Except the perception of change is not change.

(Photograph: Richard Tsong-Taatarii/TNS/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock)

As of this morning, there were no indications that there are any fewer ICE agents on the ground in Minneapolis, or that operations have paused. There have been no commitments to review training procedures, or new guidelines issued for interacting with protestors. There have been no words spoken about refocusing on criminals, nor have Trump’s closest advisors walked back their accusations that Alex Pretti was a “domestic terrorist.” Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to Kristi Noem, whose capacity for mendacity may be the quality the President admires in her most. We are again living the Trump playbook: 1) create catastrophic policy (mass, untargeted immigration roundups, racial profiling, arresting and jailing legal immigrants, separating families, shooting people in the street); 2) let it play out until the utter lack of humanity can’t be ignored; then 3) briefly pretend to be a voice of moderation while you oversee a grand total of zero meaningful changes to the disastrous policy you created in the first place.

Today, Senate Democrats arrived at the only logical conclusion: that you cannot believe anything this administration says until it is written into law, threatening to shut down the government until they get just that. And they will have to hold firm as two predictable events will transpire in the coming weeks:

• The next manufactured distraction. It could be Cuba, a full-on trade war with Canada (complete with threats of annexation), or Trump deciding to rename the Capitol Building in his own honor. But it is coming in the next ten days.

• More “domestic terrorists” (aka protesters) getting killed. This, sadly, is coming too - because good policing work is hard. Minneapolis cops do a five-month cadet program followed by a 16-week training academy. ICE training is 8 weeks, total (and now sometimes less). Agents are offered bonuses up to $50,000 to join and can now be as young as 18. Sent out in roving packs, ICE agents are only as good as their weakest link. The killing of Alex Pretti sadly demonstrated this as two ICE agents (among the half dozen who failed to subdue him) shot Alex Pretti twice and then fired 8 more bullets into his motionless body.

  Share

It is the state of America today that business leaders have remained almost uniformly quiet, and subtle rumblings from soon-departing Republican senators and congresspeople about the need for an investigation qualify as “Trump (facing) sharper pushback” (The Washington Post’s own words). A blunt butterknife would qualify as sharp in this obsequious environment, but it appears now that Senate democrats will show some guts - dispensing with the niceties and adopting a strict “seeing is believing” approach.

It is on us to demand that they do. Otherwise, Trump – the master of the mirage – will continue to drive despicable policy while simultaneously claiming he’s the agent of restraint. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we let him - and if we let our politicians continue with the servility that makes them co-conspirators in the demise of our civil liberties.

Subscribe now

In Donald Trump’s Presidency, there is zero doubt that surprise will be on the menu between now and November. If his poll numbers stay low (and Republicans look on the verge of a substantial loss) expect his “‘flood the zone” strategy to take on truly biblical proportions.

Still - we can see with enough clarity right now four issues that are going to shape the 2026 midterms:

Rise of the Democratic Socialists. The last ten years of American politics has been a story of disaffected blue-collar workers turning towards MAGA. We are seeing the beginnings of a disaffected white-collar movement - Americans suffering under school debt and a low job creation, high-cost economy.

These white-collar voters were largely educated in the liberal environments of major American Universities; they have been exposed to, and in many cases are already sympathetic to, the Democratic Socialists’ platform. A September Gallup poll showed that only 44% of registered democrats view capitalism favorably - while 66% hold a positive view of socialism. That’s a stunning number. The size and scale of the leftward tilt among Democrats is perhaps the least talked about trend in American politics - and the most impactful. This isn’t just a New York anomaly.

The appeal of ‘free stuff’ at the core of Zohan Mamdani’s mayoral win in NY will be immense in this cycle - and remember that he won 48% of the vote among New Yorkers earning $100K a year or more, so this isn’t just a lower income movement. Free childcare, transportation, price controls, and a reignition of the debate about college loan forgiveness sound like panacea for families struggling to make ends meet in major cities.

Expect Zohan Mamdani to become a national presence. “Tax the rich” policies being proposed in California will emerge elsewhere. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - already one of the loudest voices in the Democratic Party - will become the loudest voice by November as she positions herself for a Presidential run.

Meanwhile, moderate candidates on both sides will continue to struggle as they are forced to justify previously accepted truisms like the value of free markets. That isn’t to say some won’t win in the most purple districts; but they will not be the voices that dominate the national conversation, especially in lieu of a unifying, captivating individual to explain to the electorate why moderate governance works. And these candidates will have to dance between distancing themselves from the leftward bent of the party while also begging for financial support and endorsements. The historical midterm tilt towards each party’s less moderate base will exacerbate the already polarizing nature of American politics.

From America First to … Nation Building. “We’re gonna run Venezuela” isn’t a campaign slogan that will sit well with Trump’s “America First” base, which is already fracturing over support for Israel and America’s role in Ukraine. Nor will threats about Cuba, Greenland, or whatever sovereign nation Trump deems worthy of regime change next. Foreign policy doesn’t generally dictate American elections, but this fall it will serve as a proxy for Trump’s focus and commitment to the MAGA principles. Nation building will turn out to be more complex, expensive, and difficult than the White House predicts. Trump’s chosen proxy to run Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, said that “we will never again be the colony of any empire … we’re ready to defend Venezuela.” Meanwhile, the people’s choice, Maria Corina Machado, is sidelined. What could go wrong here?

Don’t be surprised to see Americans - CIA agents, special ops, regular ground forces - operating in Venezuela soon. And when a dissenting Venezuelan faction fires a shot at one of these Americans - also a possible scenario - more troops and military action will follow. Total chaos in Venezuela will exacerbate party infighting over “America First” and will depress turnout on the Republican side while animating the Democratic base. An immersion in another foreign conflict could dominate the election.

The Artificial Intelligence Economy. Democratic candidates will position every economic question around the notion of ‘affordability,’ but affordability is an outcome, not a determinant. Outside of ending damaging tariff wars, politicians have little ability to quickly control the cost of goods, and at a national level, the cost of housing. But big corporations have made clear they will not be hiring in 2026, which means slow job and wage growth are likely to continue - the actually determinative factors of the financial health of American households. Artificial Intelligence is already the rationale for hiring freezes.

The stock market remains the peg Trump hangs his hat on to demonstrate the success of his economic policy. But the debt burden fueling the AI economy is already putting massive revenue pressure on AI companies just to service that debt. That means bringing in new customers as quickly as possible - customers now faced with what could be described as an overabundance of models to choose from, including Chinese LLMs that are dramatically cheaper while proving increasingly effective. A pivot to lower cost, foreign options and/or slower than expected revenue gains could dent or burst the AI bubble. Even a slight rise in interest rates could accelerate a downturn. I believe there will be an AI ‘recalibration’ this year; we just don’t know whether it will be a dent to the market, or a major pullback.

A stock market downturn of any size will weaken Republican candidates across the board, and play into the hands of the democratic socialists, who will channel discontent around everything from rising energy prices to newly minted AI billionaires to become the anti-AI party.

Subscribe now

Trump himself. Trump has shown little interest in the intricacies of governing; his answer to most questions about a particular policy or government action is that the questioner should go ahead and ask someone else. Expect the 80 days he golfed in 2025 to increase as he becomes increasingly bored by the Republican intraparty fighting and less amenable, physically and mentally, to traveling the country stumping for candidates.

Remember that Donald Trump has never experienced being a lame duck, and he won’t like it. He also turns 80 in June. The combination of his age, attention span, and lack of any real loyalty to individual candidates will make him less of a presence on the campaign trail than he’s been in any election since he entered the national arena in 2015. And if he senses his party will suffer losses, his instincts for self-preservation will force him to pull back further.

And when he is out on the trail, will his rhetorical skills be as effective without an obvious strawman to flog on the campaign trail? He has successfully used Obamacare, immigration, and the demise of America’s industrial economy in prior election cycles. But his all-time favorite foil has been Joe Biden. A year into Trump’s Presidency, Biden is still apparently the root cause of all of the country’s ills.

But the former President is himself ill. As more time passes since Biden’s Presidency and he grows increasingly infirm, even the most uncouth President in American history may struggle to effectively present a dying man nearly two years removed from his own Presidency as an effective foil. The borders will have been closed for two years, and the end of Obamacare subsidies will render that a liability. Who, or what, will Trump batter on the campaign trail? And how will voters respond as he continues to dismiss their economic concerns?

The answer to the ‘foil’ question will likely be AOC and socialism itself. But amorphous political movements don’t make as effective foils as individuals or particular policies, especially when socialist doctrine is increasingly popular with both blue- and white-collar voters - and some Trump voters as well.

Share

—————————————————————————————————————

What else do you believe will fundamentally impact the midterms? Drop your thoughts in the comments.

But if my priorities were different, last week would have been a good one to walk away, joining hundreds of thousands of other subscribers who have abandoned the paper in recent years. The Post, with plenty of company from other traditional media outlets, made it crystal clear that they plan to stifle the opinion writers who remain one of the few reasons to continue to subscribe.

Hard news content is both invaluable, and a commodity available in similar form from dozens of outlets. Thoughtful, provocative opinion content is unique, and essential. It is becoming increasingly clear that the people who run these publications and networks are growing more and more comfortable with whitewashed, sanitized content that doesn’t impact the owner’s business interests. This will only accelerate traditional media’s demise.

Meanwhile, podcasts and blogs are thriving. Yes, the ability to find your tribe of like-minded people to validate your own opinions is a major factor driving traffic. But it is also because free speech, in all its splendor and gore, thrives in these mediums. No one gets cancelled unless listeners or viewers decide to turn elsewhere. You are free to be funny, insulting, professorial, flighty - whatever path the creator chooses to pursue. No one wakes up worried whether the very opinions they get paid to deliver will get them fired.

The last two weeks have again made clear that in mainstream media, you increasingly do not have that freedom - a choice from the C-Suite that will accelerate its demise.

*************************************************************************************************************

One of the Post’s longtime editorial writers, Karen Attiah, was laid off last week for her comments following Charlie Kirk’s murder. Attiah slightly misquoted Charlie Kirk, posting that Kirk said “black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s spot.” A mistake on her part, no doubt - but it turned out Kirk’s actual quote was equally insulting, and perhaps more so. Kirk was referring only to Michelle Obama, Ketanji Jackson Brown, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee - some of the most revered African American women in the country.

Attiah went on to say that “America - white America - is not going to do what it needs to do to get rid of guns in this country. It will be thoughts and prayers, “violence has no place” out of a performance of goodness, not out of a resolve to convince their communities to disarm.”

Attiah’s post here qualifies as mainstream progressive thought, shared by tens of millions of Americans. It is an opinion that has been voiced thousands of other times, including by prominent democratic politicians. Most importantly, it is an opinion proffered by an opinion writer. To the Washington Post, this qualified as “gross negligence”, and she was summarily dismissed, via email, after 12 years at the Post.

As I logged on to the Post yesterday, I saw this headline from a true national treasure, George Will: “A seamlessly unserious President.” He went on to say that Trump “brandishes social media like an overstimulated adolescent.” I immediately wondered - is this gross negligence too? Is George Will at risk? There are clearly no rules here - just executives reacting in real time to protect their business interests - with thoughtful opinion content being the sacrificial lamb.

Meanwhile, over in the not so hallowed halls of MSNBC, Matthew Dowd was relieved from his duties as - you guessed it - a political analyst and opinion contributor for delivering the very analysis he is paid for. I generally find Dowd milquetoast; his statement on Kirk’s killing qualified as an actual opinion from him. Dowd said: “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which lead to hateful actions. You can’t stop with these sorts of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place.”

A confusing opinion, no doubt. Read one way, Dowd is insinuating that Charlie Kirk brought his assassination on himself; a classic correlation over causation analysis which doesn’t add value. But another reading would just as easily lead to the conclusion that Dowd’s actual point is that escalating rhetoric can lead crazy people to do crazy things. If the latter was the intention, Dowd’s crime is a lack of original thought. Did MSNBC ask Dowd to clarify himself? Given how fast he was kicked out of the building, I’m guessing they did not.

And we all now know the story of Jimmy Kimmel. ABC sent Kimmel to his room for a timeout last week after Nexstar, one of the largest TV station owners in the US, declined to air Kimmel’s show, and after FCC Chair Brandon Carr told ABC “They could do this the easy way, or the hard way.” ABC quickly took the easy way. It surprised no one to find out that Nexstar is seeking FCC approval to merge with fellow broadcast giant Tegna, a merger that also requires the FCC to change regulations on how many stations one entity can actually own in a given market.

Kimmel is now back - for how long? ABC has zero obligation to continue airing Kimmel’s show, especially if it continues to hemorrhage money. But like him or hate him, Jimmy Kimmel usually said something - he had real, visceral opinions. It seems only a matter of time before Kimmel, like Stephen Colbert, is replaced by reruns of “That Seventies Show” or something equally bland and inoffensive - and network TV will also continue its death spiral. Kimmel himself will then reappear in a new medium - and it will undoubtedly be one with far less domain over what he does or doesn’t say.

Subscribe now

*************************************************************************************************************

There is perhaps no worse remedy for the failing medium of traditional media than neutering your own content. Back in the day, the reasons for taking your opinion column to the Washington Post, rather than pursuing independence, were job security and the widest audience possible. What’s the reason now?

So I wonder again about George Will, and others like him. How long will he stay at the Post, walking on eggshells and watching circulation diminish? And how quickly will the remaining talent drain out of these traditional media vehicles, leaving virtually nothing of interest but the news of the day to keep people engaged?

It could happen much faster than you think.

Share

Eighteen months ago, my wife and I engaged a design/build firm to add a bedroom to our house for our daughter, who has shared a room for nine years with her older brother. Their years together were a beautiful era in our family’s life, but now teenage years are upon us, with a corresponding desire for space and privacy.

After eight months of design and permitting, we began work on what was supposed to be a five-month construction project to reconfigure our upstairs. Ten months later, we are still not living in our home. This is, as my parents taught me to say, a first world problem; but an inconvenience, nonetheless.

It has not all been bad. I have been fortunate to learn a great deal from my contractor about how the world works, which according to him is more valuable than living in my home and a gift for which I should feel immense gratitude. Consider this an expression of my appreciation - and my need for a good laugh.

____________________________________________________________________________

Prior to beginning this project, my contractor wouldn’t have seemed a likely source for broader life lessons, for no reason other than his capacity in this arena wasn’t a pressing question for me to ask when we were ‘dating.’ My podiatrist might be a world class chef, but it never really occurred to me to ask him, either. I am fortunate that my contractor is so forthcoming.

After months of back and forth, we finally agreed on a budget and a plan. Life lessons were not part of that package, and so when they began to flow freely, I was surprised. What an unexpected bonus! Galileo famously said “you cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him find it within himself.” My contractor taught me that Galileo was wrong. A person can teach you virtually anything across the course of ten months if you have no choice but to absorb the lessons, daily, like a repetitive blunt force trauma.

But before we dive further into those lessons: I hope all of you are OK. Unbeknownst to me, there has been a ten-month plague of second cousins once removed passing away, minor car accidents, and illness that have hit our great nation. Apparently, many people have needed to help an aunt move at the very last minute, and virtually everyone had at least four ‘undisclosed family matters.” This explains why we cannot do work on my house. I was unaware of this because many of the people I know seem to have come through unscathed. I have learned from my contractor that my people are the fortunate ones.

But do not worry. My contractor will have the financial means to get through all of this, because he works on what is called a “cost-plus” contract - which in layperson’s speak means “I can charge you whatever the fuck I feel like, and if you don’t pay, I will put a lien on your house.” This sort of contract is very important, I am told. ‘Nice to have, not must have’ items like removing garbage from our yard and painting all the walls were not properly accounted for in our ‘budget,’ so this accounting miracle allows us to add these items in. This happens with great frequency, but I am relieved to not live on a garbage pile and to have a “cost-plus” contract that makes me pay more for it.

I have learned that there are many interdependencies in contracting. Our contractor based the project budget off ‘design drawings’ but those did not have ‘elevations;’ his base assumption was of course that any built-in shelves, desks, and bookcases would simply rest on the floor - and like many people from other parts of the world, we would eat there as well. Once again, the cost-plus contract saved the day and allowed us to pay more to have shelves that were nailed to the wall. The cost-plus contract is the true hero of my story.

But my contractor is also a hero. We are told frequently what good hands we are in. My contractor’s shared a useful analogy for his role: that of a skilled pilot. He and his team are steering the plane. When my wife and I wander into the cockpit unwelcomed, it is jarring for the pilots, and we are actually risking a plane crash. We are to stay out, even when we look out the window to see the engines and wings on fire. As non-experts, our opinions are not helpful - and no one wants a plane crash, not with the aforementioned rash of calamity. Too many people have gone through too much already.

So I stand back and continue to learn.

I have learned how hard it is to accomplish multiple things at the same time. You probably know this as “multitasking.” But contractors do not multi-task. They “stack subs.” Before you assume this is the same as multitasking, ‘stacking subs’ actually involves multiple people each doing an individual task on a job at the same time. I used to think that having multiple people doing any job made things easier and faster, but I was naive, and wrong.

I have learned that “stacking subs” is immensely difficult. For these individuals may need to work alongside each other. They may not like each other’s music, or the smell of their respective lunches. They may have to walk past each other in the hallway or wait for the bathroom. These annoyances are untenable, so we do not stack subs. We only talk about how difficult it is to do it, so as to prevent me from ever suggesting it again.

I have learned not to stress so much about money. Money is ephemeral - at least my money is. This is not the case with the contractor’s money. His money is different, kept in gold bullion in a secure, undisclosed, and inaccessible location. My currency is equivalent to Argentinian Pesos; like the bank of Argentina, I will simply print more when it runs out. That is why it makes sense that I pay in every dispute over expenses. I turn on the printer; he cannot mine for more gold.

Most importantly, I have learned not to complain. I have learned that my contractor getting paid to not work on my house is more stressful than me paying to not live in it. Our contractor “desperately” wants to get us back in our house. His desperation is on par or superior to mine, despite him having an actual home of his own. That is how seriously he takes this work. The emotional burden is at times too much to bear. My contractor has taught me that care and action have an inversely proportional relationship in home building. Doing nothing is my contractor’s love language.

But at least my neighbors are happy. They seem puzzled by the duration of this project, but positively thrilled that there is substantially less construction noise than they had anticipated. “They’re so quiet,” I hear frequently, to which I respond that it is their unique level of skill that allows them to do the same work as other crews with far less disturbance.

But I will not let the neighbors forget completely about our project. A green port-a-john continues to rise like the Statue of Liberty from our yard, it’s worn outer coat reminiscent of Lady Liberty’s oxidized copper. Perhaps it too will be here 150 years on as a reminder of all that was, or was not, accomplished on this hallowed ground.

____________________________________________________________________________

I have been reminded to laugh. As my five-pack enters our tenth week sharing a 900 square foot house - a luxury in most parts of the world - we’ve had a lot of them. There have been some tears as well, and a few shoves and a couple of punches thrown between kids. Nothing out of the ordinary. None of this actually matters and we’re closer as a family - literally and figuratively - than we’ve ever before.

And I hold out hope that alongside this education will come a finished house; and perhaps my contractor will take me on as a client on a cost-plus educational contract afterwards. Because learning is a lifelong pursuit.

Subscribe now

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are everywhere.

You gotta give Bernie a lot of credit. He is 83 going on 53, full of vigor and as true to his socialist mantras as ever. In a Democratic Party that too often panders in an attempt not to offend, Bernie remains steadfastly and admirably himself, for you to take or leave; and as has always been the case with Bernie, a lot of people are taking it.

As Bernie popped up at Coachella on his “pass the torch to AOC” tour, it was clear that the most visible democratic politician today - and the one that draws the biggest crowds - is America’s 2nd oldest sitting Senator, just slightly older than Joe Biden.

But do not fear! Stephen A. Smith is considering stepping into the massive Democratic void, a deeply unserious sports talk host taking cues from a country that must believe (with some current evidence) that the Presidency isn’t a serious job. This is the state of today’s Democratic party.

It is hard to imagine what moderate, ‘establishment’ democrats do in a primary environment like this in a couple of years. I’m talking about the Governors and Senators who believe the path to the nomination is simply to show Americans what good governance looks like. They will have AOC to contend with in a primary that pulls them hard to the left while facing down any number of outsider, shock n’ awe candidates who will be tethered only to what they think voters want to hear.

Might one of those moderate governors or senators - or another outsider - make a credible run as an independent in 2028?

************************************************************************************************************

There are third party or independent candidates in most Presidential elections, but they are mostly afterthoughts or historical footnotes (here’s looking at you, Ralph Nader). Serious candidates usually don’t even try; the political realities have made it almost impossible to win. In a nutshell: American ‘winner take all’ elections mean there’s no benefit to a close loss (no partial power arrangements); the political parties effectively function as fundraising and ad spending machines with irreplaceable, curated donor networks; and the Democratic and Republican parties have worked hard to cement themselves as the only viable options by making it more and more difficult to even get on ballots, or into Presidential debates. Lastly, the ever-increasing power of the far left and far right in primaries has rendered the approximately 40% of the country that describes themselves as ‘moderate’ or ‘independent’ effectively irrelevant until the candidates are chosen, at which point the cake is baked.

This may continue in perpetuity. Odds are it will. But a series of factors are aligning for 2028 that just might make this the year that we experience another fundamental realignment of American Politics.

If people hate both parties, an independent can hammer both of them. A recent CNN poll put the Democrat’s favorability rating at 29%; Republicans had them beat at an inspiring 36%. “I’m not with either of these parties” might be the single most compelling thing a candidate could say in 2028.

My best guess is that a current Democrat will run as an independent in four years. Moderate candidates like Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, Mark Kelly, John Fetterman, and Gavin Newsom (whose moderate credentials = debatable) will have a choice; acquiesce to leftist policy demands they don’t believe in or stick to their beliefs and risk getting to the major primary states well behind AOC in the race. Why not start preparing an independent run now?

What you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Nothing - literally nothing - goes unrecorded now. You can’t stand in your kitchen and talk about a vacation with your spouse without hotel ads appearing on your phone five minutes later; imagine how candidates feel. A Q&A in a small town in Iowa, 20 months before primaries begin? A dozen people recorded it. And it just might become the most devastating ad of an election cycle (see: “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”)

What if a candidate could just … grovel less? Among Kamala’s failures were the attempts to appeal to every democratic constituency, of which there are many, in the process presenting herself as utterly milquetoast, and even worse, disingenuous. If you are a suit wearing ‘insider’ - like many of the politicians mentioned above - an independent candidacy almost immediately morphs you into an outsider; you shed the baggage of party and gain the advantage of saying what you mean. That may be the only way a perceived ‘moderate’ has a shot anymore.

Political Party Ideology is Dead. Political parties used to set a baseline ideology that allowed voters to identify with a candidate as they were in the process of getting to know them. Today, the parties follow almost no consistent ideology, and there is no reason to believe that a candidate with ‘traditional Democratic values’ (whatever that means) has any better chance of winning a primary than, well, a sports talk show host.

The Republican Party itself is essentially a brand new party; the Democrats are actually two parties; one moderate, free-trade, globalist party and one on the far left which, other than a penchant for identity politics and a genuine care for working class people, bears a lot of similarities with the protectionist, science skeptical Republicans occupying the far right.

Faith in the two parties is so strikingly low that no one bats an eyelid when Robert Kennedy - a Democrat for his first 70 years - is reborn as a Trump sycophant in year 71. Most people think the two parties are useless anyway, so who cares if someone jumps from one cesspool to the other? In a world where you can enter and exit a political party as you please, or change your entire political ideology on a dime, being attached to a party sounds less appealing than ever.

You can actually buy an election, and there are more people than ever who can do it. Whatever fleeting idealism remained about the ‘one person, one vote’ theory of American elections began to evaporate with the Citizens United decision in 2010, which allowed for unlimited 3rd party spending on campaigns. And it was eviscerated completely in 2024 when Elon Musk actually, you know, bought an election.

There has always been an unspoken question behind campaign donations: no matter how big a check I write, how much can I really influence policy? Elon has demonstrated the answer: you could be in the driver’s seat. While Elon eviscerates large swaths of critical government agencies, SpaceX continues to gobble up billions of dollars in government contracts. You can’t tell me others with big checkbooks aren’t taking notice.

While there aren’t a lot of people who can spend $270 million on a campaign, there are 2 1/2 times as many billionaires as there were 25 years ago to go along with 15 million millionaires in the US. There’s plenty of private money to go around. Now that it’s been proven you can get a lot for what you spend, the equation has changed. Would JB Pritzker, the Illinois Governor who will almost certainly run, look at the path through the Democratic primary and ask whether he’s better off running as an independent? Pritzker is worth nearly $4 billion. He could fund a campaign himself.

Earned media is getting easier. $3 billion dollars were spent on advertising during the 2024 campaign, much of it in the seven competitive swing states, with Kamala Harris outspending Donald Trump 2-1 while losing all seven. TV advertising still matters; but it is hard to argue there is “bang for the buck” in what was spent. Candidates would spend $10 billion each if they had it - and they would get by with much less if they didn’t. That’s possible in large part because the earned media universe of podcasters, bloggers, and influencers is having its day - environments where casual conversation rules, questions are mostly softballs, and you can reach massive audiences. These shows don’t require a deep historical understanding of policy, or an ability to defend your own beliefs; they literally exist to answer the age-old question “which person would you rather have a beer with?” Which means that …

Celebrity and personality matter more than experience. Among his many ‘accomplishments,’ Trump’s active disdain for experience has destroyed ‘a career in service of your country’ as a campaign advantage. In fact, the further you are from the established political centers where you would actually get experience, the better your chances in a primary. We are now an outsider culture where breathing ‘fresh air’ is sanctified, even if all you’re really doing is blowing hot air. And there are any number of people with the ego and deep pocketed friends to consider a run - Mark Cuban fits the profile, even if he doesn’t end up as a candidate.

And for the crowd of moderate democratic Governors and Senators considering a run, they must recognize that the democratic primaries are designed to strip honesty and authenticity out of the process. Navigating the primary maze requires a delicate dance in which you must avoid the verbal landmines that could destroy your relationship with one of the dozens of democratic groups (unions, special interests) deemed necessary to win, in the process forcing you to turn linguistic summersaults to keep everyone happy.

Campaigns are now more about what you’re not than what you are. If you exist as an opposition force, experience isn’t necessary anyway because you’re not forming new policy - you’re campaigning on destroying existing policy. The entire Republican campaign was about not being ‘woke,’ not being ‘taken advantage of’ by our allies in both military conflicts and trade, not wasting taxpayer money, and not letting immigrants across the border. Biden’s 2020 win was almost exclusively based on just not being his opponent. Some say Trump’s biggest asset in 2024 was not being Joe and Kamala.

The point is new policy takes expertise to create. Opposing what already exists just requires strong, consistent messaging. In a social media dominated world, there are many, many more people with the latter skill than the former.

**********************************************************************************************************

Look, it’s a longshot. I get it. But imagine a situation in which JD Vance is carrying the MAGA mantle, and AOC the crown of the progressive left. There will be a massive block of voters exhausted by Trumpian chaos, but fearful of a leftward lurch. An independent candidate who planned ahead would have access to money, earned media, and a right to say what they mean unattainable in party primaries. That may sound quite appealing if AOC continues to dominate the headlines, and pull the party left.

Share

Subscribe now

Man, do I miss December.

Remember those tranquil days when you could only lament a lost election - and not the potential destruction of the greatest economy on Earth?

As we watch the implosion, it’s easy to blame Trump. And you should. But in some ways that’s too simple. He’s simply doing what he said he would, using tariffs as a machine gun mechanism to try and scare friend and foe alike into negotiating better trade deals.

But what about all of the brilliant American business minds who thought they understood Trump at a deeper level than the words coming out of his own mouth? These are the folks that paid for his campaign, normalized his economic nonsense, and gave him the stamp of approval of America’s hub of innovation as well as technological and economic brilliance - Silicon Valley.

There is a lesson here for voters. You should actually vote based on what a candidate says, not the obsequious interpretations of those words by outsiders. The self-described “tariff man” did exactly what he said he was going to do.

This will sound quite Trumpian, but the “experts” don’t always know more than you do. They are subject to selective interpretation borne of personal interest - perhaps to a higher degree than most of us. They hear exactly what they want to hear.

Share

********************************************************

Let’s walk back in time - to the 1988 version of Donald Trump: “We let Japan come in and dump everything into our markets. It’s not free trade. If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it … we make it possible for Kuwait to sell their oil - why aren’t they paying us 25% of what they’re making?” Sounds a lot like the current version, right?

Trump didn’t just stumble onto his tariff policy - he’s spent a lifetime believing that America is being taken advantage of. He’s also long had an Andy Griffin-esque lens on what American greatness looks like - a vision aligned with the 1950s, when Dad went to work at the factory and walked down Main Street on his way to a home cooked dinner with the missus and kids.

So when a significant portion of the business community came out in support of Trump last year, it really felt like they knew something we didn’t know. That somehow, via late night chats at Mar A Lago and the whisperings of sweet nothings in the ear, they had gotten inside the head of the President at a level that rendered the man’s own words meaningless next to their deeper understanding of Trump’s intentions.

And that was reflected in their assessments of his likely tariff policies. Here’s Jo Londsdale at Palantir: “Trump understands that tariffs can be used as a scalpel, not just a sledgehammer.” He must have left out the part where Trump is Freddie Krueger.

“What Silicon Valley doesn’t always acknowledge is that Trump’s tariff strategy actually helps protect American innovation.” That’s Peter Thiel. He may want to ask the innovators at Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, Google, and yes - Tesla - if they are feeling protected today after shedding $1 trillion (with a T) in value over the last two days.

Here’s Doug Leone at Sequoia: “Trump’s selective use of tariffs has strengthened America’s position in critical technologies like semiconductors and AI.” He apparently wasn’t referring to Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Intel, all of whose stocks are getting crushed. And I’m not just trying to be cute in pointing out that apparel, avocadoes, and coffee beans don’t qualify as technology.

I’ll spare you 1000 other quotes just like these. But another election will be on us before you know it, one in which control of Congress will be at stake. Let’s make this one where we analyze what people actually say - and not the biased interpretations of others - as a deciding factor in how we cast votes.

The watching process begins now. Congress has the authority to pass legislation that would override Trump’s tariff insanity; at least four Republican Senators are on board. If and when a recession hits, others will join. If you’re a free-market Democrat or Republican, start noting who puts self-preservation aside for the common good. Reward that. And Democrats, take a long and hard look at a candidates’ comments on trade, or you may end up voting for someone whose views look a lot like Mr. Trump’s (here’s looking at you, Bernie Sanders).

You’ll feel a lot better about the results if you resist the urge to hear what you want to hear and ignore ‘experts’ participating in the selective interpretation game.

In elections, ‘face value’ is where the real value lies.

Share

When I moved to the US from England in 1982, my infatuation with American sports hit fast. First move: got a Sports Illustrated subscription for my 6th birthday (I was a precocious little fella). Second move: started collecting sports cards. By 1984, I had my coup de grace when I pulled a Topps Don Mattingly rookie card (the one with him in his fielding crouch - card collectors know the one) from a wax pack. What a win.

I loved the stats on the cards, and the gum that came inside was a bonus - the combination struck me as the height of American ingenuity. Over time kids got too spoiled for that stone-hard stick of gum that turned rubbery and flavorless within a minute - but back in the day you’d shovel six sticks in at a time and try to blow a head-sized bubble while you opened the packs.

Cards also introduced me to the wonders of American athletes’ names. Coming from the staid world of Anglo-Saxon naming conventions, I all of a sudden met Ozzie and Cal, Fernando and Nolan, Pedro and Rickey. These names were cool. Where I came from, Gareth was as novel as it got (always a great line to tell ladies you were named after a knight of King Arthur’s Round Table) but in the US, Gareth was a landmine, destined to explode into Garth, Garett, or my least favorite, Gurth.

Around 3rd grade, I started to play rec league hoops. Our team was coached by my friend’s father Rick - a diehard (and therefore persistently sad) Bullets/Wizards fan, but nonetheless a true fan of the game. He made sure we knew about all the old heads - World B Free, Magic, Wilt and Dr. J, Moses, Fat, Mookie, Nervous Pervis, Manute, Hakeem the Dream, Tree, and Pooh … Pooh! A grown man called himself Pooh! This was the height of cool when a grown man’s name was a word I was discouraged from saying in my own home.

The NBA of the mid-eighties was a microcosm of a lot of things that made me fall in love with the US - freewheeling, boundary pushing, joyous, individualistic, and diverse - brought to life through the sheer magic of athlete’s names.

Over the last few decades, the nicknames have become less tantalizing as players hired a team of PR folks to manage their personal brands, but the real player names have gotten even better. The globalization of the game has made the NBA a delightful melting pot of the world’s most repeatable, fun to say monikers. And guess what? Great player names make a squad easier squad to root for. Serious sports fans repeat player names literally thousands of times over the course of a season; would you rather be saying ‘Steph’, or Ronald? ‘Lebron,’ or David? Like I said: names matter.

And in the NBA, there’s no team with better names than the Orlando Magic, the winner of my first annual, and forever-to-be coveted (or forgotten?) NBA Best Names Trophy. A team no one outside of Orlando roots for (and let’s be honest, a lot of people IN Orlando don’t root for), but now you just might.

Orlando’s superstar in this naming exercise isn’t its best player. It is, without a doubt, Trevelin Queen, a name conjured up by the basketball gods with a drop of humor and a heavy dose of poetry. If names translated into points, Trevelin would be MJ (right now, he splits time with the G-League, but there’s still time). The Magic can play Trevelin alongside Jett Howard - for a Trevelin Jett backcourt. I mean, come on. I almost fainted when I read that out loud.

The Magic have Kentavious Caldwell Pope, a tough 3 and D guy who is truly likeable: doesn’t talk shit, doesn’t complain to the refs, plays great defense, knock down shooter. The kind of player you want your kid to be like, and you’re more than happy to tell your kid that - because Kentavious is just fun for the whole family to say.

Kentavious also offers a lesson to all parents: do not limit your child’s options in life by giving them a shit name. Kentavious could have been a philosopher, astronomer, poet, or hooper. Kentavious, with all its dimensionality and silky smoothness, leaves all options on the table. Absorb this lesson before you call your son North West (sorry Kanye, but you’re now America’s biggest asshole. It was a joy to call you out here).

It helps the Magic that they have two German brothers, Mo and Franz (or Franz and Mo, in order of actual skill). If you nail the true German pronunciation of the name Wagner, with the W transformed into a V, the stadium announcer can introduce the brothers with ‘Mo and Franz Vagner, comin’ at ya.’ Cypress Hill would be proud, and German Wagner twins on the same team is 2 added points in the Magic’s favor.

At center, the Magic have Goga Bitadze, a name so fun to say that my 8 year old suggested Goga be allowed to play in the all-star game just to hear Charles Barkley try and say it. Goga can man a front line next to Paulo Banchero, a rich, robust Italian dessert of a name. Goga to Banchero sounds like a train route from Turkey to Italy; it’s a ride you want to be on.

And then there’s Mac McClung, a guy you would love for saving the dunk contest even if his name was Jim Smith. Thank God it isn’t, because it was a hell of a lot of fun listening to the cozy, old-timey, Bobby Darin-Esque references to Mac during the contest. And his leap over a car WAS much, much more impressive than Blake Griffith's, to put a fine point on things. I’m pretty sure Mac could also fix my sink, or the radiator in a ‘66 Buick - just sounds like a guy who can get stuff done.

Tristan de Silva adds a little Brazilian flavor to the team - loosely translated, he is ‘Tristan from the Woods’ (the NBA version of Jenny from the block). And to round out the roster, you have three players from the always fun “I’ve got two first names” club - Cory Joseph, Jonathan Isaac, and Cole Anthony. When that’s the least fun part of the roster, you know you’ve got your 2025 winner.

So there you have it. You paid zero attention to the Orlando Magic before this post. Now you just might. And there’s a high likelihood you’re looking up Trevelin Queen the moment you’re done reading, and for that - you’re welcome.

Subscribe now

You can hate Mel Gibson, but you can’t hate the film.

A refresher: Braveheart is the semi-historical story of the Scottish rebellion against the English a thousand years ago. The film opens with the young Scotsman William Wallace watching as an English nobleman asserts his right to Prima Nocta, or “first night” with the just-married young bride of William’s best friend. William looks on in astonishment but does nothing; it is not until his own wife is murdered that he rises up and leads his fellow Scots in revolt. William was figuring out his boundaries in real time - apparently not a wise move with the 11th century English aristocracy at your door.

Trump isn’t going to claim Prima Nocta (although you have to admit, it would be so on brand). But if you’re not clear on what your boundaries are right now - right now - you’re going to wake up in six months and realize that Trump has run over most everything you care about.

If you haven’t fully reengaged yet, I get it. I really do. For many Democratic voters, the last 8 months went something like this:

1. Watch President Biden spontaneously combust on national TV.

2. Desperately hope for a new candidate.

3. Experience momentary exhilaration over Kamala.

4. Come to the sad realization Kamala wasn’t the right candidate and wasn’t going to win either.

5. Watch that reality play out.

6. Curl up with resignation, and more than a little exhaustion.

7. Allow hope to temporarily triumph over experience.

8. Look on with some glee, saying “people get what they voted for.”

The second to last point most of us don’t want to admit. But stop me if you had a conversation the gist of which went something like this: “The country really does need a shakeup. Maybe Trump will do some good things.” The optimist in some of us foolishly awoke. And so from election day through inauguration day, we enjoyed family, holidays, and the New Year; in Los Angeles, we watched horrified as our city went up in flames. We couldn’t pay attention to politics - and we didn’t want to. We did our best to not think about Donald Trump.

And Trump himself inspired more than the usual curiosity among many Democrats, even those who didn’t vote for him. I ascribe much of this to his astute reading of the national mood and diagnostic capacity for some of the nation’s challenges. The border was porous. Identity politics had taken over a significant segment of Democratic mindshare. The Ukrainian war is not winnable (in the sense of returning to 2014 borders). Inflation was damaging American households. Couldn’t the man who was pointing out all the problems maybe, just maybe, solve some of them?

Share

But much like a radiologist pushing the surgeon aside to cut out the cancer himself, Trump proved within days that he’s not up to this task. And so we watched as USAID was decimated and AIDS patients in Africa stopped receiving medication. As the wanton firing of thousands of federal workers continues to play out without any semblance of an explanation as to why these people are being chosen. As Elon Musk violated Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. As Congress confirmed the most unqualified cabinet in history. As Trump levies tariffs on our allies, apparently because of their inability to get Americans to stop smoking, snorting and injecting fentanyl (drugs are a demand problem, not a supply problem), driving prices up and the stock market down.

And this leads us to the last step - Democratic back-patting in certain corners (including Congress), accompanied by the performative crossing of arms and saying to anyone who will listen, “well I guess Trump supporters are getting exactly what they voted for.” Except that we are the “they” in this masochistic exercise.

Perhaps Friday shocked us all back into reality. The public humiliation of Vladimir Zelensky in the White House was a national embarrassment, done simply because Zelensky has always refused to drop to his knees and kiss the Donald’s (or anyone’s) ass. The sociopathic glee with which the President stated, at the end of the meeting, “this will make great TV!” can’t be lost on a public relying on this man to make good decisions in service of actual human beings. The President seems poised to abandon 38 million Ukrainians and their Democratically elected President in favor of a cuddle with perhaps the world’s most untrustworthy leader.

All in six weeks’ work. No, the radiologist shouldn’t have been given the scalpel. Trump rules via submission politics; the President of the United States exacts his will via choke hold. I hope you, like me, are now wide awake - and are establishing your red lines. And let’s hope the Democratic Party moves from saying “I told you so” to a clear throated, clearly articulated support of free markets, democratic allies, affordable healthcare, an economy that works for the middle class, and government support for medical and technological innovation - you know, the kind that made Elon Musk the richest man on Earth. That’s a platform that you can sell.

Donald Trump doesn’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater. He takes a sledgehammer to the bathtub and then dances on the wreckage. There’s theater to it all, as the President goes about doing exactly what he said he would do – and then screams from the rubble just in case you missed it.

Meanwhile the Democrats tilt at every windmill, lurching in fear and outrage and heavy doses of helplessness about the President’s plan for a Riviera in Gaza, and the Panama Canal, and Greenland, and USAID, and the cabinet nominees, and the destruction of government agencies they hold dear … and, and, and.

But the groundswell of opposition is still meek, and it’s no wonder why. Think about the Democratic Party as the political equivalent of a company requiring a ‘corporate turnaround’ – an underperforming, directionally flailing entity that’s hemorrhaging customers (voters). In the corporate world, the board steps in and replaces the old leadership (Biden, Kamala) with an assertive, experienced operator who can lay out a clear set of priorities and point the previously rudderless ship in a new direction.

The best political example of this? The Republicans, who granted Trump full authority over the party despite losing the White House and both chambers of Congress in the 2020 elections. It was mere months after January 6th when Republican critiques of Trump started to soften; by the midterms they had vanished completely. Everyone fell in line. Hierarchy was clear, as was the message. Whether you liked the direction of the party or not (I certainly did not), the party had their CEO.

I couldn’t for the life of me tell you who was in charge of the Democratic Party today – astute observers wouldn’t even be able to agree on the ten most influential people. There’s a reason that in business, no one tries the “turnaround without a leader” approach, because the bigger the crisis, the more leadership matters. So why on earth would it work in politics? The Democrats are praying that Trump self immolates (again) and a new leader emerges in … three years or so. That’s a sad sack of a plan and the triumph of hope over reality.

Share

So if you’re scratching your head and wondering why the Democratic argument against every perceived Trump transgression seems to be the status quo – ‘leave our institutions alone, they are working just fine’ – it is because the default position with poor or non-existent leadership is always the status quo. This would be a losing strategy in most eras, but it’s political suicide today.

Barely 1 in 5 Americans trust government to ‘do the right thing’ even ‘most’ of the time. Take a specific issue, education: only 1 in 4 say they have even a “fair amount of confidence” in the American public school system. Americans literally just voted for the sledgehammer to the proverbial bathtub, and the Democratic response is to lament the mess and argue for putting the pieces back together exactly how they were.

Education is a powerful example because it touches virtually every American family. Republicans have been threatening to blow up the Department of Education for years; some have actually tried. Trump just might succeed, and the Democratic response summed up by Maxwell Frost (D-Florida) is to say doing so “will destroy the futures of millions of kids across this country.” Forget the fact that the federal government supplies about 10% of the overall funding that public schools receive, or the fact that even Republicans aren’t actually saying they want to cut the flow of money – Americans think public education is already broken. They are desperate for something better and will take on real risk to find it.

With Trump, that risk is enormous. Foresight, good governance, respect for the law and the separation of powers, the appearance of any sort of basic plan – don’t seem to be in the MAGA DNA. And he’s entrusted that future state planning exercise to a bunch of underqualified, self-interested acolytes who believe in their obligations to Trump over their responsibilities to the American people.

And that’s why there’s a huge opportunity for Democrats to step in and provide their vision for education, health, and the economy, and juxtapose it against MAGAs maniacal desire to break it all and figure it out later. A good leader would ask the right questions – which might include why an unelected CEO of a car company has been given access to our personal tax records. Is that what people voted for? Probably not, and a coherent message from an established leader would highlight the emerging disconnect between what Trump promised, and the reality on the ground.

But in lieu of a leader, policy and message coherence won’t happen. A party glued to tradition will likely sway listlessly until a Presidential candidate is nominated - in 2027. Who can wait that long? Why not have Senate, House, and Gubernatorial leaders meet to coalesce around a party leader? The party isn’t short on talent (Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore come to mind) - but they all will likely run for President. So why not choose the person with the strongest bully pulpit, the highest-ranking Democrat in the country – the one who is closest to the purse strings and most able to influence policy, who coincidentally has shown no interest (as of yet) in running for President?

That’s Hakeem Jeffries, the poised, no-nonsense leader of the Democrats in the House. Would anyone in the Democratic party argue if the leaders of the House, Senate, and Democratic governors around the country rallied for this choice? They could give Jeffries an effective mandate and support him as the principal voice of the party.

And for democrats who say “how on earth would this work"?” the answer is, figure it out. Break from the orthodoxy. Be bold and create a new path forward. Just like we could have held a primary for the party’s presidential candidate, we can also rally around a plan to fill this CEO void.

Dems can protest all they want about Trump’s failure to adhere to the separation of powers and Elon’s Orwellian, secretive dives into our personal data. They should protest. But protest without a plan, and a turnaround without a leader, create the party of today; one that argues for the status quo. And voters already said no to that.

Subscribe now