According2Sam Podcast

The stakes are high for the 2026 Congressional midterm elections, and both Democrats and Republicans know it. This urgency is driving the mid-decade redistricting efforts now underway in several states. In Republican-controlled states, district lines are being redrawn to boost the party’s chances of retaining control of the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, Democrats are pursuing redistricting in the states they govern in hopes of regaining power in Congress. If Democrats succeed, it could mark the end of President Trump's agenda—and potentially lead to his impeachment. That’s why the stakes are so high. However, what happens if Democrats fall short? What would that mean for the future of their party? Join the conversation and get answers to these questions and more on According2Sam episode #339.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

A new analytical report from The New York Times, published this week, reveals a significant disparity in voter registration between the two major political parties from 2020 to 2024. In the 30 states that track party affiliation, Democrats lost registered voters to Republicans in every single one—often by a large margin. The report describes the Democratic Party as “bleeding support” and in a state of “crisis.” This has left many Democrats questioning why they are losing ground. Yet, based on their current strategy, the answer seems to elude them. Rather than adjusting course, the party appears to be doubling down on everything they have been doing. Why are voters turning away from the Democratic Party, and can they repair the damage before the midterm elections next year? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #338.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

A recent talking point among some Democrats and members of the legacy media is that President Trump’s efforts to resolve global conflicts are motivated primarily by a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Some go further, suggesting his interest stems from envy over President Obama’s receipt of the award. Regardless of his motivations, what is undeniable is that President Trump has taken active steps toward peace in several international conflicts. In just six months, he has done more in pursuit of peace than President Obama accomplished in eight years. Has opposition to President Trump become so deeply rooted that it obscures any objective assessment of his actions—even when those actions contribute to global peace? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #337.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

President Trump set a goal for his second administration: to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He famously stated during last year's campaign that he would end the war on his first day. While he did not achieve that ambitious timeline, he has been aggressively pursuing a peace agreement between the two nations. It marks a significant policy shift from the Biden administration, which made no attempts at diplomacy or peace. The latest effort is hosting a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Many foreign policy experts have criticized this move, suggesting they preferred Biden's approach more. Why is Trump's approach correct, if the objective is really peace? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #336.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

It’s been over two months since the public fallout between President Trump and Elon Musk. Elon said President Trump was unstable due to his age, while Trump called Musk a “b******t artist.” The spectacle entertained many—especially Democrats and members of the media—who had long predicted a rift between the two. Watching it unfold so publicly was a bonus, playing out in real time across social media feeds. Looking back, the entire episode seems almost too perfect, almost scripted. The most explosive moment came when Musk alleged that Trump appeared in the Epstein files and suggested that this was the reason they hadn’t been released. Since then, Democrats and the media have been obsessed with obtaining the Epstein files. Did they take the bait? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #335.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

When Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, his campaign centered on transformative change, encapsulated in the slogan "Change You Can Believe In." In his victory speech in Chicago that night, he declared, "It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America." Despite this promise, the Obama administration saw minimal policy shifts from the preceding Bush administration, particularly in national security and intelligence. Key figures from the Bush era, including Robert Gates, James Clapper, James Comey, and John Brennan, retained influential roles. How did these individuals contribute to the continuity of Bush-era policies within the Obama administration? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #334.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

There has been a lot of conversation about the so-called "deep state" and whether it actually exists. Some argue that, of course, there is a shadowy deep state influencing policy in Washington, D.C., while others dismiss the idea, labeling it a conspiracy theory. Another way to think about the deep state is in terms of the continuity of government. This refers to individuals within the intelligence community and other government agencies who remain in their positions regardless of which political party holds the White House. Whether a Democrat leaves office and a Republican takes over—or vice versa—these unelected officials stay in place and often work to maintain consistent policy, even if voters have chosen a new direction. What policies did the deep state seek to continue after the Obama administration? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #333.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

Newly declassified documents from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s probe of President Trump have shed new light on the individuals involved in Obamagate scandal. While President Obama, as chief executive, oversaw the intelligence agencies implicated, the documents show that Hillary Clinton played a central role in initiating a plan to link Trump to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Clinton was facing scrutiny due to an ongoing FBI investigation into her handling of classified information during her tenure as Secretary of State. Her strategy was to generate a counter-scandal involving Trump, prompting the FBI to launch an inquiry into him as well. It worked like a charm. Who are the other participants that we are learning about, and what role did the media play in the plot? Join the conversation and get answers to these questions and more on According2Sam episode #332.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

In November 2015, as the United States was preparing to begin the primary process for the 2016 presidential election, the liberal website Vox Media published an article titled "Don't believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet." The article highlighted a tweet by journalist Rory Cooper, which read: "Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy." This article and tweet served as a premonition of what was to come for the Democratic Party in the 2016 election. Yet, after Hillary Clinton's loss, many Democrats and media outlets began attributing her defeat to Russian interference. Given the Democratic Party’s electoral losses throughout the Obama administration, why was Clinton’s defeat predictable—and why did it have nothing to do with the Russians? Join the conversation and get answers to these questions and more on According2Sam episode #331.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com

The Obamagate scandal and the Epstein scandal are, in many ways, fundamentally similar. Both involve rogue elements within the United States intelligence community and include many of the same key figures. Robert Mueller and his deputy, James Comey, were leading the FBI when Jeffrey Epstein was first arrested during the Bush administration. At that time, federal prosecutor Alex Acosta was reportedly told that Epstein was an intelligence asset and advised to "leave it alone." Comey later became Director of the FBI and was leading the agency during the 2016 presidential campaign, when the Obamagate scandal began. That ultimately led to a two-year special counsel investigation into President Trump, which was headed by Robert Mueller. What are some other parallels between these two scandals? Join the conversation and get answers to this question and more on According2Sam episode #330.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.according2sam.com