Politics Politics Politics

Episodi

• Is Our Iran Deal Groundhog Day Almost Over? Platner, LA's Mayor, and More (with Karol Markowicz) 11.06.2026 1h 10min

  The situation with Iran continues to feel like Groundhog Day, except this time, believe it or not, there may actually be movement.Earlier this week, I mentioned that I had heard from people in the know that the United States military was coiled to strike Iran and was looking for either provocation or justification to resume major military activity. That appeared to happen when Iran shot down an Apache helicopter that was escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. We also learned that more than 100 million barrels of oil had moved through the strait under U.S. protection over the last month.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.One of the reasons that caught my attention is that gas prices in the United States have been falling pretty dramatically. It was a head-scratcher. If the Strait of Hormuz was effectively stalled, then what explained the drop? Was it a global rerouting of supply? Was there a China component that had been negotiated and never publicly heralded? I didn’t know then, and I don’t know now, but the announcement about oil shipments at least provides part of the picture.What’s more interesting is what happened next. After one night of military strikes, the second night was canceled. Donald Trump said that’s because we’re at the point of a deal, one that has supposedly been signed off on by all available parties in the region. It appears to resemble the memorandum of understanding that’s been floating around for weeks, although nobody really knows because we still haven’t seen the text. We don’t know if it’s real. We don’t even know exactly what it says.The administration’s definition of success has been fairly consistent: Iran gives up its nuclear material and removes the nuclear threat. If that’s actually in the agreement, then it would be meaningfully different from what came before. The obvious question is what Iran gets in return. The reporting and public comments suggest that Tehran is focused on access to frozen assets and getting money quickly. Whether that money goes directly to Iran, whether it’s routed through humanitarian aid, and what conditions are attached are all questions that still need answers.The strongest sign that something may actually be happening is coming from inside Iran. Reports indicate that FARS, the IRGC-controlled news agency, is acknowledging that a draft memorandum of understanding exists, that the United States has approved it, and that Iran is likely to do the same. The bigger question is whether any agreement can actually be enforced. Iran’s leadership appears splintered. We’ve seen officials make commitments before, only to have military figures or IRGC commanders move in a different direction. That’s why the real issue isn’t whether a deal can be signed. It’s whether anybody in Iran has enough authority to keep it.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:48 - Iran00:08:38 - Interview with Karol Markowicz00:36:19 - Update00:37:19 - DeSantis and AI00:42:56 - FISA00:44:42 - Director of National Intelligence00:47:17 - Interview with Karol Markowicz, con’t01:07:27 - 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 Time to Fix How California Counts Votes. Does Platner Still Have a Shot? (with Bill Scher) 09.06.2026 1h 17min

  California is inviting questions about its elections because of a problem that is entirely solvable: the state takes too long to count ballots. This LA mayoral race is just the latest example.Let’s look at what happened. On election night, Karen Bass was at 30 percent of the vote. Spencer Pratt was at 28 percent. Nithya Raman was around 20 percent. Every model from respected vote-modeling people that I saw indicated that Raman would gain more than Pratt in the later votes, presumably giving her enough to catch up to a less-distant third place without surpassing Pratt’s campaign. Instead, we got an avalanche of late Raman support.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The first vote drop had Raman running about 10 percent ahead of Pratt. The second was stronger. Then Friday came around, and things got really weird. Whether you want to ascribe malicious motives to it or whether it’s totally above board and legitimate, the fact that this is happening on Friday for an election that happened on Tuesday becomes suspicious when Raman gets 40 percent of the vote total in a drop. She’s not only running ahead of Pratt, she’s running ahead of Bass. The same thing happened Saturday. The same thing happened Sunday. Now Raman is through to face Bass in the general a week after this sort of outcome — even in LA — seemed unlikely.Am I saying that somebody cured ballots after seeing the results? Am I saying somebody harvested ballots? No. I don’t know specifics, and nobody else does, quite frankly. I’m saying you don’t have to do this. Opening the process up this way is the reason you create suspicion. Is it odd? Yeah, it is odd. Even the people who thought Raman was going to overtake Pratt thought it would happen by the skin of her teeth at the very end. Nobody thought it was going to be over by the weekend. It’s beyond expectations.I’m going to renew my call here, and it’s not just me saying it. You’ve got systems in America that process a lot of votes really fast, and the way they do it is not rocket science. Florida created a system after 2000 that handles a lot of early voting and a lot of vote-by-mail, but those ballots are processed before Election Day and then dumped into the results when the polls close.If we’re in an era of declining trust in elections, then I don’t care how you think we got here. I don’t care if you think it was Chicago in 1960, hanging chads in 2000, Democrats in 2020, Elon Musk and Starlink in 2024, or any of the other election fraud theories that have floated around American politics. What I care about is creating a system that we can all look at and say, “Seems like what happened.” I don’t think California is close to having that, and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t make some big changes ahead of 2028.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:22 - California Results00:13:57 - Interview with Bill Scher00:35:08 - FISA00:38:06 - Walz and Ellison00:41:19 - Dems’ New Super PAC00:44:09 - Interview with Bill Scher, con’t01:13:13 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
• The Graham Platner Situation Gets WORSE! Texas Senate Races and DC Bar Drama (with Reese Gorman) 04.06.2026 1h 5min

  A new Graham Platner story dropped today, and it answers one question while opening about a dozen others. The reporting centers on an ex-girlfriend from his time in Washington who describes behavior that she says included being yanked out of cabs, shaken by the shoulders, blocked from leaving rooms, and subjected to bizarre conversations about violence and power. The Platner campaign does not appear to dispute many of the specifics. Instead, it continues to insist that none of this amounts to sexual assault. Their strategy is obvious: keep this campaign alive until July 10, the last day under Maine law that Democrats could replace him on the ballot.The problem is that the list of people the campaign says are actually the problem keeps getting longer. First it was the former campaign manager. Now it’s an ex-girlfriend. The campaign has gone out of its way to point out that the woman worked in Republican politics years ago. Maybe that’s relevant, maybe it isn’t. What matters politically is that this is now the second woman in a week whose allegations are being dismissed while the campaign asks everyone to focus on Graham Platner instead. Meanwhile, the campaign’s own internal polling reportedly has him four points ahead of Susan Collins. That’s not exactly reassuring when a public poll from late May had him up nine. If you’re releasing a poll to save a candidacy and it shows you’ve lost five points, that’s not great.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The bigger issue remains the stuff we still don’t know. The dating stories are damaging, but the Kik story is the Pandora’s box. That’s the ugly stuff. What’s behind that door? The potential answer is why this scandal continues to dominate the conversation. Platner’s goal now is simple: survive the primary, survive the next month, and make it to July 10. If he’s still standing then, Democrats may have no choice but to circle the wagons.Elsewhere, there was a polling shocker in Ohio. A Fox News poll found Sherrod Brown leading Senator John Husted by eight points, 53 to 45. If we start seeing more polls like that, Democrats may have found one of their best pickup opportunities. Brown is a known quantity in Ohio. If the environment continues to improve for Democrats, it may not matter how exciting or energetic his campaign is. He could simply coast on familiarity and favorable conditions.California, meanwhile, continues to count ballots at a pace that seems designed to test the limits of human patience. The governor’s race is still unresolved, and Los Angeles mayoral results remain in flux. What frustrates me is that this is a choice. California mails ballots to everyone and allows ballots to arrive days after the election. Fine. But there’s no reason the ballots already in hand couldn’t be processed faster. Instead, the state releases vote drops so slowly that candidates can spend weeks appearing to lead or trail before the public gets anything close to a final picture. I genuinely think that’s bad for democracy because people are not wired to watch somebody lead by eight points and then potentially lose weeks later.That brings us to Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman. Prediction markets currently have Raman favored to make the general election despite Pratt holding second place. I don’t understand the math. Raman gained ground in the latest vote drop, but not nearly at the pace she would need to overtake him. Maybe future batches change that. Maybe they don’t. But when prediction markets start pricing in outcomes that don’t seem to match the publicly available numbers, people begin assuming something else is going on. That’s another reason the endless California count is so damaging. Even if everything is perfectly legitimate, the process encourages suspicion in ways that simply don’t seem necessary.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:20 - Graham Platner00:09:22 - Ohio and California00:14:58 - Interview with Reese Gorman00:30:18 - John Bolton00:32:01 - Todd Blanche00:34:26 - College Sports Bill00:41:28 - Interview with Reese Gorman, con’t01:01:43 - 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
• Is Platner Done? All the Antics of Canadian Parliament (with Evan Scrimshaw and Charlie Feldman) 02.06.2026 1h 35min

  The Trump administration is backing away from a planned $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund after a revolt from Republicans on Capitol Hill. The fund, tied to a settlement and intended to be administered by the Justice Department, had drawn criticism as a potential slush fund that could benefit Trump allies prosecuted under the Biden administration. White House officials told GOP leaders they were retreating from the proposal, at least for now.What stands out to me is that this was never something Trump could simply do by executive order. It would have had to move through Congress, and right now he is running short on political leverage. Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell have already shown they’re willing to break with the administration. Add in senators like Tom Tillis, John Cornyn, and Bill Cassidy, who have their own political considerations, and suddenly there are a lot of Republican votes that need convincing. If every other priority is tied to this fund, it becomes a problem. The White House has signaled retreat…. for now.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT is an unsafe product, particularly for children, and that the company misled the public about its risks. The lawsuit argues that AI contributes to harms including addiction, suicide, and even mass shootings. What makes this interesting is that there are no clean ideological fault lines on AI. In Florida, AI is increasingly being treated as just another version of Big Tech, grouped together with the companies conservatives believe have censored or de-platformed them. Simultaneously, politicians in states like Michigan are celebrating AI investments, data centers, and the jobs that come with them, even as it might leave Gretchen Whitmer on the outside looking in for 2028. As AI becomes a larger part of the economy, states are going to play a much bigger role in determining how it develops.But our biggest story remains Iran. Over the last few days, a targeted IRGC commander killing, an attack on a U.S. airbase in Kuwait, and reports that Iran is ending ceasefire talks have all pushed events away from diplomacy and toward escalation. Iran is threatening to fully shut down the Strait of Hormuz and other export routes. The president of Iran has reportedly tendered his resignation, while the IRGC appears to be tightening its grip on power. At the same time, Hezbollah has reportedly signaled a willingness to accept a ceasefire with Israel, though neither American nor Israeli officials seem convinced it would hold.Everything now revolves around leverage. The Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s last major bargaining chip. If it reopens without major concessions, Tehran loses a significant source of pressure. If Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions or loses the ability to project power through regional proxies, the regime risks undermining the very justification it has used for decades. Meanwhile, global oil markets are hanging on every development. Hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough have helped keep prices contained, but each new escalation raises the possibility that the conflict widens and energy markets absorb the shock.One small but important development is that internet access appears to be returning inside Iran after months of restrictions. That means more information is beginning to flow out of the country at a moment when the political situation appears increasingly unstable. Whether this ends in negotiations, further military action, or a deeper internal power struggle unfortunately remains wrapped in the fog of war.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:07 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw00:39:19 - Trump Slush Fund00:42:13 - AI Lawsuit00:46:34 - Iran00:50:10 - Interview with Charlie Feldman01:30:42 - 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
• Iran Proposal BREAKDOWN. Have We Reached the End of All Podcasts? (with Michael Tracey) 28.05.2026 1h 28min

  We currently have a reported 60-day framework on the table between the United States and Iran that would temporarily extend the current ceasefire dynamics and create space for renewed nuclear negotiations. To be clear, it’s not a breakthrough deal. This feels like a pressure valve built to prevent escalation from snapping back while both sides decide whether they can actually land something bigger.The center of gravity here is the Strait of Hormuz. That is where the entire arrangement becomes real or falls apart. The reported structure prioritizes restoring and guaranteeing commercial shipping through the strait, easing maritime restrictions, and reducing the risk of renewed disruption in one of the most important energy chokepoints on the planet. In exchange, Iran would gain movement on sanctions relief and potentially access to frozen funds, while the United States would push for verifiable constraints on uranium enrichment and clearer handling of existing stockpiles.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Nobody is pretending this is a final settlement. It reads more like a staged de-escalation plan: stabilize shipping first, then attempt to negotiate the more politically radioactive issues like enrichment levels, inspection access, and long-term nuclear limits. The idea is to reduce immediate risk before trying to solve the underlying conflict.That underlying conflict is the same one that has defined U.S.–Iran relations for decades. Economic relief in exchange for nuclear restraint. The structure is familiar, even if the packaging is not. Anyone watching this unfold will recognize echoes of past negotiations, especially the JCPOA framework, where the core trade was access to global markets in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. The political debate around that model has never really gone away, and it is very much present again here.The fragility of the situation is obvious in the way it is being described. Working-level agreement is one thing. Leadership approval is another. That gap is where deals like this tend to stall, shift, or collapse entirely. Even small changes in political appetite can rewire the entire structure.Still, this feels like the first tangible step towards restoring reliable, uninterrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. If that actually does happen, everything else becomes more plausible. If it does not, the rest of the framework is just another document waiting for even events to overtake it. God knows we’ve seen enough of those.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:07 - Iran Deal?00:10:49 - Interview with Michael Tracey00:36:18 - Update/LA Mayor Polling00:39:46 - Trump’s AI Deal00:43:43 - 2028 Dem Frontrunners00:46:09 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con’t01:25:16 - 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
• FINAL Texas Predictions! Exploring the Uncanny Valley of AI Ads (with Brian Brushwood) 26.05.2026 1h 21min

  Texas Republicans are about to answer a question that has been hanging over the party since 2024: is partial loyalty to Trump enough anymore, or do you either become fully absorbed into MAGA or get pushed out entirely? Because both John Cornyn and Chip Roy represent different versions of Republicanism that tried, in different ways, to coexist with Trump without completely surrendering to him. And right now it looks like both experiments are failing. Chip Roy backed Ron DeSantis and spent years cultivating the image of an ideological purist who would occasionally buck leadership. Cornyn, meanwhile, did the exact opposite. He spent the last few years trying to carefully stay inside Trump’s orbit, hiring Trumpworld operatives and constantly reminding voters how aligned he was with the president. One strategy was confrontation, the other was accommodation, and both may end in political extinction.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Roy situation honestly feels more straightforward. MAGA voters have absurdly long memories when it comes to perceived disloyalty during the DeSantis challenge. Roy spent the last year trying to re-enter the fold by being more cooperative, less antagonistic, more visibly aligned with the movement, but the suspicion never really disappeared. In a normal political environment, Roy’s résumé would make him a strong favorite for statewide office in Texas. Instead, he now looks like somebody who made one unforgivable career calculation at exactly the wrong moment. If the polling is right and Mays Middleton wins comfortably, then the lesson Republican politicians will take from this is brutal: you do not get credit for eventually coming home after backing an alternative to Trump. The scarlet letter sticks.Cornyn’s downfall is more interesting because he actually played the game correctly, at least according to the old rules. He built institutional support. He raised enormous amounts of money. He aligned himself with Trump operationally. For a while it even looked like it might work. He outperformed expectations in the initial round of voting and there were persistent rumors that Trumpworld had seriously considered endorsing him. But the problem with trying to survive inside Trump politics is that eventually survival itself becomes weakness. Ken Paxton understood this instinctively. He didn’t need to prove he was more effective than Cornyn. He just needed to remain more emotionally connected to the base long enough for Trump to make a final decision. Once the endorsement landed, the race effectively stopped being about qualifications and became a referendum on who belonged more naturally inside the MAGA coalition.What’s fascinating is that this same dynamic is now showing signs of strain elsewhere. South Carolina Republicans refusing to immediately fall in line on redistricting suggests at least some elected Republicans are beginning to quietly calculate for a post-Trump future. Not necessarily because Trump lacks influence — he very clearly still has it — but because the timing starts to matter. If Trump cannot personally destroy you until after the next election cycle, then maybe you can survive long enough for his attention to move elsewhere. That’s the first real symptom of lame-duck politics: not open rebellion, but selective hesitation. Politicians start making small bets that enforcement may become inconsistent.And that’s probably the deeper story underneath all of this. Trump still absolutely has the power to end Republican careers. Thomas Massie just learned that. Cornyn is probably about to learn it. Roy may learn it too. But the coalition is also beginning to subtly adapt around the reality that Trump’s political clock is finite. The question is whether Republicans are entering a transition period where fear of Trump remains dominant but no longer universally paralyzing. Because once politicians begin believing there are scenarios where they can survive crossing him, even temporarily, then the entire incentive structure inside the party starts to change.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:51 - Final Texas Prediction00:09:05 - AI Ads with Brian Brushwood00:30:23 - South Carolina00:33:54 - Iran00:37:46 - Trump’s Physical00:40:47 - AI Ads with Brian Brushwood, con’t01:18:25 - 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
• The DNC Autopsy RISES! How Political Outsiders are Dominating the Midterms (with Chris Cillizza) 22.05.2026 1h 22min

  The Democratic Party finally released its 2024 autopsy and somehow managed to make the whole situation look even worse. Not because the conclusions were devastating. Honestly, the conclusions barely mattered. The thing itself apparently reads like garbage. Wrong facts, shallow sourcing, no real accountability structure, no serious attempt to interrogate the deeper failures of the campaign. Ken Martin’s explanation for why he sat on it for months was basically: “I thought it sucked.” Which immediately raises the obvious follow-up question: then why are you releasing it now instead of fixing it?That’s the part that really sticks with me. A bad first draft is not some unforgivable sin. Every organization produces bad drafts. The problem is what happened next. Instead of commissioning a better version, expanding the scope, interviewing more people, and turning it into something useful, the DNC chair basically admitted he got scared. Scared of upsetting Biden loyalists. Scared of upsetting Kamala people. Scared of turning the 2028 primary into a blame war. Scared of stakeholders. Scared of his own shadow. And if your political party just suffered a massive defeat and is going through a structural identity crisis, “risk-averse hall monitor” is probably the worst possible archetype you can install at the top.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Because the Democratic Party’s problems are not cosmetic — they are systemic. The issue is not whether they were two clicks too progressive or three clicks too centrist on Gaza or Liz Cheney or whatever argument people want to relitigate forever. You can build winning coalitions with different ideological mixes. What you cannot survive is an outdated operating system. The Democrats still communicate like it’s 2012. They still protect candidates through message discipline instead of exposure. They still behave like traditional media gatekeeping works. They still think carefully managed campaigns can survive in a hyper-networked political culture where voters expect constant access and authenticity, or at least the performance of authenticity.That’s why I keep coming back to the feeling I had during the 2024 Democratic convention. Everybody was celebrating. Everybody was dancing. Everybody was acting like the vibes alone had solved the party’s problems. And the whole thing felt to me like a deeply dysfunctional family that had temporarily won the lottery. For one week everybody’s hugging each other, buying champagne, pretending the underlying rot disappeared. But the money doesn’t fix the alcoholism. It doesn’t fix the debt. It doesn’t fix the resentment. Eventually the sugar high wears off and you’re left with exactly the same structural problems you had before, except now everybody’s angrier because the miracle cure didn’t work.Republicans, for all their chaos, at least went through this process earlier. Trump bulldozed the old Republican establishment starting in 2016, and whether you think that was good or bad, it forced the party to evolve operationally. They adapted to social media faster. They understood small-dollar online fundraising faster. They cultivated emerging political communities like crypto and AI faster. The Democrats still feel institutionally run by either the same people from the Obama era or the protégés of those people. Even when personnel changes, the culture often doesn’t. And culture matters more than almost anything in politics because culture determines how fast you can adapt when the ground shifts underneath you.Which is why the current Democratic polling advantage feels fragile to me. Democrats are benefiting because Donald Trump is politically damaging himself on Iran, Epstein, and governance. They are functioning as a check on Trump. That is different from voters enthusiastically buying into a coherent Democratic agenda. Even now, when Democrats talk about affordability, it often sounds abstract and bureaucratic instead of tangible. Huge spending programs, diffuse benefits, complicated delivery systems — the exact kind of stuff voters chronically struggle to emotionally connect with. So if the party leadership can’t even produce a competent internal autopsy after one of the most consequential losses in modern politics, it’s hard to argue they are materially closer to fixing the deeper problems underneath all of this.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:00 - DNC 2024 Autopsy00:15:24 - Interview with Chris Cillizza00:40:19 - Trump’s AI Deal Postponed00:46:11 - Senate Republicans vs. Trump’s Slush Fund00:50:38 - Raúl Castro00:57:25 - Interview with Chris Cillizza, con’t01:19:44 - 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
• Kentucky's Crazy Republican Primary Ads! Is Iran Settling in for the Long Haul? (with Ryan McBeth) 18.05.2026 1h 35min

  Kentucky’s Republican primary out of its 4th District has turned into the most expensive House primary in American history, and it doesn’t take a detective to tell where the money went. No, not into field operations. Not into policy. Not even into persuasion. It went into some of the most deranged political advertisements I have ever seen. Thirty-two million dollars dumped into a district where basically all the ad spending is concentrated around Cincinnati media buys, and the result is a nonstop fever dream where every commercial break feels like somebody slipped hallucinogens into the broadcast feed.At the center of all this is Thomas Massie, who has spent years building a reputation as the libertarian conscience of the Republican Party. He’s the guy who votes no on spending bills, needles leadership, pushes Epstein file transparency, and generally treats party discipline like a disease. Normally that kind of anti-establishment energy would mesh perfectly with Trumpism. Instead, Trump absolutely hates him. Massie crossed him too many times, and now removing him from Congress has become a personal project for the president.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The actual challenger, Ed Gallrein, barely matters as a political figure in his own race. His campaign’s main qualification is basically “Donald Trump likes me more than the other guy.” That’s enough. The first ads are almost normal by comparison. One of them goes after Massie for abandoning his old support for term limits. Another features Massie literally walking alongside a CGI elephant wearing a MAGA hat and Trump hair while talking about how he and Trump are aligned after all. It’s less “principled constitutional conservative” and more “please stop yelling at me, sir.”Then the campaign fully leaves Earth’s atmosphere. One anti-Gallrein ad argues that the real force behind the race is some kind of shadowy gay liberal conspiracy, complete with rainbow lighting effects and a parade of terrifyingly unflattering images of trans women like the editor accidentally imported a folder labeled “Fox News Facebook comments.” In other words, on’t be fooled by Trump endorsing Gallrein — the real people backing him are THE GAYS. It feels less like a campaign commercial and more like a local-access panic attack.And then came the AI ad. One PAC generated fake footage of Thomas Massie romantically wandering around Washington with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. Hand-holding. Walking together. Getting into cars. Ending at a hotel room with a “Do Not Disturb” sign hanging on the door. The implication is obviously that Massie is not merely politically disloyal, but sexually and emotionally aligned with the Democratic left in some kind of forbidden MSNBC throuple. This is the sort of nonsense that 32 million dollars will buy you in 2026.The craziest part is that this stuff probably works. Maybe not the specifics, but the overall environment absolutely does. If you live in Kentucky right now, these ads are your atmosphere. You cannot escape them. Basketball game? Ads. Baseball? Ads. YouTube? Ads. Streaming? Ads. Every available surface is screaming about Thomas Massie, Donald Trump, transgender conspiracies, and AI-generated hotel hookups. National media tends to treat Massie like an interesting ideological dissenter, but Republican primaries are not decided by cable-news admiration. They’re decided by highly motivated Republican voters who really, really care whether Donald Trump wants somebody gone.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:33 - Kentucky Primary Ads00:13:51 - Interview with Ryan McBeth00:42:30 - $1 Billion Ballroom00:45:58 - IRS Lawsuit00:49:49 - Trump’s Bad Polls00:54:08 - Interview with Ryan McBeth, con’t01:32:40 - 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
• Why Vance vs. Rubio 2028 Isn't Real! How AI Will Impact Midterms and Beyond (with Katie Harbath) 14.05.2026 1h 12min

  The obsession with a hypothetical JD Vance versus Marco Rubio showdown for 2028 says a lot more about the Republican fascination with palace intrigue than it does about actual political reality. Trump himself clearly enjoys stirring the pot, whether he’s privately asking allies which one they prefer or turning a public event into a literal applause contest. To be fair, both men have handled the awkwardness well. Vance joked that it’d be very unlike Donald Trump to hold a televised competition to decide his successor, while Rubio has mostly brushed the drama off. But the deeper point is that this chatter only really matters if Trump’s presidency ends in a very specific way — something it’s looking increasingly unlikely to do.If Trump rebounds politically and leaves office on a high note with Republicans, the conversation is basically over before it starts. JD Vance is the vice president, he’s fully aligned with the administration, and there’s no obvious reason he’d lose his grip on the base. Republican politics has become so intensely loyalty-driven that there are very few examples of major figures breaking away successfully. In that world, Vance is simply the heir apparent because continuity becomes the safest and easiest path for the party.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The only scenario where Rubio really becomes a viable alternative is if the administration collapses politically by the end of the term. But that creates a massive “Catch-22,” because if things go south, Rubio is one of the people most likely to absorb the damage. Iran is the perfect example. Trump may ultimately get blamed for rising gas prices and economic frustration, but Rubio, as Secretary of State, would almost certainly carry the bag for the foreign policy side of the equation. If the administration’s biggest weakness becomes a war that spirals, Rubio is standing much closer to the blast radius than Vance is.That’s what makes the whole “Vance vs. Rubio” framing feel pretty silly right now: the conditions that would make Rubio a serious alternative are probably the exact same conditions that would weaken him the most. Still, the fact that people are even entertaining the idea says something important about Rubio himself. Back in 2016, he often looked overwhelmed trying to compete with Trump’s brand of politics. Now, he comes across as far sharper, calmer, and more comfortable in his own skin. Years in the Senate clearly helped, but so did surviving the wreckage of his first presidential campaign.The version of Rubio inside this administration is a much more polished figure than the one Republicans watched a decade ago. He’s become more confident in interviews, more effective in hearings, and more naturally presidential in public settings. Just look at a recent exchange in the White House press briefing room, where Rubio gave a thoughtful answer about what it means to be an American. It’s exactly the kind of moment that reminds people why he was once viewed as the party’s “golden boy” in the first place. He feels less like a nervous young senator trying to prove himself and more like someone who finally understands how the levers of power actually work.But there’s still a ceiling on how independent anyone in Trump’s orbit can really become. Rubio may be more charismatic and politically mature than he was before, but Republican politics still revolves around Trump’s approval in a way that can change in a heartbeat. One bad Truth Social post can instantly transform an ally into a target. Rubio already learned the hard way that MAGA voters were skeptical of him, especially given his reputation as a more traditional hawk. That skepticism hasn’t fully evaporated. So while he’s certainly more compelling today than he was in 2016, there’s a real chance this is the most comfortable position he’ll ever occupy: close enough to the sun to feel the warmth, but still not quite part of the inner circle.And that path doesn’t put you in the Oval Office, friends.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:37 - Why Vance vs. Rubio Doesn’t Matter00:15:21 - Trump’s Trip to China00:20:52 - Democrats Get Aggressive00:23:53 - Fireworks!!!00:26:46 - Interview with Katie Harbath01:02:16 - Wrap-up and Odyssey Controversy Thoughts 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
• Iran War Brings BIG Inflation. Is the UK Already in Need of Another PM? (with Stella Tsantekidou) 12.05.2026 1h 16min

  Trump’s trip to China is happening at the exact moment his most persistent political vulnerability is becoming impossible to ignore: the economy.Inflation has ticked up to 3.8% year over year, gas prices are rising again, and the White House is leaning on a familiar argument — to the Biden administration, at least — that the pressure is temporary. At the same time, instability in the Strait of Hormuz keeps energy markets on edge, with the potential for sudden price shocks baked into the background.The administration’s framing is that this is the cost of a broader strategic shift: a tougher posture toward Iran and a reordering of global trade in America’s favor. The issue is that voters don’t experience macro strategy as macro strategy. They experience it as prices at the pump, at the grocery store, and in monthly bills.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That gap is widening in housing. The spring buying season, usually a reliable indicator of economic momentum, is unusually subdued. Mortgage rates and uncertainty are keeping buyers out of the market, reinforcing a sense that affordability is slipping out of reach even when headline indicators are mixed.This is where the politics get sticky. Economic perception tends to lock in emotionally before it ever becomes analytical. Once recurring costs start to feel consistently painful, the economy stops being a set of statistics and becomes a daily irritant. At that point, presidential approval on the economy becomes hard to unwind, even if conditions later improve.Against that backdrop, the China trip is unusually high stakes. The administration is trying to sell it as a potential economic pivot point, with talk of Chinese investment in U.S. manufacturing and a broader reset in relations. But the negotiating environment is constrained by simultaneous pressures: Middle East volatility, energy market sensitivity, and domestic inflation concerns.China is not approaching that dynamic passively. The more pressure Iran-related instability puts on oil markets, the more leverage Beijing has in shaping the terms of any broader economic or geopolitical understanding. Stability itself becomes a bargaining chip.And then, of course, behind all of this is the Taiwan question, which remains structurally unresolved regardless of public messaging. Any movement toward cooperation on Iran or energy stability would likely be accompanied by implicit tradeoffs elsewhere in the system. The concern in Washington is not an explicit Taiwan deal, but incremental shifts in positioning that accumulate over time. Given Taiwan’s central role in global semiconductor supply chains, even marginal changes in its status would ripple quickly through the technology and manufacturing sectors.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:05:47 - Inflation00:20:30 - Virginia00:26:22 - Cuba00:29:42 - Iran00:40:15 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou01:12:23 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
• The Best (and Worst) Bets on Midterm Races (with Evan Scrimshaw) 08.05.2026 1h 17min

  The Trump administration is looking for a new ICE director, which at this point might qualify as one of the least appealing jobs in American politics. Todd Lyons is heading for the private sector at the end of the month, and whoever replaces him is walking straight into a political minefield. ICE is under pressure from every direction at once, criticism over aggressive raids, backlash tied to the Minnesota shootings, scrutiny around deaths in custody, and a White House that still wants to project toughness on immigration without constantly relitigating the most politically toxic parts of enforcement.What’s interesting is that the administration does not seem eager to escalate things even further. The expectation appears to be more continuity than confrontation, likely with a heavier focus on cases involving gangs, fraud, and violent offenders rather than the kind of broad raids that dominate cable news. But that still leaves the core problem unresolved. The administration wants someone who can satisfy the base without constantly creating politically damaging optics, and there are not many people eager to occupy that awkward middle ground.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Susan Collins Tries to Get Ahead of the Age QuestionSusan Collins is trying to get in front of a political problem before it grows into something larger. After online attention focused on the visible shaking in her campaign announcement video, Collins revealed that she has a benign essential tremor that she’s managed throughout her Senate career with medication. Doctors say the condition is not tied to cognitive decline, but politically, the challenge is making sure voters hear that explanation before opponents define the issue for her.That matters because Graham Plattner’s core argument is built around generational contrast. He wants the race to be about old versus new, establishment versus change. Collins, meanwhile, would much rather make the election about experience and steadiness, especially if the alternative is a candidate dealing with his own controversies over judgment and seriousness. By addressing the tremor directly now, she’s trying to keep the focus from drifting entirely onto age and energy, which is exactly where Plattner wants it.The Epstein Story Refuses to DisappearA federal judge unsealing a purported Jeffrey Epstein suicide note is the latest reminder that this story never really leaves the public imagination, even when there’s very little genuinely new information involved. The note is undated, partially illegible, and unverified, but none of that stops it from immediately generating another wave of speculation. At this point, almost any document tied to Epstein automatically becomes a cultural event online, regardless of whether it actually changes the known facts.Part of the reason is the source itself. The note came through Epstein’s former cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione, a convicted murderer who has become a recurring figure in the broader Epstein mythology. That combination of sensational claims, unreliable narrators, and public distrust keeps the story alive indefinitely. Even when official investigations conclude one thing, there remains a huge appetite for alternative explanations, hidden details, and unresolved questions, which is why the Epstein saga never really seems to end.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:19 - Gasoline00:07:00 - Political Betting Odds with Evan Scrimshaw00:32:38 - ICE Director00:34:36 - Susan Collins00:37:03 - Epstein00:39:08 - Political Betting Odds with Evan Scrimshaw, con’t01:10:46 - Wrap-up and Ted Turner Thoughts 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
• Graham Platner's Reddit Problems Return! AI, Iran, and the Economy (with J.D. Durkin) 06.05.2026 1h 9min

  Graham Plattner’s campaign is running into the kind of problem that feels very 2026, even if the source material is more than a decade old. His Reddit history, which might have once been shrugged off as niche internet noise, now looks like a liability with real teeth. The difference is not just that the posts exist, it’s how easily they can be repackaged. With AI tools, those old comments are no longer stuck as screenshots on opposition research blogs. They can be turned into polished ads, delivered in his own voice, and made to feel immediate in a way that text alone never could.That shift raises the stakes for what would otherwise be a fairly standard controversy. Plattner isn’t just dealing with awkward old posts, he’s dealing with a narrative that can be replayed, amplified, and dramatized on demand. Campaigns used to prioritize video and audio because they felt authentic. Now, authenticity can be manufactured from written records, and that blurs the line in a way that’s hard for candidates to counter. You can apologize for something you wrote, but it’s a lot harder to respond when that same thing is suddenly circulating as if you just said it yesterday.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What really puts him in a bind is how this intersects with the tattoo issue. His defense has been that he didn’t fully understand the symbolism at the time, but the Reddit activity suggests he was at least familiar with the debate years earlier. That tension is exactly the kind of thing opponents look to exploit. It doesn’t require voters to dig through details, it just asks a simple question that sticks: which version is true? Campaigns love that kind of contrast because it’s easy to communicate and hard to shake once it lands.There’s also a political instinct test happening here, and Republicans are not being subtle about how they feel. They want this matchup. When the other side is openly enthusiastic about running against you, it’s usually not because they’re worried. It’s because they think they’ve already got the outline of an effective attack. Plattner’s past gives them material, and the new tools available give them a way to present it that feels sharper and more persuasive than it might have even a few years ago.Stepping back, this feels like one of those races that ends up being about more than just the candidates involved. It’s a preview of how campaigns are evolving in real time. The internet has always been a permanent record, but now it’s also a fully searchable, fully reusable script. Anything a candidate has written can be pulled forward, recontextualized, and dropped into the current moment with very little friction. Plattner may still find a way through it, voters don’t always react the way campaigns expect, but if nothing else, he’s becoming an early test case for what happens when the entire online past becomes fair game in a much more vivid way.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:05:33 - Graham Platner’s Reddit00:14:38 - Iran Ceasefire00:18:46 - Virginia Redistricting00:22:05 - Secret Service Upgrades00:24:37 - J.D. Durkin on AI, Iran, and the Economy01:04:04 - 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
• MAINE MADNESS! Why Fixing the Supreme Court Means Fixing Congress (with Michael Cohen and Sarah Isgur) 30.04.2026 1h 45min

  Janet Mills’ Senate bid in Maine is effectively over — not that it really got off the ground in the first place. She was supposed to be the top-tier recruit, the popular governor-turned-candidate Chuck Schumer believed could finally take down Susan Collins in a state that otherwise leans blue. Instead, she spent the entire race trailing Graham Plattner who, on paper, should’ve been far easier to beat. It didn’t matter what opposition research came out about him or how aggressively it was pushed. None of it stuck, and Mills never found a way to change the trajectory.What stands out is how little impact the traditional playbook had. There was plenty of money, plenty of ads, and a clear attempt to define Plattner early. But the race didn’t move. If anything, it exposed a growing gap between campaign strategy and voter behavior. Mills relied heavily on air support, while Plattner was everywhere in person, constantly holding events and staying visible. That contrast ended up mattering more than anything that showed up in a negative ad.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 also a broader lesson here about what kind of campaigning is working right now. The candidates who seem to break through are the ones who are constantly engaging, constantly talking, and constantly generating new moments. It’s less about message discipline and more about presence. Plattner fits that mold, and Mills never really did. She couldn’t match that energy, and in a race like this, that gap becomes impossible to ignore.Now the dynamic shifts to the general election, where Susan Collins gets a matchup she likely prefers. She can run as the steady, familiar option against a more unpredictable opponent, which has been her formula for years. But there’s some risk in that calculation. Wanting a specific opponent doesn’t always work out the way you expect, and recent political history has a few high profile reminders of that.Still, the immediate takeaway is simple. A highly recruited, well funded candidate lost to someone who just outworked and out-connected her. For all the sophistication in modern campaigns, this ended up being a very basic result. One candidate showed up everywhere, and the other never quite got going.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:01 - Janet Mills00:08:17 - Michael Cohen on Maine, Texas, and More00:58:58 - Iran Options01:04:58 - DHS Shutdown01:06:31 - Casey Means01:08:54 - Sarah Isgur on Supreme Court Drama01:40:05 - 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
• Florida Goes Hard on Redistricting! What the Correspondents' Dinner Was Really Like (with Kirk Bado) 28.04.2026 1h 31min

  Florida’s new congressional map is out, and the more I look at it, the more it feels like Republicans are trying to push right up against the edge of what is politically and legally possible. The goal is obvious: take a delegation that used to split closer to 20 to 8 and force it into a 24 to 4 map. The way they get there is not subtle. It is classic packing and cracking, cramming Democrats into a handful of ultra blue districts while shaving just enough of that vote into surrounding areas to flip them red. On paper, it works. In practice, it might be a little too clever for its own good.The Orlando and Tampa changes are where the knife really goes in. Seats that were at least competitive or lightly Democratic get completely reengineered into solid Republican territory, often by double digit swings. That is not a tweak, that is a transformation. But the tradeoff is that you are stretching your margins thinner everywhere else. You are counting on your voters to show up consistently in districts that are no longer blowouts, and that is where the risk creeps in. If turnout slips even a little, some of these engineered wins start to look a lot shakier.South Florida is the most interesting piece, because it is where the assumptions behind the map really get tested. The strategy is to break up a dense cluster of Democratic voters and isolate them into just a few seats, while turning longtime strongholds into competitive races. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s district is the clearest example, going from safely blue to something that could genuinely flip. But that only works if the political coalitions in South Florida behave the way Republicans think they will.And that is a big if. The theory is that Latino voters in South Florida, especially Cuban, Venezuelan, and Colombian communities, will continue trending Republican, especially given recent foreign policy developments that resonate directly with those groups. If that holds, then this map could deliver exactly what it is designed to do. But if there is even a modest snapback, or if Democratic enthusiasm spikes the way it sometimes does in midterms without Trump on the ballot, then those same districts could turn into real problems.Because the energy question cuts both ways. Republicans may like how the map looks, but Democrats in Florida are fired up in a way that is hard to ignore. These are high turnout voters, especially older ones, and they do not need much motivation to show up. When you combine that with districts that have been made more competitive by design, you end up with a map that is not just aggressive, but potentially volatile.On top of all of that is the legal question, which is not trivial. Florida technically has rules against partisan gerrymandering, and while the state can argue that this is just a neutral redraw, that argument is going to get tested. If the courts decide this crosses the line, then the entire map could get thrown into uncertainty at the worst possible time for Republicans.So I keep coming back to the same thought. This is a high risk, high reward play. If everything breaks right, Republicans net multiple seats and strengthen their position heading into the midterms. But if even a few assumptions go wrong, turnout, demographics, or the courts, then what looks like a masterstroke could end up being a self inflicted problem.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:16 - Florida’s Redistricted Map00:21:43 - Update00:22:51 - House Republicans00:26:05 - Texas Senate Race00:29:31 - Iran00:35:17 - Kirk Bado on His Correspondents’ Dinner Experience01:23:16 - Final Thoughts and 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
• Another Assassination Attempt Ends the White House Correspondents' Dinner Early 26.04.2026 20min

  An assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner turned what is usually a choreographed, slightly self-congratulatory night into something much more serious, very quickly. I had been at the Washington Hilton earlier, and what stood out in retrospect was how ordinary the setup felt. Security was clearly tight around the ballroom itself, but the rest of the hotel operated like a normal venue, with people moving in and out of the lobby without much friction. That gap matters, because it helps explain how someone armed could even get close enough to force a response from Secret Service. He never reached the inner event, but the fact that he got as far as he did cuts through the illusion that these environments are fully locked down.It’s tough to dismiss this as a one-off. The rhetoric outside the event was already intense, with protesters framing politics in absolute, existential terms. When that becomes the baseline, it is not surprising that someone eventually acts on it. This is not the first attempt tied to Trump, and unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if it weren’t the last. Even if the immediate danger was contained, the pattern itself is the more unsettling part, because it suggests a level of volatility that is not going away anytime soon.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.I left before everything happened and walked over to the Substack party, which ended up being chaotic in a completely different way. Because of the lockdown around the Hilton, a lot of people never made it over, so the party had this strange half full energy. Plenty of space, plenty of chatter, but also the sense that something had already gone off script for the night. That mood did not last long, because it quickly turned into its own kind of spectacle when Michael Tracy confronted Julie K. Brown over claims about Epstein related reporting.What followed felt less like a serious dispute and more like a live action version of internet drama. Voices went up, Jim Acosta jumped in loudly, and suddenly a party conversation turned into a full scene with security stepping in. Tracy was eventually asked to leave, and that was that. Compared to what had just happened across town, it was trivial, but it also captured something real about the media world, where personal grudges and public arguments can spill over at any moment. Taken together, the night swung between genuinely dangerous and strangely ridiculous, which feels like a pretty accurate snapshot of the current political environment.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:23 - Trump Assassination Attempt06:29 - Substack Party 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
• Is Florida the Last Redistricting Hope? Donald Trump's Presidential Permanence (with Gabe Fleisher) 23.04.2026 1h 15min

  Republicans are running out of places to redraw the map, and Florida is quickly becoming their last real shot to claw back seats before the midterms. The pressure is now squarely on Ron DeSantis to deliver a map that could net a handful of gains, but even inside the party there is real disagreement about whether that is possible. The risk is not just that the effort fails, but that it backfires, turning carefully engineered districts into competitive ones if turnout does not break the right way.That is the core problem with aggressive redistricting at this stage. The more you try to maximize advantage by packing and slicing districts, the more you rely on your own voters showing up consistently. If they do not, those same districts can flip. That is why some Republicans are warning that what looks like a smart map on paper could end up being a “dummymander” in practice, especially in an environment where Democratic voters appear more motivated. In fact, this is starting to look risky, it might be more accurate to call this year’s elections “dummyterms,” a phrase I’m committed to making stick come hell or high water.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.At the same time, the conflict with Iran is entering a more volatile phase. New mines in the Strait of Hormuz and an expanded U.S. naval response signal that this is no longer just posturing. It’s a pressure campaign with real global stakes, especially given how much of the world’s oil supply runs through that corridor. The situation is starting to look less like a slow escalation and more like a standoff that will force a decision sooner rather than later.What makes it even more unpredictable is the internal instability within Iran itself. Leadership shakeups, reports about the Supreme Leader’s health and — seriously — facial disfigurement, and a broader power struggle all suggest that there is no single, unified voice making decisions. That kind of vacuum makes negotiation harder and escalation easier, because different factions may be pulling in different directions at the same time.The timeline here is being driven by economics as much as politics. With exports constrained and storage capacity nearing its limit, Iran will eventually have to decide whether to halt production or find another way around the blockade. Neither option is easy, and both come with significant costs. That’s why this moment feels compressed, with pressure building toward some kind of near term resolution.Finally, a different kind of competition is playing out between the United States and China, this time over artificial intelligence. The Trump administration is accusing China-backed actors of effectively copying American AI systems by extracting outputs and using them to train rival models. It is a technical fight, but the implications are strategic, especially if it allows competitors to replicate advanced systems without the same investment or safeguards.That accusation fits into a broader pattern of technological rivalry, where innovation, security, and economic advantage are all intertwined. If these claims are accurate, it raises serious questions about how U.S. companies can protect their models and whether current safeguards are enough. With a high stakes meeting between Trump and Xi on the horizon, this issue is likely to become part of a much larger negotiation over trade, security, and global influence.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:16 - Gabe Fleisher on the White House Press Corps and the Supreme Court00:22:41 - Redistricting Fights00:27:31 - Iran00:33:14 - China and AI00:36:29 - Gabe Fleisher on the Permanence of the Trump Administration01:08:56 - Final Thoughts 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
• Congress Cleans House! The Future of Tech, Politics, and AI (with Tom Merritt) 21.04.2026 1h 37min

  Congress is in the middle of a rare moment where members are actually being forced out, and it is happening on both sides at once. Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales are already gone, both stepping down before they could be expelled, and now the pressure is shifting to others who are caught up in their own scandals. It is not subtle. This is a full blown house cleaning, and it is moving faster than Congress usually moves on anything involving its own members.The fallout from Swalwell is still spreading, especially for Ruben Gallego, who had been one of his most vocal defenders just days before everything collapsed. Now he is stuck trying to explain what he knew and how close he really was to someone whose behavior is suddenly under a microscope. His answer, calling Swalwell “flirty,” lands awkwardly and undercuts the whole “normal guy” image that made him politically effective in the first place. It sounds like a line that was workshopped instead of something real, and that is exactly the kind of thing that voters tend to pick apart.At the same time, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is staring down what looks like an inevitable expulsion vote over allegations that she funneled millions in COVID relief money into her campaign. The details are serious enough that even Democrats do not seem eager to defend her, and the lack of public support from party leadership says a lot. There might have been a time when members circled the wagons, but this feels different. The appetite to protect colleagues at all costs is not what it used to be.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.All of this points to a broader shift in how Congress is handling its own scandals. When four different members, tied to both financial and personal misconduct, are all facing consequences at the same time, it suggests that the internal pressure has reached a point where inaction is no longer politically safe. Members are not being pushed out because Congress suddenly became more ethical. They are being pushed out because keeping them has become more dangerous.Meanwhile, the administration is dealing with its own turbulence as Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer exits under the cloud of an inspector general investigation. The official explanation is that she is leaving for the private sector, but the timing and the surrounding allegations make it clear that this was not a clean departure. Reports of inappropriate relationships, questionable travel, and internal complaints created enough heat that the White House appears to have decided it was easier to move on than fight it out publicly.The pattern shows up again with FBI Director Kash Patel, who is now suing The Atlantic for defamation over a story that paints him as erratic and prone to heavy drinking. The lawsuit is massive in dollar amount, but legally it faces long odds, especially given the standard required for public figures. More than anything, it reads like an attempt to push back on a narrative that is already taking hold, one that questions both his professionalism and his control over the agency.Taken together, all of this feels like a moment where institutions are trying to clean themselves up in real time, but only because the pressure to do so has become unavoidable. Congress is ejecting members, the administration is cycling out officials, and public fights over reputation are playing out in the open. It is not orderly, and it is not coordinated, but it is very clearly a system reacting to its own instability.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:43 - Virginia Redistricting00:05:34 - Congress Cleans House00:16:23 - Update00:17:00 - Lori Chavez-DeRemer00:22:09 - Reconciliation00:25:36 - Kash Patel00:32:20 - Tom Merritt on Politics, Tech, and AI01:27:13 - 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 vs. The Pope! The Scandal That Threatens Democratic Fundraising (with Kevin Ryan and Dave Levinthal) 16.04.2026 1h 42min

  Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a ceasefire after talks in Washington, with President Donald Trump saying it would take effect at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday. He said he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, and plans to bring both to the White House for what he called a major step in relations between the two countries.The agreement is supposed to set up a longer-term framework for stability along the border and touch on broader security issues in the region. But it’s landing in a situation where fighting, pressure, and political signaling are all still active in the background.Trump also floated the idea that this could connect to a wider regional deal, including Lebanon’s relationship with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed group that plays a major role inside the country.That ties into the bigger question hanging over all of this: Iran. U.S.–Iran talks recently fell apart without a deal, though the White House is still leaving the door open to more negotiations. Nothing is settled there, but it sits underneath almost every other move in the region.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.In Washington, there’s a pretty straightforward way this is being read. Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon is tightly linked to Iranian support. If that support weakens, the balance in the region shifts. If it doesn’t, then agreements like this stay limited in what they can actually change.At the same time, Trump has been talking about possible Supreme Court vacancies and new nominees if openings come up, including around Justice Samuel Alito. Nothing has officially changed, but the speculation is already part of the political environment. Any vacancy would go through a Republican-controlled Senate and could lock in the court’s current 6–3 conservative split for years.In Congress, a vote to block the sale of military bulldozers to Israel failed, but 40 Democratic senators supported it anyway. Another vote on restricting bomb transfers also picked up support from Democrats. These votes don’t change policy on their own, but they show a clear split opening up inside the party over military aid to Israel.That split isn’t total, but it’s real. Democrats are still generally aligned on Israel, but fewer of them are treating support as automatic, especially as the conflict continues and public pressure builds.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:58 - RFK Jr.00:05:43 - Religion and Trump’s Pope Feud00:07:43 - Kevin Ryan on the Pope and Trump00:54:33 - Update00:54:49 - Israel-Lebanon00:58:25 - Supreme Court Appointments00:59:59 - Israel and Democrats01:02:31 - Dave Levinthal on ActBlue01:31:41 - 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
• Eric Swalwell's Dramatic Fall from Grace (with Juliegrace Brufke) 15.04.2026 1h 4min

  The fall of Eric Swalwell feels less about the details of any single allegation and more about how quickly everything around him collapsed once those allegations hit. The shift is immediate. He goes from being a serious political figure, running for governor and active in Congress, to someone who is suddenly on the defensive, apologizing for “mistakes in judgment” while also denying the most serious claims. That tension sits at the center of everything he says.What stands out to me is how he is trying to hold two positions at once. On one hand, he is saying the major allegations are completely false and that he will fight them. On the other hand, he is acknowledging past behavior that he regrets. That creates a gray area that is hard to interpret, because it leaves open the question of what exactly he is admitting to versus what he is rejecting outright. It feels like an attempt to limit the damage without fully conceding anything that could end his career immediately.I also notice how quickly the political consequences stack up. He suspends his campaign, faces pressure to resign, and loses support almost in real time. There is not much of a waiting period here. Once multiple accusations are out in the open, the system moves fast, especially within his own party. It reflects how little tolerance there is for uncertainty in situations like this, even before anything is formally proven.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.At the same time, there is an effort from him to frame the timing as suspicious, pointing out that this is happening close to an election where he was in a strong position. That argument is clearly meant to introduce doubt, to suggest that there could be political motivations behind the accusations. Whether or not that lands, it shows that he understands the only real path forward is to challenge the credibility of what is being said about him.What I find most telling is that, regardless of what is true or not, the damage is already done politically. Even his own statement separates his personal fight from his campaign, which is basically an acknowledgment that the campaign cannot survive the situation. At that point, it becomes less about winning and more about managing fallout.By the end of all of this, I’m left thinking the process matters as much as the outcome. The allegations still have to be investigated, and nothing is settled legally, but in political terms, the consequences move much faster. Once that momentum starts, it is very hard to reverse.It’s a rapid unraveling. Not necessarily a final conclusion, but a point where everything changes direction at once, and there is no clear way back to where things were before. And as for who’s the next governor of California, well… We might be looking back towards Brat Summer for some inspiration.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:12: - Eric Swalwell Resigns00:19:53 - Update00:20:35 - Canada00:22:20 - Israel-Lebanon00:24:26 - Housing Market00:27:56 - Juliegrace Brufke on Eric Swalwelll and Congress00:54:33 - Wrap-up (and Dianna Russini thoughts...) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
• The Ceasefire That Isn't a Ceasefire and the Mistaken Assumptions of the IRGC (with Zineb Riboua) 10.04.2026 1h 3min

  Just how absurd does the word ceasefire sounds when nobody actually stops firing? We’re calling it a ceasefire, we are acting like it is a ceasefire, but the reality on the ground does not match the label. Missiles are still being launched, ships are still being threatened, and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively shut down despite whatever was signed on paper.That disconnect makes me question what kind of agreement was actually reached in the first place. If Iran agreed to open the strait and then immediately went back to restricting access and intimidating shipping, then either they never intended to follow through or they cannot enforce their own decisions. Neither option is particularly reassuring. When your main leverage is control over a critical global shipping lane, giving that up even briefly would be a major concession, so the reversal almost feels inevitable.I keep coming back to how much of this hinges on internal dynamics within Iran. The delegation that is set to meet with the United States this weekend includes both more moderate figures and hardliners tied to the Revolutionary Guard. That alone tells me that whatever comes out of those talks is going to be complicated. If the people at the table are not the same people controlling the missiles, then any agreement is going to have gaps.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.At the same time, the stakes are getting higher because the economic effects are no longer abstract. Oil prices are climbing again, shipping is disrupted, and you have thousands of people effectively stuck waiting for this situation to resolve. Iran’s ability to pressure the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz feels like its most important card, and right now they are playing it as aggressively as they can.Back in Washington, the dysfunction is not helping anything. The DHS funding situation is still unresolved, and the Republican plan to split funding into separate reconciliation bills sounds shaky at best. The idea that lawmakers would pass a smaller bill now with promises about a larger one later, especially after the midterms, feels like something that is much easier to propose than to actually execute. It comes across as a sign that leadership does not have a clean path forward.There is also a broader sense that neither party is really in control of the moment. Republicans are struggling to deliver on basic governing tasks even with power, while Democrats are throwing out ideas like invoking the 25th Amendment in ways that do not seem grounded in how the process actually works. It creates this environment where everyone is reacting, but nobody is clearly leading. Stretching into the middle of April, the war is still active, negotiations are uncertain, and political systems on both sides are showing strain. You have to wonder what all of this leads up to.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:03 - Congress00:07:22 - Iran00:10:37: Zineb Riboua on the Iran War and China00:30:16 - Update and Melania Trump00:33:11 - DHS Shutdown and TSA Funding00:35:32 - 25th Amendment00:38:20 - Interview with Zineb Riboua, con’t00:59:46 - 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