Politics Politics Politics

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

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