For months, Republicans have insisted that they would make the midterm election a choice between the parties, not a referendum on the President. Leading the choir was the White House Political Director, James Blair, who said their message would be, you may not like everything the President is doing, but the other side is weak, woke, and crazy. Putting meat on the crazy bone, Republicans over the summer began to brand Democrats as Socialists, and occasionally, Communists. The inherent problem with Blair’s theory was that it would require President Trump personally, and all those in his party, to admit some things the President has done are not working. As Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke famously said in 1871, “no plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength”.

In the last few weeks, President Trump told aides to forget the “choice” concept and instead, defend his record. The President rightfully believes Democrats are going to focus on it, so there’s no running away. Trump ordered that MAGA, Inc. $400 million war chest be used on TV ads explaining his accomplishments. Worried what that will look like, Trump has personally edited ads in production. Like Joe Biden before him, Trump believes that if voters only knew all the good he’s done, they will be grateful and reward his party. The sound you hear is Democrats high-fiving.

As we exit the dog days of summer and approach Labor Day one week from today, a look across the map shows a Democratic wave gaining strength. The economy, the number one issue to voters by a wide margin, continues to struggle, with job growth tepid, inflation stubbornly high, certain food staples concerningly high, AI worries everywhere, and tariff battles rattling Wall Street and Main Street. Then there is the war in Iran, which has produced elevated gas, diesel, and fertilizer prices.

As one Republican Senator said recently, “farmagedon” is upon the Heartland. Costs of production have skyrocketed, overseas market access has tanked, and borrowing costs have risen. Taken together, banks are hesitant to lend. The question, the Senator said, has become just how many farmers will go bankrupt in the next year. His guess: a lot.

As a result of all this:

• In the Senate, Democrats have gone from investing in pick up opportunities in Maine, Ohio, and North Carolina, to earlier this year adding Alaska and Iowa, to adding Texas this summer, to now looking with curiosity at Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and South Carolina.

• In the House, Democrats have gone from targeting in 2025 districts Trump won by 12% or less, to targeting this Spring districts he won by 17% or less, to now this summer adding seats Trump won by 23% or less.

• Not to be forgotten, Democrats are running strongly in many key gubernatorial races. They will not win all of them, but the top of the ticket will help down-ballot candidates.

The problem for the President is that even his own supporters are frustrated. Not only is their enthusiasm and intensity down, worrying Republicans that they will not vote, but some, like Latinos and farmers, are saying they will vote affirmatively for the Democrats. Meanwhile, Democratic enthusiasm and intensity remain at 11.

I honestly don’t know what will happen in November. No result these days would shock me. Trump is a terrific political athlete and will not stop until the polls close trying to find stuff that sticks. There is also the issue of unforeseen events, and Democrats’ own brand weakness and internal divisions. As we head into the homestretch, the only thing I’m confident about is that the result of the referendum this November will be historic.

Yesterday morning, as I read the news to prepare for The Huddle, I came across a blurb in Politico’s Playbook that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was scheduled to be Jesse Watters’ guest on Primetime that evening. Primetime is one of the highest-rated shows on Fox News, the most-watched network on cable, and is a favorite of President Trump. Full disclosure, I have appeared many times on Primetime, and Jesse has become a friend—in addition to being an amazing talent, he’s a great guy.

When I got home late last night, I poured a drink and watched the entire interview on the show’s YouTube channel. I was impressed not only by Jesse, but the doctor from Michigan. Abdul El-Sayed’s got game.

Note: I’m measuring the political athleticism, not the substance of the arguments.

So, what makes a good political athlete:

1. Authenticity. El-Sayed is clearly comfortable with who he is. While you would hope that is normal for a leader, unfortunately, in politics, most candidates lack such confidence and contort themselves stylistically and/or substantively to do what they think voters want to see or hear. El-Sayed also talks like a normal person. As I said to Sean on today’s show, he and Jesse argued like two guys in a bar, not two professors at a symposium.

2. Leadership. El Sayed has the confidence, some would argue, cockiness, to dominate a room or screen. He is fearless—unafraid to go on Fox, or before a hostile audience, because he relishes any opportunity to make the case. That stands in contrast to the average politician, who fears the unscripted and uncomfortable. As he showed repeatedly in his primary, El Sayed has alpha energy and fearless swagger in spades, and voters like that.

3. Passion. If you are going to put yourself through the slog of a campaign or the grind of governing, you need to passionately believe in what you’re selling and be able to control those emotions, such that you energize but do not scare. You can feel El-Sayed’s passion and fight, whether on the stump, in a debate, or in a TV studio. It’s contagious.

4. Presentation. Looks matter in politics. From the clothes you wear, to the faces you make, to the words you use, to the ways in which you communicate, voters judge. El Sayed comes across well. He is a candidate of today and the modern generation, from his comfort with social media, to his vernacular, to his casual attire on the stump. When you are selling change and the next generation, those attributes help.

5. Nimbleness and Aggression. Perhaps nothing impressed me more last night, nor in those final few primary debates against Congresswoman Haley Stevens, than El Sayed’s quickness on his feet and the lethal counter punch he can throw. Time and again last night, as Sean said on this morning’s show, El Sayed put on a master class in media training, pivoting to his message and pouncing at every opportunity to hit back. Some candidates have a moment or two. El Sayed has shown on the biggest stages, it’s natural and he can do it all day long. That’s impressive.

I don’t know if El-Sayed will win in November. While he leads today by a few points in the polls, as has been well documented, some of his policy positions are way out of the mainstream, his closeness to Hassan Piker is troubling, and his ability to unify and excite all aspects of the Democratic party, let alone the critical middle of the electorate, is an open question. But I do know a good political athlete when I see one. Abdul El-Sayed’s got game.

In 2016, Donald Trump inherited from Barack Obama a pretty good economy. While working-class voters were frustrated and angry, emotions that had been building since the late 1980s, overall, both statistically and emotionally, most people felt good—not great. Donald Trump then made things better. Through tax reform, regulatory reform, and incentivizing domestic manufacturing and energy production, our GDP was strong, inflation was tame, the stock market went up, and most importantly, household income rose across all demographics and virtually every sector enjoyed expansion. Of course, then came COVID, knocking everything and everyone off kilter for years.

In 2024, Donald Trump inherited from Joe Biden a blah economy. The explosion of inflation wrecked havoc on the working class, while industry after industry struggled to establish a new post-COVID normal. Donald Trump then made things worse. “Liberation Day” put a substantial tax on many daily staples and also caused intense retaliatory measures that produced a double whammy. The immigration crack down, while on the one hand sealed the southern border, on the other hand, it negatively disrupted dozens of business sectors, from hospitality to construction to agriculture, causing slower growth. Of course, then came the war-of-choice with Iran, driving energy and fertilizer costs crushingly high and, as that made its way through the supply chain, caused inflation to creep back up.

In both instances, President Trump on Day 1 proclaimed the “golden age” and that America was suddenly “the hottest country in the world.” In term 1, that worked. In term 2, it never took.

My Huddle colleague, Sean Spicer, has said for over a year, “tell me where the economy is at Labor Day and I will tell you who is going to win the election.” Today, that looks like Democrats in the House…and Senate.

The Huddle was off on vacation last week, so I also took off from here. During that time, the US bond market began flashing red lights to the world, as interest rates on the 30-year Treasury continued to go up to the highest levels in over 20 years, due to our massive deficit crossing $40 trillion, private sector debt appetite to fund the AI buildout, and the uncertainty over the war in Iran and our trade fights. The ripple effect of such a move in the yield curve is for interest rates to continue to creep up on everything from mortgages to credit cards. Additionally, Walmart, a canary in the coal mine for the economic health of the working class, reported weaker-than-expected sales for the second quarter, explicitly warning on their earnings call that higher gas prices are having a material impact on the purchasing power of tens of millions of customers. Lastly, President Trump continued what The Wall Street Journal has called “The Dumbest Trade War” ever with Canada, imposing a 50% tariff on most goods and services from our northern neighbor. Such a move will impact many, but particularly the states that do the most trade with Canada, which includes Michigan, Maine, Texas, Ohio, Alaska, and Iowa, all of which have pivotal Senate races.

The midterm elections are not over until they are over. It is possible that Republicans are able to disqualify Democrats to such a degree that they hold one or both chambers of Congress. It is also possible that the macro environment materially changes in the next few weeks due to an organic or synthetic event. But, if I had to wager today, Democrats are positioned to win both the House and Senate. For all the shock and awe of Donald Trump 2.0, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

One of the things I love most about politics is Election Day. All the speculation and prognostication stops, and voters speak. Yesterday produced more insight into the mind of Democratic voters, this time in Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the South Carolina special Senate election to replace the late Lindsey Graham. The three races Democrats were most curious about last night were the Connecticut 1st District, Minnesota Senate, and Wisconsin gubernatorial.

In my home state of Connecticut, longtime incumbent John Larson, age 78, who was first elected to the State House in 1982 and to Congress in 1998, was defeated by 47-year-old Luke Bronin, whose campaign was centered on calling for generational change. Bronin argued that Trump 2.0 showed who amongst Democrats had the energy and courage to lead the fight and who was content to passively resist while continuing business as usual. Down ballot, in state races, several longtime, older prominent incumbents were also defeated by younger, louder, more aggressive challengers.

In Minnesota, long home to progressive champions, moderate House member Angie Craig was defeated by the Lt Governor, progressive Peggy Flanagan, who hammered Craig for her support in Congress of both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appropriations bills and a Congressional Resolution last year in support of law enforcement, which specifically included ICE.

And lastly, the race that received the most national media attention, socialist Francesca Hong, was upset by moderate David Crowley. Though some were stunned, word from Wisconsin the last week was that Hong’s numbers were coming down in the face of so much negative attention to past bonkers statements, like abolishing Thanksgiving.

43 states have now gone, with seven remaining - Alaska, Florida, Wyoming, and a California special next Tuesday, August 18th; Massachusetts on September 1; New Hampshire and Rhode Island on September 8th; and the first state in the Union, Delaware, the last in line, on September 15th. What I believe is becoming clear is that the anger within the Democratic Party is not black and white, as lazy media frames it - socialist vs establishment, young vs old - but nuanced. Why is Bernie Sanders still the king of the progressive movement, if age is the defining issue? Why did neither Josh Shapiro nor Jon Ossoff face a primary, if establishment is an albatross?

What I believe is the common thread running through so many varied regions and races is that Democratic voters are frustrated with quiet, subtle voices, and instead want bold, blunt fighters, focused on their life today. That person can be the epitome of the establishment, like the 84-year-old Sanders or 80-year-old Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who co-authored the Green New Deal and has long advocated for bold policies; Mamdani or El Sayed; Jon Ossoff, who is unafraid to go bluntly right at Trump in a southern swing state; or Shapiro, whose mantra is, “get shit done,” and has a long list of tangible action that satiates the Democratic spectrum. Those candidates who have either leaned into Woke - radical societal change - or spoke in soft pastels in this age of vibrant color have not fared well.

The next election cycle is never a repeat of the previous one, and no doubt that will be the case in 2028. But those who understand the through-line animating our voters today will inform designing a winning case for tomorrow.

Much of the political world is focused right now on the Big 10 states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where Democrats seek clues of whether progressives can win statewide in the general election, whether Josh Shapiro has coattails, and how much overall work they have to do heading into 2028 to win back some or all of the “Blue Wall.” From governor to Senate to competitive House seats, these races and their dynamics are understandably important. But perhaps more important to the Party’s long-term prognosis are two southern states, North Carolina and Georgia.

As I wrote about on April 22nd, in 2030, America will perform its once-a-decade census and reapportion House seats, altering the Electoral College. Barring a dramatic migration change in the next few years, the Rust Belt (along with New York and California) is likely to lose seats and the Sunbelt and Southwest gain seats. If Democrats are going to capture the White House, this means consistently winning in places like North Carolina and Georgia.

In North Carolina, Democrats are optimistic that popular former governor Roy Cooper, who has maintained a steady lead in the open Senate race, can win in November, and that the Party possibly picks up a House seat or two. While Democrats have been successful statewide in state races, the last time we won a federal race was 18 years ago, when both Barack Obama for president and Kay Hagan for Senate squeezed by.

In Georgia, Donald Trump and MAGA’s history is mixed. Trump won the state in 2016 by 5 points over Hillary Clinton, lost in 2020 by .3% to Joe Biden and lost two Senate seats in a run-off, and then won back Georgia in 2024 by 2.1%. During the decade, Trump’s relationship with the popular Republican governor, Brian Kemp, has been incredibly strained. Kemp and several fellow Republican colleagues refused to endorse or even give credence to Trump’s outlandish 2020 claims of voter fraud. The bickering played out into 2022, when Trump tried and failed to defeat Kemp in a primary. Georgia has always been more of a “country club” Republican state than MAGA, giving hope to Democrats that its political future may be more Virginia than Florida.

To date, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff leads Trump-backed Congressman Mike Collins in the polls by 5 points or more, while also enjoying a massive 10:1 financial advantage. Outside money for Collins will likely make spending more equal, unless the GOP gives up on the state in October, which is possible. In the governor’s race, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms (D) leads businessman Rick Jackson (R) by 2-3%, within the margin of error, but it’s been consistent. (Gov Kemp did not back Jackson in the primary, instead supporting his Lt Governor Burt Jones).

Unlike the socialists and uber-progressives up north, Ossoff and Bottoms (and Cooper in North Carolina) are proud moderates. They have broad overlapping appeal, yet also provide complimentary voting blocks to one another. Disillusioned country club Republicans have been flirting with Democrats during the age of Trump. A Bottoms and Ossoff win could provide the conditions to peel off and cement some of those critical voters.

While I have argued all election cycle that the Michigan Senate primary was the canary in the coal mine for the 2028 Democratic presidential fight, Georgia and North Carolina are on my mind.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Much has rightfully been made recently of the victories by socialist candidates in Democratic primaries. It is perhaps the story so far of the 2026 election cycle. If you are uber-progressive/socialist, these are exciting times. But subtle events of the last 24 hours should give you pause, and be encouraging to the more moderate factions within the Party.

Yesterday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) was on ABC’s Sunday show, This Week. AOC was asked about the policy platform of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Her answer? “I have a local city councilman that…has a saying, woke one was crazy.” When asked about the DSA’s call to defund the police, and her past support of that position, AOC said, “rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.” It felt more like a gallop than walking away from the defund the police movement.

Meanwhile, on another Sunday show, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was on NBC’s Meet the Press. El-Sayed was asked about Hassan Piker’s comments that America deserved 9/11. El-Sayed has campaigned multiple times with Piker, and when asked about these comments in an April Politico interview, said he would not play this “gotcha game” and stated that he was “not here to disavow people’s views.” That answer - which is insane - might have been a cute primary dog whistle, but El-Sayed knows it is suicide in a general election. When asked yesterday the same question on national TV, El-Sayed said Piker’s statement was “dumb” and disavowed it. When asked about his past comments to abolish ICE, El-Sayed now essentially describes recreating the agency, but with a different name. Apparently, he got the memo that Americans want immigration enforcement, just not a reckless one.

At the same time, in Wisconsin, socialist Madison County state Representative Francesca Hong, who leads the Democratic primary for Governor (the election is tomorrow), was asked about previous comments to cancel Thanksgiving, defund the police, and abolish prisons, ICE, and the US Senate. Knowing how indefensible, reckless, and insane these comments are, Hong simply said that she was young and her views have evolved—without elaborating. There was no profile in courage, proudly standing behind and advocating for these ideas.

If you look to the horizon and keep the main thing, the main thing (winning and governing), you can see that even the most progressive, socialist candidates know that significant parts of their platform are toxic to swing voters in non-cobalt blue areas, and will spell defeat if not abandoned.

Perhaps, as conservative media wants you to believe, socialists will take over the Democratic Party and one of their own will be our 2028 presidential nominee. But, after watching the socialists’ stalwarts this weekend start to already run away from their platform and friends, I’m skeptical. America is not socialists. Even the socialists seem to know that.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Ever since New York City elected Mayor the socialist Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic establishment— elected officials, donors, and intelligentsia— has walked around in a state of bewilderment. At first, they told themselves it was a one-off, confined to a unique, blue bastion city. Then, as more and more candidates challenged incumbents, or the establishment’s preferred choice, and won, they hastily began to ask, what should we do?

For some, they remain frozen with paralysis; for others, they have shrugged and embraced their new “friends” in the name of gaining power both personally and for the Party; and to others, they have defiantly put out letters and manifestos, proclaiming war and that they are for “capitalism and not socialism.” The common thread amongst all of these groups is that they are defending the status quo at a time when voters want change. So, how did we get here and where do we go?

Ever since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the Democratic Party has been laser-focused on stopping him. From back benchers to leadership, Democrats constantly react to each and every thing Trump does with outrage and a determination to stop him. Strategies and tactics all were through this prism. To tens of millions of Americans, their only experience with the Democratic Party is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

Ironically, the only time there was a pause in this attitude was during COVID, which produced a series of forward-looking, positive ideas to end the pandemic and rebuild the economy. But the pause was brief, as Donald Trump began his rise from dead in the fall of 2021 and Democrats became nauseous thinking about another campaign against their arch-enemy.

I am sympathetic to the infliction of TDS. While Donald Trump is an amazing political athlete, who has accomplished many great things for America, from fixing the southern border, to standing up for the working class on trade, to ending forever wars and allies taking advantage of us, it is also a fact that Trump frequently cheats, lies, and violates laws and procedures, believing the means justify the ends—something in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Such character and conduct understandably enrages tens of millions of people—and understandably is cheered by tens of millions, as well. But the cost of TDS is that the Democratic Party has become a consistent, loud, and crazed defender of the status quo, without offering an alternative. Enter the socialists.

A child of the 1980s and the Cold War, I personally find socialism abhorrent and unacceptable. The world over, it— and communism— has always ultimately failed. But, as a student of politics, I understand its revitalization here, and why uber-progressives and DSA-types are starting to break through. They are speaking boldly, clearly, and unapologetically of new (actually, old) ideas and proudly looking to break the status quo in the name of solving problems. Something beats nothing, and, as Bill Clinton famously said, “strong and wrong beats weak and right.” All of this, of course, is similar to the rise of Donald Trump within the GOP.

For Democrats unhappy with the rise of socialists and their ideas, my question is, what are you doing going forward to compete? Stop telling me why Trump is terrible, socialists are awful, and the many reasons for “no” vs the creativity and fight to get to “yes.” What new, bold ideas do you have that speak to voters’ hopes and desires? In a Democratic, capitalist society, the market is king, and it’s speaking clearly. So, now what?

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Elections are beautiful. After months, and sometimes, years, of trying to understand where the electoral puck is going, Election Day provides clarity and insight to the mind of voters. As I’ve said for 18 months, I have been most curious to see who won the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, by what margin, and with what coalition.

This morning, 10 hours after the polls closed, the Associated Press declared Abdul El-Sayed the winner over Congresswoman Haley Stevens by 13,000 votes, out of 1.46 million casts, 48.5% to 47.5%; Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out last month, received 61,000, or 4%.

For El-Sayed and Progressives/Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a win is a win. Finally, they broke through in a statewide, contested swing state primary. The candidate and his allies should have been elated, but... Expectations of a double-digit romp, due to public polling, influencer bluster, and the candidate himself, produced an evening of anxiety and disappointing headlines of “too close to call” and looking under the hood to see what went “wrong.”

As expected, El-Sayed ran up huge margins with younger voters and Latte Liberals in medium-sized urban areas, particularly around universities. Stevens, however, performed better than expected with working-class blacks and Latinos, and performed, as expected, well, with Clinton moderates and what’s left of the white working class, rural Democrats.

For El-Sayed and the progressive/DSA movement, the coalition pattern here and in other states and districts should be concerning for the general election. Working-class voters of color, some of whom went to Trump in 2024 - and stayed home in 2016 - and white working-class voters, who have been leaving the Democratic Party the last few decades, are not yet buying what they’re selling. And to state the obvious, Clinton Democrats don’t like it. The average of general election polling shows El-Sayed trailing Republican Mike Rogers by 2%.

In the New York City mayoral race, this pattern was also true. Mamdani did not do very well with working-class blacks in eastern Brooklyn, working-class Latinos in the Bronx, and the older ethnic working-class whites in eastern Queens. His success came with first-generation immigrants in Brooklyn and Queens and young voters and latte liberals in Brooklyn and Manhattan. That was enough to get to exactly 50% in blue-collar New York City, but Michigan is a different color.

To win statewide in swing states, El-Sayed and others will need to expand their coalition. They will need to examine and quickly fix the inability to connect with working class blacks, Latinos and whites, while also preventing Clinton Democrats from sitting out or voting for a credible alternative, like Mike Rogers.

The first act of the Michigan Senate race is over. The second act will be just as important and provide the final clues as the presidential primary begins the day after. 90 days to the election.

Subscribe now

Another week, another brutal bombshell about the stewardship of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by Chairman Ken Martin. On some level, the volume and depth of each story is so great that one almost starts to become numb and indifferent. Today, The New York Times’ excellent political reporter Shane Goldmacher was given yet another exclusive, this one about an alleged missing chapter from the Party’s 2024 presidential election autopsy report. That the Chairman hired a close aide to write said report and those two are now publicly arguing like this is a new, pathetic low.

To any and all who know the job of the DNC Chair and its core responsibilities, Ken Martin is an embarrassment who should be fired. I worked at the DNC for two years (2002-2004). The Chair’s job is first and foremost to raise money. On that front, never has a Chair performed so poorly. In an era of Party rage about President Trump, with our candidates and the sister committees, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), raising money on parity with, if not out-raising, their Republican opposition, the DNC currently has $16.1 million cash-on-hand and $18.3 million in debt (- $2.2 million), while the Republican National Committee (RNC) has $129 million cash-on-hand and no debt. It is really hard to fail that badly and boldly.

The second job of the Chair is to use the money to execute core operations and to build and refine political infrastructure, such as voter data collection and cleaning, opposition research, inventorying communications platforms and coordinating promotion and booking, coalition coordination, the political calendar, and the quad-annual Convention. The Committee also uses its money to make donations to other Committees and candidates. You can’t give what you don’t have.In addition to not being able to fund most things, the Committee is ripe with dysfunction and warring staff factions. Culture flows from the top.

Lastly, the Chair is to be a reliable surrogate, attending local, state, and DNC functions and engaging the media. The DNC does not design the message— that is for candidates and the different leaders, such as Senator Chuck Schumer, Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (Chair of the Democratic Governors Association DGA). This Chair is continuously in the news for all the wrong reasons—fighting with fellow DNC members, wondering out loud if he really wants the job, complaining about leaks, defending not releasing his own report, etc. Schumer and Jeffries should not be answering questions about Martin’s insecurities and incompetence, Martin should be amplifying messages approved by Schumer and Jeffries.

The only good news for Martin is that Committee members and the DC establishment are afraid to move him out, fearing the “barbarians are at the gate,” and the progressive base and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-types will organize to install one of their own. After years of the DNC doing everything to make sure Bernie Sanders does not win the presidential nomination, it would be ironic if Ken Martin’s abject failure produced a new Chair who made sure Bernie Sanders’ heir does win.

As my former boss, Terry McAuliffe, famously titled his book, What A Party!

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

On Tuesday, Michigan’s long, contentious Democratic Senate primary— along with a few House battles— will come to a conclusion. No race has been more fascinating than this one, as it originally featured three quality candidates that represented the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party. It now features two candidates, progressive Abdul Al-Sayed, and moderate Congresswoman Haley Stevens—Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign.

In the last few weeks, Al-Sayed has had Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Chris Van Hollen, Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal, and Hassan Piker join him to campaign. For Haley Stevens, she has seen a who’s-who of the Michigan establishment come off the sidelines to endorse and campaign for her, including current Governor Gretchen Whitmer, retiring Senator Gary Peters, and former Senator Debbie Stabenow.

The most recent public polling, released in the last 24 hours, a few days after their final debate, shows Al-Sayed with a double-digit lead. Based on the confidence of Al-Sayed and the aggressiveness of Stevens in that debate, the polls are likely correct. Of course, polls are not always an accurate predictor, especially in an August primary, when modeling turnout is challenging.

Whoever wins will face former Congressman Mike Rogers in the general election. A known, well-liked moderate, Rogers will be a formidable challenger, even in an otherwise tough election environment for Republicans. The question for the Democratic candidate is whether he or she can unite the Party?

In 2024, Democrats in Michigan struggled and ultimately failed to unite behind Biden/Harris. The biggest wedge was Israel and Palestine, with Michigan’s 400,000 Arab-Americans (the largest population in the country) angry with our government’s unconditional support for Israel post-October 7th.

In the 2024 Democratic primary, 13% of the electorate voted “uncommitted” in protest. In the general, Harris tied herself into a pretzel trying to bring the two sides together, angering everyone and satisfying no one, while Donald Trump masterfully exploited the fissures to flip the state back into his column.

Several local surrogates for both Senate candidates have bluntly said they will not support the other if their candidate loses. Such statements are understandable in the heat of the homestretch. But they will be cause for great concern if still prevalent at Labor Day.

As Democrats head into November, the big question is whether the Party can unite in Michigan - and across the country where it has gotten heated? If it does not, and our nominee loses the general in a close contest, fingers will point and anger will explode. The burden will fall on national, state, and local figures. They will need to either be silent, if they don’t have anything nice to say, or find points of agreement with the nominee, even if limited, and extol their importance to the country’s future. If people continue to fight the primary in the general, hoping for a loss to make a point, it will unfortunately get darker for the party’s future before it gets brighter.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Perhaps nothing is more essential to Donald Trump’s brand, going back to his business career, than he is a winner. It is more essential than even projecting strength and dominance. Whether a business sector, a star athlete, a nightclub, or a country at war, Trump likes to see and be seen with the winner, and to be far away from the loser. This tendency is complicated when in politics, particularly when President. Problems fall into your lap. Sometimes you solve them, and sometimes you cannot. The latter outcome, however, is simply unacceptable to Trump.

Had COVID not swept across the world and country in 2020, Donald Trump very likely would have been re-elected. For all the drama and chaos of his first term, he had successfully vanquished the Russia allegations and had created a strong economic environment, that was picking up steam across all income levels and most sectors, including manufacturing. COVID stopped this momentum cold.

On a back foot, Trump desperately tried to project calm and control, only to be continually overwhelmed by events. After all, it’s hard to spin death and economic destruction.

I believe that Donald Trump tried his best to lead the country through COVID. The world over, government and business leaders were flying blind, improvising solutions in real time to a problem that science was racing to understand and solve. At the same time, I’m sympathetic to the fact that Trump was running for re-election in a zero-sum environment. I’d like to think Hillary Clinton, had she won, would have put politics aside in such a situation, but, having worked closely for her, I’m confident saying, that would not have happened. Which brings me to Anthony Fauci.

As Sean, Rachael, and I joke about often on The Huddle, when something goes wrong in Trump world, the question is, who will get the blame, because it won’t be Trump.

As it became apparent in the summer of 2020 that COVID was going to be with us into November, and seeing the negative impact it was having on his political standing, Trump and the GOP looked for a target to distract and blame. They settled on creating an outrage over the origin of the virus and discrediting the government’s infectious disease expert publicly leading the response.

I am not sure why it mattered where COVID came from, other than to help reverse engineer how it works in the body to create a vaccine/help one medically survive. To state the obvious, getting truthful answers out of China, particularly in a crisis, is challenging, at best. Governments all over the world, trying to protect their people, from Europe to Africa to South America to Asia, demanded answers from China and could not get them. Thus, doctors and intelligence agencies tried their best to chase down leads and piece together a puzzle missing so many foundational pieces.

I believe that Dr. Fauci wanted to know the origins, as he repeatedly discusses in real-time in his diary. But I am also sympathetic to the hurricane of conspiracy theories he and his team were battling in 2020, a prelude to what was to come after the election. In retrospect, as evidence of a lab leak became more apparent, Dr. Fauci would have been wise to say this, rather than continue to bat away. But hindsight is 20/20 and in the big picture, where it came from was far less material than how to solve it.

As for the doctor himself, he did many, many things right and deserves tremendous credit. But, like everyone at the time, he also made devastating mistakes. While some Democrats have admitted this, many have not, and it’s part of our trust problem with big swaths of the electorate.

The most glaring error was that of the duration of the shutdowns. (It is long forgotten, but it was Donald Trump who shut the country down. Governor Ron DeSantis was the first to question him, and Trump attacked him for doing so. Once Trump realized the popularity of DeSantis’ move, he quickly adopted the position. As I always say, Trump is very street smart and a good political athlete.) In addition to the economy being devastated, so too were a generation of children.

In our own house, our youngest, who was in kindergarten, spent the next 18 months at home, on Zoom, and did not learn to read. We fortunately had the resources to hire external tutors and specialists, who, over the next four years, caught him up. Tens of millions had no such support. Then there was the social and emotional harm to people of all ages from such prolonged isolation. Yes, it made sense medically for certain people— the elderly and sick— but for the entire country, the facts are now clear.

If folks were serious about understanding what was done right and what was done wrong, a 9/11-style commission would have been created to document and make recommendations for the future. But neither side, in this zero-sum environment, has an interest in that. So, in the meantime, someone has to pay for losing in 2020, and it’s not going to be Trump. Fauci must be destroyed.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

IIf you’ve been watching New York City’s Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, you know he rose to prominence and ultimately victory last November with nimble, clever videos highlighting various New York City problems and presenting his solutions. Chief amongst his focus was the plight of the struggling working class and the affordability challenges they face, juxtaposed against the largest concentration of millionaires and billionaires in the country.

As the Mayor has struggled in office to sell his tax-the-rich proposals to a public weary of so many wealthy leaving The Big Apple for Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and other no-state-income tax jurisdictions, he has resorted to increasingly brazen tactics, designed to feed the social media content beast.

A few months ago, to sell his pied-à-terre tax on properties worth over $5 million, the Mayor produced a video at night in front of Miami-based hedge fund manager Ken Griffin’s condo. Griffin bought the unit for $238 million in 2019. It is still the most expensive residential real estate purchase in the city’s history. The theory of the video was obvious. Most people are shocked and somewhat sickened by a second (or third, or fourth) home that expensive. What the Mayor clearly did not think of was the security risk he was putting Griffin and those that reside at the address.

An unfortunate byproduct of today’s hyper-polarized, angry times is the increasing rise of violence and harassment against those you disagree with, from politicians to business leaders to the rich. Crazy people hear the rhetoric and believe they must act to right a perceived wrong, draw attention to it, or intimidate into submission.

When the Mayor used Griffin as a prop, Griffin was outraged. It just so happens he was in the process of securing permits to build a huge sky-scrapper for his hedge fund in Manhattan, which would produce thousands of construction jobs and then house thousands of people who collectively would pay tens of millions alone in New York City taxes. Griffin announced he was pausing the process and considering moving even more jobs to Miami.

Amongst wealthy residents of New York City, who provide a massive amount of the city’s tax revenue, they were horrified by the Mayor. Even allies and sympathetic voices reached out to City Hall to say Mamdani had gone too far. To his credit, the Mayor soon realized his mistake and reached out to Griffin to talk. Griffin still has not returned the call.

Young, new politicians make mistakes, and the good ones learn from them and don’t repeat. So, it stunned many New Yorkers when yesterday, the city’s Department of Finance published a website with the names AND address of those who they believe will qualify for the said pied-à-terre tax, which passed. Mind you, the city made a point of saying if you are on the list, you may ultimately not qualify, and vice-versa. The political intent was likely to show the volume and dollar figures associated with the tax, and to shame. Instead, it has created a massive blowback of anger and shock.

I’ve seen a lot of stunts in 26 years in politics. But this was one of the dumbest and most horrifying. From a public policy standpoint, should we now publish the names of those who receive food stamps and live in public housing? Should people’s tax returns be public in a searchable database? Of course not, in either direction it is cruel and dangerous to, figuratively speaking, publicly lynch. From a public safety standpoint, you have now put bullseyes on thousands of individuals and their families. That is beyond unacceptable, just as it was when Donald Trump outed CIA officers involved in the 2016 Russia Investigation.

The new mayor is a talented individual who speaks for millions. His public policy ideas— like tax rates— should be respected and debated. But there is a difference between what’s good content for a shock jock and what’s good content for a public leader. The mayor needs to grow up and sober up.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

For the last year, as people have speculated about who will win the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, I have continuously said that an important piece of data, that one must factor into their algorithm, is the order of the first few contests before Super Tuesday. Traditionally, this has been the Iowa caucus, followed by the New Hampshire primary, Nevada caucus, and then the South Carolina primary. If you’re into politics, you have an understanding of these electorates and what type of candidate historically does well. You also understand how momentum plays - or does not.

On Friday afternoon, the Democratic National Committee’s Rules & Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted to recommend a new order, approving six, not four, states to go before Super Tuesday, on March 7th:

• South Carolina, January 22

• Nevada, February 1

• New Hampshire, February 8

• New Mexico, February 15

• Michigan, February 22

• Virginia, February 29

The initial reaction was to focus on who was chosen to go first and second, and which candidate might be favored. But some seasoned eyes looked further down the line. Yes, sometimes the winner of Iowa went on to the nomination (Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008). But recently, they have not. Bernie Sanders won it in 2016, and Pete Buttigieg in 2020. Ditto for New Hampshire, which saw Hillary Clinton famously win in 2008 and Bernie Sanders in a landslide in 2016 and narrowly in 2020.

The state whose batting average has been the best predictor was the one that went fourth: South Carolina. No Democrat since 1988 has won the nomination without winning the Palmetto state. Why? By the time the contest got that far, the field had often narrowed and the electorate was more pragmatic than idealistic.

While it is possible that a mix of the first four states in 2028 proves decisive, it’s more likely that title will now fall to Michigan and Virginia. The former is a perennial swing state, while the latter is not dissimilar to southern swing states North Carolina and Georgia.

At first glance, it is likely that Kamala Harris will open the favorite in South Carolina for reasons I have discussed in prior Substack posts, namely the primary electorate is 65% Black and she leads with that community by almost 40%. Note, however, that starting as the favorite does not mean in any way, shape, or form she will finish that way. Nevada will be interesting, given its large Latino population and the influence of various unions. Kamala Harris also leads with Latinos, though her history with labor unions there is mixed and she lost the state to Trump in 2024. Should AOC run, given her background and coalition, she will likely start as a contender. My question is who will be options C and D?

Virginia had a hotly contested gubernatorial campaign in 2025. Abigail Spanberger did not ask Harris or AOC to campaign for her. She did invite Josh Shapiro, Rahm Emanuel, and Andy Beshear. In Michigan, all eyes are on next Tuesday’s Senate primary, to see if uber-progressive Abdul El-Sayed wins or moderate Congresswoman Haley Stevens, and does that person win the general election? Who has campaigned with each is representative of the warring factions currently fighting for the party’s future.

The candidate I think is most harmed by this map is Gavin Newsom. There is no place I see him as a natural fit, nor with a demographic advantage on which to build a coalition.

The 2028 Democratic primary is going to be a long, hard slog. The battle between the factions is going to be intense, but is necessary. For the first time in my lifetime, there is no frontrunner, and arguably not even a top tier. If you love politics, this is shaping up to be one of the most fascinating, and consequential, presidential primaries in ages. The battle for the post-Trump Democratic Party will begin. I’m excited!

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Yesterday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the Department’s request for more funds for the war with Iran. During the hearing, Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) asked the Secretary about comments he had made a few months ago regarding our military success in Iran. “You said, ‘Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory.’ You said Iran’s military had been rendered ‘combat-ineffective for years to come,’ and you stated we had ‘achieved every single objective.’ Were those accurate statements?” On BlueSky, Democrats cheered, while on X, MAGA talked about anything else.

Throughout the Spring on The Huddle, I kept warning of the political risk the President and Secretary of War were taking, speaking in such bold and decisive terms, when the facts never backed them up. As I wrote on my Substack on May 13th, “The more Trump talks about his alternate reality on Iran and the economy, the further his numbers fall. Perhaps Trump will soon successfully conclude the war in Iran, and Americans, or at least his coalition, will give him tremendous credit. Perhaps, with the war over, the economy will smooth out, and the golden era will truly be upon us, with the American people, or at least his coalition, giving Trump tremendous credit. But I’m also watching these days for another possibility, the odds of which are low, but slowly rising every day: Trump’s wobbliness with his coalition goes from discomfort to a crack, like George W. Bush in 2006, after Katrina and Iraq’s descent.”

It’s late July, and the war with Iran is far from over. In fact, after a month of quiet stalemate, it’s rapidly re-accelerating, and with it, the price of oil, and thus gasoline. Today, President Trump visited Dover Air Force Base for a Dignified Transfer ceremony for the soldiers recently killed in the war. Every network covered it wall-to-wall, and social media was a flurry of commentary. At the same time, every network and influencer is discussing the tit-for-tat attacks and damage, the rise of gas prices, and the uncertainty of what lies ahead. And yet, listen to the President and Secretaries of War and State just this week and you would think the only outstanding question is the terms of Iran’s imminent total surrender. At times, one would think their interviews are a Saturday Night Live skit of a modern Baghdad Bob.

Some will say this is all fake news. The evidence, however, is becoming too hard to ignore.

As is often the case, at first, those on the team air their concerns in private. When nothing changes, they then give background quotes to reporters, hoping to shake the trees publicly. When still nothing changes, they leak data. Lastly, if history is a guide to DC, people will go on the record. All of this is what happened to Kamala Harris in 2024, as many will recall. And this week, it has begun to happen to Trump with his own party.

The last few days, several stories had blind quotes from Republican elected officials, strategists, and candidates, expressing frustration with the war and economy. Then today came a POLITICO poll that shows Trump’s base has gone from 50% thinking in May the Iran war was worth the cost to 37%, a 13% drop in two months. At the same time, views of the President on the economy are the worst since he entered politics 11 years ago. Private surveys for Republican candidates show the same thing.

Often when a politician begins to move down the credibility cliff, it happens slowly and then, if no course correction, it accelerates and does not recover.

Time and again, President Trump has defied the laws of political physics and emerged victorious from situations that no one thought possible. Perhaps that will happen again here. Then again, perhaps not.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Graham Platner’s situation was fundamentally different than Joe Biden’s, as Platner’s candidacy was fueled by the base, with the establishment against him, while Biden’s candidacy was fueled by the establishment, with the base against him.

On Saturday, the Maine Democratic Party will formally hold a special nominating convention. Based on delegate selection this past weekend, barring a dramatic change, former State Senate Leader Troy Jackson will be the Party’s nominee—Jackson’s representatives— who are nonbonding— compromise over 80% of the delegates.

Jackson, 58, is a former social conservative Republican. He first ran unsuccessfully for the Maine House of Representatives in 2000, as a Republican. The following election (2002), he won, running as an Independent. In 2004, he switched to the Democratic Party and began to rise up. In 2008, he was elected to the Maine Senate and chosen in 2016 by his colleagues to be Minority Leader and then Majority Leader from 2018-2024. During this time, Jackson also ran for Congress (2014) and Governor (2026), losing the primary in both instances.

Jackson’s Senate “campaign,” during this short sprint, has been to advocate for carrying Platner’s torch, supporting Platner’s progressive policy positions, and fighting the establishment. The challenge for Jackson is similar to the challenge of Kamala Harris: authenticity.

Jackson was in elected office for 22 years. His long political resume is the definition of establishment. At the same time, he has “evolved” on some big issues. For example, early in his career, Jackson was proudly anti-choice, citing his Catholic upbringing. Recently, however, he switched his position to pro-choice.

In 2024, it was hard for Kamala Harris to argue she was a change agent you could trust, when she had been in elected office for so long and taken so many different positions ideologically and substantively. One of the most lethal substantive attacks on Harris was her change on fracking. In a bad economy, with bad inflation, voters in the Rust Belt were not buying it. At the same time, the famous pronoun ad was a lethal values attack that picked at an ideological scab raw with suburban voters and working-class people of color.

Today, there was a story in The Washington Post about Jackson’s temper, citing his tendency to curse and scream, and, in one instance, throw a water bottle at a female colleague. As I said this morning on The Huddle, older women don’t like a bully. The opposition research drop was not an accident.

For Jackson, there are two groups of voters to watch: young voters and older white women, who were initially attracted to Platner and stuck by him for a lot longer than most people thought was possible. For the former, they were attracted to Platner because he was a bold outsider, challenging the establishment/status quo, while focused on affordability and staying out of foreign conflicts. For the latter, overturning Roe v. Wade was appalling and Platner’s focus on Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was hard for her to outrun. For both groups of voters, Jackson is not a natural choice.

Kamala Harris tried to make 2024 a referendum on Trump, but voters simply did not trust her. Jackson is going to try to do the same, forcing Collins to answer for a deeply unpopular president. The question is whether the GOP can define Jackson on their terms and make this about trust to deliver for Maine, or can Jackson step up to ride in the Platner and anti-Trump wake? Like 2024, it’s a short three-month sprint to find out.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Over the weekend, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) visited Michigan to campaign across the state with Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. I’ve often said that AOC is a good political athlete—not great, like Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, but good. In her remarks, AOC said, “Is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again? A playbook that says in order to win we must be defenders of the same status quo that is drowning us and tells us the aspiration to change our government and the ambition to even try is foolish? No, it is not foolish, Michigan.” These are smart words.

One of the tragic consequences of the Democratic party’s Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) of the last decade is that by hating Trump so much, and objecting to everything he proposes or does, we often find ourselves defending the status quo. Time after time, Democrats, from elected officials to volunteers, outright scream against, minimize, or belittle the “what” and lose their minds about the “how” - he violates customs and norms, does not abide by traditional process, and/or has disdain for experts. In an era when voters want change, this is a bad place to be.

One of the most poignant examples of TDS came in late 2023, when I listened to a prominent Michigan Congresswoman explain Trump’s appeal in her state—and Democrats’ rising problem.

The Congresswoman said that when Trump modified NAFTA in his first term, citing the harm to domestic manufacturing, Democrats snickered that his changes were small and would not have any material impact to the problems NAFTA created.

In labor halls across the state, when this Congresswoman spoke to union members, they would angrily push back and say at least Trump is trying—and even if he only changed 5% of the deal, it’s 5% more than Democrats have ever done—Democrats defended NAFTA and said the union members needed to move on and adopt.

Another example is MAHA. For years, Democrats questioned food safety, health guidelines, and the pharmaceutical industry. Environmentalists, “Whole Foods’ liberals,” and others, like RFK, pioneered these arguments. But after running RFK out of the Party, he and his followers teamed up with Trump. From that moment forward, Democrats objected to everything MAHA proposed, even when common sense and the vast number of Americans were clearly on MAHA’s side. Fighting an organic movement amongst regular moms (and dads) who are advocating for their children’s health is political suicide. But if Trump is for it….

AOC is very smart to lean into the message of breaking the status quo and traditional playbooks. Of course, as a young woman of color, this message has more than one benefit. Whether AOC emerges as a national leader or not in the near future, I hope that she continues to push Democrats in this direction. Voters the world over want change. They don’t want to go backwards, but a new forward. They’ve screamed it for a decade, and there are no signs it’s abating. From local office to President, prospective leaders, liberal, moderate, or conservative, should move past TDS, embrace change, and make the Democratic Party exciting again.

Tomorrow evening, in primetime, President Trump will address the nation from the Oval Office. The focus, reportedly, is not the restarted war with Iran, now in its 20th week, nor our struggling economy and the sticky inflation badgering so many voters who live paycheck-to-paycheck. Instead, the focus is to be election interference and voter fraud, including “evidence” the 2020 presidential election was “stolen”, with a focus on Georgia. Of course, with Trump, everything is subject to change before, during, and even after a speech. But should the President follow through, the Democratic Party may want to send a gift basket to the White House.

In 2024, myself and several Democrats banged our heads against the wall at Joe Biden, and then Kamala Harris, repeatedly focusing on “democracy.” While an important issue, poll after poll in swing states said that the number one issue by far was the economy, often followed by immigration. In focus group after focus group in these states, voters expressed frustration with Biden/Harris’ focus being on things not important to them.

Democracy motivated the Party’s elite base of latte liberals, ensconced in cobalt-blue cities, like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. But in the areas that would prove pivotal— the working-class neighborhoods of Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and in the middle-class suburbs that surround them— democracy often never came up as a top 10 issue. As a result, a material number of voters who found Trump personally abhorrent, but liked his focus, ended up going with the former President.

Today, the number one issue by far remains the economy and inflation. The 2020 election is nowhere to be found. Literally. Nor is the SAFE Act in the districts and states that will decide the midterms. People are worried about affordability— gas and food prices, housing costs, health care and home insurance premiums, data centers, and more.

Some will argue that the issue is intended to motivate the President’s base, which is depressed. But winning campaigns appeal to both the base and the middle, not either/or. This issue is a massive turnoff to those who do not feast daily on cold, red meat.So why do this? Because the President is obsessed with his brand, and key to his brand is winning. To lose is unacceptable.

When Trump lost the Iowa Caucus to Ted Cruz in 2016, Trump claimed it was stolen. Leading up to November 2016, when most people thought Hillary would win, including Trump, Trump repeatedly said the election was being stolen, laying the predicate to escape responsibility.

In the weeks after January 6, 2021, as he sat at Mar-a-Lago a pariah, rejected by 80% of the country, which was angry and horrified by events of that day, Trump began to float the idea that the riot at the Capitol was a government plot, then weeks later, a “love fest,” then Nancy Pelosi’ responsibility, anything to create a new narrative that made him look not like the bitter, deranged loser he was at the time.

Today, as Trump redefines political weaponization and tries to erase his public blemishes, the one rock he has yet to move is the 2020 election. After all, Joe Biden was sworn in and governed for four years. But toiling away in the government since January 20, 2025, has been a cadre of Trump officials looking for anything and everything that they can twist into whatever pretzel is necessary to try to create new “facts” that they hope change the narrative.

Every day between now and November that Donald Trump continues to obsesses over 2020 and “fraud,” for which he has never, ever, once produced a single piece of evidence that held up in court, and does not focus on the real lives of real people, and what voters in the important districts and states are angrily saying is important to them, is a day closer to a Democratic congressional majority in 2027. Amazing how recent history sometimes repeats itself.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

For the last month on The Huddle, I have posed the question, what if there is no nuclear deal with Iran and the war ultimately ends in the current state?

Every weekday morning, Rachael, Sean, and I text about topics for the show. It’s a running joke between us that we have to talk about the latest development with Iran, even though it feels like Groundhog Day. Yesterday and today were no different, as Iran announced they were closing The Strait (Sunday) and Trump subsequently announced we were doing the same and now charging our own toll (Monday). Of course, Trump announced a few minutes ago that in fact we are not going to charge a toll. Back and forth we go.

Throughout the stalemate, Trump continues to try to project strength, dominance, and winning. He has taken to his old standby in interviews and on Truth Social of proclaiming that Iran is “begging for a deal.”

As oil prices rapidly slid the last few weeks, most Americans began to move on from the war, and thus it receded from the headlines. But when hostilities recently resumed and oil prices began to move back up - 9.5% alone on Monday - people were forced to ask, what’s happening? The truth is, nothing.

If there is a strategic plan to reopen The Strait and ensure free navigation, and to end / materially slow Iran’s nuclear production and capabilities, which was the whole reason we went to war, I am eager to learn about it.

Trump is an avid golfer and likes to use the golf expression, the yips, when talking about someone losing his/her focus and ability to execute. Trump has the yips now in Iran.

On the nuclear material, Trump knows sending in ground troops is a non-starter, and that an air campaign alone is unlikely to achieve the desired results. On the Strait, he knows that oil prices climbing back above $125 a barrel means real political pain at the pump and likely ensures losing both the House and Senate in November. The result of these fears is a weak hand to play at the table. The Iranians know this, the Israelis know this, the whole region knows this.

The Wall Street Journal over the weekend had several stories about regional players negotiating directly with Iran on the Strait, recognizing the new reality and Iran’s position of strength going forward.

I genuinely hope Trump, Marco Rubio, and the administration quickly come up with a plan to successfully end this war. But with each day the status quo continues, I am sadly beginning to seriously ponder what losing this war means for our future both at home and abroad. The prospect stinks.

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Three weeks from tomorrow, Democrats in Michigan will go to the polls to vote for their Senate nominee. As I’ve written about several times the last 18 months, this race is the canary in the coal mine for the Democratic Party heading into 2028.

Last week, Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign, as she had slipped in the polls and was stuck in a distant third place. That leaves uber-progressive Dr. Abdul El-Sayed to battle moderate Congresswoman Haley Stevens in a head-to-head match-up down the stretch.

Prior to McMorrow’s departure, in an average of the polls, El-Sayed led Stevens by 8%, 35%-27%. One public poll has been conducted since last week’s development, which showed Stevens now up by one, 42%-41%.

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are heading to Michigan to campaign with El-Sayed, whom they both have endorsed. In the near future, it is expected that more progressive luminaries will go to the Wolverine state to campaign with the young doctor.

For Stevens, she has received the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, former Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, current Michigan Senator Gary Peters, who is retiring and Stevens hopes to replace, and a handful of Democratic moderate Senators, including Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) and Chris Coons (DE). Unfortunately for Stevens, prominent national moderates are not expected to campaign on her behalf the next few weeks.

Today, it is lonely in the Democratic Party being a prominent moderate running for higher office. Few leaders want to publicly campaign for you—and against the progressive. Stevens worked closely for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Neither has endorsed her candidacy. In 2022, when Stevens was engaged in a heated House primary against a colleague, thanks to redistricting, Clinton weighed into that race. Several moderate Democrats thinking of running for President in 2028 have been silent in Michigan - both with their support and checkbook - including a few prominent Governors. And in Congress, many moderate leaders have offered some praise of Stevens, but not wanted to be seen by her side.

I don’t know who will win in Michigan. But I do know that if moderates want to lead the Democratic Party in the future, an important first step is to stop being afraid and start being proud. Publicly support those who share your values and ideas. Relish the confrontation and challenge to define and own the future. Done right, your opponent will respect you and, with some repair work, come on board for the General.

Ultimately, if moderates are unwilling to stand tall and advocate for what they believe in, why should voters stand by them?

Join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 a.m. EST, on YouTube (subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.

Timing is everything in life. Rachael, Sean, and I clearly picked - back in March - a great week to take off.

The three of us had been texting up a storm to each other about the ongoing Graham Platner saga. Most people are comparing it to Joe Biden’s ordeal two years ago this month. I believe their reasoning is backwards, and thus the wrong lessons are being drawn.

In early 2023, poll after poll of Democratic voters said to the tune of 70%-80% that they thought Joe Biden was too old to run for a second term. But the establishment, fearful of Trump’s rise off the mat in 2022, squelched any debate, insisting that Biden was the best and only candidate to beat Trump, as Biden had just done just two years prior.

As 2023 came and went, and anxiety about Biden began to grow into a public murmur in early 2024, yet the establishment closed its eyes harder and insisted to the rank-and-file that they stick by Biden.

In the summer of 2025, the establishment in DC and Augusta were looking for a candidate in Maine to challenge Senator Susan Collins. With Kamala Harris winning Maine over Donald Trump by 7%, Democrats viewed the Pine State as a prime pick-up opportunity.

In August, a long shot named Graham Platner announced his candidacy, and the establishment shunned him, focusing instead on recruiting Governor Janet Mills. To “prepare the battlefield” for Mills’ entrance, Democratic establishment-aligned groups leaked scathing opposition research about Platner, including his Nazi tattoo, Reddit posts, and allegations of treating women poorly. Maine voters heard the attacks, and yet, Platner’s numbers rose.

Within a few months of Mills’ entry, Platner led the Governor by more than 30%. Democrats in Maine were letting the establishment in DC and the state Capitol know what they thought of their judgment.

It is likely that Graham Platner will formally end his campaign any minute now—and he should. But the reasons for Platner’s rise and success in the face of both so many damning facts and allegations and intense establishment resistance are the real story to study and understand, particularly as a new candidate, or process to select the candidate, is chosen.

Biden’s re-election was the establishment vs Democratic voters. Platner’s candidacy was Democratic voters vs the establishment. What about Platner was so appealing and caused so many to stick by him in the face of one opposition research bomb after another, any one of which would traditionally have ended a candidacy? Why was the establishment’s choice so resoundingly rejected? These are the same questions I asked when Trump won in 2016 and then rebounded in 2022.

As the Democratic establishment debates the path forward in Maine, they would be wise to not lead with “I told you so.” The candidate was flawed. His campaign against them was not.