Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders ignites firestorm after add depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients.

 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Fox News/Getty. 

Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has ignited a firestorm after an advertisement depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients. Fox News. The ad, made to promote a policy that requires work for welfare, stars a white male named "Brad". Brad is depicted as a lazy video game playing loser gorging himself on junk food. However, he was also depicted as white, which does not match the demographics of welfare recipients at all. The advertisement caused immediate backlash, with Sanders seemingly not understanding the reaction. Many conservatives said the ad was both inaccurate and tone deaf and questioned the intelligence of insulting a group that is a major GOP demographic.

 

You pay taxes to cover welfare for people who just choose not to work. That’s why I launched a welfare-to-work requirement.

If you’re young, healthy, and get government assistance, you should work, go to school, or volunteer. pic.twitter.com/M83nxNMdry

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) September 28, 2026

My Comment:

I know there are some people that are theorizing that the GOP is purposely trying to tank the midterms and though I don't think that is what is happening here, I certainly get the argument. For a sorta of younger white male who likes to play video games during my time off work, this seemed like a direct middle finger towards me and if I was in Arkansas I'd at least consider not voting for Sanders because of it. I can't think of an advertisement which has played worse for me, and, given the reaction online, I don't think I am alone. 

The obvious problem is that young white males are about the least likely group to ever be on welfare. There are a few, obviously, but the numbers are extremely small given the actual demographics of government assistance. Most government assistance goes to women, minorities, children and the elderly. And young men? The ones that work are the ones paying for it. But Sanders took the cowardly way out, depicting "Brad" as a White Male instead of a Black female or immigrant from some random country.  And Sanders isn't the first person in the GOP to do this, other people, like Speaker of the House Johnson and Congressman Bobert, have said similar things about young men being lazy and playing video games, but saying it's White folks. 

And that's assuming young men can get jobs at all. A lot of noise was made about the fact that almost all of the new jobs under President Trump have gone to women. And there is still the simmering issue of H1B visas and illegal immigration taking jobs that would otherwise go to young men (and not just young White men, Blacks and Hispanics are getting screwed by this too). Though the economy is strong, that hasn't translated into good jobs for young men, and even when those jobs are available they have to compete with much of the world to get them. And that's not even counting the fact that HR departments are using AI to filter out applicants before they even get a chance to interview! 

What is more is how tone deaf it is for trying to get out the vote. The winning message in 2024 was that the economy was rigged against young White Men (and men in general) and that the GOP was going to be the party to fix it. Though efforts have been made by the Trump administration, and things are better than they were, the popular sentiment is that not enough has been done to help the demographic that helped the party win. Indeed, many folks are genuinely angry that the Trump administration has focused so hard on foreign policy, and I have to agree, even though I generally approve of Trump's foreign policy. 

So what is the message here? Young White Males are video game addicted losers that are scamming everyone else? How is that any different from what the Democrats are saying? The whole point of putting the GOP into office is to stop that message and offer something else, jobs, money and respect, that the Democrats refuse to give them. But we got the exact opposite from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

I do think that ever since the assassination of Charlie Kirk the GOP has had a major messaging problem for young people. Kirk was young enough and talked to enough young people to understand that young men are in trouble and need help, not a lecture. Though this ad might have happened regardless, I do think that Kirk would have been able to talk a lot of young men angry about this ad off the ledge and get them out to vote. But he's dead and I don't know if anyone in the GOP has the perspective he had, let alone the voice. 

So who was Sanders making this ad for? My guess is Boomers. Despite essentially all being on welfare, as what else could Social Security and Medicare be called, Boomers have as their generational story that they were the folks that worked hard. The younger generation? They are all lazy takers, despite the fact that they are the ones paying into those programs now in the first place, even though most of them believe they won't ever get the benefits that the Boomers are getting now. Given how red of a state Arkansas is, it might even work for Sanders, she doesn't need young people when the GOP has a lock on Boomers (and Silents and Gen X to a lesser degree). This kind of ad is catnip for them. But  I don't think she seems to understand or care that a short term gain for her is doing permanent damage to the Republican Party.

What message would be better? Almost anything really, but I know what I want to hear from the Republican Party is something like this: "We love and respect young White Males and know that you folks are working hard to make this country great again. We want to ensure that you won't be discriminated against and want to make sure you can succeed. We know you don't want a handout, but a fair chance to get a good job, a good home and a good wife and we want to get rid of the obstacles that the Democrats have put into place to stop you". Why that isn't the message for the 2026 midterms, instead of the slop we are getting from people like Sanders is beyond me. 

Polling firm admits that polls in Wisconsin Democratic Primary and LA Mayor race were totally fake.

 

File photo of Francesca Hong. Fox News.

A polling firm called Median Strategies have admitted that two polls in the Wisconsin Democrat Primary and the LA Mayor race were fake as a "social experiment". Fox News. The polls had Francesca Hong in Wisconsin and Karen Bass far ahead of their opponents. However, the polling outlet said it was an experiment to see how false information could spread and then shut down their doors. Both polls ended up bein inaccurate, as Hong lost her race in the primary while Bass won by a much slimer margin. 

My Comment:

This is one of the more irresponsible things a polling outfit has done. Putting out entirely false polls is, quite frankly, disgusting. And it calls into question the very concept of polling. If there are outfits out there fabricating data, do we really have any idea of how is winning and losing our political races?

Calling it a social experiment is nonsense as well. And it is funny that the experiment failed in the Wisconsin Governor's race. From what I understand, that poll was largely ignored as larger and more reliable outlets dominated the news. 

Regardless, there were absolutely other ways to demonstrate that false information is a problem without contributing to it. Indeed, that's exactly what they did. These polls probably didn't have too much of an effect, as the Wisconsin one was ignored and the LA one only got a little coverage. But it's pretty easy to think that it could have affected things, especially in a race as close as the Wisconsin Democrat primary was this year. 

But I also think that the "experiment" excuse is probably false. This was probably a scam of some kind. What is likely is that the firm was just lazy and didn't want to do the actual work. By faking the polling results they could get attention and funding, but it fell apart when the LA Times investigated the whole thing. 

It's also possible that this was a scam based on prediction markets like Polymarket or Khalshi. Large amounts of money is bet on the results of these races and by putting out false info they could affect the odds and get a bigger payout. Given that bets can be on just about anything, even overstating a poll could cause a lot of people to place bets that they otherwise would not, so faking numbers might have been a way to increase the payouts of opposing bets. 

If this sounds like a good argument to ban these kinds of prediction markets, I would agree. I hate the incentives that the existence of these prediction markets creates and we have already seen the effects. And this could be another example, and it shows it goes far beyond just sports betting. 

Regardless, this story is going to further erode confidence in American polling this cycle. We have already seen some massive upsets, even beyond the Wisconsin race. The Michigan Senate race is another example and even tonight we saw something similar in Florida's Senate Race for the Democrats. People have already lost faith in the polls and having an outlet out and out faking results is not going to help things. 

DSA candidate Francesca Hong loses against more centrist Democrat David Crowley in Wisconsin Democrat governor primary.

 

David Crowley (background) with Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (foreground). Fox News/AP.

DSA candidate Francesca Hong lost in a shocking upset against center left Democratic candidate David Crowley. Fox News. Crowley won by .4% and will face Republican Tom Tiffany in November. Crowley had dropped out but came back into the race as a "never-Hong" candidate and got the endorsement of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. Hong was polling 20 points ahead of Crowley and other candidates in the field, but suffered several major setbacks in her campaign, most notably not getting endorsements from prominent leftists like AOC and Bernie Sanders. She also had several controversies over her social media statements, such as wanting to cancel Thanksgiving or defunding the police. 

My Comment:

I'm pretty conflicted about this one. Francesca Hong was almost beyond parody in how bad she was as a candidate and I didn't want even a chance of her winning. She's a DSA commie that would destroy the great state of Wisconsin assuming she got any kind of power. But I also think she would have been a lot easier for Tom Tiffany to defeat. 

A big question of this race is how bad the polling was. They actually got Hong's level of support correctly, but they had absolutely no idea how popular Crowley was going to be. He barely won, but you would have thought that they could have detected the support gathering around him and at least given him a decent chance of winning. That didn't happen and it shows that polling is having a terrible moment. They missed several other primary races, most notably the Senate one in Michigan, and it makes the 2026 midterms very hard to predict. 

It does make me wonder if I shouldn't have tried the "pied piper" strategy in Wisconsin. I voted yesterday for Tom Tiffany, but it was barely a contested primary and most of the other races in my district were uncontested. Perhaps I should have voted for Hong because she was easier to beat? But I also know that the potential for that backfiring is high, how many Democrats pushed Donald Trump in 2016, and look how that turned out for them?

As for Hong herself, she's everything wrong with the Democratic Party right now. She cares more about hating Israel than anything else and her actual policy positions (which were so toxic she had to back off of them) were so bad that it's insanity. Which makes sense because Hong was actually hospitalized for her bipolar disorder when she was 18. Indeed, she has all the worst qualities of the Democrat's younger voters and I am very glad that she is gone now. 

Crowley seems like he's a lot more moderate and will likely be Tony Evers 2.0. That's not as bad as it sounds. Evers is probably the best of the Democrats Midwestern Governors, not because he's good, but because he's such a non-entity that he had little chance to screw up the state. Crowley seems to strike me as the same type, someone that could be elected, but wouldn't be able to get much done if he gets in, especially if Republicans retain control of at least one house of the state legislature. That's extremely likely so Crowley getting elected is more status quo antebellum than any kind of actual change. 

But I should not that it's not a sure thing that Crowley will win. Tiffany is a strong candidate and I tend to think the idea of a "blue wave" in 2026 is overstated at best. The main difference is that Tiffany might be the candidate that "scares the normies" now that Hong is out of the race. Tiffany is pretty MAGA and how big of a deal that is will be the main question of 2026. I'm not going to go as far as the polling agencies (because they beclowned themselves enough in this race that I don't trust them at all), but I think Wisconsin is now a true toss up, and it's probably going to be a coin flip as to which party wins in Wisconsin. 

Embattled Congressman Max Miller (R) facing calls to step down over domestic abuse allegations.

 

Congressman Max Miller. Official portrait. 

Embattled Congressman Max Miller, Republican from Ohio's 7th district, is facing calls to step down and withdraw from the race after serious allegations of domestic abuse have surfaced. Politico. Miller was married to the daughter of Senator Bernie Moreno, Emily Moreno and is in the middle of an acrimonious divorce. Miller was accused by Moreno of spraying her with scalding water and pointing a gun at her head while also breaking the collarbone of their daughter. Miller has denied the accusations. In addition to Senator Moreno, other prominent Senate Republicans have called for Miller to step down before Wednesday's deadline for a new primary. 

A new report from Axios says that President Trump has expressed skepticism of Miller's chances in November.  Trump reportedly didn't call for Miller to drop out but said that his reelection chances, against Democrat Brian Poindexter, were "not looking good". President Trump has remained neutral in public comments about Miller.

My Comment:

There's nothing worse than a he said she said situation. It's very hard to tell if the allegations against Miller are legit or just the result of an acrimonious divorce. There is some documentation to favor both Miller and Moreno's claims. The evidence in both sides isn't conclusive and there isn't a smoking gun for either side. 

Which means that folks are conflicted about this. If the allegations are true, than there is no reason for Miller to be in the House. Indeed, if he pointed a gun at his then-wife, he should be in prison. And he's already faced allegations of abuse from a woman before, former White House Secretary Stephanie Grisham also accused him of abuse, to the point where a settlement was made. 

But there is, of course, the idea of reasonable doubt. Folks do indeed lie during these kinds of horrible divorces and some of the allegations are ridiculous (spraying someone with a sink hose is not going to cause any damage). And there is no iron clad proof that Miller actually did anything wrong. 

What I do know is that these allegations are turning what should be a solid Republican seat in Ohio into one that Democrats could conceivably win. Polling has shown that Brian Poindexter, Miller's Democratic opponent, is close to overtaking Miller in the polls. And the only real reason for that is folks think that Miller is guilty of the accusations against him. 

It's telling that someone named Poindexter, who looks like the name, even has a chance in a safe Republican district. Poindexter is another attempt, like Graham Platner in Maine, to get a "manly man" into office to try and win back Republicans. Normally it wouldn't work at all, why would men vote for a party that hates them? But if the choice is between someone who may have beaten up two women and injured a child? I personally would vote for the Devil himself over even the most moderate Democrat, but a lot of folks aren't going to make that trade. 

Miller has to drop out by the 5th if there is going to be a primary and I think the Republicans have until the 10th to replace him. Miller, for his part, seems determined to stay in the race. He thinks he can still win, and I think there is a chance, folks might not believe his ex-wife. But the fact that several senators are calling for him to step down and the fact that Trump has expressed doubt makes me think that he could be forced to leave, much like Graham Platner was in Maine for the Democrats. 

Finally, I have to say that if I had married the daughter of a Senator, I'd be treating her with kid gloves. If these accusations are even close to being true, than Miller is crazy. Bernie Moreno is a popular member of the Senate, and though he's a freshman Senator (he replaced Democrat Sherrod Brown), he's not a man I would make upset. Indeed, the fact that he ended up speaking out at all is pretty damning and it alone makes the accusations more credible. 

President Trump endorses Mike Lindell for Minnesota Governor...

 

Mike Lindell (background) behind President Trump. Minnesota Reformer/Getty.

President Trump has endorsed Mike Lindell for Minnesota Governor. Minnesota Reformer. Lindell, the founder of My Pillow, and a personal friend of Trump got the coveted endorsement over legislator Lisa Demuth and Army veteran Kendall Qualls. If Lindell wins he would likely face Senator Amy Klobucher, who has a large polling lead in the state. The move is controversial given the split in endorsements as both Demuth and Qualls has support at the local level. Lindell was leading in primary polling even before the Trump endorsement. 

My Comment:

I feel that this is a "white flag" on Minnesota. I had thought that the GOP had an opportunity to flip the governorship given how colossally bad Tim Walz has been as Governor but the Lindell endorsement seems like the exactly wrong move if that was the goal. Instead, this seems like Trump is just doing a solid for a friend because he knows the state isn't going to flip. 

If Minnesota was in play, I could have seen the Republicans use the same strategy that worked in 2021 in Virginia with Glenn Youngkin. Youngkin was a moderate Republican, so he didn't scare off the left-leaning moderates in Virginia. Youngkin was also able to use a huge political issue that the Democrats had no defense for. In Virginia it was transgender issues, in Minnesota it absolutely could have been corruption. 

Can Lindell do that? Possibly, but he's absolutely not the best choice for it. Lindell absolutely scares the "normies" and is pretty far to the right for Minnesota. Do I think he's right about election security and the 2020 election being crooked? Of course! But are moderates in Minnesota going to agree with him? I doubt it. 

I don't know much about Demuth and Qualls, but you would have to think that they would have been better choices to push the fraud angle and damage the DFL in Minnesota. Indeed, Lisa Demuth looks like the perfect candidate for a left-leaning state like Minnesota and I think she would be a much better candidate than Lindell. Lindell would be the better candidate in a true red state, but this is Minnesota we are talking about. 

To be fair to the DFL/Democrats, Amy Klobucher is a strong candidate. I don't like her, obviously, but she has a national profile and she is just distant enough from Tim Walz that she is probably untouched by his absolutely awful corruption scandals. Beating her would be tough, so it makes sense that Trump is raising the white flag here. 

Still, it's incredibly disappointing to me. I don't think Lindell has a real path to victory in Minnesota. To be fair, both Demuth and Qualls would have a longshot as well, but they would have a better chance than Lindell. It makes me sad as that means that both the Somali fraudsters that fleeced the state and the DFL party that enabled and profited from it, especially Governor Walz, will almost certainly go unpunished at the state level. The only hope now is that the Feds take a very long and close look at Minnesota. 

The only thing I can think of that might justify this is the idea that election security is about to be the main issue in 2026. Supposedly, Trump's nationwide address is going to prove foreign interference in the 2020 election. I'm skeptical that there is any level of fraud that would get the Democrats to admit that the 2020 election was a joke at best and outright fraudulent at worst, but if convincing evidence is presented, Lindell would be poised to take advantage of it. Even then, I don't think he's the right fit for this race and that Demuth or Qualls would be the better choice. 

Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner accused of sexual assault, may drop out of race.

 

Graham Platner. Politico.

Main Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has been accused of rape and may drop out of the race. Politico. Platner was accused of rape by 41 year old Maine resident Jenny Raciot, who had previously accused him of reckless and disturbing behavior, but was uncomfortable with making the accusation. However, she decided to come forward after a New York Times report led to Democrats claiming another accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, was only doing it for political reasons. However, Raciot agrees with Platner politically. 

Raciot said that she had met Platner via the dating site Bumble, and had a consensual relationship with him. However, in 2021, Platner had walked into her house after being told not to come over. He was blackout drunk and raped her despite her saying no. After confirming she hadn't been impregnated due to the attack, she cut off all contact with him. Her story was backed up by statements from her therapists and a male acquaintance who she talked to about the assault. She also produced text messages with a female friend warning her off from contact with Platner due to him being "consensually careless" and that he "doesn't listen to you while drunk". Platner has denied accusations but has said he will pause to evaluate his campaign. 

My Comment:

These accusations seem pretty credible to me. The fact that Raciot was willing to go on the record for this and the fact that she had at least three people that would back up her story who knew about it before Platner was politically relevant means a lot. She also produced some text messages that support her story as well. It's probably not enough to convict Platner in a court of law, but it probably is enough to convict him in public opinion. 

Keep in mind that Platner had serious issues with his behavior. He had a Nazi tattoo, the Totenkopf, and his excuses for it were a joke. He also had a Reddit account where ha acted like an idiot. But he also cheated on his wife and had an account on Kik. 

Kik is, quite frankly, a very bad website. It's known to be a place with little moderation and predators use to not only share illegal content involving children, they also use it to groom and target children. The fact that Platner had an account there was a huge red flag for me and I even said back then that he would eventually be revealed as a sex pest. 

What Platner was accused of is very serious. It wasn't just a rape, he also broke into her house without her permission. This isn't just some sex that was regretted, it was an attack, and it's why I think this case may be legit. And I would not be surprised if more accusations come out. 

As for Platner, I think his political career is over. He was already on life support in his race against Republican Susan Collins. Though Platner had been leading in the polls, he was falling behind in some of the newer ones and keep in mind that Collins very consistently blows out her polls and wins. He was, in my view, very likely to lose regardless. 

But now? I fully expect him to drop out before the end of the week. There is a ticking clock, of course, as long as he is out by July 12th, he can be replaced, and I think that is the most likely outcome. A major sex scandal like this one, especially when the accusation seems credible, is not something you come back from when you are already in jeopardy. 

When that happens, and I think it's a matter of when, not if, he can be replaced, though who will do so is an open question. Some people are convinced that Governor Janet Mills, who dropped out before Platner won the primary, could be the candidate, but right now it's up in the air. Whoever it is is going to be in a major hole even ignoring the strength Collins has as a candidate, given this scandal and the fact that Platner's large war chest cannot be transferred to whoever the candidate is. 

I do think it's kind of BS that Platner can be replaced after the primary. The Democratic electorate in Maine knew that Platner was a toxic candidate and they voted for him over Mills by a huge margin. The red flags were there the whole time, but they ignored it. They should have to live with that decision, though that's not how it works. 

But now? Almost everyone is pulling their endorsements and Platner has almost no defenders, other than Cenk Uyger, who somehow believes this is all about Israel. It's obviously not, people are genuinely outraged by these accusations and at worst I see this as rational pragmatism by the Democrats. They absolutely should have known better...

LA Mayor race called after ballot drop knocked Spencer Pratt out of the race.

 

Nithya Raman. New York Post.

The Los Angeles Mayor's race has been called with far left Nithya Raman knocking out insurgent GOP candidate Spencer Pratt. New York Post. Pratt was in 2nd place after incumbent Mayor Karen Bass on election day but late votes swung towards Raman. With 93% of the vote in, Bass leads with 34.7% of the vote, Raman with 28.5% and Pratt with 26.7%. Pratt, a former reality TV star, ran on improving the city and specifically the Bass's poor reaction to the Pacific Palisades fire, that ruined the neighborhood and even destroyed Pratt's house. The slow pace of the vote and disproportionate results favoring Raman has caused withering criticism among voters and has caused President Trump to open an investigation to elections in California. 

My Comment:

In a democracy, the appearance of voter fraud has the same effect as voter fraud. It causes people to lose faith in the elections and that is a recipe for disaster. People will accept the results of an election if they lose fairly, but if it takes weeks to count votes and those votes tend to support one candidate over another, than folks are going to be rightly upset. 

Was there fraud in this election? Right now it's not possible to know, largely because of how horrible California's elections are designed. They allow mail in ballots, and the only restriction is that they have to be mailed out by election day. They also allow ballot harvesting, and have weak signature verification laws and allow many suspect ballots to count. 

Given that it would be trivial for a small operation to absolutely change the course of an election. All you would need is a ballot harvesting operation that targets people that are ineligible or unlikely to vote, like at rest homes or on Skid Row. Did that happen? There are, of course, rumors, but without absolute proof we can't say either way. 

Nobody has any faith in the elections in California and everyone is assuming that Spencer Pratt will be kicked out by a late ballot drop in favor of Nithya Raman. The betting markets know this and are pricing it accordingly. https://t.co/PE2FYCYIz0

— Jeff H (@politicswarblog) June 4, 2026

Indeed, this is exactly what I predicted for the LA Mayor race a day after the election. Pratt was comfortably in 2nd place on election day and folks though he had a chance to stand for election in November. Remember, California has a "jungle primary" where the top two candidates run, regardless of party. That means in most elections, there is no GOP candidate to vote for and there was hope that in LA and the Governor's race there would finally be a Republican on the ballot in November.  But that hope was unfounded in Los Angeles, though it hasn't been ruled out for the Governor's race as of this writing. 

And I don't buy that this is how things have to be. Other states handle their elections a lot quicker and they don't allow the ballot harvesting and curing that California does. Indeed, a country as dysfunctional as India, with almost a billion voters, gets their results in a day. There is zero reason why California could not be as functional as India when it comes to votes. 

As for Pratt, he ran an impressive campaign, and if he had ran in anything other than a deep blue, one-party state like California, he could have won the general election, let alone the primary. He ran how Republicans should run in blue cities like LA, instead of focusing on Republican priorities, he tried to connect with the voters directly himself. He was almost a single issue voter, fixing LA's massive problem with mismanagement, crime and disaster recovery. That's a winning formula for blue cities that have been under the control of the Democrats for generations. 

I do think that this might be the "last straw" when it comes to California's elections. I know the Supreme Court has a case pending about the very issue of late ballots received after election day and a favorable and expected ruling would end these kinds of shenanigans right away. 

And there is also some motivation from the Trump administration to fix this. After the election in 2016, I had hoped that Trump would focus on election security but he was prevented from doing so by the Republicans in the House and Senate. I think this time he will have a freer hand as it's getting obvious to everyone that the situation in California is untenable.  

Controversial Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Planter's campaign upended by infidelity scandal.

 

Graham Planter. Fox News/Getty.

Controversial Maine Senate candidate Graham Planter's campaign has been upended by an infidelity scandal. Fox News. Planter is trying to unseat Republican Susan Collins and is currently leading in the polls. But he has been hit with scandals since the start of his campaign, with controversies surrounding his Totenkopf "death's head" Nazi tattoo, a very controversial Reddit history and even mocking a purple heart recipient. However, the newest scandal reveals infidelity as he sent the texts months after he married his wife in 2024. The texts were sent on Kik, a messaging app that is often used for such things, but is also used to share illegal content. 

My Comment:

It's utterly absurd that Graham Planter is able to run for dogcatcher, let alone as a Senator. This latest scandal is just the last one, he's incredibly controversial. In a sane world, he would be replaced as a candidate, and that might just happen. Under Maine's laws he could be replaced even if he wins his senate primary as long as he pulls out before mid July.

It's also critical to point out that the sexting scandal happened on Kik. Kik is a messaging app that has very loose moderation and is most well known for being a haven for pedophiles. Not everyone who using the app is one, obviously, but it's a massive red flag for Planter and one that should be disqualifying alone. The platform has anonymous accounts, no age verification and does not save chats, so it's perfect for folks to try and meet up with underage users or trade illegal content with each other. Indeed, that's about the only thing notable about the app and it's shocking that a mainstream candidate has account there. 

It's not like his Reddit history is any better. Though Reddit has a better reputation than Kik, somehow, it also is a haven for predators. Though I don't think having a Reddit account is disqualifying (though it probably should be), his behavior on there was pretty reprehensible. He posted the kind of stuff an edgy Redditor would post, blaming rape victims, mocking purple heart veterans and general gross behavior. I guess I have some sympathy there, I am guessing if my internet history was dissected to the point Planter's was, people would find embarrassing stuff too. But the difference is I am not running for office and I would not do so for that very reason. 

His tattoo was even more unforgivable. The Totenkopf is about as explicit endorsement of Nazi Germany as you can get. It was used by the SS and units guilty of crimes against humanity, even the units that operated the death camps! And I have zero doubt that a military man like Planter didn't know that. I know the excuse is that he did it for military solidarity in his Marine Unit but even that is just being edgy for the sake of being edgy. Plus he did it in Croatia, where the only people that would do that tattoos would be legit Nazis because they have anti-Nazi laws there for obvious reasons. 

It is telling that the Democrats are finally starting to turn on him. Indeed, Cory Booker said that Planter has some questions to answer and I think that's the first domino to fall. It's very possible, given the websites he had accounts on, that something worse will come up, but even now I think the Democrats are going to raise the white flag and get rid of him. 

I also have to say that it's also crazy that of all the terrible things that Planter did, it was sending naughty texts to women who weren't his wife that may do him in. They were defending him when he had a Nazi tattoo, but the second he did something moderately mean to a woman, they dropped him like a hot cake. I'm not defending cheating on your wife, far from it, but being a Nazi, a Kik User, and, god forbid me for using this word, a Redditor, are all much worse. 

Either way, I am pretty bullish on Susan Collins is going to keep her seat in Maine. Yes, it's a blue state, but she's a pretty liberal Republican, a classic RINO, and I don't see why more moderate Democrats wouldn't vote for her over a guy that has so many problems. Colins was probably going to win regardless, she's survived bad polling many times in the past, but if Planter doesn't drop out, I think it's an easy bet to make that she will win. 

Two anti-Trump incumbents voted out in primaries.

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. NBC News/Getty.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has defeated incumbent Senator John Cornyn. NBC News. Paxton got the coveted endorsement from President Donald Trump after Cornyn failed to help pass the SAVE Act, which would have forced voter ID's. Paxton will face Democratic Representative James Talarico in the general election. Paxton has some controversies in the past but won an expensive primary against a well entrenched incumbent. Cornyn is the latest Republican who angered Trump and his supporters to lose a primary following Thomas Massie, Bill Cassidy, Dan Crenshaw and Brad Raffensburger. 

Congressmen Christian Menefee (left) and Al Green. NBC News/Getty.

In a race that saw to incumbent Congressmen running against each other, freshman congressman Christian Menefee has defeated Al Green. NBC News. Both men were forced to run for the same district after Texas redistricted their Houston area congressional district. Green decided to run in the 18th district after his current district, the 9th, was redrawn so that a Republican was extremely unlikely to win. However, voters in Houston decided to keep Menefee instead of Green. Green was an extremely vocal and long term critic of President Trump.

My Comment:

2026 is rapidly becoming the year where incumbents are getting voted out. Cornyn and Green are just the latest to fall. Trump can take credit for a lot of it. His endorsement was critical, had he endorsed Cornyn over Paxton, we would have likely seen a very different result. 

Cornyn was insufficiently supportive of President Trump and his agenda. Cornyn did not pass the SAVE America Act. He supported the bill, but was not willing to nuke the filibuster to do so. That was the final straw for a man who also criticized Trump for January 6th and was very slow to endorse him. 

And this was not a close race. Cornyn and his allies spent almost $100 million on this runoff and the original primary, but he lost by almost 30 points as of this writing. This just shows how powerful President Trump is in the GOP. Rumors of his political demise are certainly premature. 

I do think that Paxton is going to win the Senate race as well. Though he has had some scandals, he is in a reliably red state. He would almost certainly win against a generic Democrat. But his opponent James Talarico is a far left nutjob to the point where he even said that God was non-binary. That is not something that is going to play well in a religious state like Texas and I would be shocked if the race between Paxton and Talarico is even close. 

As for Green, it was pretty arrogant of him to run against Menefee in the first place. Moving districts, even after a redistricting, is a good way to lose, especially if the incumbent is reasonably popular. I am sure that Green thought that his comparatively higher national profile would translate well to this election, but it absolutely did not.

Age was a pretty big factor in the election as well. Green is 78 while Menefee is 38 and folks felt that Green's age was a major issue. Green didn't have too much of a future and it's very possible that he wouldn't have even survive a full 2 year term. It's no surprise that they stuck with Menefee, who was well liked, young and has a future. 

Regardless, I am very happy that Green is gone. He was one of the most annoying and disrespectful members of Congress and acted like he was more important than the President of the United States during several State of the Union speeches. Though Trump had little to do with getting rid of him, other than encouraging redistricting in Texas, he is also going to be celebrating the fact that Green is gone. 

Controversial anti-Trump Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has lost his primary race.

 

Thomas Massie. New York Post. 

Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie has lost the primary race for Kentucky's 4th district. New York Post. In what turned out to be the most expensive Republican primary race in US history, Massie faced challenger Ed Gallrein, a former Navy Seal and farmer. Gallrien won the race comfortably according to the Associated Press, with an almost 10 point lead when the race was called. Massie was a seven term incumbent but had angered President Donald Trump and many of his supporters for many reasons. Massie voted against key legislation, including the One Beautiful Bill act, which accomplished many of Trump's legislative priorities. Massie often clashed with Trump over spending, often voting with Democrats to stop legislation he did not like. But Massie also angered Jewish groups for not supporting Israel, leading to massive spending from Jewish groups. Massie's defeat comes on the heels of Senator Bill Cassidy losing his seat in Louisiana and President Trump endorsing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn.  

My Comment:

President Donald Trump continues to assert his authority over the Republican Party. Massie came at the king and missed and now he's out on the street, or at least he will be after the midterms. But this is a lot bigger than a single primary in a safe Republican seat in Kentucky. It's a major victory in the battle for the ideological center of the Republican Party. 

Massie was an ideologue to be sure. He often voted against popular bills like the OBB act because he had some kind of issue with the spending levels. He absolutely cared more about whatever pet issue he had of the day than actually scoring victories for his party. 

President Trump is the exact opposite. Trump is absolutely not an ideologue. He's a deal maker and what he actually wants is to win. In this way, Trump is a much smarter man than Massie ever could be and it's been the main inter-party war since Trump walked down the steps. Trump and MAGA are the pragmatists, they want real wins and want the party to be something other than the Washington Generals to the Democrats. Massie couldn't care less about that and instead wanted to make perfect the enemy of good. 

Personally, I despised Massie but not so much for being an ideologue. Rand Paul is one as well, and I certainly don't hate him. But Massie lost all credibility with me with his Jeffrey Epstein stunts. Massie pedaled conspiracy theories and nonsense about Epstein and even indicated that Trump himself might be a pedophile, or at least a pedophile supporter. And his efforts to hurt Trump with these insane remarks also backfired when he was unable to deliver a single person that the justice department could go after. 

I've researched Epstein since 2015 and it's been very clear for awhile now that Epstein was a fixer, who also happened to be a pimp. His role in human trafficking was a lot more limited than folks realize and Massie either didn't know this or didn't care. There was never going to be any further charges in the Epstein case as most of the players were dead, much of the evidence was lost because of his mishandled 1st arrest under the Bush Administration. 

But Massie, again, made perfect the enemy of good. It wasn't enough that a lot of people that weren't prosecuted were at least convicted in the court of public opinion, he wanted everyone who had anything to do with Epstein, even some that were totally innocent, to go to prison, presumably without the protections of due process. It was all insanity and I am glad he got punished for it. 

Israel was also a major factor in this as well. The antisemitic right generally latches onto anyone who is remotely critical of Israel and Massie was certainly that. However, they don't actually have all that much power and apparently, they don't actually vote either. Massie was laser focused on Israel and even said that his opponent was busy at APIAC headquarters so he couldn't concede to him. It just goes to show that a few loud voices on X don't actually amount to anything. 

Speaking of those voices, they have been absolutely insufferable and I am glad they are eating crow. Some of them are saying they will vote for Democrats or Libertarians in the midterms, but I am not scared because, like I said above, they don't actually vote. I'm going to enjoy a nice beer tonight thinking about that. 

As for President Trump, it's pretty clear he's cleaning house. Bill Cassidy is out, Thomas Massie is out and John Cornyn is next. And the Post mentioned that even Lauren Boebert could be next. And it shows a level of confidence that gives lie to the media narrative that the GOP is going to get wiped out in 2026. Indeed, if that was the case, I don't see Trump purging his enemies. Had the VRA Surpreme Court ruling gone a different way, along with the Virginia redistricting, perhaps things would be different, but is sure seems like Trump is confident that he will keep the House and the Senate in 2026. Could that be hubris? Sure, we all know the midterms are bad for incumbency rule, but I think it's a lot more likely than most folks think. 

Virginia Democrats propose replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger. New York Times.

Democrats in Virginia have proposed replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.  New York Times. Democrats in the state are described as "desperate" after the Virginia Supreme Court overturned their latest gerrymandered map that would give Democrats four new house seats. The scheme would require lowering the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 54 or younger, which is the age of the youngest member of the court. A new Court could be installed then and they would then rule that the current maps were unconstitutional for the same reason why the gerrymandered districts were. The vote to amend the constitution requires a notice to be placed at courthouses and neither redistricting move did so. However, such a scheme is seen as an extreme longshot, as they only have until May 12th to change the maps in Virginia without it affecting the election. With the Supreme Court of the United States unlikely to intervene, Virginia's current maps will likely remain in place for 2026.

My Comment:

The Virginia gerrymander will go down as one of the biggest own goals in history. The Democrats spent $70 million on the vote, which barely passed at 51%, and considerable political capital on it. Indeed, Governor Spanberger bet her political future on the vote and at this point she's essentially a lame duck. 

I do understand why the Democrats are so desperate. They have pretty convincingly screwed themselves over. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats are going to win the House in 2026 but the path is extremely narrow. Indeed, some projections have the Republicans at 217 seats that are at least "lean" Republican. If that's the case then they would only have to win one more House district they need to keep control of the house. 

I actually think that this is more likely than the media likes to report. Indeed, the only real issue holding down the Republicans is the Iran conflict and though the conflict drags on without a resolution, I can't imagine it won't be anything but a memory by November. Democrats probably know this, which is why they tried this gerrymander in the first place. 

However, I do have to think that the effort to gerrymander itself has done a lot of damage to the Democrats in general. The maps were so blatantly partisan that even folks supporting the Republican gerrymanders thought it was crazy. The maps were made to dilute the votes of the folks in Western Virginia by forcing tentacle-like districts extending from Washington DC, all the way to the borders with West Virginia. 

This particular plot though, is even more beyond the pale and it's insane to me that it leaked that they were even considering this. Indeed, I almost think the New York Times report was put out to put a kibosh on this effort. Not only does the plan have an almost zero percent chance of working, actually doing it would enrage just about everyone. It would be the most naked partisan powergrab in recent history and would permanently tarnish the Democratic Party. Given that fact and the fact that they only have two days to get new maps in play, I don't think any of this is going to happen. 

I have been wanting to write a post about the vibe shift in the Republican Party, and this is as good as any. Republicans have been stacking up the wins this week and the political headwinds they have been facing seem to have evaporated. Even the groypers/America First/woke right have been put into their place with Vivek Ramaswamy beating Casey Pustch in Ohio. It just seems like a lot of the hope and optimism that was seen on the right during the first year of Trump's term has returned now in his second year. 

Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The Louisiana district gerrymandered in favor of Black voters. New York Post.

The Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act in drawing congressional districts, which will likely lead to major gains for Republicans in Congress. New York Post. Louisiana added a 2nd majority black district that sent an additional Democrat to Congress. However, voters sued saying their 14th amendment rights were violated because the map was based on race and not other factors. The six conservative justices agreed and said that Louisiana had redraw its maps. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan blasted the ruling, saying it "gutted" section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans appear to agree and plans are already being made to redistrict the Southern States. However, it might not be enough to affect the outcome of the 2026 midterms given that many states have already begun the primary process. 

My Comment:

It is unfortunate that this ruling came so late in the election cycle. If it had happened in 2025 there would be basically no chance that the Democrats could win in 2026. But the timing is pretty terrible. There are a lot of states, like Texas, North Carolina and Mississippi, that aren't going to be able to redistrict because the primary process has already started. And Alabama's maps are frozen due to another court case. Louisiana and Florida should be able to redistrict but it might not go much beyond that. 

How many new seats the Republicans can pick up from this is questionable. Most analysis I have seen is that the Republicans could gain 2-4 seats, with Florida being the most likely to gain seats. Like I said, there are just too many Southern states that won't have time to redistrict. At best this would make up for the Virginia redistricting. 

But a lot is going to ride on how that court case turns out. The maps are now on hold and the consensus is that the Democrats will either lose the case outright or be delayed enough that the current seats will stay in use through the midterms. It's very possible that four seats that were going to be lost in Virginia will be dramatically safter, giving the Republicans 6-8 seats that they were going to lose otherwise. 

Is that enough to keep the House? I am not sure. Midterms are usually brutal for the party in control of the White House. It's one of the more consistent things in American Politics and it would not be shocking if the Democrats won in 2026 even with the optimistic 6-8 seat gain that this ruling and the failure of the Virginia gerrymander.

Republicans are facing headwinds as well. The Iran War is genuinely unpopular and so are the high gas prices from it. I still think that a peace deal is going to be in place long before any votes are cast in the midterms, but the longer the war goes without a peace deal, or worse, the return to active combat, the more damage is done. 

But I also don't see a blue wave like the Democrats want. I think the Senate is safe while the House might see the kind of slim lead for Democrats the Republican currently "enjoy". The Democrats are still historically unpopular and they have made no effort to change their policies that turn off voters, like support for transgender people and other woke nonsense. They also have a huge deficit in money. Consensus is that the Democrats have an 80% chance to gain the House but I am more bullish, and say it's a 60-40 proposition, not good for Republicans, but not hopeless either, contingent on the Virginia gerrymander not surviving and the Iran conflict ending soon. 

Long term though? It's going to get rough for Democrats. I am guessing most of the black majority districts in the South are going to be removed by 2028 at the latest. And it's possible that some of the Democrats' maps in blue states will be changed due to lawsuits too. 

And the 2030 census is likely going to be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats. The combination of voters fleeing from blue states like New Yor and California and the effects of Trump getting rid of illegal aliens in blue states is going to result in a lot of house seats and electoral college votes going to the Republicans. It's very possible that the Democrats could be in the wilderness for a long time in the most optimistic outcome. 

 

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it.

 

Senate Majority John Thune. Senate Photo.

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but he won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it. AP. The act would greatly tighten election security by requiring Voter ID, eliminating mail in voting and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also ban transgender surgery for minors and biological males participating in woman's sports. The bill is popular but is expected to fail as zero Democrats will vote for it and cannot pass without 60 votes. There has been a large push for the Senate to get rid of the "silent filibuster" which would force Democrats to actually speak to block the bill, which would most likely allow the bill to pass. Thune says there are not enough Republican votes to actually get rid of the silent filibuster rule. President Trump has vowed to not pass any new legislation (except funding for the Department of Homeland Security) until the SAVE America Act is passed.

My Comment:

This is just another example of how dysfunctional our Congress is. Voter ID is extremely popular and is supported by around 75 to 80% of voters. In a normal world 75 to 80% of the vote in the Senate would be voting for this too. But instead we can't even get 60 Senators to vote for this. 

I do understand why the Democrats are opposed to this. They absolutely hate the idea of voter security as they depend on voter fraud, mail in ballots and non-citizens voting in order to win. We don't know how bad this problem is, due in part because we simply don't have any national legislation like this. But I do think that cleaning the voting roles alone would be enough to secure the election for the Republicans in 2026. 

But for Thune and the other Republicans? I just don't get it. They claim that preserving the filibuster is more important than winning the 2026 elections. They don't seem to realize that the filibuster only exists because the Democrats still had a couple of moderates, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, back in 2022. Those two Senators saved it but if the Democrats ever gain control of the Senate again, they will almost certainly kill it. And if that happens Thune is going to look like an absolute idiot, especially if it happens in 2026 specifically because this bill didn't pass. 

The failure of the bill will likely have a demoralizing effect on Republicans. This is a hugely popular bill and passed in the House easily. To see the Senate do absolutely nothing to defend it even though it is extremely popular is bad enough. To see them not do it when it could win the Republicans the Senate, House and probably the presidency in 2028? Absolutely infuriating. And it could lead to folks simply staying home because they don't think they can win an election that isn't' fair. And to be sure, our elections without voter ID are not fair. 

Keep in mind that Thune has been extremely obstructive to the executive branch. His commitment to tradition is blocking recess appointments and supporting non-MAGA candidates in various Senate elections, most notably in Texas this year with John Cornyn over Ken Paxton. At this point it seems like enemy actions and it seems he cares more about the stupid filibuster and obscure Senate rules than actually fighting the Democrats and working to help America. 

Embattled Governor Tim Walz ends his campaign for a third term as Minnesota's Governor.

 

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. New York Post/Reuters/

Embattled Governor Tim Walz has ended his campaign for a third term as Minnesota's Governor in the wake of the Somali fraud scandal. New York Post. Walz said he could win if he could focus on the race, but said he needed to focus on fraud. He also blamed President Trump and "right wing YouTubers", apparently referencing Nick Shirley. Shirley's video went viral, bringing a hard focus onto the fraud from the Somali community that has cost Minnesota taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite most of the fraud coming from Somali immigrants, Walz defended them saying Trump was "demonizing them". 

My Comment:

Looks like I was correct that the Somali fraud scandal was the end of Tim Walz and his political career. He is essentially being pushed out of the race. I can't imagine that he wasn't under extreme pressure from both the Minnesota DFL party and the National Democrats to drop out.

If Walz had won? Then Republicans were almost certain to win the Minnesota Governor's race. Minnesota is seen as a blue state but it's really closer to a purple one and I think a similar dynamic could have come into play here as it did in Virginia when Glenn Youngkin got elected. Youngkin was able to use genuine outrage over the trans bathroom scandal to get elected, and a similar candidate could have done the same thing in Minnesota. 

That narrative isn't completely dead now, but it faces a greater challenge. If the rumors are true and Amy Klobuchar is going to be the candidate for Governor than the Republicans would face an actual battle instead of the landslide they would have gotten with Tim Walz. Amy Klobuchar is fairly popular and the stink of the Somali scandal isn't going to stick to her as much as it would Tim Walz, given he was, at the very least, in power when it happened, assuming he wasn't directly involved. 

Candidate quality is a real problem though for Republicans. Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy has declared and I can't think of a worse candidate for a state like Minnesota. Though I would prefer Lindell to win given how loyal he is to Trump, I think the GOP would be wise to run someone more like Glenn Youngkin, someone more moderate and in the center. If that happens, I think there is still a real chance of the Republicans winning the state, though probably not keeping it long term. 

As for Tim Walz, he's done. The real questions now are if he finishes his last term or if he avoids criminal charges for his role in the Somali Fraud scandal. I have always said that Walz was just too stupid to actually be involved in fraud or other various crimes but I am starting to wonder if I was wrong about that. The fraud in Minnesota was so widespread that he had to have at least some knowledge of it. And it's also clear that his party was absolutely benefitting from the fraud. 

We also have to consider that Walz was possibly personally benefiting from this fraud. Indeed, we might even have to reexamine the claims from Vance Bolter, the assassin of a couple of Democratic State Senators in the state, that Walz ordered him to do so. That still seems to be the rantings of a madman, but if Walz was involved in the fraud, it's not that much of a leap. I still think he has a strong defense, he's simply too incompetent to order a hit or be involved in fraud. If there were any evidence of him being directly involved in fraud or the assassinations, he would not be able to cover it up, he's just that dumb. 

It also boggles my mind that Tim Walz was chosen for being Kamala Harris' VP candidate. It's like they didn't vet him at all, had they done so they would have realized that Minnesota has huge problems and that he just wasn't a good candidate. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania was right there, but they couldn't pick him because he is Jewish. Walz did nothing to help Harris and may have actually been a downside given how incompetent he comes off as. 

What would be hilarious is the idea that Walz could end up running for President in 2028. I guess it's possible if ends his term without resigning in disgrace, or ending up in prison. He would have no serious chance of being the candidate, even considering the weak field that the Democrats have, but sometimes you run just in increase your public profile so you can get on the speech circuit. But that's the best case scenario for Walz and I think now the most likely scenario is that he is left as a historical footnote as Kamal Harris' VP candidate, which is saying something because she's going to be a footnote as well. 

Trump blasts Elon Musk's formation of an "America" party.

 

President Trump making his remarks. Fox News.

President Donald Trump has criticized Elon Musk after Musk formed a new political party, the America Party. Fox News. Trump said that third parties never worked and that the whole thing was "ridiculous". Musk had threatened to start a new party after the Big Beautiful Bill passed and after a poll on X, which was open to non-citizens, came up in favor of it, Musk launched his party. In response Trump said on Truth Social that it was sad to see Musk go "off the rails" and called him a "trainwreck". Trump implied that Musk's true objection was the removal of EV mandates and credits, while pointing out that Musk previously didn't have a problem with it. Musk is said to be targeting a few seats in congress so he can create a block to prevent what he sees as the worst excesses of both the Democrats and Republicans. 

My Comment:

Musk is a fool if he thinks a third party is viable in the United States today, especially when Trump personally has the support of essentially the entire Republican Party, and many independents as well. Like it or not, the United States is a two party system and it makes way more sense to change things within that system than to try and start a third party that will likely accomplish nothing. 

Indeed, working from within is how this generally works. Libertarians have zero power in national elections but have a few senators and congressmen. The Tea Party was able to push Republicans into a more anti-corporate direction. And MAGA was essentially a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and has been incredibly successful. If Trump had run as an independent in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have been President. Even the Democrats do this, why do you think the party took a hard left turn? It's because the Progressives worked inside the system and lurched the party to the left. 

Musk instead seems to think that a third party is somehow viable. Instead, it seems to benefit the left. Bill Clinton would have never been President had Ross Perot not run, or if he ran as a Republican. Perot had some good ideas and was vindicated on a lot of things, but allowing Clinton into office was not one of them. 

Indeed, a lot of folks on the left and right feel that this is a boon for the Democrats. The party is on its heels with 19% approval and very little remaining power. And they are looking at a very difficult map in 2026 due to Wisconsin not redistricting but with Texas and Ohio doing so, potentially extending Republican House control by several seats. The only real hope they have is either some kind of disaster that they can blame on Republicans or having the vote split.

However, despite fears about splitting the vote, I don't really see that happening. Most of the folks on the right that would have considered voting for Musk weren't going to vote for Republicans in 2026 anyways. Those folks have been disgruntled throughout the Trump era and I doubt that Musk is going to change things.

I'd also point out that Musk himself has burned pretty much all of his bridges at this point. Republicans are disgusted with him for this move and I doubt any of them are going to be willing to give him a fair shot. And Democrats? The folks that were burning Tesla dealerships and wishing for Musk's death, just a couple of months ago? Forget it, Musk has lost them forever as they blame him (falsely, as Trump was already winning) for the 2024 election. 

And Musk's beliefs are pretty far from the mainstream right. Some disgruntled gun owners, upset that the NFA wasn't repealed in the BBB, said they might sit out the 2026 midterms, but given that Musk himself is in favor of assault weapons bands and magazine limits, they aren't going to vote for him. And I don't think that there is any support for H1B visas, a core desire for Musk, among anyone. The H1B system is regularly abused and anti-Indian sentiment, the group that dominates H1B's, is sky high and only growing higher as more than a few American workers have found their degrees and expertise is useless as they are getting replaced by H1B's. 

And who is going to support Musk? Mark Cuban has said he's interested, but he's a joke and widely hated by both the left and the right. Maybe Thomas Massie, who is hated by the right for his actions with the BBB? I know Musk has a lot of booster accounts on X, but most of those appear to be foreigners and though they have been pushed, I don't think anyone is buying it even on X. 

My guess is that this will likely be a bunch of sound and fury that signifies nothing. Andrew Yang tried to do the same thing Musk is trying and failed miserably, it's actually really hard to start a new political party in the United States. And Musk is mercurial at best and he will soon be under major pressure from his stockholders to get back to his companies and get back to making money. Musk has moved on from his ideas before when things got tough, so it's very possible that he does the same here. It's even possible that there is a reconciliation with Trump and the Republicans. Though Trump is vindictive in many ways, he's also willing to forgive and forget. Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were major Trump opponents back during the 2016 cycles but now Cruz is a major Trump booster and Rubio is one of his most important cabinet members. A deal could absolutely be cut. 

Is there a chance that Musk succeeds? Absolutely. Musk has been a very effective CEO and has done quite a few amazing things. But I just can't see how it would happen given the two party nature of the American political system and the fact that I doubt anyone actually wants a third party that is more concerned with H1B visas and green energy mandates. 

As for Trump, I do think he's kind of baffled by the whole thing. And for once, it wasn't his fault that a relationship blew up. Musk started this by picking a fight over the Big Beautiful Bill, which made zero sense at the time, and still doesn't make sense today. Even if you believe the worst case scenario in terms of deficit impact, there's the fact that tariffs are coming online that will offset any of the costs. I do hope that Trump is able to repair the relationship somehow and this so called "America" party can end up in the dustbin of history where it belongs. 

Elon Musk threatens Republicans with primary challenges, new party, if they pass the "Big Beautiful Bill".

 

Elon Musk. USA Today/AFP/Getty.

Elon Musk has threatened Republicans with primary challenges and a new third party if they pass the "Big Beautiful Bill". USA Today. Musk led that Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) but his relationship with Republicans fractured in a highly public feud with President Trump over the bill. Musk then attempted to repair relations with both, publicly apologizing for his actions. However, Musk doubled down on criticism of the bill, saying it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Musk had said that he would cut back on political spending but to fund primary challenges and start a new party would cost millions of dollars. 

If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day.

Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2025

My Comment:

I am guessing Musk's true objection to this bill is that it cuts green energy subsidies, including those that make his Tesla cars potentially worth buying. His cars are fairly expensive and the tax break you get when you buy one makes them dramatically more affordable. Right now you can get a $7500 tax credit for buying a new EV and a $4000 one for a used one. Musk's other companies also benefit from credits and loans that would be eliminated with these bills. Given that Tesla's bottom line was hurt pretty dramatically after joining DOGE he is probably pretty furious that Republicans included this in their bill. 

Does Musk actually care about the deficit? Probably. He did join DOGE to cut government waste and critically, none of the cuts he made were made permanent by the BBB. Because it's a budget bill, they can't actually do that. Regardless, I do think that Musk does have a point that we need to stop spending massive amounts of money we don't have on nonsense we don't need. 

But Musk is making perfect the enemy of good. Sometimes you have to settle with what you get and though this bill increases the deficit (possibly, Trump argues that the tax breaks will fuel growth, and it's hard to argue with that) it does make quite a few good cuts. It's the same problem I am seeing with the Gun community, who are upset that the Suppressor and Short Barreled Rifle regulations were dropped, even though the bill does get rid of the $200 tax on both. Many times it's a lot better to take any win you can get instead of holding out for a total victory which is extremely unlikely. 

And I don't think Musk understands the political implications of not passing this bill. Should the bill fail and the Trump tax cuts go away, I know I would be furious. Those tax cuts increased my take home pay fairly dramatically, and that's ignoring the "no tax on tips/overtime" credits that are in the bill too. Increasing taxes right before a midterm is a great way to lose that midterm and I am guessing that the damage that would cause would be way worse than anything Elon Musk can do with his billions of dollars. 

I also don't think there is a lot of real desire for a third party who only seems to care about fiscal discipline. Folks care a lot more about Trump's other priorities, including the economy, foreign policy and the fight against "wokeness", ie leftist cultural issues. Indeed, it's strange to see Musk wanting a third party that could split the Republican vote, given that would give the 2026 midterms to the Democrats, who have proven to not be able to handle any of those things. Especially since his son, now "daughter", had his life ruined over the "woke mind virus", in Musk's own words. I can't see a single voter from the Democrats supporting him as well, so the best case scenario would be an "also ran" party that would only damage Republicans. 

As for challenging incumbents, that is probably where any real change would happen. Some of the Republicans in both the House and Senate are vulnerable to a primary challenge, but again, this seems counterproductive. Primary challenges drain resources that would better be used against in the fight against the Democrats in 2026, a fight that Republicans could win if Musk doesn't screw it up. 

However, I am not sure how serious Musk is about any of this. He is mercurial at best, and may have some mental health issues as well. Indeed, he attempted to blow up his relations with Trump earlier in the month and once he calmed down he realized that he had made a major mistake. It's very possible that nothing will happen at all after the bill passes (and it looks like it will make it to the reconciliation process at least). 

Musk would be wise to try and influence the party from within, not from without. The Republicans are a "big tent" party right now and there is more than enough room for the fiscal hawks in the party. If he is serious about making an enemy out of the party, he is going to realize that he doesn't have any friends left, as there is no way that the Democrats will ever let him back on board. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear Congressional redistricting case, dealing a blow to Democrat ambitions in the state.

 

File photo of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Politico/AP.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has refused to hear a Congressional redistricting case, dealing a major blow to Democrat ambitions to take several seats in the state. Politico. The Court did not explain their decision. The court had ruled the districts at the state level had to be redrawn and it resulted in Democrat gains. Democrats hoped the court would do the same thing for congressional districts. Only two seats in Wisconsin are considered competitive and the Democrats had hoped to increase that number. Wisconsin's congressional maps were drawn by Governor Tony Evers in 2022 and the United States Supreme Court refused to challenge them. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly shocking development. I live in Wisconsin and both the Republican and the Democrats made the last Supreme Court election taking up this case the main rallying cry. When I heard that the Democrats had one I was pretty despondent because I thought my vote would be further disenfranchised, but I guess that isn't going to happen.

There are several reasons why this could have happened but the most obvious is the fact that Justice Janet Protasiewicz ended up recusing herself from this case. She's a liberal and without her the Wisconsin Supreme Court went from a 4-3 Liberal majority to a 3-3 tie. She had some pretty obvious bias in the case as she said the maps were rigged and unfair. Without her it wasn't really possible for the Democrats to actually get this done.

There could be other considerations as well. The Supreme Court said that the current maps, put into place in 2022, are fair and constitutional. That was a blow to the Republicans at the time but it appears to be a boon now as even the liberal justices on the Wisconsin Court would be reluctant to redo something SCOTUS has already approved of. 

There is also the idea that changing the maps would be dangerous for the 2026 elections, as it would be difficult to change the maps before next year's election. I am not sure I buy that argument, but it has been made. It would be clear that it would be disruptive for sure. 

And it would certainly give folks the impression that the court is indeed biased against Republicans. Everyone in Wisconsin knows this already but to do it in such an obvious way when the Supreme Court ruled on this just a couple years ago would remove any doubt in anyone's mind. 

This does, of course, complicate things for the Democrats plans to regain control of the House in 2026. The two seats that the Democrats were going to target with these redistricting, the 1st and the 3rd makes those seats a lot harder to pick up. And forget anything after that. The Democrats need to pick up three seats to win the house and it got a lot tougher to do so in Wisconsin at least. 

Of course, there may be redistricting efforts in two red states, Ohio and Texas. Ohio has to redistrict this year due a constitutional amendment and that will likely put two seats there into the Republican column. The Texas redistricting is no sure thing but it should have similar results with at least two more seats being in play, potentially as many as five. Wisconsin would have mitigated this but that boat has left the harbor. There may be issues in Louisiana and Alabama as well. 

Democrats are now going to have an uphill battle in getting back the House. Historically the incumbents have a hard time in the Midterms, even when the President is popular. But the Democrats are probably going to have to fight defensively in Ohio for sure and Texas potentially. And they weren't able to rig the Wisconsin maps in their favor, which makes it even harder. They have opportunities in California and New York, but it is going to be an uphill battle. It's very possible that they could, like I said, historically the incumbent's party has difficulty in midterms, but it's a lot less likely now than if the Democrats had gotten there way in Wisconsin.