The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@kos
Trump Keeps Fleecing His Cult Followers For Billions (Because They're Morons)

Trump Keeps Fleecing His Cult Followers For Billions (Because They're Morons)

Donald Trump is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself.

Who the heck knows why he needs more money, given that he already has a bunch of it. It’s pathological. But what makes Trump’s corruption particularly stunning is that much of the money he has made has come directly from his own followers.

Trump’s cryptocurrency schemes have made him billions while producing the inevitable inverse effect: taking billions from his strongest supporters—to the tune of $2.3 billion, according to a Reuters analysis.

You’d think that would enrage them.

You’d think wrong.

“All but three of the 27 individual investors interviewed for this article said they knew of Donald Trump’s history of bankruptcies, unpaid contractors and failed ventures,” Reuters reported in June. “Still, most said they believed that his position at the apex of American political power and what they perceived as his business acumen ensured lucrative returns on their investments.”

So three were irredeemable morons, and the other 24 are, uh, also that. They deserved to lose their money.

Take Matt, a machinist from Indiana who calls himself a “loser,” though not because he trusted Trump.

Even after losing nearly $33,000, he still refuses to blame the Trump family. Instead, he believes Democrats and anti-Trump investors deliberately drove down the value of the family’s crypto ventures by betting against them. In his view, “globalists” suffering from so-called Trump Derangement Syndrome are conspiring to short—betting that its price will decrease—Trump’s projects.

Maybe that theory would make sense if Trump were also losing money. But he’s not. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.

If only Matt and his fellow losers had read the fine print.

“World Liberty disclosed in fine print at the bottom of its website and elsewhere that the Trump family would receive the lion’s share of revenue from token sales,” Reuters reported. “In marketing materials, it included disclaimers that its token was not an investment and that buyers should not expect to make a profit. The website for the $TRUMP meme coin contains similar warnings.”

I had to go look it up myself, and it’s a beauty. Take note of the hideous, creepy-ass Trump illustration at the top.

“$WLFI is not equity or a share in any entity, and does not confer any financial interest in any entity, and $WLFI holders are not members of WLF,” it says, clarifying that there is no real value to the token.

The $TRUMP memecoin website is even more direct: “Trump Memes are intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol ‘$TRUMP’ and the associated artwork, and are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.”

In other words, it’s not even pretending to have intrinsic value. Essentially, it’s just a great way to spend money as an “expression of support” for the president, taking more money he doesn’t need from machinists and other sad-sack supporters who do.

Then, buried in the terms and conditions, comes another warning: “Please be aware that the price of Trump Memes may be extremely volatile and you may experience substantial losses in connection with a sale or other disposition of Trump Memes.”

Mission accomplished.

Another investor interviewed by Reuters believes he could still make money—if only he were allowed to sell. But World Liberty has at least partially locked up token sales until 2030. He refused to let Reuters use his name because, he said, “I’m afraid of being targeted by the president of the United States,” adding that “the MAGA crowd has shown, over and over, how relentless they are when it comes to defending their Dear Leader.”

Sadly, Reuters doesn’t tell us more about the three investors who didn’t know about Trump’s long history of business failures. But really, all 27 should have known better.

Then again, it’s no different from voting.

No matter how much evidence people are given of Trump’s corruption, incompetence, or failed ventures, millions convince themselves that this time will be different.

It never is.

The remarkable thing isn’t that Trump keeps finding new ways to profit from his supporters. It’s that they keep volunteering to be fleeced.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Why America 250 Won't Save The Republican Party From A Midterm Reckoning

Why America 250 Won't Save The Republican Party From A Midterm Reckoning

Republicans face a brutal midterm election cycle. President Donald Trump is plumbing unprecedented lows. Their House majority is essentially gone. Even the Senate is far more competitive than it has any right to be.

So pretend for a moment you’re a Republican strategist trying to find some reason for optimism, some way to stem the blue tide. You might push Congress to pass popular legislation and let Trump sign it. You might impress upon Trump the importance of just shutting the hell up—or, at the very least, talking about nothing but the cost of living. You might build the most robust get-out-the-vote operation imaginable at a time when even Republican voters seem deeply ambivalent.

But nope. Republicans had a different idea, one I wrote about back in May. They were going all in on America 250.

“We will make sure that people are aware of the fact that we are the party of patriotism and love of country, and the Democrats are just—I mean, there’s polling to support me on this—they are not proud to be Americans. It’s very obvious, and they can’t help themselves,” one anonymous Republican strategist told NOTUS.

The theory was simple: wrap themselves in enough American flags and voters would remember that Republicans love America while Democrats supposedly don’t.

The problem is, they don’t know patriotism. They mistake it for branding.

I’m deeply patriotic. I served in the U.S. Army. My son serves today as an infantryman. As an immigrant, I understand how differently my life could have turned out had my family never come here.

I don’t take any of that for granted. But my patriotism is rooted in America’s promise—not the myth that it has already fulfilled it. Loving your country means wanting it to live up to its ideals, not pretending it’s already perfect.

Republicans aren’t celebrating America. They outsourced the entire 250th anniversary to Trump.

Instead of telling the story of a nation founded on imperfect but enduring ideals, they turned America’s birthday into another chapter in the Trump personality cult. In their telling, America isn’t exceptional because of its Constitution, its democracy, or its people. It’s exceptional because Trump is president.

That’s a risky bet when Trump is one of the least popular presidents in modern history.

I mean, look at the spectacle they’ve produced.

Trump was handed the easiest assignment in American politics: Help the country celebrate its 250th birthday. Somehow, he turned even that into another exercise in narcissism. From his ridiculous gladiator fight, to the puke-colored—and apparently puke-smelling—Reflecting Pool, to the partisan spectacle of his sparsely attended anniversary concert, to the hilarious flop of his Great American State Fair, every event has celebrated Trump more than America.

And because no Trump vanity project is complete without his face on it, Republicans have even proposed a commemorative $250 bill featuring his portrait. Apparently even America’s birthday wasn’t allowed to outshine him.

He has botched the whole thing so badly that only about half of Americans now say they’re excited about the nation’s milestone birthday.

It’s remarkable that Republicans believed America’s 250th birthday would become their great midterm advantage. The premise was flawed from the start. Even the most successful national celebration wouldn’t make voters forget rising prices, corruption, or the issues that actually shape elections. But Republicans couldn’t even manage a competently run celebration, which continues to surprise no one except for Republicans themselves. They took what should have been America’s birthday party and turned it into another Trump rally.

America 250 was never going to save the GOP’s electoral chances. It’s just funny that they thought it would.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

To Wield Power Effectively, This Is What Democrats Must Learn From Trump

To Wield Power Effectively, This Is What Democrats Must Learn From Trump

Donald Trump is the most effective president in my lifetime. There, I said it.

Not because he’s accomplished good things. Quite the opposite. I can’t think of a single thing he’s done to improve the country. But effectiveness isn’t the same thing as benevolence. And by any objective measure, Trump has been extraordinarily effective at using the power of the presidency to get what he wants.

The reason is simple: Trump doesn’t believe in constraints. He doesn’t care about norms, traditions, public opinion, elite opinion, or whether anyone thinks he should be doing what he’s doing.

Yes, the public hates him. But that’s because he’s used that superpower—the ability to ignore political traditions and constraints—almost entirely in pursuit of self-serving ends. It’s soul-crushing to think we still have 941 days of this left.

But there is a silver lining: Trump has shown that all those traditions and conventions were nothing more than artificial constraints on the power of the presidency. All those Democrats before him who claimed they couldn’t do this or that? It’s all been shown to be bullshit. The office has extraordinary power, now with the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval.

Agencies can be disappeared. Congressionally mandated spending can be ignored. Regulatory agencies can be instantly reshaped. Immigration policy can be radically transformed by executive action. Inspectors general can be fired en masse. Entire categories of federal employees can be reclassified or removed. Federal law enforcement can be redirected toward presidential priorities. Foreign policy conventions can be rewritten overnight. We’ve learned that there is no virtue in an “independent” Justice Department.

The details of what survives court challenges and what doesn’t are almost beside the point. Trump has exposed something that many Americans—and certainly many Democrats—never fully appreciated: The modern presidency is far more powerful than anyone admitted. For decades, Democratic presidents treated many of those powers as off-limits, constrained by norms and a fear of backlash from the wealthy and powerful interests most invested in the status quo. Sometimes public opinion mattered too. But more often, caution was treated as wisdom because the people who benefited from inaction demanded it. Trump has demonstrated that most of those constraints were voluntary.

That’s the lesson Democrats should take from this era: Political power exists to be used. (It’s no accident that this is this site’s new tagline. Power does matter.)

Republicans understand that. They treat every election as a mandate to reshape the country in their image. Democrats too often treat victory as permission to make small adjustments around the margins while explaining why bigger change isn’t possible.

Trump has shattered that excuse.

I was thrilled with the Democratic primary results in New York on Tuesday night. Three candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani cruised to victory, two of them ousting Democratic incumbents. The sitting congressmen were perfectly adequate progressive Democrats, always voting the right way. Yet there is a complacency in the Democratic caucus that will be the death of us if it isn’t excised.

Two of the three winners last night, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is building a core base in New York City. The third, Brad Lander, left the organization a few years ago. None of that matters, really. Their votes will be little different than their predecessors’, but they also won’t be as complacent about the status quo as the incumbents they are replacing.

We need that energy throughout the country. Not progressive vs. moderate vs. conserva-Dem. I have little energy for that battle, not in these times. What we need is the traditionalists swept out, with reformers leading the charge. Yes, a right-leaning Democrat can be a reformist! It’s not about ideology but about doing the work to get stuff done.

The Democratic Party today is narrowly more unpopular than the Republican Party. We will win big this November because Trump is truly that awful, but that won’t sustain the party for long. Maybe not in 2028. Definitely not in 2032. And if we want to see real change—not just fixing the mess Trump has made, but also building a truly progressive America—then we need to build trust among voters that Democrats can deliver.

That requires more than better messaging. It requires Democrats to use power. Otherwise, we’ll remain stuck in an endless loop: Republicans break the government in service of the wealthy and powerful, voters throw them out, Democrats come in and restore the status quo, voters wonder why their lives haven’t improved, and then voters throw them out and usher in Republicans to break it all over again.

Under the old constraints, there was seemingly little a president and Democratic Congress could do to enact quick change. At least that’s what we were told. But thanks to Trump, we now know those constraints were always an illusion.

And who did that illusion benefit? The wealthy elite. They built a system that treated caution as wisdom, delay as prudence, and inaction as responsibility. And they even got themselves a trillionaire out of the deal.

I’m frequently asked for my preferred 2028 Democratic presidential nominee, and I can’t bother to name names. We’ll have like 40 people running.

But I know what I’m looking for.

I want someone who will tackle the office with the same disdain for those traditions as Trump—but in service of people instead of himself. Anyone who muses wistfully about the old days when everyone got along and political enemies in Congress would have a beer afterward? Instant disqualification. Anyone who talks about rebalancing commissions to give the other party “a voice”? Instant disqualification. Anyone who accepts this broken and corrupt Supreme Court as just the way things are, even though nothing caps it at nine justices or prohibits term limits? Instant disqualification.

The status quo has served a tiny elite. The rest of the country has been left behind. Trump could’ve used this power for the betterment of our country, but he hasn’t helped even his core supporters. They’ve been among the people hurt most by his policies.

Now imagine a Democratic president who tells the political, media, and financial establishments to fuck off, then uses the full power of their office to directly improve people’s lives and to reshape the courts to better reflect the interests of the many rather than the powerful elite.

Those are the candidates who will grab my attention, whether they are running for president, Congress, or just about anything else.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos



Senate Turnover May Be Within Reach As Democratic Candidates Surge

Senate Turnover May Be Within Reach As Democratic Candidates Surge

As the political climate gets increasingly noxious for President Donald Trump and his captured Republican Party, it’s becoming clearer that Democrats are favored to retake the House this November. The Senate is a tougher lift, but it’s no longer just in play. Democrats may now be the slightest of favorites to win it.

That is a remarkable state of affairs. Democrats are operating on largely hostile terrain, while Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the chamber. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to secure a majority. (If you’re interested, you can look back at our March 29 and May 10 rating updates.)

1. North Carolina (R-open, Lean D)

Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper has enjoyed big leads in just about every poll so far as he faces former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley in this open-seat race. On June 11, Sabato’s Crystal Ball moved the race to “Leans Democratic,” catching up with Cook Political Report, which shifted the race to “Lean D” in April.

Scandal has screwed Democrats here before, so nothing can be taken for granted. But as for now, this is the Democrats’ most surefire pickup of the cycle.

2. Georgia (D-incumbent, Lean D)

Sen. Jon Ossoff is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent on the map. Oddly, the most recent poll of the general election was fielded in early April, when Ossoff held a high-single-digit lead. We now have an official Republican challenger in Rep. Mike Collins, so new polling should arrive soon in this reddish-purple state.

I’m moving Georgia ahead of Maine for now. Ossoff’s campaign is firing on all cylinders, without the self-inflicted drama that has engulfed Democrats in the Pine Tree State. Both Cook and Sabato rate the race “Lean D.”

3. Maine (R-incumbent, Lean D)

Democratic nominee Graham Platner is, to put it mildly, controversial. Yet he seems to have entered the kind of political space Trump occupies, where scandal doesn’t just bounce off him but even sometimes seems to strengthen him. Platner is charismatic, with a fiery anti-establishment message tailor-made for the moment. Maine has always had a soft spot for unconventional politicians, and that appears to be helping him.

Unlike Trump, Platner has apologized for his worst excesses. We’re long past the era when candidates were expected to be paragons of purity. At minimum, voters seem willing to reward politicians who show some capacity for growth.

In polling, the race is tight. Platner holds a narrow lead over incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who has repeatedly survived in this Democratic-leaning state. If you’re looking for evidence that his latest controversies are taking a toll, the data is mixed. In Quantus Insights polling, the race moved from Platner+7 in early March to Platner+1 this month. Meanwhile, Republican pollster Fabrizio, Lee & Associates went from Collins +1 in January to a tie more recently.

My instinct says that Platner ultimately reestablishes a mid-single-digit lead and wins comfortably in a high-turnout Democratic environment. But that’s speculation. For now, “Lean D” remains the appropriate rating. Cook and Sabato both rate the race a Toss-up.

4. Alaska (R-incumbent, Lean D)

In May, this was a toss-up race, which, in itself, seemed ridiculous. We’re talking about Alaska, a state Trump carried in 2024 by 13 percentage points, with an incumbent Republican senator, Dan Sullivan, who isn’t plagued by scandal, though he is somewhat unpopular.

Yet here we are in June, upgrading the race to “Lean D.”

Driving the change is former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola’s consistent strength in polling. Alaska Survey Research, the state’s gold-standard pollster, has shown Peltola with 5-point leads in its past two surveys, while Sullivan hasn’t scored above 44% support. In April, ranked-choice simulations failed to give Sullivan the boost he needed to clear 50%, while Peltola reached that threshold comfortably in round two. The June results tell essentially the same story.

Cook still has the race at “Lean R,” while Sabato rates it a “Toss-up.”

5. Michigan (D-open, Lean D)

Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ retirement scrambled the race in one of the country’s premier battleground states. Both Cook and Sabato rate it a Toss-up, which is understandable on paper. But with the primary still ahead on Aug. 4, there remains considerable uncertainty.

On the Democratic side, progressive physician and former Wayne County health director Abdul El-Sayed, backed by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Justice Democrats, has led most recent polling against Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

El-Sayed’s strength has predictably unnerved some Democrats, who worry both about his progressive politics and whether his Arab surname could become a liability in a state Trump carried in 2024.

Polling offers little clarity. In some surveys El-Sayed performs better than his rivals in hypothetical general-election matchups; in others he performs worse. While Cook and Sabato’s Toss-up ratings are defensible, I still lean Democratic because of the national environment. In a neutral climate, I would be considerably more pessimistic.

If all of the above races break as I project, Democrats would reach a 50-50 Senate, with Vice President JD Vance holding the tie-breaking vote. To secure a majority, Democrats would need to flip one of the following four seats.

6. Ohio (R-incumbent, Toss-up)

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, shown earlier this year.AP

I love Sherrod Brown. The former senator spent decades outperforming the partisan lean of his increasingly conservative state. His luck finally ran out in 2024, when he lost to now-Sen. Bernie Moreno. Even so, while Trump won Ohio by 11 points, Brown lost by less than 4 points.

Early polling in Brown’s comeback bid was uninspiring, with appointed Republican Sen. Jon Husted either narrowly trailing or narrowly leading Brown. As I often note, undecided voters usually break toward their state’s partisan baseline. A Democrat sitting at 45% in Ohio is rarely in a strong position.

That picture may be changing. The two most recent polls show meaningful movement toward Brown. Fox News’ poll, conducted by Beacon Research and Shaw & Company Research, had Brown up by 8 points, 53% to 45%. That’s difficult to take at face value, but it does reinforce the broader trend.

Do I believe Brown is really up by 8 points? No. Do I believe the national environment is shifting in his favor? Absolutely. Given that both Cook and Sabato also rate the race a “Toss-up,” an upgrade feels warranted.

Winning the above six races is Democrats’ clearest path to a Senate majority. And it bears repeating: That would require Democrats to win two states Trump carried by double digits.

7. Iowa (R-open, Lean R)

Welcome to the list, Iowa! And what a promotion it is, going from “other states to watch,” all the way up to “Lean R.”

Democrats have their nominee in Iowa state Sen. Josh Turek, and he will face Republican U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson in the general election. The past three polls of the race have had these candidates neck and neck in the mid-40s. Trump carried the state by more than 13 points in 2024, so I still expect those undecideds to lean Republican, but his approval rating is 12 points underwater in the state, according to Civiqs, and Iowa’s agricultural economy has been particularly hard hit by Trump’s tariffs and worker deportations.

8. Texas (R-incumbent, Likely R)

How about that Republican primary between corrupt Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and incumbent Sen. John Cornyn? By big-footing his way into the race with a Paxton endorsement, Trump guaranteed that Republicans will have to spend tens of millions in the battle for this seat.

Democrats have an outside shot with state Sen. James Talarico. Out of the gate, Republicans seem uncertain how to attack him. First came strained attempts to portray him as gay, complete with insults like “Tofu Talarico” and “low-T Talarico.” Fox News host Jesse Watters called him a “gay vegan.” White House aide Stephen Miller claimed Democrats had nominated “their first transgender senate candidate.”

Weird, but it gels with their hateful brand.

But a week later, Republicans were attacking Talarico for having dated multiple women. Of course, all of the relationships were consensual, public, and unremarkable. Yet Republicans treated the revelation as a major scandal.

Perhaps the strategy is to just scream random nonsense that leaves people so confused they forget that Paxton was impeached by Texas’ overwhelmingly Republican House.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos


As Midterm Polls Signal Blue Tsunami, GOP Is Frantically Waving The Flag

As Midterm Polls Signal Blue Tsunami, GOP Is Frantically Waving The Flag

The latest New York Times/Siena University poll has devastating news for the GOP ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

In addition to a record-low approval rating of 37 percent for President Donald Trump, the generic congressional ballot had Democrats up by 10 percentage points, which jumped to a staggering 14 points among voters most likely to cast ballots.

Republicans can’t quit Trump. He won’t let them, even if they wanted to—and most don’t want to anyway. Trump has remade the GOP in his image, and they’re fine with it, no matter what the polls say.

But Republicans aren’t resigned to November losses. They have a dastardly new plan ready to go, one they think will dramatically reshape the political playing field this summer.

“A couple more states redistricting in a way that’s helpful for us, move into the summer with America 250, and a midterm convention at some point,” a “very senior Republican strategist” (Stephen Miller?) told NOTUS. “I think we’ve got some good touch points to kind of keep that momentum rolling.”

[Record scratch.]

Wait, the plan is what?

“We will make sure that people are aware of the fact that we are the party of patriotism and love of country, and the Democrats are just—I mean, there’s polling to support me on this,” a “second Republican strategist” (Dan Scavino?) said. “They are not proud to be Americans. It’s very obvious, and they can’t help themselves.”

Ah, yes. People can’t afford groceries or gas, but “patriotism and love of country” will definitely drive waves of Republicans and independents to the polls to punish Democrats for not, uh, celebrating hard enough?

Top it off with a “midterm convention”—Trump’s seemingly forgotten pre-midterm rally—and sure, Democrats are quaking in their boots.

“Loving America harder” isn’t the closing argument Republicans think it is.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos


Peter Magyar

Massive Rejection By Hungarian Voters Shows How To End MAGA-Style Politics

Hungary’s strongman Viktor Orban has lost reelection in stunning fashion, an absolute electoral wipeout that presages what his MAGA allies in the U.S. will be facing this November.

The brand-new opposition Tisza party won around 53 percent of the vote, to just 37 percent for Orban’s Fidesz. Tisza is projected to secure around 138 seats in the 199-seat parliament, comfortably above the 133 needed for a supermajority, giving it the power to rewrite Hungary’s constitution and begin dismantling the autocratic system Orban spent 16 years building. Fidesz currently holds 135 seats.

The victory came despite Orban rigging the playing field: gerrymandering the country so the opposition needed about a 5-point margin just to break even, and turning public media into government mouthpieces.

MAGA and Orban have long been tied at the hip. The right-wing CPAC conference has hosted an annual Hungary edition since 2022. There, he’s fed the MAGA faithful red meat like: “Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists intoxicated by the dream of wokeness, those in the pay of George Soros, they want to abolish the Western way of life that you and we love so much.”

He’s also leaned hard into culture war paranoia, telling the CPAC Hungary crowd in 2023: “Gender and woke also divide the nation into classes, and proclaim that class is more important than nation, taking precedence over belonging to the nation and taking precedence over national identity.”

So you can see why the MAGA crowd loves him so much. For many on the American right, Orban isn’t just an ally—he’s a blueprint, with influential voices openly arguing for “Orbanizing” U.S. institutions by using state power to reshape media, universities, and the civil service. Tucker Carlson helped cement that relationship, broadcasting a week of shows from Budapest in 2021.

For millions of MAGA viewers, Hungary wasn’t some distant country—it was a working model of what conservative power could look like in practice, a model Orban actively marketed. “Hungary is actually an incubator where experiments are done on the future of conservative policies,” he said in 2023. “Hungary is the place where we didn't just talk about defeating the progressives and liberals and causing a conservative Christian political turn, but we actually did it.”

Yeah, he and his party did it. And on Sunday, two-thirds of his country rebelled against it.

Adding to the schadenfreude, Vice President JD Vance actually traveled to Hungary and campaigned for Orban. “What the United States and Hungary represent under Viktor’s leadership and under President Trump’s leadership is the defense of Western civilization,” Vance declared at one rally. At another, he went full sermon: “Will you stand for Western civilization and for the God of our fathers?”

The god of our fathers? Vance is so weird.

His overt meddling drew backlash across Europe, including from Germany, which rejected Vance’s claims that the European Union was the real outside influence in Hungary’s election. But really, everyone should be happy at Vance’s visit, as his “kiss of death” record (literally with the last Pope) remains unvarnished:

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, tried his own version of election interference—dangling U.S. economic support if Hungarians kept Orban in power. It worked in Argentina, where Trump gave his pal Javier Milei a $20 billion taxpayer giveaway in the weeks before his reelection campaign.

“My Administration stands ready to use the full Economic Might of the United States to strengthen Hungary’s Economy, as we have done for our Great Allies in the past, if Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian People ever need it,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “We are excited to invest in the future Prosperity that will be generated by Orbán’s continued Leadership!”

Can’t wait to see how “excited” he is now.

Trump’s support was just the latest in a long line of backing for Orban, whom he praises in the same breath as Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. And the alignment isn’t just rhetorical. Orban has consistently acted as a spoiler inside the European Union, delaying or weakening sanctions on Russia and complicating efforts to support Ukraine. In practice, that’s made him Vladimir Putin’s most reliable ally inside the EU, a bridge between Moscow’s interests and the MAGA movement that has long admired him.

There is, however, one way Orban appears to be better than Trump or Putin: He has reportedly respected the outcome of this election, calling opposition leader and Prime Minister-elect Péter Magyar to concede and congratulate him.

It’s a low bar, but one Trump couldn’t manage to clear.

The geopolitical implications are immediate. Ukraine, in particular, stands to benefit. While Slovakia’s Robert Fico remains aligned with Putin and hostile to EU support for Ukraine, he will now be far more isolated. Without Orban to share the burden, it becomes much harder for a single leader to block aid to Kyiv without facing serious consequences for his poor nation from the rest of Europe.

And for Trump, it’s one less strongman ally. If MAGA wants to keep pointing to the Hungarian model, let them. Voters there just showed how that story ends.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos


Will Firing More Cabinet Members Improve Trump's Sagging Approval Numbers?

Will Firing More Cabinet Members Improve Trump's Sagging Approval Numbers?

A Reuters report on Saturday claimed President Donald Trump was weighing a “reset” in his administration to arrest what he considered “unfair” media coverage over his Iran fiasco. That one sentence undersells just how unhinged this is.

U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a broader cabinet shake-up in the wake of Attorney General Pam Bondi's removal this week, as he grows increasingly frustrated with the political fallout from the war with Iran, five people familiar with internal White House discussions said.

Of course he’s frustrated. He created this mess himself, and this time he can’t declare bankruptcy, stiff his creditors, or sic lawyers on the problem until it disappears. He promised “no wars,” and now he owns one. There’s no easy exit.

Any potential reshuffling could serve as a reset for the White House as it confronts a politically challenging stretch: The five-week-old war has driven up gas prices, dragged down Trump's approval ratings and intensified anxiety about the consequences for Republicans heading into November's midterm elections.

That’s the reality. Republicans tied themselves to Trump, and now they’re stuck with the consequences. The problem is the rest of the country and the world is stuck with him, too.

Some allies said his televised speech to the nation on Wednesday - which one senior White House official described as an attempt to project a sense of control and confidence about the direction of the war - fell flat, adding to the sense that changes in messaging or personnel were needed.

There was never a scenario where another rambling Trump speech was going to reassure anyone. If anything, it was always going to make things worse. People are done with him. They gave him a second chance, and he’s screwed it up beyond recognition. No one outside the MAGA deplorables is giving him the benefit of the doubt, ever again.

Several of the sources said Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are among those potentially on the chopping block, after Trump ousted Bondi and Homeland Security ⁠Secretary Kristi Noem in recent weeks.Trump has in recent months expressed displeasure with Gabbard, said one senior White House official. Another source with direct knowledge of the matter said Trump had asked allies about their thoughts on potential replacements for his intelligence chief

Gabbard is awful, but funny how his immediate hit list is all the women in his Cabinet. That’s not a coincidence.

The same report notes that Trump himself isn’t particularly bothered by Lutnick. The discomfort is coming from others in his orbit over Lutnick’s ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s own history there speaks for itself.

Trump could ultimately decide, however, not to make any changes to his administration's senior ranks. Several others close to Trump have said the ⁠president is reluctant to overhaul his cabinet too frequently, after recurrent staffing changes during his first term dominated headlines and created the impression of chaos at the White House.

Nothing about this is about governing. He assembled a Cabinet of loyalists with little regard for competence, and now that his administration is trapped in a public opinion death spiral, his instinct is to reshuffle the deck rather than change course. The people he’s thinking about firing didn’t create the underlying problem.

Still, after his disappointing speech on Wednesday, doing nothing could be just as politically dangerous as making a significant change that, for better or for worse, would dominate news headlines, one White House official said.

Actually, doing nothing for the next three years would quite literally be the best political move Trump could do.

Trump worked with his speechwriting team and top advisers on this week's prime-time address, one official said, after aides had urged him for weeks to speak directly to the nation about the U.S. role in Iran [...]"The speech did not accomplish what it was supposed to," the official said, adding that while Trump's core supporters still backed him on the war, they are broadly under economic strain.

Even that framing misses the point. The issue isn’t presentation. It’s the substance.

Two ⁠of the White House officials said Trump is extremely frustrated with what he perceives to be unfair media coverage of the war in Iran, and he has made clear to his team he wants more positive news accounts. He has not indicated, however, that he is interested in adjusting his own messaging strategy.

There is no “messaging strategy” to adjust. The behavior is the problem. Demanding better coverage while continuing the same actions that caused the backlash is not a plan.

If Trump wants more positive news coverage, there is one obvious option: step aside.

Still, the sources said the possibility of a shake-up had grown decidedly more serious in recent weeks. One senior White House source said Trump wants to make any big changes now, well ahead of the midterms.

Quite literally every single one of his Cabinet members deserves to be fired, and every single possible replacement would look the same: loyalists first, competence optional.

We are stuck in a political nightmare. The only silver lining is that Trump, himself, is as well.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

What Will It Take For Democrats To Flip The Senate? A State-By-State Cheat Sheet

The House of Representatives will be a Democratic-led institution after this November’s midterm elections. The big question is whether Democrats can also recapture the Senate—a chamber that, under any rational circumstances, shouldn’t be competitive.

It’s a brutal map for Democrats. Yet, thanks to President Donald Trump’s toxic incompetence and his obsequious party, it’s now in play. This is the first in a regular feature tracking the most competitive races throughout this election season.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, meaning Democrats need to net four to get past Vice President JD Vance’s tiebreaking vote.

1. North Carolina (R-open, Lean D)

Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper has led in every single poll so far as he faces former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley in this open-seat race.

Time after time, Democrats have come close in recent Senate contests in the Tar Heel State. In 2020, the race appeared within reach until a late scandal derailed the Democratic nominee, who ultimately lost by less than two percentage points. In 2022, Republicans won again by about three points. Those margins mirror the state’s Republican lean at the presidential level, underscoring just how evenly divided North Carolina is.

Nothing can be taken for granted. But Democrats have shown they can win statewide, and Cooper remains a popular figure after two terms as governor. He also has a shockingly strong record, having run in six statewide races and won all of them.

2. Maine (R-incumbent, Lean D)

How tough is this cycle for Democrats? This is a Republican-held seat in a state won by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.

Once again, Republican Sen. Susan Collins is at the center of one of the most competitive races on the map as she seeks a sixth term in a state that consistently leans Democratic at the presidential level.

This is one of Democrats’ best pickup opportunities, but the path isn’t straightforward. Collins has survived tough races before—most notably in 2020, when she won reelection even as Joe Biden carried the state at the presidential level. Collins continues to benefit from a reputation as a moderate willing to break with her party. At the same time, she’s the only Republican senator representing a state that has largely rejected Trump in every election.

The Democratic primary is still taking shape, with Gov. Janet Mills and oyster farmer Graham Platner facing off in an establishment-vs.-insurgent battle. Emerson College’s latest poll of the race shows Platner dominating both the primary and general. But Collins is a survivor, and history says she can’t be counted out.

At this point, if Democrats can win their two best pickup opportunities, it lifts them to 49 seats in the Senate. For a majority, Democrats need to hold the next two seats, in Georgia and Michigan, and then flip two more.

3. Georgia (D-incumbent, Lean D)

Sen. Jon Ossoff is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent on the map, defending a seat in a reddish-purple state.

Margins here are razor-thin. Ossoff won his 2021 runoff election by just over 1 point, while fellow Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock won both his races in 2021 and 2022 by less than 3 points.

Republicans are coalescing around Rep. Mike Collins and will invest heavily. The only public poll released this year, from Emerson College, gives Ossoff a lead of 48 percent to Collins’ 43 percent. In this climate, that should be enough—but there’s little room for error.

4. Michigan (D-open, Lean D)

Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ retirement has created an open-seat race in Michigan, one of the most important battlegrounds in the country.

The Great Lakes State has leaned Democratic in recent cycles, with the party scoring big wins in state-level races, like the governorship. But federal contests remain competitive. Trump carried the state in 2016, narrowly lost it in 2020, and won it back in 2024, the same year that Democrat Elissa Slotkin won her Senate race by 0.3 points.

Both parties have competitive primaries that won’t be settled until Aug. 4, unusually late in the cycle. Three Democrats—state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, U.S. Rep Haley Stevens, and progressive activist Abdul El-Sayed—are polling neck and neck right now. And without clarity on the candidates, this is currently Lean D, largely due to the broader political environment. It’s difficult to see a Republican fully escaping the drag of Trump’s tariffs, wars, and inflation.

If Democrats hold Georgia and Michigan, they remain at 49 seats in the Senate. But to win a majority, they need to pick up two more among Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas. See how tough this task is? Yet, thanks to Trump, it’s not out of arm’s reach.

5. Alaska (R-incumbent, Toss-up)

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan is seeking reelection in Alaska, a state that defies easy categorization—solidly Republican on paper but with a strong independent streak. For example, the state legislature is run by a bipartisan coalition that sidelines MAGA hard-liners.

Alaska consistently votes Republican at the presidential level—a Democratic nominee has won it only once since it became a state—but its large independent electorate and political culture reward candidates who distance themselves from party orthodoxy. That’s helped figures like moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski repeatedly win. Ranked-choice voting also adds another layer of unpredictability.

Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, who defeated former Gov. Sarah Palin in Alaska’s 2022 House race, is the Democrats’ dream candidate. Public polling shows a tight race, with recent surveys giving her a narrow edge. It’s always difficult to defeat an incumbent, especially one aligned with the state’s partisan lean. But Peltola is a strong candidate, and this is a favorable climate.

6. Ohio (R-incumbent, Lean R)

Ohio shouldn’t be in play. Trump has carried this onetime battleground by eight points or more in all three of his campaigns. It was remarkable that liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown survived as long as he did, holding office for eighteen years. And even in defeat in 2024, he lost by less than four points while Trump won in the state by 11 points.

Brown is thankfully back this year, running in the special election for the seat vacated by Vice President JD Vance. His opponent is appointed Republican Sen. Jon Husted.

Husted’s lack of true incumbency, combined with Brown’s crossover appeal, gives Democrats a real pickup opportunity. Polling shows a tight race, with both candidates in the mid-40s. That’s a dangerous place for Brown since undecided voters tend to break in favor of the state’s partisan lean. He may be strong enough to defy that, and the national environment helps. But for now, this remains the GOP’s race to lose.Republican

7. Texas (R-incumbent, Likely R)

Republican Sen. John Cornyn is seeking reelection in a longtime GOP stronghold. But MAGA has a habit of sabotaging themselves, and Texas Republicans are flirting with exactly that by rallying around Ken Paxton, the unbelievably corrupt state attorney general who was impeached by members of his own party. (The state Senate acquitted him, so he has remained in office.)

Polling shows a familiar pattern: Talarico in the mid-40s. That usually means undecideds will lean Republican. The question is whether the current climate disrupts that pattern. A Paxton nomination would make that more plausible. For now, though, this remains likely Republican.

8. Nebraska (R-incumbent, Likely R)

Dan Osborn, a political independent and former union leader, nearly pulled off a shocker in 2024, coming within 7 points of upsetting Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, even as Trump carried the state by over 20 points. That’s the value of running without a “D” beside your name in a state as red as Nebraska.

Running again, Osborn faces ultrarich Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who is an imperfect fit in a moment defined by economic anxiety. Trump’s tariffs, deportations, and cuts are hitting rural Nebraska especially hard.

The only recent poll comes from the Osborn campaign and shows a tight race, as you’d expect it to. In 2024, undecided voters did the thing and broke toward Republicans on Election Day. Osborn faces that same challenge this year. Still, if anyone can make this competitive, it’s Osborn—and this environment gives him a shot.

Other states to watch

Republicans believe they can make the Democratic open seat in New Hampshire competitive. And there’s a plausible scenario where Iowa joins this list as well.


Senate Republicans Know Why Trump's SAVE Act Would Backfire On Them

Senate Republicans Know Why Trump's SAVE Act Would Backfire On Them

Here’s a delicious irony: Republicans know the SAVE Act would be a disaster for their party, but they can’t get President Donald Trump to see it.

The polarizing legislation behind the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would require people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—when registering to vote in federal elections. Trump and his acolytes claim this would stop noncitizen voting, which is already vanishingly rare. Critics point out the obvious: It would make voting harder for a lot of eligible voters.

Normally, that’s the point. Voter suppression has long been a feature of GOP strategy, not a bug. But that thinking is outdated, as lower-propensity voters are increasingly Republican.

Which makes this GOP-backed bill not just an affront to democracy, but politically self-destructive.

One key provision would require a birth certificate that matches a voter’s current name. It’s driven in part by the GOP’s fixation on trans people, who make up a tiny sliver of the electorate. But the real impact would fall on married women who changed their last names, and they are disproportionately a Republican-leaning group.

In 2024, 52 percent of married women voted for Trump, but only 38 percent of unmarried women backed him, making for a yawning 14-point gap in support. And the women most likely to have changed their names are the same ones more likely to vote Republican.

A 2023 Pew study found that 86 percent of married conservative women took their husband’s last name, compared to 70 percent of liberal women. Education reinforces the pattern: The more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to change her name—and the more likely she is to vote Democratic.

Current passports could solve the documentation issue, but about half of Americans don’t have one. And the same patterns hold: Higher income and higher education make passport ownership more likely, and both of those factors correlate with Democratic voters.

So once again, the burden falls hardest on Trump’s base.

The states where Trump performed best in 2024 tend to have the lowest passport ownership rates. A 2023 YouGov survey found that 52 percent of Trump voters lacked a valid passport, compared to 45 percent of Biden voters. There’s also a gender gap: 55 percent of women don’t have passports, versus 49 percent of men. Among evangelicals—a core GOP constituency—only 38 percent have passports. Urban and suburban residents are far more likely to have them than rural voters.

Women could ostensibly use a marriage certificate to bridge the name-change gap. But that assumes they have one readily available. Many don’t—especially older women who changed their names decades ago and are less likely to still have those documents on hand.

And replacing them isn’t simple. It costs money, takes time, and often requires in-person trips to government offices.

Those barriers hit hardest in rural areas, where government offices are fewer and distances between them longer, and transportation can be a real obstacle. The very voters most likely to face these hurdles—older, rural women—are also a core part of Trump’s base.

That’s how voter suppression actually works: not through one big barrier, but through a series of smaller hassles. Each step increases the odds that someone decides it’s not worth it and drops out. Those pressures hit hardest among lower-income, older, and rural voters—the same voters the GOP now relies on.

That’s the shift Republicans haven’t fully adjusted to.

For decades, lower-income and less-educated voters leaned Democratic, and Republicans built strategies around keeping them from the polls. Trump flipped that coalition and turned out voters who historically sat out elections.

And now this bill risks pushing those same voters back out.

Many Republicans understand that, even if they won’t say it out loud. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, for example, has shown no interest in blowing up the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act, even as Trump pressures him not to cave and end the ongoing government shutdown unless Democrats agree to support the vote-suppressing legislation.

It’s easier to let Democrats take the blame for killing the bill than to tell Trump he’s wrong.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

South Texas Latinos Who Voted For Trump Have Buyer's Remorse, Big Time

South Texas Latinos Who Voted For Trump Have Buyer's Remorse, Big Time

Amid President Donald Trump’s cratering poll numbers, it’s getting easier to find supporters of his now feeling burned by their 2024 vote. Here’s a clip that went mega-viral this week, thanks to this Trump backer’s blunt, self-aware honesty.

A voter in Pennsylvania shares her thoughts on the war with President Trump.

[image or embed]
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yasharali.bsky.social) March 17, 2026 at 7:04 PM

But beyond complaints about gas prices or inflation, there’s a deeper reality taking hold in parts of the country that swung to Trump. This isn’t about marginal cost increases—it’s about entire communities getting wrecked.

One example: South Texas.

The Rio Grande Valley—a predominantly Latino region that long leaned Democratic, if with low turnout—shifted toward Trump in 2024. His law-and-order message and economic promises landed. Republicans saw it as proof that their party was making real inroads with Latino voters.

That shift also reshaped the political map. It’s the kind of region Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico now needs to win back decisively if he’s going to have any shot at flipping a Senate seat long assumed out of reach.

Now those same communities are dealing with the consequences, as Trump’s immigration crackdown has crushed the region’s largest industry: construction.

“I did vote for Mr. Trump. Deporting the criminals is a great policy,” Mario Guerrero, executive director of the South Texas Builders Association, told The New York Times. “These foundations are poured ready to go, and we can’t even start the construction on them. But we voted for the American dream. And unfortunately, right now, we’re not seeing that.”

There was never much ambiguity about what Trump meant when he promised mass deportation. He didn’t limit “criminals” to violent offenders or serious convictions. His position was explicit: Anyone in the country without legal status was a criminal and subject to removal.

That distinction mattered, because there was no controversy over deporting actual criminals. Democratic presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden never shied away from doing that.

In a region where entire industries rely on immigrant labor, that definition didn’t just target a narrow group. It put an entire workforce in the crosshairs.

But it was easy to pretend otherwise.

“I’ve supported Mr. Trump in every election that he’s been a part of,” Guerrero said. “We just never thought that this would come and affect us in the construction industry, but most importantly, affect our economy here in South Texas.”

That’s a typical conservative: He starts caring once it directly affects him, because it was fine when he thought it would just hurt someone else.

Instead, it’s hitting the workers who actually sustain the region’s economy. Job sites are stalled. Projects are delayed. Businesses are shrinking or collapsing. The ripple effects are spreading outward into the broader local economy.

But there is a political silver lining, and we saw the first signs of it in the Texas primaries two weeks ago.

“Texas Democrats more than doubled their turnout from 2024 during the primary elections on March 3 in the four counties that make up the Rio Grande Valley,” reported the Texas Tribune. “In the Valley, that energy could help spare two incumbent Democratic congressmen whose districts were redrawn to favor the GOP, and earn the state’s minority party a third congressional district as well as a statehouse district or two.”

The GOP’s 2024 gains here were treated as a realignment. Now it’s looking more like a detour.

Whether that translates into lasting political change remains to be seen. But in a region where Democratic voter participation is needed in order for the party to be competitive statewide, Trump’s malicious incompetence may have finally woken them up.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Trump Deputy: Republicans Must Enlist 'Real Americans' To Polish GOP Record

Trump Deputy: Republicans Must Enlist 'Real Americans' To Polish GOP Record

White House deputy chief of staff James Blair is worried about Republicans losing the House this fall—and rightfully so. A Democratic House would not just stymie President Donald Trump’s agenda but also aggressively investigate all the things he’d rather sweep under the rug: Jeffrey Epstein, the Trump family’s corruption, the billions in foreign money flowing through Trump-branded businesses, and the growing list of conflicts of interest tied to his administration.

So at a retreat with House Republicans, he told them to stop touting all the things they’ve been bragging about, such as mass deportations.

But buried in the Axios report was this gem: “Blair also told members to go out and find ‘real Americans’ to highlight wins in the GOP's sweeping legislative package passed last summer.”

Ha, ha, ha—I’m dying here! He wants what?

The “sweeping” legislation Blair is talking about is Trump’s law known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Let’s see what was in there for “real Americans.”

To start, the bill slashed over $1 trillion over the next decade from health programs like Medicaid. It also cut federal food assistance, making it harder for struggling families to feed their kids. Good luck, House Republicans, as you try to find “real Americans” eager to brag about the “wins” of losing their health coverage or food benefits.

Republicans did throw money at Immigration and Customs Enforcement to bolster their thug army, but right now, that murderous crew of “real Americans” aren’t particularly beloved. When Blair is telling House Republicans to avoid talking about Trump’s beloved mass deportations, you know the issue is politically toxic. It’s become obvious that if you have to hide your face to do your job, you’re the bad guy.

There was also massive defense spending under Trump. Defense contractors certainly consider that a “win,” but again, it’s probably not the look that Blair is hoping for.

Hmm, what else is in this law … oh wait. There they are. The real winners.

Billionaires.

The law has showered the ultrawealthy with tax cuts. And many of them are technically “real Americans.” Found ’em for you, Blair!

In the end, Republicans added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s debt while slashing its safety net. There were certainly lots of winners in that boondoggle, and they are “real Americans” in the strictest definition of the term—but they’re not the kind Republicans want parading around their campaign ads.

When Republicans talk about “real Americans,” they don’t mean billionaires or defense contractors. They mean regular joes—people who work for a living and who have increasingly turned to the GOP out of that toxic brew of economic despair, racial resentments, and culture-war grievance politics. These are economically struggling voters, mostly white but not exclusively so, who backed the GOP on the hope it would lower prices, raise wages, and other critical work Republicans were never interested in doing.

Ultimately, Blair’s presentation was as helpful to House Republicans as Trump’s edicts that they should focus on voter suppression and further demonizing trans kids. “It will guarantee the midterms. If you don’t get it, big trouble, my opinion,” Trump told them on Monday.

What hope do House Republicans have if even their Dear Leader can’t follow Blair’s advice?

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

In Texas, James Talarico's Primary Victory Sets Up A Real Senate Race

In Texas, James Talarico's Primary Victory Sets Up A Real Senate Race

There is something afoot in Texas.

In what is likely the most-watched and most-contentious Senate primary of the cycle, for both parties, Democrats nominated state House Rep. James Talarico, while the top two Republicans are headed to a runoff after both failed to hit 50%. That race pits Sen. John Cornyn against crooked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Cornyn’s crime is being a relatively normal conservative Republican at a time when MAGA demands the worst of the worst.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Jasmine Crockett entered the Senate race after she was drawn out of her district by the GOP’s mid-decade redistricting gambit. She has built a strong base of support with her wildly entertaining trolling of President Donald Trump and his lackeys in the Republican Party.

Yet it was that very public and acerbic persona that made her a risk for Democrats in a general election. At a time when Republicans are facing a demoralized and tepid base electorate, Crockett—an outspoken Black woman—threatened to give them new motivation to vote. Talarico looks like a generic white guy and speaks like a preacher (because he’s a Presbyterian seminarian), and that has advantages in a conservative state like Texas.

Yeah, it’s icky to go there, but it’s a political reality. In our discussion this past weekend on the 2028 Democratic presidential field, many of you advocated for white men precisely because it’s the safer bet in our f’d up country. It’s the reason South Carolina’s Black electorate overwhelmingly chose Joe Biden in their 2020 presidential primary: that community knows better than anyone the challenges our country still faces in electing women and candidates of color. In Texas, Latinos, feeling particularly burned by Trump and hungry for blood, went heavily for Talarico.

Crockett was never able to fully neutralize the electability argument, even though polling showed little difference between the two candidates (with Talarico polling only a sliver better). And given the stakes to Texas and our nation, there is real reluctance among Democratic voters to take risks.

Ironically—and despite the efforts of angry stans online—this wasn’t a simple progressive vs. conservadem fight, with race and gender serving as shorthand for ideology. Yes, Crockett is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, but she also had strong detractors on the progressive left who pointed to her donor history, including PAC money from BlackRock and Lockheed Martin. “To call her in any way the progressive or leftist candidate is a misnomer,” Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee told NOTUS. “She’s a somewhat effective anti-Trump troll and resistance liberal, but is not one of us when it comes to a progressive populist or anti-corporate warrior.”

That’s a harsh assessment, and probably too simplistic, but it does highlight how messy the ideological lines in this race really were. But given electability concerns, ideology was at best a sideshow.

For his part, Talarico has become a genuine political sensation over the past few years, thanks largely to a style of messaging that Democrats rarely deploy anymore. A former public school teacher and now a seminary student (with a year remaining in his studies), he speaks openly about faith while making an unapologetically progressive case on issues like abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, and economic fairness.

Instead of avoiding religion, he leans into it—quoting scripture while arguing that Christian nationalism has corrupted the faith and that progressive values are closer to the teachings of Jesus than the politics of the religious right. This is stuff you and me both understand intrinsically, but Democrats have failed to effectively message.

That combination—progressive politics delivered in the language of morality and faith—is unusual enough in modern Democratic politics that it’s helped propel Talarico far beyond Texas. It also comes wrapped in a cultural authenticity that resonates in Texas, where he needs actual votes. He’s a teacher, a preacher-in-training, and a guy who can talk about faith, community, and public service in a way that feels natural rather than focus-grouped.

Clips of his speeches and legislative moments have gone viral online, building a national following long before this Senate race took off. The Trump administration sees him as enough of a threat that they are now investigating The View for hosting him, while CBS spiked a Stephen Colbert episode featuring him out of fear of governmental reprisal.

Crockett has it too, but in a different way. Her viral moments come from her willingness to verbally body-slam Republican nonsense, which Democratic voters understandably love after years of watching Democrats bring a spork to a gun fight.

But when it came time for Democratic primary voters to choose between two charismatic candidates, electability loomed large. Both resonate nationally, but all that matters here is what Texans think.

Lone Star Democrats want to win, and they want to win badly. With Paxton a very real possibility on the Republican side, that urgency has only grown.

So when Texas Democrats made their choice, they went with the candidate they believed best fit their state.

In this political climate, Crockett might very well have won.

Talarico certainly can.

Meanwhile, the two noxious Republicans get to blow their cash and beat the crap out of each other for the next three months. Perfect.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily KosReprinted with permission from Daily Kos

'Woke Right' Influencers Splitting From Trump's MAGA Base Over Iran War

'Woke Right' Influencers Splitting From Trump's MAGA Base Over Iran War

There’s a difference between President Donald Trump’s core MAGA base and the influencer class that amplifies him, even if the two might seem to be one and the same.

Trump’s base has an emotional—not transactional—attachment to their idol, akin to cult-like status. Supporting him is part of their core identity. For millions of Americans, Trump isn’t just a politician, but the man who gave voice to their grievances. He symbolizes defiance against a political, economic, and cultural establishment that has financially devastated them.

It’s no accident that there is a correlation between the number of meth labs in a county and Trump support, as well as higher death rates from drugs, alcohol, and suicide.

The “bro-caster” ecosystem is different. A lot of these personalities didn’t build their brands around Trump specifically, but around outrage, anti-elite posturing, toxic masculinity, and cultural grievance. Trump just happens to be the biggest gravitational force in that universe, and handsomely rewarded by the algorithms.

Sure, some of these influencers are true believers, while others are grifters. Has there ever been an easier mark than a conservative desperate to have his or her worldview validated?

But ultimately, their ideology is mostly a vehicle toward clout. If Trump falters, influencers can pivot. His core base can’t.

We’re seeing that dynamic in real time over Iran. Trump’s core base is happily lapping up the “Trump said no new wars, but this is a limited conflict so it’s all good!” reasoning. The 30 percent deplorable MAGA base consists of the dumbest people on the planet..

We already saw some prominent Republicans speak out against Trump’s new war. Now let’s take a look at that influencer crowd, because they’re struggling.

To be clear, these are all vile humans, but they helped deliver critical votes to Trump in 2024. Losing their support matters. (And incidentally, MAGA is now calling these guys the “woke right” as they call themselves “The real America Firsters.”)

Andrew Tate is on an anti-war rampage:

Mike Cernovich has 1.4 million followers on X, and millions more elsewhere.

We don’t want Nazis like Nick Fuentes, but as a vehicle to demoralize Trump’s fanbase?

These guys have 3.5 million followers on X:

This guy has 600,000 followers on X, and 877,000 on YouTube:

Matt Walsh has 4 million followers on X:

KimDotCom has 1.7 million followers on X, and never quite understood why the deplorables love him so much. Probably because like Dear Leader, he’s a criminal.



This guy has 370,000 followers:

This guy has almost 900,000 followers on X:

I could quite literally list similar posts all day, as the examples are endless. But for now, let’s close with former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was a staunch Trump supporter until 2025:

Trump made a big deal out of stopping wars, and a bunch of morons believed him. When a key segment of your base rebels in this fashion, the consequences are sure to be enormous.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily KosReprinted with permission from Daily Kos


Republicans Keep Pretending That Trump Will Bail Them Out In Midterm

Republicans Keep Pretending That Trump Will Bail Them Out In Midterm

The signs of a blue tsunami keep accumulating by the day, from 2025’s dramatic Democratic victories—where Democrats overperformed Kamala Harris’ 2024 numbers by eye-popping margins—to continued overperformances in special elections, to President Donald Trump himself acknowledging reality in his own authoritarian way.

“It's some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don't win the midterms,” Trump mused, before making the leap to “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.”

What’s funny is watching pundits and Republican operatives try to outthink gravity. Take New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who repeatedly advised Republicans that the solution for a midterm election blowout is for Trump to stop being Trump.

Brilliant. Why didn’t anyone think of that?

On Wednesday night, Mark Halperin reported that the “senior Trump political command” delivered a sober midterm briefing to key Republicans, including Cabinet officials. Among the findings: voters care about the economy (groundbreaking!), and that “Trying to argue about wages being up will not help; voters have to feel it.” They also admitted that “Taking credit for closing the border does not resonate much”—a striking concession that immigration, once a Republican strength, isn’t saving them.

But the best part? Trump’s own campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, effectively admitted Trump can’t save Republicans either.

“He acknowledged that Donald Trump will do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, not be data driven,” Halperin wrote. “Everyone else has to stay on message and be driven by the data. In effect, two separate but related campaigns.”

That’s patently absurd.

Republicans don’t get to divorce themselves from Trump’s chaos. His dominance over the party is absolute. He demands fealty, and they’ve delivered it. Those who stray—on tariffs, on Epstein, on anything—face his wrath. Trump is more interested in settling petty internal scores than deploying his war chest to protect vulnerable Republicans.

There are no “two separate but related campaigns.” Republican candidates can’t claim to care about affordability while Trump loudly proclaims it a “hoax.”

They can’t run on his message because it’s unpopular. They can’t run on his personality because he is hated. And they can’t rely on discipline because Trump doesn’t care—about data, about strategy, or about being a team player. He never has. Even his own political team isn’t pretending otherwise.

And this betrays the GOP’s core insurmountable challenge heading into what will be a political bloodbath for Republicans: Trump can’t help them, and he’s actually a liability.

So while that meeting at least acknowledged the damage Trump is doing to the GOP’s midterm chances—to the point that they’re trying to construct a parallel campaign strategy separate from their albatross—a new story from Axios found Republicans either pretending none of this is happening, or with their heads fully submerged in the sand.

The story on the GOP’s midterm woes starts honestly enough.

“While it is tempting for many in our party to wish away these results,” a GOP operative told Axios, “the pattern is clear that there is at least a current 10-point Democratic over-performance from Trump 2024—and it’s built on a fired-up Democratic base and a sleepy GOP base.”

Axios also notes that Republican strategists admit Trump’s handling of the Epstein files has “turned off parts of his MAGA base, while energizing Democrats and anti-GOP independents.” Left unsaid: Trump’s starring role in those files isn’t helping either.

Still, denial is a powerful drug.

“Let’s not pretend a couple of low-turnout special elections suddenly signal a political earthquake,” said Mason Di Palma, communications director for the Republican State Leadership Committee. Kudos to Di Palma for not hiding behind anonymity, even if he’s hiding behind a convenient strawman.

No one is arguing that “a couple of low-turnout special elections” alone are driving predictions of a coming Republican apocalypse. Take the shocking Texas state senate Democratic pickup: the electorate was 51 percent Republican, and the GOP candidate still got just 43 percent of the vote—in a district Trump carried by 17 points. That’s a 34-point swing. Democrats were only 35 percent of the electorate, yet their candidate won with 57 percent.

You don’t get that kind of shift from low turnout and a depressed GOP base. You get it from defections.

And no, it’s just not a couple of special elections. We have last year’s dramatic Democratic victories, which were anything but “low-turnout.” Trump himself is openly musing about canceling midterms because the party in power almost always gets hammered. Even solidly red Iowa is changing its laws to weaken its own governor ahead of an election where Democrats have a real shot at winning that seat.

But cut that guy some slack; he’s paid to be optimistic. Much worse are the anonymous sources that showered the Axios reporter with ridiculous hopium.

“[Some Republicans] note that Trump's cash-flush political operation didn't aggressively work to turn out the president's supporters in any of the recent elections—something it'll do in U.S. House and Senate elections this November,” reported Axios. “They also point out that Trump plans to hit the trail aggressively, which they believe will help to turn out his supporters.”

Was that mythical turnout machine just sitting it out last year?

And here’s the deeper problem: When Republicans themselves are defecting, higher turnout doesn’t necessarily save you—but it can actually help Democrats. We saw a version of this in 2024, when Democratic turnout operations inadvertently brought new Trump-leaning Latino and young voters to the polls. GOTV is a blunt instrument, and it doesn’t come with ideological guarantees.

Even if Republicans mobilize their evangelical base, traditionally the focus of their GOTV efforts, that won’t counteract erosion among suburban voters, independents, and soft Republicans. And given Trump’s habit of using his cash to settle internal scores rather than build coalitions, the idea of a finely tuned turnout juggernaut feels more like fantasy than strategy.

As for Trump hitting the campaign trail, what could possibly energize Democrats more in an anti-incumbent, anti-GOP environment than a deeply unpopular president parachuting into competitive districts to rant about gilded ballrooms and golf courses before declaring affordability a hoax? Democrats will beg for Trump to show his toxic face anywhere near swingable voters.

Remember, Trump’s own pollster admits that his client will “do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, not be data driven.” Which competitive district will that help?

So yes, things are tough for Republicans, and the man they insist is their savior is the very weight dragging them under.

Couldn’t happen to a worse bunch.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily KosReprinted with permission from Daily Kos


What Bad Bunny's Halftime Show Told Us About Latino Voters And Trump

What Bad Bunny's Halftime Show Told Us About Latino Voters And Trump

Latino culture is deeply steeped in the very values that conservative America claims to revere—faith, family, and tradition.

The church remains a central institution in many Latino communities, not just as a place of worship but as a social and moral anchor. It is where people gather, organize, grieve, celebrate, and find meaning.

Family is not an abstraction but a lived reality, with multigenerational households, deep obligations to parents and grandparents, and a cultural expectation that family comes before individual ambition or self-actualization.

Traditional gender roles are still present, shaped by long-standing cultural norms rather than academic theory or political fashion. There is a reason Latinos overwhelmingly rejected the “latinx” nonsense and are now rejecting the latest attempt to de-gender the language with “latine.”

These are not marginal or exotic values. They are the same ones conservatives endlessly invoke when talking about “real America,” only to dismiss or sneer at them when they exist in immigrant communities.

Despite his very overt racism and bigotry, President Donald Trump won a shocking 46 percent of the Latino vote in 2024, according to exit polls. Economics played a role, with desperate voters buying into Trump’s absurd promise of “lower prices on day one.”

But plenty of Americans faced economic hardship without resorting to backing Trump. Too many Latinos felt able to do so because, despite Trump’s open racism, there was cultural alignment—an assumption that his bigotry was aimed elsewhere, at other communities, and not at them.

To understand that alignment, just look at Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show, perhaps the most succinct and accurate depiction of Latino culture ever broadcast on an American stage.

It opens with workers harvesting sugarcane. Latinos are nothing if not hard workers—forming the backbone of American construction, agriculture, hospitality, and service industries—which conservatives claim to love.

The show then rolls through countless expressions of small-business entrepreneurship: the coconut stand, the shaved ice cart, the nail salon, the jewelry table, the taqueria, the bodega, stacks of concrete blocks waiting to become something permanent. This is the original hustle culture.

The show is saturated with multigenerational family. Abuelitas and abuelitos are everywhere—present, visible, respected. When, exactly, was the last time grandparents featured so prominently in a halftime show? Have they even been featured at all? Probably not.

The imagery is unapologetically masculine: boxers training, men working, men leading women in partnered dancing. It is also unapologetically, traditionally feminine—dresses, curves, sensuality—precisely the aesthetic the tradwife crowd claims to demand. Yet women are not sexualized ornamental props. They are mothers, brides, shopkeepers, workers, and entrepreneurs, grounded in family and community.

Yes, there was a gay couple dancing—for a split second—amid an endless sea of opposite-sex couples dancing, socializing, raising children, and getting married. As Caroline Sunshine, Trump’s 2024 deputy communications director put it:

My partner texted me after the show, “this is the most heterosexual, traditionally gendered thing I’ve seen in ages.” She wasn’t wrong.

Children are everywhere, zigging and zagging across dance floors, homes, and restaurants, because Latinos are pro-children even after they’re born—something conservatives bizarrely forget once abortion is off the table. The scene where Bad Bunny wakes up a kid at a wedding landed hard because it was instantly recognizable. Latino parents take their kids everywhere. Kids don’t get left behind so adults can party, kids are part of the party.

And while Bad Bunny drew attention for giving his Grammy to a younger version of himself, what resonated even more to me was the moment after dancing with Lady Gaga when he turns and twirls a young girl as well. Our children are not accessories. They are central characters in our lives.

Even the queer performers—Ricky Martin, Lady Gaga, and others—were not positioned as transgressive or radical. They simply occupied their place within the broader cultural framework. They belonged. They were part of the family.

Where Latinos fundamentally break from American conservatism is joy.

Joy is not a byproduct of success in Latino culture. Unlike cultures that treat professional status or financial achievement as prerequisites for a meaningful life, Latino culture has long defined success more relationally than materially. To our occasional economic detriment, joy is not deferred until we have the house or the fancy car. It has nothing to do with bank balances. Joy is integrated into daily life and shared whether or not circumstances cooperate.

That joy is not abstract or intellectual. It is physical. It lives in the body. It shows up in dancing that starts early and never really stops—children learning complex salsa steps, being twirled by grandparents right alongside them. Movement is not performance; it is participation. Joy is learned somatically, taught through rhythm, proximity, and repetition, embedded before it can ever be articulated.

It is further expressed through touch. Hugs are long and frequent. If you want to leave a gathering, best announce it 30 minutes before you actually leave, because you’re going to get multiple rounds of hugs and kisses around the room before you are allowed to leave. Affection is public and unembarrassed. Look at Bad Bunny greeting Martin:

Music is the vessel that carries all of this. Latino music is not merely entertainment—it is memory, history, grief, celebration, and connection layered into sound. It is how joy is shared within families and exported to the world. The entire energy of a room can change the second a Celia Cruz song or Rubby Pérez’s “El Africano” hits the rotation, landing just as hard with elders as with children. It truly is something to behold.

Songs become communal property, passed down, danced to, sung together, and remade—over and over again—in new styles for new generations. They form shared connective tissue across time.

You did not need to speak Spanish to feel any of that radiating from that stage. The music, the movement, the intimacy were the message. Joy was not a reward for success, but a way of living, collective, embodied, and freely offered to anyone willing to feel it. Even many MAGA conservatives begrudgingly admitted it spoke to them.

Conservatism, by contrast, is dour, punitive, and obsessed with control. It treats pleasure with suspicion, happiness as frivolous, and celebration as weakness. Trump is venerated for being a billionaire—despite inheriting his wealth—and then sneers at the wounded and dead as “losers,” openly telling his followers, “I don’t care about you, I just want your vote.”

And have you ever seen Trump laugh? It’s rare enough to see him simply smile.

Where Latino culture says life is hard so we dance anyway, modern MAGA conservatism insists life is hard so everyone else should suffer too. The joy on that halftime stage was not accidental. It was defiant. And it was deeply incompatible with the grievance-soaked worldview that now defines the American right.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Texas Gerrymander In Peril As Special Election Shows Latinos Fleeing GOP

Texas Gerrymander In Peril As Special Election Shows Latinos Fleeing GOP

This past Saturday, an under-the-radar special election for a Texas state Senate seat rocked the political world. The Democratic candidate, Taylor Rehmet, won by 14 percentage points in a district that went for President Donald Trump by 17 points in 2024.

Republicans immediately tried to spin the result, arguing that low turnout made it meaningless. That argument collapses under even minimal scrutiny. More than half of the electorate that showed up was Republican.

This formatting makes the results even more striking:

Voter partisanship:

  • Republican: 51%
  • Democrat: 35%

Results:

  • Republican: 43%
  • Democrat: 57%

The results are extra amazing given that Republicans spent over $2.4 million on the race, while Democrats spent less than $250,000.

Number crunchers are still parsing the data, and it’s wondrous to behold. Particularly noteworthy is the unmistakable fury of the Latino electorate, which foolishly swung hard toward Trump in 2024, giving him 48% of their vote despite the president’s history of bigotry and disrespect toward them.

That support has collapsed.

In this special election, Latino voters backed the Democratic candidate by an astonishing margin, 85 percent to 15 percent, according to VoteHub. This is the political cost of an administration that has chosen xenophobia and cruelty as governing tools, unleashing a campaign of intimidation and violence against immigrant communities and assuming those voters would tolerate it.

This pattern should look familiar. After Democrats stunned observers by flipping the Miami mayoral race this past December—winning it for the first time in nearly 30 years—the common thread was an enraged Latino electorate. At the time, polling suggested Latino voters were moving sharply away from the GOP, but Miami proved it.

"When Cubans in Miami are shifting the same direction as Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in NYC, something significant is happening,” tweeted Latino GOP consultant Mike Madrid after the Miami results.

You can now add Mexicans in Texas to that list.

After Democrats’ strong off-year results in November, election analyst Nate Gonzales examined whether Democrats could overcome Texas’ aggressive GOP gerrymander, which was designed to net Republicans five additional seats. Using what he described as Democrats’ “best-case scenario” based on historical voting patterns, he concluded that the party “would be able to hold three of the seats Republicans targeted with the new map, and flip two other putatively GOP seats—but they would still lose two currently Democratic-held seats (the 9th and 32nd), so the net result would be no gains for either side.” He floated a single net pickup for Democrats as a theoretical possibility but described it as “slim.”

Even a net-zero outcome in Texas would be a win since Democrats are all but guaranteed five new seats in California. That alone would represent a staggering miscalculation by Trump, who launched a redistricting war assuming Democrats would simply absorb the damage.

But Gonzales’ “best case for Democrats” analysis hinged on the idea of Latino voters reverting ro the level of support they showed Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, when she won 66 percent of the Latino vote.

This election blew past that.

When 85 percent of Latinos are voting Democratic, and when even some Republican voters are crossing over, the math changes fast. Suddenly, nothing is off the table this November—not just House seats but also statewide races as well, including the governorship and the Senate.

What happened in Texas on Saturday wasn’t a fluke. It was a warning. And the more data that comes in, the clearer it gets: Republicans are in real trouble, and they did it to themselves.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos