Politics Politics Politics

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

In this conversation, journalist Juliegrace Brufke delves into the fallout from the Justice Department's closure of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and discusses its implications for the Trump administration. She highlights the precarious position of Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, amid internal conflicts and media scrutiny. The discussion also touches on Elon Musk's entrance into third-party politics and the challenges of establishing a new political party, alongside the evolving narrative surrounding economic issues and upcoming legislative battles.

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