That independence could be Osborne's biggest asset — or his biggest liability. His support for Bernie Sanders invites the question: is he a true outsider, or a Democrat in disguise? Sanders has always caucused with Democrats and run on their ticket. Osborne will have to prove he can remain politically distinct while tapping into a coalition broad enough to win in a deeply red state. Nebraska voters might give him a chance, but they'll need a reason to believe he's not just another version of what they already know.And then there's the tone of the campaign itself. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already running attack ads that border on X-rated. A recent spot reads aloud hashtags from a sexually explicit tweet in a bid to link opponents with cultural extremes. The strategy is clear: bypass policy, bypass biography — go straight for discomfort. Make voters associate the opposition with something taboo. Make the election feel like a moral emergency.These tactics aren't about persuasion. They're about turnout. They aim to harden the base, suppress moderates, and flood the discourse with outrage. The fact that it's happening this early suggests Republicans see 2026 as a high-stakes cycle where no race can be taken for granted. And if this is how they're starting, the tone by next summer could be even more toxic.All of this — Iowa's return, Osborne's challenge, the NRSC's messaging — points to a midterm cycle already in motion. The personalities are distinct. The tactics are evolving. But the stakes, as ever, are the same: power, perception, and the battle to define the political future before anyone casts a vote.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:56 - Midterm Ads00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:37:31 - Update00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race00:43:02 - Congressional Districts00:47:31 - Fed Chair00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con't)01:11:22 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Justice Department under Donald Trump has formally closed its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. In a memo posted quietly to its website, the department declared there would be no new charges, and reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide. It's a familiar ending — one that satisfied almost no one — but it also lit the fuse on a slow-burning political problem within Trump's cabinet.At the center of it is Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, whose handling of the situation has been anything but decisive. Her tone during a recent cabinet meeting was defensive and evasive, and her history with this issue isn't helping. Bondi has previously courted controversy by summoning social media influencers, handing them binders on Epstein, and pushing them in front of cameras. That kind of theater backfires when questions grow more serious. And as I said on the podcast — she's getting fired. It's not official yet, but the countdown has begun.Bondi's standing is further weakened by reports of internal rifts. According to journalist Tara Palmeri, there's tension between Bondi and figures like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel — names with significant sway over Trump's perception of media battles and political threats. Add to that the fact that Bondi keeps attracting headlines Trump doesn't want, and you have a recipe for dismissal. Trump, perhaps more than any modern political figure, watches the television coverage as a barometer of competence. And right now, Bondi's airtime is working against her.None of this, of course, brings clarity to the Epstein case itself. As someone who followed the story when it was still a South Florida curiosity, long before it became national scandal, I'll tell you this — there are more questions than answers, and most of them will remain unanswered. There's been speculation Epstein was connected to intelligence services, that his travels and access were part of something larger. Maybe. I don't know. But if there is some shadowy list of powerful clients, no administration — not Trump's first, not Biden's, and apparently not Trump's second — has been willing to expose it.What's more likely is something simpler, and grimmer. Epstein had money. He had access. And he knew how to exploit both to surround himself with women — some underage, many vulnerable — through a recruitment structure that has been thoroughly documented. I don't buy the cleaner narrative that he was a glorified pimp operating on behalf of presidents and princes. It's more disturbing than that: he didn't need to offer favors. He created an ecosystem where abuse flourished because no one had the will or incentive to stop it.So where does Trump fit in? Despite the conspiracies, there's never been strong evidence that Trump was entangled in Epstein's criminal world. Did they know each other? Absolutely. They were two rich men in West Palm Beach — their social paths inevitably crossed. But the idea that Trump needed Epstein for access to women doesn't add up. Trump, at the height of his fame, ran beauty pageants and a hit TV show. The Pipeline of Pliable Women was already installed. If anything, Trump's problem with Epstein isn't guilt — it's optics. Being in the same orbit, in hindsight, was bad enough.And that's the heart of the issue now. Trump doesn't want this story back in the headlines. He doesn't want cabinet officials stumbling on camera, reviving suspicions, or dragging his name back into the Epstein muck. The DOJ statement was supposed to close the book. Pam Bondi — with her missteps and misreads — may have accidentally ripped it back open. If Trump's watching the coverage, he's likely already decided: she's more trouble than she's worth.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:52 - Epstein Case Closed00:16:06 - Update00:16:47 - Elon's America Party00:21:36 - AI Marco00:24:25 - Tariff Deal Deadline00:26:13 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke00:56:36 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Zohran Mamdani didn't just beat Andrew Cuomo — he buried him. In a race many expected to be tight or favor Cuomo through ranked-choice tallies, Mamdani delivered a knockout in the first round. The final numbers weren't close: Mamdani pulled in 545,000 votes to Cuomo's 428,000. That's a blowout. And it happened despite Cuomo once polling at an absurd 80%. This wasn't just a campaign upset — it was the end of Cuomo's delusion that he could waltz back into New York politics on name recognition alone.Mamdani's campaign was sharp and technically sound. He mastered ranked-choice mechanics — building coalitions, securing second-choice support, and locking in endorsements from the Working Families Party and key progressive organizers. But he didn't just activate the left. He reached across neighborhoods and demographics, putting in real ground work. His message wasn't just ideological; it was practical and local — housing, transit, jobs. The kind of politics that wins you quiet votes in places people don't usually canvass.Now, Mamdani becomes a national proxy whether he wants to or not. Republicans will make him the new face of the Democratic Party, using his self-identified socialism as a scarecrow in swing states. But that spotlight also comes with opportunity. He's proven he can organize, message, and win. If Mamdani survives the general — and with Eric Adams now backed into a defensive fight, that's looking more likely — he could emerge as a new progressive standard-bearer not just for New York, but for the left nationwide.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump and DeSantis, Reunited AgainDonald Trump and Ron DeSantis appeared together this week, publicly touring the new Alligator Alcatraz immigration facility in the Everglades. This was their first real moment of unity since a brutal 2024 GOP primary season. On the surface, they were aligned — joking, praising one another, presenting a strong front on immigration.Behind the smiles, though, Florida politics remains deeply tribal. There's always more going on under the surface. This wasn't just a unity photo-op; it was a strategic pivot. With the media focused on deportation centers and immigration enforcement, Democrats' messaging about Medicaid cuts and policy substance is being drowned out. Whether this is 5D chess from Trump or just savvy instinct, the outcome is the same — the right is driving the conversation.And here's my hunch: DeSantis is bound for a Trump administration role. Maybe not immediately, but certainly toward the end of his term. I don't know the exact position, but his re-alignment with Trump suggests he's looking for a path forward that keeps him in the national conversation.Allred's Return and the Uphill Battle in TexasColin Allred is back, launching another Senate bid in Texas, likely against Ken Paxton. His opening ad leans heavily on anti-corruption themes, clearly aimed at Paxton's scandals and ethical baggage. It's a smart choice if Paxton is the nominee. Voters don't forget public messes involving mistresses, real estate ties, and abandoned staff.That said, I'm not sold on Allred. His ad doesn't connect — it's too heavy on biography and too light on vision. People watching already know who he is. They're asking what he's going to do differently this time. He had a respectable run against Ted Cruz, but he didn't break through. And in a state like Texas, breaking through isn't optional — it's the baseline requirement.Texas Democrats face a structural problem. The party's progressives dominate primaries but struggle to produce general election winners. Allred's strength as a former football player was undercut by the trans sports issue. He doesn't read as a football guy, and he doesn't read as the kind of candidate who can split the difference between national party expectations and Texas voter realities. I'll be watching this race, but my expectations are tempered.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:03 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:29:16 - Update00:29:53 - Final NYC Mayoral Primary Results00:33:57 - Trump and DeSantis Reunite00:37:29 - Colin Allred for Texas Senate00:45:05 - Interview with Kirk Bado (con't)01:07:04 - Steelers Talk01:19:13 - Bonus Politics Question01:19:52 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Zohran Mamdani just reshaped New York politics — and maybe the national conversation too. I was on the fence going into the NYC mayoral primary. Mamdani's campaign had energy, ideas, and a clear message, while Andrew Cuomo's felt like a dusty rerun nobody asked for. But I still assumed Cuomo's name, connections, and donor base would carry him through. I shouldn't have. Mamdani didn't just win — he torched the field in the first round. Cuomo saw the writing on the wall and didn't even wait for ranked-choice voting to play out. He conceded outright.Now Mamdani isn't just a local story — he's a national one. Republicans have already started holding him up as the new face of the Democratic Party, especially in swing districts. He's a self-described socialist who just beat one of the most recognizable Democratic names in the country. That's political catnip for the right. Trump himself mentioned Mamdani on Truth Social. Conservative influencers are hammering him daily. Whether Mamdani likes it or not, he's been drafted into a larger culture war — and every policy, every quote, every tweet is going to be scrutinized at the national level from here on out.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And it's not just Republicans reacting. Democrats are watching closely too, especially younger progressives who now see a viable path forward in big-ticket races. Mamdani ran a campaign that wasn't afraid of bold ideas — rent freezes, public banking, and fare-free transit — but he didn't couch it in academic jargon. He went neighborhood to neighborhood, meeting people where they were, and speaking plainly. That's going to be studied. That's going to be copied. And in a party that often struggles to translate left-wing policy into real-world messaging, Mamdani may have just written the playbook.The irony is that Mamdani's win might breathe new life into Eric Adams — the guy the establishment tried to sideline. After the FBI raid and months of bad headlines, Adams looked like political toast. The party scrambled to swap in Cuomo as the “safe” option. But now that Cuomo's been humiliated, the same centrists who cast Adams aside are lining up to support him in the general. That's politics — ruthless and fast-moving. Expect a soft-focus profile in the New York Times Magazine before the fall: “Still Here: Why Eric Adams Never Gave Up on New York.”What makes this even more fascinating is that Mamdani's campaign actually had real working-class appeal. He didn't just preach to the progressive base. He campaigned across the entire city, even in neighborhoods where he was bound to lose. He framed his message in economic terms that resonated across ideological lines. That's not something many on the left do well. If Mamdani can sustain that balance — if he can speak to both the base and the broader public — he may become more than a lightning rod. He could become a blueprint. But first, he's got to win the general. And now that Adams is back in the game, the gloves are coming off.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:21 - Zohran Mamdani00:10:13 - Interview with David Litt00:34:49 - Update00:35:32 - Big Beautiful Bill Push00:39:47 - Elise Stefanik Gov. Race00:41:42 - Planned Parenthood Supreme Court Ruling00:45:06 - Interview with David Litt, con't.01:10:12 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

World War III is canceled — at least for now. That's where we are after one of the most dramatic weeks I can remember. The United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel followed up with its own strikes. Iran responded with missile attacks on CENTCOM in Qatar. And somehow, through all that, we've landed at a ceasefire. It felt like this was going to spiral — like this was going to be Qasem Soleimani times ten. Instead, it fizzled. Iran's missile strikes were calibrated, coordinated with the Qataris, coordinated even with us. They hit the sand, not American soldiers. It was more about sending a message back home than actually escalating the conflict.And that's the strange brilliance of it all. Trump took the boldest action — destroying Iran's nuclear program — and managed to walk away looking like the peacemaker. The people who warned that this would unleash chaos — Tucker Carlson predicting tens of thousands of dead Americans, Steve Bannon talking about gas at $30 a gallon — they look like they overshot. Gas prices are lower. No Americans killed. And Trump's using this moment to reframe himself. He's not just the guy who kept his promise to stop Iran's nukes. He's the guy who did it without dragging America into another endless war. That's going to matter politically. It gives him an argument the MAGA base and the suburbs can both live with.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Israel's role here is important too. Make no mistake — this was their mission. They wanted Iran's nuclear capacity gone. Trump signed off on a limited U.S. role, but Rising Lion was an Israeli operation at its core. Their goal was never just to set the program back a few years. It was to shake the regime. You can see it in the name — Rising Lion, the symbol of Iran before the Islamic Revolution. They're trying to turn the clock back. And they knew this was their window. Iran's economy is fragile, its proxies are weakened, and Trump was willing to greenlight the hits. The question now is whether this creates the cracks in the regime they've been waiting for — or just rallies Iranians around the flag.The domestic political fallout has been fascinating. Never Trump Republicans who've trashed Trump for years — Bolton, Christie, Kinzinger, even Jeb Bush — lined up to praise him. And that's made MAGA a little uneasy. They didn't sign up for regime change wars. They signed up for America First. And now they're watching Trump get applause from the same people who cheered on Iraq. Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to resurrect the war powers debate, framing this as executive overreach. It's the rare moment where anti-war Republicans and Democrats are kind of saying the same thing. But for now, Trump's riding high. He promised strength without entanglement — and for the moment, he's delivered.The NYC Mayoral Primary: Cuomo Stumbles, Mamdani SurgesOver in New York City, the Democratic mayoral primary has become the most interesting race in the country. Andrew Cuomo should have been cruising. He had the name recognition, the machine, the donor network. But his campaign has been a disaster. He looks old, angry, and out of step. His message is all negative — all about why Mamdani is dangerous, not why Cuomo is right for the job. And the voters can feel that. It's a re-run of 2021 for Cuomo: defensive, brittle, uninspired. Meanwhile, Mamdani is doing what progressives often struggle to do. He's selling a vision. He's making people feel like the future could actually look different.Mamdani's campaign has been relentless. He turned a 14-mile walk from the bottom to the top of Manhattan into a social media juggernaut. TikToks. Instagram reels. Everywhere you look, there's Mamdani, talking to voters, talking about his ideas, looking like he actually wants the job. His policy platform is ambitious — some would say reckless — rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, free public transit. But it's positive. He's offering something, not just fighting against something. That matters, especially in a city where voters are tired of politics as usual.The ranked choice system adds another layer of drama. Mamdani doesn't have to win outright on the first round. He just has to stay close enough that the second- and third-choice votes break his way. And given how much Cuomo is disliked even by his own side, that's very possible. The big donors are starting to notice. If Mamdani wins the primary, they'll flood Eric Adams with money for the general. They'll do it out of fear — fear that a Mamdani mayoralty would upend the city's power structures in ways they can't predict or control. And they're probably right.But even if Mamdani falls short, this race is a marker for where the Democratic Party is going. The fact that he got this far, this fast, tells you something about the appetite for progressive politics in urban America. Cuomo thought he could coast on his name and his record. Instead, he's found himself outworked, outmessaged, and outmaneuvered. And the rest of the party is watching. Because if Mamdani can do this in New York, somebody else can do it somewhere else. The future is up for grabs.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:39 - Iran-Israel Ceasefire00:17:53 - NYC Mayoral Primary00:28:00 - Update00:29:04 - Tariff Inflation00:31:18 - Big Beautiful Bill Voting00:34:48 - Trade Deals00:38:02 - Interview with Sam Feist01:11:11 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The big headline, of course, this week is Iran. The White House says Iran has everything it needs to build a nuclear weapon. That's where we are. Trump has about two weeks to decide whether to launch an attack. The reporting right now focuses on what kind of strike it would take to actually stop the program — could our bunker busters get the job done, or are those centrifuges buried so deep we'd need to soften the ground with conventional bombs first? There's even been talk — not a plan, just a technical example — of how only a tactical nuke could fully destroy Fordo. That's not where we're at, but it tells you how seriously the Pentagon is gaming this out.And honestly, I don't see a deal coming. Iran's regime can't afford it. Giving up the nuke means giving up the one thing that lets them project power, and domestically, it would be political suicide. You don't stay in charge in Tehran by backing down on Israel and nukes — not unless you're planning an escape to Moscow and retirement in a palace somewhere. That's not happening. My bet: Fordo gets hit. And when it does, the question is what follows.The Elon-MAGA Rift DeepensMeanwhile, Elon Musk continues his very public, very messy split with Trump World. After his earlier apology tour seemed to smooth things over, Musk reignited tensions by calling Trump advisor Sergio Gore a “snake.” This all goes back to their feud over NASA leadership and White House staffing — and it's clear Musk isn't letting it go. Vice President JD Vance jumped in to defend Gore, and the White House insists Gore is fully cleared and doing his job. The result? Elon drifts further from the MAGA core. He wanted to be at the table, but he keeps setting fire to the chairs.And look, this is classic Elon. He's always clashed with people he once partnered with — OpenAI, Trump, now Gore. He moves fast, burns bridges, and expects to build new ones just as quickly. But politics isn't tech. There's only so many seats at the table, and right now, he's playing himself out of them.ICE Raids, Reversals, and the Trump Balancing ActImmigration remains the other pressure point. Trump's team initially paused ICE raids targeting agriculture and hospitality — a move that shocked his hardline base. But now they're back on, with priority given to workers with criminal records. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, is clear: enforcement continues, but it's targeted. The message to farmers? There are legal ways to hire, and if Congress won't fix the system, they'll enforce the laws that exist.It's classic Trump tension: the balance between policy purity and practical impact. He built his coalition on immigration hard lines and anti-interventionism. That's what set him apart. Now, those promises are being tested — at home and abroad. And we're about to see how far he's willing to push before the cracks show.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:51 - Iran00:05:29 - Solving Immigration with Andrew Heaton00:26:54 - Update00:27:27 - Elon00:31:07 - ICE Raids00:33:43 - Solving Immigration with Andrew Heaton, con't01:00:42 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

This is one of those moments where it feels like something fundamental is shifting. The MAGA coalition — that mix of influencers, voters, and operators who've been the core of Trump's political power — looks like it's fracturing. I'm not saying it's done, I'm not saying the whole thing comes crashing down, but I've never seen this kind of strain. Not since Trump came down the golden escalator in 2015. And it all comes down to two issues: immigration and foreign intervention. The two things that defined Trump as a candidate. The two things that made him stand out in a crowded Republican field. The two things that made him president — twice.Immigration and the First CrackWe've talked for years about how immigration shaped MAGA. It took what had been a fringe issue and turned it into the centerpiece of Republican politics. Build the wall. Deport the illegals. It was simple, powerful, and resonated in ways that shocked the establishment. Trump was the first in a generation of Republicans to put his full weight behind it, and he changed the party forever. That's why what happened last week matters so much. Trump told his government not to conduct ICE raids at hotels, farms, and meatpacking plants. That's not a small adjustment — that's a major walk-back from the hardline stance that's been central to MAGA identity. And it didn't take long for the backlash to hit. MAGA influencers — the same folks who gave Elon the cold shoulder when he crossed Trump — came out swinging. This time, they were swinging at Trump.Trump reversed himself pretty quickly. But the damage was done. That moment — that decision to pause the raids — showed a crack in the coalition. It revealed a gap between what the base expects and what Trump is willing to deliver when faced with real-world pressures. He doesn't want grocery prices to spike. He doesn't want vacationers complaining about hotels. And so he blinked. That's what happened. And even though he tried to patch it up, the fact that it happened at all is what matters.Iran, Fordo, and the Intervention DilemmaThen there's foreign policy — the other pillar of Trump's MAGA appeal. Trump ran against the Iraq war. He ran against regime change. He ran against endless wars. And for four years, he mostly delivered. No new boots on the ground. When he struck, it was fast and targeted — think Soleimani, not Baghdad. But now, here we are, staring down the barrel of something that looks a lot like Iraq all over again. The question on the table: does America bomb Fordo, Iran's underground enrichment facility, for Israel? And if we do, what comes next?Trump believes Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Tulsi Gabbard, his own director of national intelligence, says Iran isn't close. That's daylight between the president and his intel team. And MAGA sees it. They see the build-up. They see the echoes of Iraq. And they're scared. Scared that Trump is about to cross the one line they thought he never would. Scared that this isn't just about Fordo — that this is the start of something bigger. Something with boots on the ground. Something that breaks the promise of America First.MAGA's Nightmare ScenarioIf you asked MAGA voters their nightmare scenario, this would be it. Regime change in the Middle East. A war that drags on. A betrayal of the core principles that brought them to Trump in the first place. The immigration reversal shook them. The Iran situation is terrifying them. And if Trump does decide to hit Fordo, that might be enough to fracture the coalition for good — at least for some.Trump's legacy on foreign policy could go one of two ways. If Fordo is hit and that's the end of it, maybe he walks away stronger, having prevented Iran from going nuclear without a long war. But if this spirals — if we get drawn into regime change, nation-building, boots on the ground — it could end his presidency before the next election even starts. MAGA was built on promises. And right now, those promises are under stress like never before.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:40 - The End of MAGA?00:23:15 - Update00:24:40 - Minnesota Dem Assassination Arrest00:33:11 - SALT00:37:27 - Israel-Iran00:43:44 - The Px3 Focus Group (with Matt Donnelly and Paul Mattingly of Ice Cream Social)01:30:44 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A weekend so profound in it's news that I am going to push this beyond the paywall. Let's start abroad… Israel-Iran Conflict Erupts with Fatal StrikesThe military confrontation between Israel and Iran intensified over the weekend, pushing the region toward a broader conflict. After Israel initiated Operation Rising Lion, Iranian ballistic missiles and drones pierced Israeli defenses, leading to 13 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Iran, in turn, reported nearly 400 deaths, many of them civilians, following retaliatory strikes on its infrastructure and military assets.Israeli airstrikes included the bombing of energy depots in Tehran and targeted assaults on military aircraft. The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, emphasized that the current response was merely the beginning of a broader campaign intended to dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions and proxy forces.Meanwhile, President Donald Trump denied American involvement but warned of U.S. retaliation should Iran target American interests. A backchannel veto of a potential Israeli strike on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei suggests complex coordination between the U.S. and Israel.Iran's capacity to fund regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis has drastically diminished. This could signal a potential collapse of its foreign influence model. Mossad operations inside Iran, along with America's preemptive repositioning of military personnel, hinted at foreknowledge of the Israeli offensive. As the G7 summit approaches, international leaders are poised to make de-escalation a top priority.Political Assassination Rocks MinnesotaA horrifying attack in Minnesota has left two dead and two more wounded in what authorities are calling a politically motivated assassination. State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, while State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were critically injured. The suspect, Vance Luther Boelter, remains at large.Boelter, 57, reportedly used a fake police vehicle and latex disguise to enter the homes of his victims. A manifesto and target list naming politicians and abortion providers were discovered, suggesting a premeditated campaign of terror. Boelter, with a background in security and missionary work, sent a farewell text to his roommate before the attacks and has since vanished.Authorities continue to investigate the full extent of Boelter's motivations, but his prior service on a Minnesota government workforce board and links to evangelical missions underscore the unpredictable nature of ideological radicalization. Political leaders have called for unity and condemned the violence as a tragic escalation of political extremism.No Kings Day Protests and D.C. Parade Are Mercifully DocilePresident Trump's 79th birthday coincided with massive "No Kings Day" protests, as hundreds of thousands across more than 2,000 cities demonstrated against what organizers describe as authoritarian governance. Backed by groups such as the ACLU and teachers unions, the protests, both domestic and international, were largely peaceful, although one protester in Salt Lake City was injured by a firearm discharged from within the crowd.In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary parade presented a striking contrast. With more than 6,000 troops, historical reenactors, and military hardware on display, the event drew cheers and selfies rather than vitriol. Even MSNBC coverage noted the upbeat atmosphere, starkly different from the usual tension of Trump rallies.Despite criticism of the $45 million price tag and corporate sponsorships by firms like Northrop Grumman and Coinbase, the event appeared largely apolitical. Trump delivered a brief, focused speech and administered the enlistment oath to 250 new Army recruits, marking the occasion as a rare moment of bipartisan recognition for military service.Episode Chapters and Time Codes* Intro and Father's Day Reflections (00:00:00)* Israel-Iran Conflict Analysis (00:02:18)* Michael Leiter Interview on Israeli Defense (00:04:08)* Strategic Implications and U.S. Positioning (00:08:12)* Domestic Fallout and Trump's Dilemma (00:13:54)* Netanyahu's Political Calculations (00:18:02)* Minnesota Assassinations and National Impact (00:20:06)* Senator Klobuchar's Tribute (00:20:06)* Suspect Background and Manhunt Details (00:22:36)* Reflections on Political Violence (00:26:32)* No Kings Day Protests Recap (00:33:49)* Army Parade Overview and Public Response (00:35:28)* Final Thoughts on American Expression (00:44:01) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Capitol Hill was a chaotic mess on Thursday, and Senator Padilla made sure all eyes were on him. He walked into a press conference, got into a scuffle, and wound up in handcuffs — all of it caught on tape. The footage, conveniently shot by Padilla's own team, spread fast. If it was a stunt, it worked. Within hours, major Democratic voices like Pete Buttigieg were condemning the incident, claiming even Trump wouldn't cross that line. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus rallied, heckled Speaker Mike Johnson, and declared Padilla a thug or a hero, depending on which side you were on.Let's be real: Padilla knew exactly what he was doing. He showed up to that press event looking to make a scene — and he made one. Whether or not he wore his Senate pin is beside the point. He wanted the arrest. He wanted the handcuffs. He wanted to be the visual representation of resistance to what California Democrats are branding a fascist crackdown. Gavin Newsom practically begged Trump to arrest him — Padilla followed through.The reactions say it all. I've heard from Republicans on the Hill who weren't thrilled with how it went down, and that tells you who won the optics game. If the video wasn't a strategic release — if this wasn't planned — it sure fooled me. Democrats instantly seized on it. Social media lit up. The message was clear: California's not backing down. Padilla's not backing down. And if you try to box us out of this debate, we'll crash the press conference — literally.Padilla and Governor Kristi Noem apparently had a sit-down afterward. They exchanged numbers, maybe patched it up, maybe not. But the story had already moved. The narrative was set. This wasn't about reconciliation — it was about the clip. A sitting senator in handcuffs doesn't just turn heads. It dominates the news cycle. And for a party looking to show spine in the face of rising federal enforcement in California, Padilla delivered. He walked in knowing exactly how it would play — and for better or worse, he played it perfectly.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:04 - Thoughts on Sen. Padilla00:09:38 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw00:38:53 - Update00:39:25 - Dem Govs Defend State Immigration00:42:02 - House Recissions Package Passes00:44:55 - Air India Plane Crash00:46:54 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw, con't.01:25:32 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The ongoing Los Angeles protests started with ICE raids. Not a new thing in concept, but a new thing in tone and target. We're talking work sites, immigration courts, restaurants — not jails or prisons, not the places where even the most progressive voices might begrudgingly agree law enforcement has some claim. But California law has essentially blocked ICE from accessing inmates for deportation. So instead of going after the people most would agree should be first in line, they're now going after people in public-facing jobs and community spaces. It's one thing to talk about enforcement — it's another when that enforcement happens where families eat or work.And that's the flashpoint. Trump said he'd deliver the biggest deportation effort in U.S. history. That promise means numbers, and numbers mean sympathy eventually bleeds in. I assumed it would come when a grandma running a family bakery got dragged out on camera. Instead, we're here — people in court, people in the kitchen, being targeted. This was always going to happen. When you aim big, you eventually hit someone the public doesn't want you to hit. And in a city like L.A., that means people are going to show up in the streets.Violence, Protest, and the California ReflexProtesting in California isn't unusual. It's part of the culture. Go look at Instagram stories from anyone in L.A. or the Bay Area — if something controversial is happening, people are in the streets. It's not performative in a bad way; it's performative in the literal sense. It's how people express politics. But with that comes another layer. The violence.There's a slice of every major California protest that's just there for the bricks, the Molotovs, the chaos. Whether they're accelerationists or just anarchists, they're consistent. And that's the problem. The damage they do isn't proportional — it's cinematic. It's what ends up on cable news and social media. And if the goal is to change hearts and minds about immigration policy, burning cop cars and smashing windows makes that harder, not easier.Where Are the Adults?This is where leadership matters. Donald Trump's giving about 20% of his attention to this. Maybe less. He's more engaged with Iran and China. The ICE moves feel reflexive, not strategic. They hit resistance, they escalate. Federalizing the National Guard, deploying Marines — it's blunt-force governance. It's power without precision. What you really need is coordination with the local officials. Instead, we've got a shouting match.Gavin Newsom says “arrest me.” Karen Bass echoes that. But neither is engaging with the reality on the ground. They're acting like Trump is literally smashing windows. And maybe that's useful for the national narrative, but it's not leadership. The onus is on them — Newsom, Bass, the people closest to the problem — to take the lead in condemning the violence. But they won't even acknowledge it. And so we spiral.The truth is, most of these protests are peaceful. But the few that aren't are the ones that define the story. That was the lesson of 2020. And yet here we are again, learning it all over. It's a noble cause, absolutely. But when you ignore the violence — when you pretend it doesn't matter — you lose the moral high ground. And right now, nobody's looking particularly adult in the room.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:33 - LA Protests00:18:45 - Interview with Rep. Greg Steube00:38:58 - Update00:39:26 - BBB Provisions00:42:25 - Recission Package00:48:28 - LA Protest Polling00:50:19 - Interview with Tom Merritt01:28:53 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Big Beautiful Bill looked like it was gliding along. Sure, there were hiccups — Rand Paul grumbled about the debt ceiling, some MAGA accounts didn't fully endorse it — but even then, it felt like controlled turbulence. Paul was performing his role as the token dissenter, the libertarian who always squawks about spending but eventually votes yes with a few tweaks. And he was already telegraphing his price: drop the debt ceiling hike and he's in. Meanwhile, the House side wasn't exactly throwing punches. Everyone was eyeing the Senate. If anything, it seemed like things were lining up for a classic late-June deal — messy but inevitable.Punchbowl's Jake Sherman, who's as wired in as it gets, detailed the emerging gap between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Senate Finance Committee wants permanent tax breaks that sunset in the House version. They're also pushing to modify or eliminate key Trump-era items — like the no-tax-on-overtime policy and new savings accounts for kids. There's still no consensus on SALT either. Senate Republicans want to water down the $40,000 deduction cap that Trump himself agreed to. That would make some moderate House Republicans happy, but it could risk blowing up the agreement altogether. This is the stuff that actually matters — the policy guts that will be run past the parliamentarian and hashed out in closed-door meetings. But then, out of nowhere… Elon.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.MAGA Has a Specific TypeTwo days ago, Elon Musk posted that the big beautiful bill was a “disgusting abomination.” Then he followed it up by retweeting Rand Paul with the words “KILL the BILLL.” That's not a passing criticism. That's scorched-earth stuff. And when it comes from a guy like Elon — who has positioned himself as a billionaire warrior for the MAGA cause — it's a challenge. So I did what I always do. I doomscrolled. Not for fun, but for you. To see who flinches. And here's what I found: almost nobody followed his lead.Charlie Kirk, who had been fairly quiet on the bill, suddenly dropped a thread outlining “50 wins” from it — MAGA-branded talking points that sounded like they came from Speaker Johnson's office. He didn't mention Elon. He didn't need to. The timing was the tell. He was staking a claim: this bill is ours. It's Trump's. And we're backing it. Then came Catturd. If you don't know about @Catturd2, well, that's why you listen to this show. The dude's a Twitter account run by a Florida musician, but in the MAGA ecosystem, his voice carries weight. When he turns, people follow. And he wasn't with Elon either.Mike Cernovich — someone who's ridden hard for Elon, slammed his enemies, carried water for his beefs — also pivoted. He made it clear that Trump's agenda is what gets MAGA fired up, not fiscal purity. His message was simple: you might like Elon, but Trump's the main character here. And look, none of these guys are policy wonks. But they are barometers. They're not jumping to Elon's defense. They're lining up behind the machine.Last One In, First One OutElon is learning in real time what it means to be new money in a political world that runs on tenure and loyalty. MAGA isn't a traditional political coalition. It's more like a federation of tribes — influencers, donors, operators — loosely tied together by a shared orbit around Trump. And in that world, being flashy doesn't count for much if you weren't in the trenches in 2016 or 2020. Elon came on board when it was already a moving train. Buying Twitter, firing woke staff, bringing Trump back to the platform — all of that scored him points. But that's not the same as being family.That's why I keep coming back to the same thought: last one in, first one out. Musk might be the richest guy in the world. He might own the place where MAGA influencers gather. But the moment he stepped out of line, they let him drift. Not a coordinated takedown. Just silence. And silence is brutal. He's not getting clowned like Bannon did when he got iced out. He's just floating — a slow, silent uncoupling from the people who used to cheer his every post.Now, Mike Johnson is supposed to speak to Elon about the bill today. Maybe that call smooths things over. Maybe Russ Vought or Stephen Miller reels him back in. Maybe he gets a seat at the table, tweaks the AI language, and declares victory. But right now, he's yelling about the CBO's deficit projections and getting politely ignored. And the MAGA coalition — the one he thought he'd conquered — is moving on without him.Chapters(Minor mic issues during the first 3 minutes of our interview with Kevin, stick with it.)00:00:00 - Intro00:02:57 - Elon vs. the Big Beautiful Bill00:16:36 - Interview with Kevin Ryan00:41:38 - Update00:41:56 - Trump's Travel Ban00:46:09 - Karine Jean-Pierre's Book00:51:46 - AOC Endorses Zohran Mamdani00:56:36 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con't01:35:46 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe