Politics Politics Politics

Jasmine Crockett’s launch ad did exactly what it was designed to do: dominate the conversation. It’s a sparse spot — just Donald Trump’s voice calling her “low IQ” while she slowly turns to camera and smiles—but the message is unmistakable. She’s positioning herself as the fighter, the foil to Trump, the progressive star ready-made for the national stage. Whether you think the ad is brilliant, asinine, or somewhere in between, the confidence behind it is unmistakable. This is a politician who believes the moment belongs to her.And the moment may actually be hers. Crockett’s entrance triggered the first major domino: Colin Allred is out. Allred saw exactly what was coming: a three-way field in which he was slowly slipping into fourth place, with poll numbers showing Crockett and state representative James Talarico dramatically outpacing him. In politics, you can bow out early or you can be forced out late. Allred chose the former and retreated to a reelection bid for his House seat. It was one of the rare cases of a politician reading a bad hand correctly before the stakes got worse.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That leaves the primary as a one-on-one: Crockett versus Talarico. And Talarico’s opening move — a polite welcome video directed at Crockett — landed with a thud. If Crockett walks into a room like a lightning bolt, Talarico walked in like a guidance counselor. He cannot afford to make this a personality contest. Crockett thrives in personality contests. If he wants to win, he has to make this about message, not magnetism. The question haunting Texas Democrats for years — can a centrist survive a primary built to reward progressives? — will finally get an answer.Democrats dreaming of flipping Texas understand the trap. Yes, Crockett is electrifying. Yes, she’s a rising star. But statewide politics in Texas is still shaped by a conservative-leaning bloc of independents who view her as too far to the left. Early polling from the University of Houston and Texas Southern University shows both Crockett and Talarico losing to Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton, who was impeached by his own staff, dogged by scandal, and widely regarded as too extreme even by many Republicans. Yet he leads both Democrats by narrow margins.That tells you everything about the strategic stakes. If Democrats nominate a progressive firebrand, even a wounded Republican like Paxton becomes viable. And the fear for Democratic strategists is simple: the moment Crockett wins the nomination, a large number of center-right independents will default to whoever the GOP nominates. That’s the shadow hanging over her rise. Her path to the nomination is the clearest. Her path to victory in November may be the hardest.Republicans: A Primary That Shouldn’t Be Close, But IsOn the Republican side, the Senate primary is turning into its own demolition derby. For months, John Cornyn seemed secure: the senior statesman, the institutional favorite, the known quantity. But recent polling shows Cornyn clinging to a razor-thin lead over Paxton, with Representative Wesley Hunt sitting as a serious third-place contender. Hunt’s entry infuriated the Cornyn team, and with good reason — Hunt is young, popular, and ideologically aligned with the party’s post-Trump base in ways Cornyn simply isn’t.Paxton, meanwhile, remains the wildcard. He survived impeachment by leaning entirely on his loyalty to Trump, and the MAGA base has rewarded him for it. Trump is widely expected to endorse Paxton, and the only mystery is whether he gives Hunt a co-endorsement. Either way, Cornyn is not getting Trump’s blessing, and if you are a Texas Republican trying to win a statewide primary without Trump’s blessing in 2026, you are playing football with no helmet.As filing deadlines pass and the field locks in, Republicans now find themselves with the one candidate Democrats most want to face — and simultaneously the only candidate who might actually beat them.If both primaries break the right way, Texas could get the most entertaining political matchup in modern state history: Jasmine Crockett versus Wesley Hunt. Two young, charismatic Black lawmakers representing opposite poles of America’s political identity, both natural performers, both eager brawlers. They could fill AT&T Stadium for a debate. They might try. And I would pay to see it.But beneath the spectacle is the deeper truth: Texas politics is in flux. Both parties are being reshaped by their loudest wings. Both are terrified of nominating the wrong candidate. Both primaries could create general-election vulnerabilities neither side fully understands yet. We’re watching political identity evolve in real time.And for once, Texas isn’t just a red state or a blue target. It’s the center of the storm.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:19 - Texas Senate Races Heats Up00:17:29 - Update00:19:29 - Republican Healthcare Bill00:22:22 - Ghislaine Maxwell Record Release00:24:03 - Tariff Bailouts00:26:07 - Bill Scher on Dems’ 2026 Outlook and More00:58:23 - 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 long found the January 6 pipe bombs case particularly frustrating. Too serious to be forgotten, too mysterious to be ignored, we’ve had no answers for nearly five years. And now, at long last, we have an arrest.The alleged bomber, Brian Cole Jr., faces federal explosive-device charges that could carry up to 20 years apiece. Court documents describe receipts, phone pings, and cameras placing him near the RNC and DNC buildings on January 5, 2021. All the evidence cited appears to have been in federal hands for some time, which naturally raises the question: why now? The government says enhanced forensic review — not new intelligence — finally broke the case open. But the timing will fuel speculation until prosecutors offer more transparency.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.For me, this case matters not only because it’s finally moving forward but because it was always part of the emotional experience of January 6, even if the public didn’t talk about it. Lawmakers were moved and evacuated not just because of the riot at the Capitol, but because of the pipe bombs. It shaped decisions, reactions, and rhetoric that day. The mystery left a vacuum. We’re finally filling it.The week also brought new revelations about the Venezuelan drug-boat strike, which continues to create friction between congressional Republicans and the Trump administration. Admiral Frank Bradley told lawmakers he never received a “kill everybody” directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, directly contradicting a Washington Post story that ignited days of speculation. Bradley maintains he followed detailed written orders, not verbal instructions, and that subsequent strikes in similar encounters resulted in survivors being rescued, not targeted.Republican lawmakers — many of them veterans themselves — are increasingly frustrated by the administration’s lack of clarity. They want the full video, the exact legal guidance, and the chain of command spelled out plainly. Their frustration isn’t ideological. It’s procedural. Military rules of engagement matter because credibility matters. When the administration’s communication is muddled, confidence erodes. And with foreign policy front and center again — from Gaza to Ukraine to Venezuela — credibility is the one currency Washington can’t afford to spend recklessly.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Recent News00:26:48 - Update00:27:20 - January 6th Pipe Bomb Arrest00:34:18 - Venezuelan Drug Boats00:37:15 - Gaza Peace Plan00:39:27 - 2026 Primary Draft01:31:20 - 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 Tennessee 7th District special election is no ordinary off-calendar contest. It is a rare moment when a deeply red seat, long considered immovable, has become a stress test for the political environment itself. Before the results are spun beyond recognition, here is how I see the race and why its outcome — whatever it is — matters far more than who wins.Tennessee’s 7th District is not supposed to be competitive. For years it has behaved like a Republican fortress: John McCain won it by 28 points, Mitt Romney by 24, and Donald Trump by anywhere from 21 to 34. Former Representative Mark Green consistently won with more than two-thirds of the vote. But those numbers mask reality. Trump has bled suburban support with each cycle, and while the district remains red, it has trended steadily closer to the center. That shift matters more in a special election, where turnout is low and national money is targeted at one race instead of dozens. In that kind of environment, even a heavily favored side can wobble.That brings us to the candidates. Republican Matt Van Epps is the type of standard-issue conservative you’d expect to see in a district like this: a veteran, a conventional platform, and a campaign that’s been competent but unremarkable. He has not run toward Trump the way many Republicans in similarly structured districts once would have, an omission that speaks volumes about the nervousness inside the party. Democrats, meanwhile, are running Aftyn Behn, whose message is strong — focused on affordability and frustration with tariffs — but whose opposition research file is… extensive. Past tweets cheering the destruction of a police station and musing about abolishing the Nashville Police Department have given Republicans plenty of material. Not exactly what you want in Tennessee.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.I keep coming back to the same three scenarios. The first is the earthquake: Aftyn Behn flips the seat. If that happens, the panic inside the Republican conference becomes immediate and existential. This majority is already strained by retirements, factional fights, and Trump’s declining approval ratings. Losing Tennessee 7 would signal that no district is safe, and it would meaningfully raise the odds that Republicans lose the House outright — potentially even before the midterms if more members resign.The second scenario is the reset: Matt Van Epps wins comfortably, by 10 to 15 points. Republicans would exhale. Leadership would declare this a reaffirmation that the party’s base remains intact. They would argue that a focused Democratic effort still couldn’t move the needle enough to threaten a core GOP district. It would be evidence that the sky is not falling — at least not everywhere, and not yet.The third scenario is the most interesting: a narrow Van Epps win. A single-digit margin would function as a Democratic moral victory and a Republican warning klaxon. It would confirm that the party’s suburban erosion is accelerating, that Trump’s drift downward is shifting the map, and that a generic Republican — even in Tennessee — is not insulated from national sentiment. A Politico report suggested the GOP conference would become “unhinged” if the race lands here. Having watched the last month of Republican caucus behavior, I’m not inclined to disagree.This isn’t just a regional contest. It’s a snapshot of a party that has been running on fumes — caught between a base powered by Trump and a national electorate increasingly uneasy about his second-term performance. It’s also a test for Democrats, who are experimenting with insurgent messaging in places they normally ignore. Aftyn Behn is trying to run as an outsider in a district where the outsider lane belongs to Republicans. Whether that gamble pays off will tell us something about how Democrats might approach similar red districts next year.No matter which path emerges, the Tennessee special election is less about two candidates and more about the political weather. And for the first time in a while, Republicans can’t be sure the forecast is on their side.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:11 - Tennessee Special Election Explainer18:54 - Update19:25 - Pete Hegseth22:16 - Travel Ban27:03 - Paul Finebaum30:17 - Andrew Heaton on Congressional Dread52:50 - 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 no two ways about it — Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation came as a shock. She’s leaving Congress at the start of the year, which means Republicans will immediately lose a vote they absolutely cannot spare. Governor Brian Kemp now has to call a special election, and even if he moves at the fastest pace legally possible, Georgia’s replacement likely won’t arrive until April or May. At that point we’re deep into a cycle where dozens of House Republicans are juggling competitive reelection campaigns, statewide ambitions or both. Losing a seat now isn’t a problem; losing a seat during the most politically fragile stretch of the year is a crisis.The fascinating part is how we got here. Greene was once one of Trump’s fiercest and most loyal defenders, a political brawler who generated attention, small-dollar fundraising and cable hits. Her real institutional power, however, came from her alliance with Kevin McCarthy. When McCarthy fell, Greene’s entire support structure collapsed with him. She wasn’t able to transfer that leverage to Speaker Mike Johnson. In fact, her attempt to oust Johnson failed so publicly that it effectively isolated her. Add to that the now-infamous Tony Fabrizio polling memo — sent from the inside of Trumpworld directly to Greene herself — telling her she couldn’t win statewide, and suddenly the relationship that once powered her rise curdled into animosity. Once Trump’s giving you mean nicknames on a Truth Social post, it’s pretty clear your days inside the tent are over.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.In the past few weeks, Greene has been everywhere—Real Time, The View, CNN—adopting a noticeably softer tone about political adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi. None of that happens by accident. And while no one close to her has confirmed anything, I can’t shake the sense that she’s plotting a pivot toward statewide office. The national rebrand won’t work; she’s too defined. But in a state like Georgia, where the Republican base still views her as a heroine and suburban women remain the barrier to statewide wins, maybe she sees a narrow path for a remade persona. Insiders I’ve spoken with don’t think it’s likely — but nobody dismisses it out of hand. After all, Georgia politics has delivered plenty of stranger twists than Marjorie Taylor Greene trying to run as a kinder, gentler insurgent.A Bad Week for DOJ: Sloppy Cases, Angry Allies and a Political CostWhile Greene was calculating her next chapter, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was stumbling through one of its most humiliating stretches since the start of the second term. Two high-profile cases—one targeting James Comey and another targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James—fell apart in spectacular fashion. The Comey case wasn’t dismissed on a technicality; it was thrown out because the Department of Justice may not have even properly secured a grand jury indictment. Not good. And because of how the dismissal occurred, the case cannot be refiled. Comey is permanently in the clear. The Letitia James case was dismissed for different reasons, and that one can theoretically return — but in practice, it’s now damaged and politically radioactive.Look. These cases were clearly pushed at the direction of Donald Trump himself. He said the quiet part out loud on Truth Social, publicly urging prosecutions of Comey, James and Adam Schiff before deleting the message. Trump wanted consequences for people he sees as political enemies. But wanting something and executing it competently are two very different things. And what happened here wasn’t just sloppy — it undercut the credibility of his claim to be the only person who can “clean up the system.” If you’re promising a more efficient, more disciplined government, you cannot afford your Justice Department to mishandle prosecutions this badly.This is also where the political costs begin to show. Punchbowl reported this week that Greene’s resignation has other Republicans eyeing the exits. I’ve heard similar grumbling from people close to MAGA-aligned lawmakers: they feel neglected by the White House, shut out of decision-making, and deprived of the small wins that normally help hold a caucus together. On issues like Venezuela, they simply want explanations — and aren’t getting them. Add the DOJ fiasco on top, and you have a governing coalition that increasingly feels taken for granted. The math is brutal: Republicans are two retirements away from losing the House majority outright. No one thinks a mass exodus is imminent, but the fact that the scenario has become a topic of conversation tells you how fragile the coalition is.The bottom line: if the Trump administration wants to restore confidence — inside the party and beyond — it can’t afford more weeks like this. Competence matters. And right now, the DOJ is delivering the exact opposite.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:10 - Marjorie Taylor Greene00:11:02 - Rush Hour 4 (seriously)00:11:44 - DOJ’s Bad Day00:16:38 - Are the Republicans in Trouble?00:19:39 - 2028 Picks with Gloria Young01:03:30 - 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

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

In this engaging discussion, Tom Merritt, a technology journalist recognized for his insightful analysis on tech trends, dives into pressing issues shaping UK politics and the implications of AI. He explores the turbulence within the Labour Party and how populism is rising amid economic strain. Merritt also raises concerns about AI's impact on white-collar jobs, reflecting on the shifting landscape of technology and its political ramifications. The conversation reveals a future where AI tools reshape both creative processes and political discourse.

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

Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, discusses significant Democratic strategies and his future political aspirations. He dives into the implications of the looming government shutdown and the modest deal on the table. Newsom emphasizes the energy surrounding Democratic initiatives and speaks candidly about the challenges of economic messaging, notably addressing the public's perception versus reality. He also touches on wealth concentration and the need for economic democracy amidst the bustling national political landscape.

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