The Democratic National Committee just wrapped up its meeting in Minneapolis, and one of the big ideas floated behind closed doors was a midterm convention. The logic is clear. Democrats are dealing with a brand problem. They want to reset, energize, and show that the party still has fresh faces and energy. That means television time. That means spectacle. So: midterm convention. And I’m all for it. I would love to cover one. I love conventions. Give me a big show with music, lights, messaging — I’m there.

I don’t know if Trump caught wind of this plan early or just read it when the story dropped, but it’s clear what happened next. He jumped on Truth Social and declared that the Republican Party would also hold a midterm convention. Because if the Democrats are getting a big TV moment, then he’s going to get one too — and he’s going to make it better. That’s how Trump operates. If you’re doing a spectacle, he’s doing a bigger one. The man knows television, and conventions are made-for-TV moments. So now we might have two of them.

What would those look like? For the Democrats, expect the same tightly-scripted, ultra-managed production they’ve always delivered. Nobody does a convention script like the Democratic Party. For all their other dysfunctions, they know how to build a prime-time political package. The Republicans? Expect a Trump rally — but bigger, glossier, and even more overloaded with segments, guests, and applause lines. Multiple nights, probably. A celebration of Trumpism that looks less like a traditional political event and more like an awards show.

The Path to a Shutdown is Clear

Meanwhile, Axios also reported that Democratic leaders in Congress have landed on their key demand to avoid a government shutdown: the reversal of Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And this is where things get interesting. Because while I’m not here to defend either side — I come from media, not partisanship — I can tell you that this is exactly the kind of story that drives conservatives crazy. This is what fuels the belief that the media covers these fights with blinders on. Because here’s the reality: Democrats want to shut down the government. They are choosing this. They want a shutdown — not because they think it will solve something, but because they think it’s a strong midterm frame.

That frame is Medicaid cuts. Specifically, Medicaid cuts for rural hospitals. That’s the message. Not the whole bill, not the fiscal fight — just the healthcare piece. That’s the issue they believe will mobilize their base and let them go on offense. So everything that happens next, from press statements to floor speeches, is about setting up that narrative. The Republicans will try to pass a continuing resolution. Democrats will have to decide: do they agree, or do they shut it down?

I don’t think Schumer or Jeffries can survive politically if they don’t let their caucus go through with this. That’s the point we’ve reached. The shutdown is happening, and this is why. The date to watch is September 30 — that’s when the funding runs out. And unless a miracle happens, we’re going to see this showdown play out just like they’ve mapped it. And the messaging is already here. Elizabeth Warren said, “If Republicans want Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires.” That’s the line. That’s the campaign.

It’s already baked in. Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune saying this has to be bipartisan — while knowing full well that their demands are nonstarters. It’s the same dynamic we’ve seen from Republicans in the past: throw out a demand that won’t be met, use the denial to justify the shutdown. The only difference is that Democrats usually don’t do this. But this isn’t the same Democratic Party as it used to be, now is it?

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:06:42 - Midterm Conventions

00:09:35 - Dems Shutdown Plan

00:15:34 - Update and Minneapolis Shooting

00:18:28 - Epstein

00:22:56 - CDC

00:24:33 - Mark Teixeira

00:27:01 - Interview with Howard Mortman

01:04:10- Wrap-up

But I don’t want to focus on the Democrats right now. I want to focus on the Republican Party because one of the big things that’s going to shape the midterms — which, make no mistake, are going to be nationalized — is how the American public feels about the GOP. That includes the party’s overall image, the fact that they currently hold the House, Senate, and the White House, and the role of Donald Trump as president. Historically, that’s usually the kiss of death in a midterm. The public looks at single-party control and, whether consciously or not, pulls back a bit. It’s a check on power, and more often than not, it happens.

I still believe, sitting here in late August of 2025, that Democrats are in a good position to take the House back in 2026. The redistricting mess adds some chaos, but even assuming that plays out neutrally or slightly in their favor, the historical precedent is clear — they should be competitive. That said, if we were heading toward something other than a typical midterm correction, you’d start to see signs. Not signs that Democrats are collapsing — that’s already evident in other areas — but signs that voters are unusually comfortable with Republican governance.

And you know what? Those signs are there.

If I had to judge the early terrain by three hard metrics, I’d go with national fundraising, party registration, and the president’s approval rating. Let’s start with the money. The Republican National Committee currently has $65 million in cash on hand. That’s not an overwhelming total, but it’s strong — especially with a year to go. More importantly, it’s four times what the Democratic National Committee has. The DNC is sitting on just $15 million. That gap alone is bad enough, but it gets worse when you factor in spending decisions like Proposition 50 in California. That fight — to temporarily override the independent redistricting commission — is going to vacuum up cash from the same organizations and donors who would otherwise be investing in House flips. So the Democrats are undercapitalized, and they’re committing resources to side projects.

Then there’s registration data. According to a recent New York Times report, Democrats have lost 2.4 million registered voters in swing states that track party affiliation. In the same set of states, Republicans have gained nearly that same amount. That’s a five million voter swing. It’s not just that Democrats are losing — Republicans are growing. That kind of shift doesn’t usually happen in the middle of a polarizing presidency. People don’t suddenly start checking the box for the incumbent party unless something is resonating. And considering the kind of term Donald Trump is having — rapid policy implementation, constant headline churn, immigration crackdowns, inflation waves, even distractions like the Epstein debacle — you’d expect backlash. Instead, you get a net positive in party affiliation.

That brings us to approval ratings. Trump’s RealClearPolitics average stands at 46.3 percent. He’s still underwater, with 50.8 percent disapproving. But let’s add context. That number is higher than Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Ronald Reagan had at this same point in their second terms. That’s unusual. And while being underwater is never ideal, that 4.5-point spread is about what you’d expect for Trump when you factor in how he’s consistently undercounted in national polling. And the range of poll results is all over the map — Rasmussen has him up one, Harvard Harris has him down two, YouGov has him down 12, and Gallup just released a poll with him down 16. But even Gallup’s number is an improvement from previous weeks, which suggests that Trump’s “tough on crime” stance — especially in DC — is landing.

So when I step back and look at the full picture, what I see is a Republican Party that isn’t being punished. That might sound basic, but it’s a big deal. Historically, you’d expect that by now — with the administration moving aggressively, Democrats hammering every misstep, and inflation rising — the electorate would be turning. But instead, Republicans have a funding advantage, a registration advantage, and a president who’s polling better than most of his second-term predecessors.

That doesn’t mean they’re going to hold the House. The historical pattern still favors Democrats picking up seats. But it does mean that the GOP is better positioned than it has any right to be under these circumstances. And if your theory of the midterms is based on Trump’s agenda — the one big, beautiful bill, cutting Medicaid, handing out tax breaks, and all the rest — then you have to reckon with the fact that, at least for now, it isn’t hurting them. Maybe that changes. But if this were going to backfire, I would have liked to have seen a little something from it by now.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:04:20 - Early Midterms Thoughts

00:16:21 - Update

00:16:42 - Abigail Spanberger

00:23:47 - Trump’s Chinese Students Plan

00:27:55 - Lisa Cook

00:33:54 - Interview with Amanda Nelson

01:26:10 - Wrap-up

Katie Porter's Surge in the California Governor Race

With Kamala Harris opting out of a gubernatorial run, Katie Porter is reaping the benefits. New polling from Politico shows Porter pulling ahead, with 30 percent of Harris's former supporters now backing her. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra trail behind at 16 and 11 percent, respectively. Porter's advantage comes from her visibility and defined ideology — she’s well known and clearly positioned on the progressive spectrum.

California's jungle primary system means all candidates run on the same ballot, and the top two — regardless of party — face off in the general. Right now, two Republicans are splitting their share of the vote, which adds up to something in the thirties. Porter is in the driver’s seat, but with that comes the expectation of incoming fire. Her reputation for detail and sharp questioning in Congress could cut both ways — she's admired for precision but rumored to have a temper and staff issues that may resurface.

If you ask me, I'd rather be in her shoes than anyone else’s in this race. Governor Porter is no longer a long shot — she's a top contender. Sure, she's not universally loved, and her style is a sharp contrast to someone like Gavin Newsom, who leans more on charisma than policy depth. But Porter's grounded, process-oriented approach might resonate with voters ready for a different kind of leadership. It's early — but she's clearly in the lead.

The Freedom Caucus Exodus

Chip Roy is heading home — not just to Texas, but into the state attorney general race. He’s leaving behind his role in the House and with it, another domino falls in the dissolution of the Freedom Caucus. He’s not alone. Byron Donalds is going for Florida governor. Barry Moore wants a Senate seat in Alabama. Ralph Norman is aiming for South Carolina’s governor’s mansion. The list goes on — and the pattern is clear.

These were the hardliners — the names you heard when Speaker fights broke out or when high-stakes votes were in play. Now, they’re moving on, seeking promotions or exits. The Freedom Caucus’ influence, once loud and obstructive, is quietly fading. They all bent the knee to Trump eventually, and now it seems like they’re cashing out or repositioning for relevance in state politics.

In Texas, the AG job is a powerful one. Ken Paxton used it as a springboard and wielded it aggressively. If Roy wins, expect more of that hard-edged, action-first governance. But nationally, their exodus signals something more — the end of a chapter. The Freedom Caucus isn’t what it was, and its main voices are scattering. Their watch has ended.

Tulsi Gabbard's Deep State Overhaul

Tulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, has unveiled ODNI 2.0 — a major restructuring plan that slashes staff and consolidates units focused on countering foreign influence and cyber threats. The goal is to cut $700 million annually — a bold move, but one in line with this administration’s mission to slim down government operations. It’s another signal that this White House doesn’t operate under old assumptions.

The intelligence world, long a target of Trumpian criticism, is being gutted — not just for size but for perceived bias. There’s a strong undercurrent here about the so-called deep state and its relationship with the press. This move isn’t just administrative — it’s cultural. It’s about information control. Gabbard is targeting the pipelines that leak classified narratives to shape public perception.

Living in D.C., you feel the impact of this. It’s a company town — when the company is laying off hundreds, the town shifts. Longer happy hours. People breaking leases. Uncertainty hanging in the air. But if you're in this administration, it’s not about sympathy. It’s about loyalty — or the lack thereof. And for many who see Trump as the duly elected CEO of the U.S. government, trimming the fat is justice, not politics.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:43 - Interview with Alex Isenstadt

00:27:40 - Update

00:28:54 - Katie Porter

00:31:49 - Chip Roy

00:34:28 - Gabbard Cuts

00:41:23 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw

01:31:52 - Wrap-up

Graham Plattner is running for Senate in Maine. He’s not a career politician. He’s not a household name. He’s a newcomer, and he’s coming in with the kind of video that’s designed to break through the noise. It’s everything you’d expect from someone trying to signal that they’re different — kettlebell lifting, scuba diving, oyster farming, military gear. This is Fetterman-core, and I mean that in the pre-stroke, media-savvy, meme-friendly way. It’s intentionally loud, intentionally masculine, and intentionally designed to get people talking.

But this isn’t just a vibe campaign. Plattner’s already built a real team. He’s working with the same media shop that did ads for Zohran Mamdani in New York and helped elect Fetterman in Pennsylvania. These aren’t DCCC types. They’re insurgent operatives with a history of getting attention — and winning. That tells me Plattner’s not just here to make a point. He’s running to win. And in a state like Maine, where ideological boundaries don’t map neatly onto party lines, he might actually have a shot.

Democratic leadership, though, has other plans. Chuck Schumer and his operation would clearly prefer Janet Mills. She’s the sitting governor, she’s 77 years old, and she’d walk into the race with a national fundraising network already behind her. But that’s exactly the kind of candidate a guy like Plattner is built to run against. If she enters, it turns this race into a referendum on the Democratic establishment. And it gives Susan Collins exactly what she wants: two Democrats locked in a bitter primary while she gears up for a calm general election campaign.

Maine is weird politically. I don’t mean that as an insult — I mean it’s unpredictable in a way that defies national modeling. This is a state that elects independents, splits tickets, and shrugs at coastal assumptions. A candidate like Plattner, who’s running a progressive but culturally savvy campaign, could actually catch fire. He’s already signaling that he’s not going to run from the Second Amendment — which would make him a unicorn among progressives — and he seems to get that guns, culture, and economic populism all intersect here in a way that’s not neat or clean.

It’s early, and most people outside the state probably haven’t even heard of him. But he’s getting coverage. And he’s trying to frame himself as the guy who will show up everywhere — from left-wing podcasts to centrist fundraisers to gun ranges in rural districts. If he pulls it off, it won’t just be a Maine story. It’ll be a signal that Democrats are still capable of producing candidates who can speak across class and cultural lines without watering down the message. We’ll see if he holds up under pressure.

Trump, Zelensky, and the Shape of a Ukraine Deal

Trump’s pushing a peace summit with Russia and Ukraine, and the location that’s gained traction is Budapest. That’s not a random choice. Budapest is where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that turned out to be meaningless. Putin invaded anyway. So now, years later, trying to broker a peace deal in that same city feels almost poetic — or cynical, depending on how you look at it. Macron wants Geneva. Putin wants Moscow. Orbán, who runs Hungary, is offering Budapest as neutral turf. That offer seems to be sticking.

The terms of the talks are shifting. Zelensky isn’t being required to agree to a ceasefire before negotiations begin — which is a major departure from the Biden administration’s stance. Trump’s team seems to believe that real movement can happen only if you start talking now, without preconditions. That’s risky. But it’s also more flexible. The Russians are now suggesting they might accept something like NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine — just without the name “NATO.” That’s a big shift. If they’re serious, it opens up a lane for something that looks like independence and protection without triggering all-out war.

Zelensky, for his part, is in a bind. His approval rating has dropped. His party just lost ground. The economy is on life support. And the longer the war goes on, the harder it is to keep Ukrainians fully on board with total resistance. That’s not a moral failing — it’s exhaustion. What Ukraine wants now, more than anything, is certainty. If they’re going to give up territory — and no one’s saying that out loud, but everyone’s thinking it — then they want to know they’ll never have to fight this war again. That’s where the Article 5-style guarantees come in.

Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, is reportedly testing those waters. And Marco Rubio said the quiet part out loud — that if Ukraine can get real security commitments in exchange for ending the war, it’s worth exploring. This isn’t the “bleed Russia dry” strategy the Biden administration backed. That was about regime change through attrition. This is something else. It’s about containment, closure, and trying to make sure the region doesn’t explode again five years down the line.

No one’s pretending this is clean. Crimea isn’t coming back. Parts of the Donbas are going to remain contested forever. But if a deal gets Ukraine real protection, even without NATO branding, and gets Russia out of the areas it’s willing to surrender, that’s movement. And right now, movement is the only thing that separates this from another decade of trench warfare and broken promises. Whether it holds is anyone’s guess. But it’s on the table now — and for the first time in a long time, that actually matters.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:04:42 - Maine Midterms

00:18:08 - Update

00:19:04 - Trilateral Meetin

00:30:04 - DC Fed Takeover

00:33:24 - Epstein Files

00:36:00 - Interview with Alex Epstein

01:34:40 - Wrap-up

A short update this week while I’m on the road. Trump will join European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for an emergency virtual summit Wednesday ahead of his Friday meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The talks, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will focus on pressuring Russia, addressing seized Ukrainian territory, securing guarantees for Kyiv, and sequencing peace talks. Merz insists on a ceasefire before any negotiations or land swaps, and Europe is pushing for stronger sanctions on Russia’s banking sector. Three sessions will bring together EU leaders, NATO chief Mark Rutte, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukraine’s military backers. I’ve been struck by how closely Europe and NATO are aligned with Trump here — but we’ve been down this road with Putin before. He’s not a trustworthy guy. My bet is Zelensky ends up in the summit, and Trump pushes for a wrap-up.

Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union, long a Democratic stronghold, is broadening its political giving under President Sean O’Brien, donating to Republicans as well. It’s a big story — a sign that Democrats’ hold on organized labor’s money and loyalty is eroding, and it’s going to be something we need to watch as we move forward.

Finally, a judge denied the DOJ’s request to unseal grand jury material in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, saying the public would learn little new. The DOJ’s handling — including interviewing Maxwell, transferring her to a less restrictive prison, and not notifying victims — has sparked outrage. The public want more answers, but it’s unclear what new revelations could satisfy that demand. Would naming names in exchange for a pardon be worth it? That’s the moral trade-off now on the table.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:00 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 1

00:30:00 - Update

00:34:24 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 2

00:57:46 - Wrap-up

Netanyahu’s latest move isn’t subtle. He wants Israel to take full control of the Gaza Strip — dismantle Hamas, free hostages, and install a non-Hamas civilian government. On paper, it sounds like a decisive endgame. In practice, it’s a minefield. The UN, the UK, and even some of Israel’s own military leaders are warning this could be catastrophic, both humanitarian and legal. We’re talking about tens of thousands of troops pushing into Gaza City, uprooting a million residents to the south, and expanding a controversial aid network that’s already replacing the UN in distribution.

I can’t say I’m shocked. From the moment October 7th happened, this was always one of the plausible end states — Hamas removed from power entirely. What I didn’t anticipate was Iran’s weakened state factoring into the timing, or the fact that Israel might see that as a green light to act more aggressively. The trouble is, any operation that moves into the areas where hostages are held risks killing them outright. That’s going to split Israel politically, because it forces a brutal question: if you were willing to risk their deaths now, why didn’t you do it immediately after the attack?

And that’s before you even get to the problem of what comes after. Hamas leaders can’t make a deal and then just go live quietly in Gaza. They’d have to leave. But where? You don’t walk away from martyrdom rhetoric on Monday and spend Tuesday at Mario World in Orlando. Gaza under Hamas isn’t just a state — it’s a criminal syndicate, and that makes any negotiated exit almost impossible. Which means, if this plan goes forward, it’s going to be bloody, messy, and controversial from the start.

Trump’s Putin Play

Trump’s continuing to signal he’ll meet with Putin “very soon,” possibly in the UAE. Early talk was that Zelensky would be part of a three-way summit, but Trump has apparently dropped that stipulation. Predictably, the Kremlin is treating this like a win, while critics warn it could legitimize Russia’s aggression and undermine NATO. That’s the Beltway framing.

From what I’m hearing, it’s not that simple. Trump has actually been harder on Putin lately than some people realize — moving nuclear subs into range, green-lighting sanctions, and generally signaling that he’s done being strung along. This isn’t 2018 Helsinki. It might be Trump testing whether Putin will only make a deal after feeling genuine pressure.

None of this means a breakthrough is coming. It probably isn’t. But it does mean Trump wants to own the narrative — that he’s the guy who ends wars through direct negotiation. And until Ukraine or Gaza is resolved, his foreign policy record will feel incomplete. I think he knows that, and I think that’s why this meeting’s on the table at all.

FBI Assisting in Locating Texas Dems

In Texas, the Democratic walkout drama is back, with Senator John Cornyn confirming the FBI is helping locate them. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is playing host, calling the state’s collection of Democrats “refugees,” which is absurd. They’re not refugees. They’re political props in his own long-term campaign plans.

Here’s the thing — if you believe in what you’re doing, you should want to get arrested. That would make this story bigger, not smaller. It’s the most potent form of protest they’ve got. Instead, they’re hiding out in hotels, funded by Beto O’Rourke’s PAC, doing nothing to energize the very voters they’re supposedly defending.

They could be knocking on doors in the districts that are about to be carved up, rallying people who are about to lose representation. If they got dragged back to Austin by Texas Rangers in the middle of that, it’d be front-page news. Instead, we’ve got photo ops in Chicago. It’s the same mistake they made in 2021 — swapping a real fight for a symbolic one, and then acting surprised when nothing changes.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:48 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt

00:21:29 - Update

00:21:57 - Gaza

00:29:30 - Trump and Putin

00:32:41 - Texas Dems

00:36:07 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt (con't)

01:01:12 - Wrap-up

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.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:00 - Texas

00:13:46 - Update

00:14:29 - Treasury Secretary

00:19:36 - Gaza

00:24:36 - Moon-based Nuclear Reactor

00:26:31 - Interview with Kirk Bado

01:23:11 - Wrap-up

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.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:40 - Georgia Senate Race

00:20:32 - Update

00:20:54 - Kamala Harris

00:24:06 - South Korea Trade Deal

00:26:24 - Trump’s White House Ballroom

00:28:07 - Interview with Josh Jennings

01:18:15 - Wrap-up

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.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:09 - Trump’s Homelessness Plan

00:14:56 - Update

00:15:18 - EPA Rollbacks

00:20:09 - North Carolina

00:23:12 - Epstein

00:26:58 - Interview with Dan Turrentine

00:59:56 - Wrap-up

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.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:09 - Epstein

00:05:56 - Hunter Biden

00:32:18 - Update

00:33:34 - NC Senate Race

00:36:40 - Wisconsin Gov. Seat

00:38:19 - Florida Redistricting

00:39:08 - Interview with Mary Ellen Klas

01:17:30 - Wrap-up