Well, another election and another questionable night for pollsters. Democratic Socialist candidate for governor, Francesca Hong, lost in an extremely close race to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, even though she had been dominating the polls. The last Marquette University poll, which was (we can no longer say “is”) the “gold standard” of polling in Wisconsin, had Hong winning the Democratic primary for governor by 22%. But in the end, she lost by less than half of a percent.

A lot of Wednesday morning political analysis is happening after Hong’s lost, with many saying that the polls were wrong yet again. But were they? Essentially, most of the polls had Hong’s support correctly measured, around the high 30s. And in the case of most of the polls conducted, nearly as many people were undecided, with a good chunk still saying they intended to vote for Mandela Barnes. If anything, the poll was correct is showing that Hong had a ceiling.

But still, a race that many were considering a slam-dunk win for Hong ended up being another underperformance for a progressive candidate.

With that, the “political journalists” are doing their own Wednesday morning political analyses on the race. Their take, and predictably so, is that a Democratic Socialist cannot win in a mostly white Midwestern state. And for all we know, that could be true. In another Marquette University poll that was conducted at the same time as the one I mentioned above, 54% of respondents said that they had an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Socialists of America, with only 24% saying that they had a favorable opinion.

So, in the first statewide test in the Midwest, the Democratic Socialist label failed. And this might be the problem for Democratic Socialists in the Midwest. During the campaign, it seemed as if Hong was either trying to defend or explain Democratic Socialism (which, by the way, she is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist). The campaign, nor the media, was ever focused on her issues, with the exception of her saying that she wanted to defund the police in the past. So yes, the first test for the DSA statewide in the Midwest was a loss.

Another person to underperform was Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, who was also excepted to handily defeat his opponent Haley Stevens. Almost every poll going into the Democratic primary had El-Sayed leading by double digits. However, he beat Stevens by only 1%, and received less than 50% of the vote.

Now, El-Sayed was very clear that he was not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, going as far as saying that he was a capitalist just like Elizabeth Warren. But his campaign did seemed focused on the issue of Gaza, whether he wanted it to or not. Stevens and the groups that backed her made this election about the Palestinian issue. El-Sayed did have other progressive ideas, but they weren’t getting through the Gaza/Israel echo chamber. As a result, he almost lost his election.

This points to another problem that some progressives have which is that they are making the Gaza/Israel conflict a litmus test. And while most Americans agree with the progressives on this issue, it’s very low on their priority list when they are paying over $4 per gallon for gas.

This bring us to our last progressive, Illinois Lt. Governor Juliana Stratton. Stratton’s case was the opposite of Hong and El-Sayed. Early polls had her significantly behind Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, usually by double digits. And her campaign was extremely progressive, supporting Medicare for All, getting money out of politics, supporting a $25 minimum wage, and so on. The turning point of the campaign was the debates, where Stratton slammed Krishnamoorthi’s opposition to Medicare for All. She would end up winning the primary by nearly 8%, with her Medicare for All stance considered the clincher by many.

But here is the difference between Stratton and El-Sayed and Hong. Stratton did not identify as a Democratic Socialist and rarely, if ever, talked about the Gaza/Israel conflict. But even with that, all three candidates are nearly identical on the issues.

This shows that the messaging matters. Stratton ran on the newly true and tried message of affordability and won. The other two campaigns did not, or at least it didn’t appear that they did. One does not need to be a DSA member or ramble on about Gaza 24/7. They just need to show that they want to help their constituents. That’s it, that’s the ballgame. Juliana Stratton is the mold that progressives need to use if they want to win in the Midwest.

And I know. I’m a 8th, generation Midwesterner.

But that isn’t the only reason. When I first started Voting Trend (both YouTube and Substack), I want this to be a data-driven site for people who were truly interested in getting deep into the numbers. And I mean really deep, not just reading crosstabs from a poll, which is something anyone can do. I didn’t want it to be a simple skin-deep examination of what is happening. When I first started both the channel and the Substack, I was running regression models and trying to explain things more like an academic than a “commentator”.

Honestly, being in the academic frame of mind when it comes to elections is my happy place. I have my masters degree from McGill University in political science, with a focus on voting behavior. In 2020, I actually started a PhD program at the University of Western Ontario, which I dropped out of only a month later because I had made a decent living teaching English. Leaving that program is probably my life’s biggest regret.

But that is why I want to stop YouTube, and the sensationalism. I want Voting Trend to be 100% focused on academically-informed and data-driven research.

And yes, a few months ago, I talked about leaving Substack because I thought that some of the big names were taking all of the oxygen out of the room. And I still do believe that. But when it comes to academic- and data-driven research, especially in politics, Substack isn’t just the best place, it might be the only place.

Will this be a “labor of love” for a while? Yes. Will it hopefully build something that I can look back at an be proud of. I hope so. That’s something that I cannot say for my Voting Trend YouTube channel. I also hope to build an audience that is also interested in data-driven information.

Over the coming weeks, I’m going to refocus on election data and analysis and make that the cornerstone of my website and Substack. That was originally what I wanted. But once I started making a few hundred dollars per YouTube video, I fell into making slop. I don’t want to offer slop.

So, if you are coming from my YouTube channel, this will not be a “cheerleading” Substack. It will be a pure analytical Substack. People who purely want their biases confirmed with every article will not like this. But this is also what I think is right to do. Yes, it might take time to build it, but I want to rebuild what I originally had in mind.

But this will probably be a Substack that does one publication every two to three weeks at most. It’s hard to simply pump are quality, well-researched articles on a daily, or even weekly basis. With that, I hope you enjoy the change once it comes.

See you soon.

Back in January, two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were executed by agents of the American government.

That’s it.

Well, okay, no, that isn’t it but it should be. Tomorrow will be the sixth-month anniversary of Renee Good being murdered and caught on camera. Yet, it seems like the American public has just moved on. Yes, they have moved on from the execution of American citizens in the streets on Minneapolis.

Of course, the fact that the execution of Americans is now “old news” (except for the people in Minneapolis) plays into the reason why I am done with American politics. While the right and the Republicans are constantly stuck in this “own the libs” mode, the Democrats and left are starting to get stuck into the “own MAGA” mode.

Since Donald Trump’s reelection, I’ve seen what I consider reputable Democrats, liberals, and progressives starting to team up with “content creators” like the Medias Touch, I’ve Had It, Kyle Kulinski, and other leftist content creators that seem to focus more on “owning MAGA'“ instead of actually stopping the Trump administration.

Most of these influencers purely lie. Kyle Kulinski constantly says that ICE agents have 47 days of training because Trump is the 47th president, which has absolutely no evidence behind it whatsoever. A few weeks ago, the Medias Touch said that Vivek Ramaswamy’s opponent in the Republican primary for Ohio governor, Casey Putsch, endorsed Amy Acton, the Democratic candidate for governor in Ohio. This is false, with Putsch tweeting a day later saying that he isn’t endorsing any candidate. Any correction from the Medias Touch? Nope. And if you look at the comments, you can see that many Democrats and those on the left believe the Medias Touch lies.

In the past, these used to be the outliers in leftist/liberal/Democratic politics. But now, they are working with the mainstream leftist/liberal/Democratic, which is legitimizing these often less-than-reputable influencers.

The biggest disappointment has been Pod Save America. I first noticed the change in PSA after the 2024 election, when their titles and thumbnails started looking more like something on Medias Touch, with the “horrible insignificant thing happened that is going to destroy Donald Trump forever” bullshit. I mean, I get it, in this day and age when sensationalism means more than substance, you have to play the “click” game.

But what really changed it for me was when PSA had Dan Pfeiffer interview David Pakman on The Pod. Pakman also has an issue with telling the truth. For example, two weeks ago, Pakman released a video called “CRISIS: YOUTUBE JUST CUT US”, claiming that impressions on his channel have gone down, thus views have gone down. However, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to determine that this is a line of crap. Just go over to SocialBlade, see how many views he has, and then determine if he has a drop. And guess what…no drop! And if YouTube is was giving his channel less impressions but his views haven’t changed, then that means his click-through rate has gone up. But, instead of showing us his analytics, his channel is basically based on “trust me, bro”.

Anyway, back to Pod Save America. Dan hosted Pakman on his show, which was honestly painful to watch. And it was at this point when I told myself, “I can’t watch Pod Save America anymore.” Yes, I started watching and listening to them less as soon as they got into the clickbait world. And yes, I have lost respect for Pod Save America, because I think their content has turned into clickbait slop instead of real political analysis.

However, and I think this is very important to say, I have not lost respect for Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, or Tommy Vietor. I know that they have to play this game. I know they need to do the clickbaity bullshit. That’s because this is the way that American politics has gone. PSA either has to work with I’ve Had It, The Medias Touch, Kyle Kulinski, and David Pakman, or compete with them. And, in this YouTube/online space, it’s better to attract flies with honey. Once one side controls the narrative, then going against the narrative is nearly impossible. Hell, look at the backlash I got when I told Democrats that they were in trouble in Pennsylvania.

Now, this is just a pure assumption, but I bet if the PSA crew could reset things back to, let’s say, 2020, they would. Back when they were the standard bearer of excellent political commentary. But now, they are becoming like all the rest: clickbait thumbnail, hyperbolic titles, and over-the-top sensationalism.

Oh, let me bring it back full circle. Alex Pretti and Renee Good were executed by agents of the American government! It seems that all of these outlets, including Pod Save America, have totally forgotten about that. Instead, they are more worried about a fucking spot on Donald Trump’s hand or his “cognitive test” than they are about Americans being executed in the streets. That’s old news. If we can simply brush aside government-sanction public executions, then this country is absolutely fucked.

Anyway, this is why I’m checking out of politics. Do I hate the Republicans? Yes, always have any always will since they are self-centered pricks that seem to get their rocks off from other’s misery. Will I vote for Democrats? Absolutely, all the way down the ticket. And if the Democrats win the White House in 2028, I think that they could make the situation in the country better. The fact that I have to add “think” and “could” to that sentence shows you just how much optimism I have.

Another person who was also gunned down in the middle of an American street, John F. Kennedy, was to deliver these words on November 22nd, 1963 to those waiting for him at the Dallas Trade Mart.

“In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.”

It seems as if we have reached that point. If Democrats win in the future, I hope they just don’t continue to focus on “owning MAGA”, but actually improving America. I have my doubts.

Back in 1992, Democrats changed their candidate model. After twelve years of Reagan-Bush Republicanism, Democrats moved away from the left-leaning candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, and turned to the new, polish, centerist, DLC candidacy of Bill Clinton. After Clinton pulled off the victory, Democrats have been afraid to move away from what they think is a “winning formula”. And what is that model? Candidates who can raise money, are good looking, or at least not ugly, moderate on economic policy, but you can be left of social issues as long as they support Israel, and can raise money, as well as raise money. Oh, and did I mention raising money?

When it comes to Susan Collins, the same logic holds. The only way to beat Collins is to fit the exact 1990s mold. And in the case of Maine, that is even more important since it is seen as a “moderate” and “swing” state. And every time the Democrats popped another candidate out of the mold, they would lose. Their solution was to clean the mold, fill it up again, pop out another identical candidate, lose, and repeat. They were, and still are, stuck on this old logic of how to win elections.

Then we come to 2026. Janet Mills seemed like the perfect candidate who fit the old mold. She was going to be just like every other candidate that came before her. She was the moderate, non-confrontational, statewide elected Democrats that was finally, after all these years, going to beat Susan Collins. But oyster farmer Graham Platner had other plans.

Platner is definitely NOT part of the mold. He is not a career politician. He is rough looking and got a Nazi tattoo on his chest when he was in the service. He had no fundraising experience and no national exposure. He was progressive on every issue, supporting single-payer healthcare and opposing the genocide in Gaza by Israel, with the continued support of the United States. He is FAR from being from the mold. There is no way that someone like Platner could win.

Well, here we are. Mills dropped out of the primary almost a month before it was to be held, with Platner the only serious candidate to win the Democratic nomination. And when it comes to running against Susan Collins, Platner is either outside the margin of error in the polls, or just inside the MoE.

Basically, all the conventional wisdom of most political consultants and hacks have been absolutely shattered by the success of Graham Platner. Or, assumed success, as he still does have to win.

But how did we get here. Of course, everyone will pontificate and have their own opinions. With that, I’ll throw my own two cents in there.

Voter-Centered Campaign

Many have argued that grassroots campaigning is dead. Well, Graham Platner, as well as others like Zorhan Mamdani, have proven that to be wrong. Early in both of their campaigns, nobody knew who they were or what they stood for. They were complete unknowns. But as they reached to more voters, their popularity rose. Eventually, Mamdani won and Platner looks to be on his way to victory.

The reason why this grassroots campaigning is working is because they are making the voters front and center of their campaign. Instead of telling voters “this is what I can do for you”, these candidates ask voters “what I can do for you”. I don’t think many political hacks understand this, but this is a fundamentally significant change in the way that campaigning is done. We’ve always judged candidates on their “issues”, and pick the candidates that most align with us (the median voter theorem). But now, it’s more about the candidate that will listen to the needs of voters, and show compassion toward their fellow Americans.

Social Media IS the Medium

A few months ago, Platner made a hilarious video about direct mail pieces, saying that nobody actually reads those. He said that if you want to win votes, you need to reach out to the voters, and social media really helps with that. And yes, social media is the place for voters to know more about candidates. This isn’t 1978 anymore!

However, one thing that is an absolute plague in the political consulting world are the direct mail consultants who are nothing more than grifters and con artists. Their direct mail pieces just makes the consultants rich without contributing anything to the candidate. Direct mail was never useful and is extremely outdated at best.

This can now be said for television and radio ads. Seriously, I’m 52, going on 53, and I can’t even tell you the last time I listed to the radio. Maybe I tune into WBBM when I am in Chicago for nostalgic reasons, but that’s it. Still, even television is starting to become a dinosaur in today’s social media climate.

Both Platner and Mamdani made social media the focal point of their campaign’s media strategy. Seriously, social media should be the absolute priority when it comes to mass media exposure. Television is nice, but not necessary. Radio ads, newspaper ads, and direct mail pieces are absolutely and utterly useless today. But still, the Democratic Party still relies on political consults who grift off of the ignorance of most candidates.

Also, with social media as the campaign’s focal point, there is less of a need to spend hours on the phone doing “call time”, otherwise known as begging for money. With a large social media exposure, candidates are able rely on small donor contributions instead of promising companies legislative favors for campaign funds.

Progressive issues = Voter-Centered

As I’ve already mentioned, both candidates have been listening to the voters instead of reading off a list of focus group-tested answers. Yes, both Platner and Mamdani have their views. But instead of saying “shut up and take what I am giving you” (which has been the Democratic mantra for over 30 years now), they are explaining how progressive policies can help the average voter. And as more voters are exposed to progressivism, otherwise known as actually caring for your fellow citizen, then more people move over to their side.

And this, oddly enough, brings me to Platner’s Nazi tattoo. Now, that was a fuck up and he should have had that tattoo removed much, much earlier. However, I still wonder if his campaign leaked it so that they could get out ahead of it before it became an “October surprise”. But that’s not the reason for me brining it up. What this incident shows is that voters really don’t care if someone had a transgression when they were younger.

During my early days of politics (which coincidentally started in 1991), candidates had to be perfect. The perfect look, the ability to speak eloquently, and to raise money. The checklist was so massive that if you didn’t serve in the military, that would be an automatic disqualifier, especially if you are running for president. But here we are, five straight presidents who never actively served in the main branches of the military.

The reason I wanted to write this article is to show that the fundamentals of campaigning have changed drastically, but many Democratic consultants and hacks are still stuck in 1990s mode. Janet Mills was stuck in 1990s mode. Now she’s dropped out of the US Senate race. Until Democrats understand that a shift is happening, then Democrats will always undeform.

Today, Ron DeSantis released Florida’s new Congressional map that easily violates the Florida Fair Districts law that is enshrined into Florida’s Constitution. According to the law, it says “no district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” Well, I’m not going to beat around the bush, and I’ll get right into why this map is downright illegal according to Florida’s Constitution.

Releasing the partisan map on FoxNews

This one is the most easily noticeable. FoxNews was the first ones to release the map, even before any official office in Florida. The map that they presented (shown below) easily shows the color by partisan leanings of the districts. It shows the Republicans having a partisan advantage in all but four of the Congressional districts. About 20 minutes later, probably noticing that they made an error, the governor’s office eventually released these maps, which don’t have partisan leanings. Basically, DeSantis showed his cards immediately on FoxNews.

Districts 1 through 7 have not been changed

All of the panhandle and North Florida districts haven’t been touched at all. The only Republican districts that have been touched are the ones that take votes away from Democratic districts, and Republican districts that now have to give those districts votes in order for the district to have an equal population. For example, District 15 (which was the old District 12), now goes into Tampa, also takes votes away from the old District 15, which naturally makes that district smaller. The old District 15 has now been put into the new Districts 11, 15, and 18. All of these districts changed because they needed to make up for the population gain for the new District 15, or the removal of the old District 14.

This alone shows that the only districts that have been impacted were ones that are connected to districts that took away votes SPECIFICALLY from Democratic districts, thus a violation of Tier 1 of the Fair Districts. Again, if this was a pure change, then there should have been changes to Districts 1 through 7, which there weren’t.

DeSantis’s “growth” argument is easily disprovable

The reason why DeSantis said that the maps needed to be changed was because the state had grown so much since 2020, and new Congressional maps needed to be created to make new districts to represent equal populations. There’s just one problem. The data that DeSantis uses is 2020 data, not data that represents any growth whatsoever.

Let’s take the 7th Congressional District, since it includes all of Seminole County. According to the data provided regarding the new redistricting, the population of Seminole County is 470,856. So, what was the population of Seminole County in the 2020 Census. 470,856. Exactly the same.

Let’s move to a district that has been changed, the new District 16. Manatee County, according to the “new” data, has a population of 399,710. What was the 2020 Census number? Yep, 399,710.

So, I might not be a rocket surgeon, but how can you make districts to “represent growth”, when the data you are using is the exact data that you claim is outdated because it doesn’t “represent growth”? This purely shows that DeSantis’s argument of “growth” is pure an utter bullshit, as it easily uses 2020 Census data!

Only Congressional Maps Have Changed

So, we know that the growth argument is total bullshit. But let’s go with it, let’s say it is true. Why are they only changing the Congressional map? Wouldn’t the State House and State Senate maps also need to be changed to “represent growth”? Of course, we know this “growth” argument is bullshit because of what I said before. But this just makes is bullshit wrapped up in dog shit.

So no, this map is not legal at all and is easily provable to not be legal. But there are many more standards that could be used as well. This should be an easy fight for the Florida Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Florida Supreme Court will probably rubberstamp the map, but there could be some violations against federal law, especially in the Tampa area which removed all minority opportunity districts. We’ll see what happens next.

Subscribe now

Did you know that Jimmy Carter’s 1970 gubernatorial campaign sought the support of racists and segregationists? Did that get your attention? Well, back to that later.

But now, back to 2026. The year looks good for Democrats. During the 2025 special elections, Democrats dominated with major swings in special elections, picking up seats in state houses and senates, with the Republicans picking up none. The generic congressional polls show Democrats constantly ahead. And Donald Trump’s approval rating is in the tank, but that doesn’t really matter. Just ask the Republicans in 2022.

But if you are like me, the question that you are probably asking yourself is “how are the Democrats going to fuck it up?” You might feel that it is inevitable that the Democrats will somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Traditionally, Democrats run horrible campaigns. Yes, there are the exceptions like Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s first campaign. But when it comes down to Democratic party efforts (basically, when the party controls the narrative, not a single candidate), they do a really, really bad job at it.

The first thing that Democrats need to ask themselves is “why do Republicans win when they shouldn’t?” Let’s be honest, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton should have won in 2000 and 2016 based on the condition of the country that the incumbent president left behind. And yes, technically they “did” win because they had more of the popular vote, but we have to be “different” in the US with our stupid electoral college.

Anyway, why do Republicans win? It’s simple, they will do whatever they can to win at any cost whatsoever. Whether it is lie, cheat, steal, or whatever method, they will do whatever needs to be done. Let’s not kid ourselves, 2000 was a stolen election because James Baker, Ben Ginsburg, and Mac Stipanovich were ruthless in their steal. And while they did steal it, they didn’t do anything illegal. Calling Georgia’s secretary of state and asking him to find votes to win is illegal. Yet, Trump tried that, which shows that the Republicans will do anything to win, even if not successful.

Subscribe now

Now, do I advocate breaking the law? No, not at all. But the Democrats need to start going into uncomfortable, ethically-questionable territory if they want to take on the Republicans. The whole “when they go low, we go high” mantra needs to end. But I’m not talking about simply doing a half-assed attack ad. I’m talking about going for the jugular, like Lee Atwater. And for those of you who don’t know who Atwater is, you can Google him or read this article.

So, let’s look at the obvious problem with the Republicans right now; they have a racist problem. Even some of the racists within the Republican Party admit that they have a racist problem. And ever since the elevation of personalities like Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes (who, honestly, had no clue who this guy was until Kirk’s killing), the Republican and conservative movement has become more racist.

The clearest evidence of this is in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Vivek Ramaswamy is neck-and-neck with potential Democratic challenger Amy Acton, with the deciding factor being Republican voters less likely to vote for Ramaswamy compared to incumbent Republican senator Jon Husted. In the latest Emerson poll, in regards to Democrats, the gap between Amy Acton and potential US Senate Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown is 1.8% in Brown’s favor (93.4% of Democrats for Acton and 95.2% for Brown). But when it comes to the Republican side, the gap is a whopping 7.2%, favoring Husted (87.9% of Republicans for Husted and 80.7% for Ramaswamy). Since the Democratic numbers are hardly moving and Acton is up by 1% in her race against Ramaswamy despite the fact that Sherrod Brown has more Democrats supporting him, this shows that Acton’s potential victory is probably coming from a lot of Republicans voting for Husted and then skipping the gubernatorial race.

Another datapoint of interest is of those voting for both candidates. This essentially looks at straight-ticket voting compared to who might drop off or where split-ticket voting occurs. Of those who would vote for Jon Husted, 3.8% said that they would vote for Democrat Amy Acton, with 6.2% saying that they are undecided, which is a total of a 10% shift away from Ramaswamy. As for Sherrod Brown voters, 1.7% said that they would vote for Ramaswamy with 4.5% saying they were unsure, totaling 6.2%.

Finally, if we look at white voters, 56.7% said that they were voting for Jon Husted in the US Senate race, with only 52% of whites voting for Ramaswamy, with most of these jumping over to undecided.

Looking at all these datapoints, we can clearly see that those who abandon Ramaswamy are highly likely to be white Republicans. And if we look at age, younger voters under 35 are more likely to vote for Ramaswamy over Husted. But that shifts sharply, with the chart below showing the percentages for each age group and candidate.

This evidence clearly shows that there is a white, millennial and Gen-X, Republican problem for Ramaswamy. And since he is a supporter of the MAGA movement, there is only one reason why he is bleeding support where he should be gaining it, which is race.

If this is the case, then we have to put this into perspective of the election in general nationwide. Let’s look at the State of Florida. There are a few competitive candidates on both sides. For the Democrats you have former Republican David Jolly, who is white, against Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings, husband of previous US Senate candidate and Congresswoman Val Demings. On the Republican side you have Congressman Byron Donalds, black a MAGA and Trump-endorsed Republican, against whoever runs from the DeSantis faction, with the likely candidates being the governor’s wife Casey DeSantis, on newly appointed Lt. Governor Jay Collins, both of whom are white.

Share Dave Trotter's Voting Trend

Now, let’s not beat around the bush! If the race was between David Jolly and Byron Donalds, we might see the same dynamics in Florida as we are seeing in Ohio, which is that enough white Republicans could just say home and not vote for Donalds simply because of his race. This could be particularly an issue in the Panhandle, where we have seen in two special elections (Congressional 1st and State House 3rd) registered Republican voting outnumbering the actual number of votes received by the Republican candidates. If Jolly runs against Casey or Collins, the Republican probably wins. If Demings runs against Donalds, Donalds probably wins. Let’s see how this race emerges, but we are looking at similar dynamics.

With that being the case, the “White Democrat vs. Non-White Republican” could be what leads to Democrats possibly pulling off some upsets. Yes, that is sad to think of it that way, but it is the reality of the situation. And, as I said before, the Republicans will do anything to win.

This brings us back to Jimmy Carter. When Carter ran in 1970 for governor, his campaign used the dog whistles of race to win. He actively sought the endorsement of Alabama governor George Wallace and former governor and extreme segregationist Lester Maddox, who was running to be Carter’s Lt. Governor. Carter’s opponent was Carl Sanders, a progressive on the issue of race. When a photo surfaced of Sanders celebrating with black players of the Atlanta Hawks basketball team (of which Sanders was part owner), the Carter campaign sent the photo with the caption “Here’s Carl Sanders making love to the blacks.” However, once Carter got elected, his inaugural speech renounced segregation and talked about moving forward in Georgia, casting off the state’s segregationist past. Essentially, he told all the racists that he used them to be elected, and now he was going to cast them to the side.

Now, I’m not saying that the Democrats go full-out racist like Carter did in 1970, or like Lee Atwater did back in the 1980s. But the fact has to be recognized that if a black candidate is leading the Republicans at the top of the ticket when running against a white Democrat, it’s going to be difficult for Republicans. It’s going to be even more difficult in an era of Republican politics where one side is actively trying to “out white supremacist” the other side in race to see who can be on parity with the political teachings of Mein Kampf.

So, should Democrats actively be trying to get the non-white Republicans to win the Republican nominations? Absolutely! Of course, don’t announce the playbook, but do it subtly. How that is to be done would need to be discussed. It can go anywhere from funding their campaigns to saying that they feel that the non-white candidate would be the easiest candidate to beat. Once the Republicans have nominated a non-white candidate, let the Republicans tear themselves apart in the internal civil war that will tear the party, leading to just enough people staying home on election day to give the Democrats the win.

Yes, I know this is a drastic approach to winning. But this is the approach that people like Lee Atwater, who did anything he could do to win, used to win. If Democrats don’t approach campaigns in a “win at all costs” way, then they will always be keeping some chips when you should lay all your chips on the table. And no, it doesn’t just need to be this approach. The Democrats should constantly call Trump a PDFile, and showing this video constantly.

Democrats approach elections as a policy debate, whereas Republicans approach it as a war of survival. Until Democrats get that instinct, they will always be in a position of disadvantage.

In the links below, you will see the ratings available on Voting Trend so far.

Read more

Subscribe now

Prior to the 2020 election, Miami-Dade County had been considered a reliable Democratic county. Even though Donald Trump won the state of Florida, Hillary Clinton won Miami-Dade County by nearly 30%. Two years later, Andrew Gillum, who was considered to be the most progressive candidate in the Democratic primary for governor, absolutely dominated Ron DeSantis in Miami-Dade County by 20.9%. And while that is a 10% drop from the presidential race, it was the best result for a Democrat in Miami-Dade County since Lawton Chiles in 1990, when it was simply known as Dade County.

Since then, the county has shifted drastically to the right. In 2020, Joe Biden won the county, but by a reduced 7.3% margin. In 2022, DeSantis won the county by 11.3%, the first time a Republican had won the county since Jeb Bush’s reelection in 2002. Two years later, Trump would win by a similar 11.4% margin.

Subscribe now

The reason why I am mentioning these shifts is to inform those whose political knowledge only starts in 2016 (you know, the MAGA revisionists Gen Zers on YouTube) that Democrats winning in Miami-Dade County has been the exception instead of the rule. This is why any Democrats saying in 2018 that “Miami-Dade is a deep blue county and will never change” would look just as foolish.

Anyway, there were two big events that might show that Miami-Dade is making the shift back to the Democrats. Let’s first talk about the obvious, which is the election of Eileen Higgins. On the national stage, many people are talking about how Higgins is both a progressive and a Democrat. And while that is impressive, since a Democrat hasn’t been mayor of Miami since Manny Diaz (something that people in the national media should just do two minutes of research on), that isn’t the big story. The story is that many Cuban-Americans abandoned another Cuban-American candidate, Emilio Gonzalez, to vote for a candidate that has the most Anglo-Irish-sounding name in decades. This purely shows that ethnic identity is no longer the driving force behind vote choice, at least in Miami-Dade County.

The second big event was what I talked about on YouTube yesterday, which was Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia going after both Donald Trump and Stephen Miller on Twitter. Now, first of all, let’s not beat around the bush. Garcia was the founder of Latinas for Trump, had no trouble with what he did, was fraudulently elected to the Florida State Senate (article here in the New York times about how she won), and has been one of the lowest forms of whale shit in the State Senate. However, as soon as her constituents were being pick up by ICE (oh, and only Hispanic constituents, she doesn’t seem to care about Haitian or other constituents), she started going after Trump. I mean, when you only win an election fraudulently by 32 votes, you need to make sure every one of “your voters” isn’t arrested.

Anyway, she has now started to go after Trump on the ICE raids. Luckily for Democrats, this is a Democratic-leaning district that will highly likely swing over to the Democrats in the next election, which is next year. Also, luckily for Democrats, Garcia is totally screwed. If she remains a Republican, she’ll either lose the primary or general. But she can’t switch over to the Democrats either, because that would require her to run as an independent, not a Democrat. So, luckily, we won’t have to see her face in the Florida Senate in 13 months from now.

Subscribe now

Still, her frustration, whether fake or genuine (because, remember, she only won by 32 votes) does show further division within the greater Hispanic community in Florida. If she is making this shift personally, that means a high-profile MAGA talking head defecting. If she is making this shift because politics requires her to do so because she would lose her state senate district, then this shows even a larger shift. This would also mean that Maria Elvira Salazar, the Republican congresswoman from the 27th Congressional District, would probably lose as well.

The first step toward Democrats bringing Florida back into the fold is to win Miami-Dade County by a 20%+ margin again. If that doesn’t happen, then the rest of the state doesn’t matter. But over the last week, it seems entirely possible that this could happen. Stay tuned.

We’ve gotten used to it with the Republicans. Whenever a Democratic candidate is one click left of Ronald Reagan (who is probably considered a centrist by today’s standard), the Republicans yell “socialist”. Basically, every Democrat is a “socialist”, though Republicans have no idea what a socialist, or a communist, is.

These constant socialist/communist attacks are starting to fall on deaf ears. It’s the “boy who cried wolf” problem. The more they try this scare tactic, the less sting it will have. And now with proclaimed socialists becoming the mayors of major cities, the attacks will matter even less. Yes, there are those who truly identify as socialists, like Bernie Sanders, but that’s way more the exception than the reality.

But in the South, the terms “socialist” and “communist” mean something else.

Starting in the 1940s, these terms were basically dog whistles for “black”. While some would just come out and say the “n word” outright, others tried to avoid it, and just used the word “socialist” or “communist” as code instead. And if a white person was attacked as being “socialist” of “communist”, it was because they were supporters of the civil rights cause, not because they thought that the proletariat should take over the means of production and topple the capitalist system.

And this is the reason why “socialist” label won’t work on Aftyn Behn. A young, white, good-looking Tennessee girl with a southern accent* will be able to deflect any “socialist” or “communist” attacks, especially when her campaign focuses on affordability. She isn’t the image of a “socialist” in the eyes of racist southerners. She simply the wrong color.

So, as we head into Election Day in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, we’ll see that the “communist” tag is going to slip right off of Behn like Teflon.

*Editor’s note: If you don’t think she has a southern accent, then chances are you don’t notice your own southern accent. Us northerners, we hear it.

Subscribe now

However, if we look at the two largest counties’ voting methods in 2024, it is significantly different. Below is the graphic for Montgomery County, where Clarksville is located.

As you can see, only 37% voted on Election Day 2024. That significantly lower than the 56% expected to vote on Election Day according to Emerson. Let’s look at Davidson County, where Nashville is located.

Same thing. Only 20% of voters in the 7th in Davidson County voted on Election Day.

Now, the caveats that I laid out in my last article still hold true. And the other caveat is this poll was conducted before in-person early voting ended. So that 44% is only at that point in time. But for a district that, at minimum, will have 60% pre-Election Day poll, that number is low.

This would indicate that the Van Epp’s showing in this poll is purely off of disproportionate Election Day voting numbers.

Another thing to remember is that those in the Emerson poll who indicated that they have “already voted”, are highly likely to have already cast their vote (though some will lie about “already voting). As for those who are “likely to vote”, both their vote choice AND whether they turn out to vote is hypothetical. The “already voted” number mitigates for any hypotheticals.

My video on YouTube explains it in more detail, as well as early voting patterns.

Emerson College has just dropped a bombshell poll which shows that the Tennessee 7th Congressional District race between Republican Matt Van Epps and Democrat Aftyn Behn is within the margin of error, with Van Epps only ahead 48% to 46%. If this poll holds true, and this race is close, this would be a major improvement for the Democrats. If Behn happens to win, this would be the biggest electoral upset in recent history. Seriously, I’ve been looking at special elections over the last few decades and can’t find anything remotely close to this…if it holds true. The only thing I can find to be remotely close is Carol Mosley Brawn beating incumbent Senator Alan Dixon in the Illinois Democratic primary for US Senate in 1992.

With that being said, let’s look at the caveats before we delve into the poll. First, we have no idea if this poll is an outlier or not, since it is the only poll that has been conducted. This could be an accurate depiction of what is happening in Tennessee, or it could be wildly off. We have no idea.

Another thing is that this is a special election. Anything can happen in special elections, but a shift of this magnitude would be impressive, even for a special election. This was a district that went for both Donald Trump and Marsha Blackburn with 60% of the vote. Personally, I always think that any district under 60% is possible for the other party to win if the conditions are right. Former Congressman Mark Green won 59.5% in 2024, and the conditions might be right (you know, if Trump trying to destroy democracy).

The final caveat, and one that I always talk about, is that turnout matters more than polls. Polls are only a good indicator of an electorate’s intention if those voters come out to vote. And if that is the case, then Democrats are looking good.

Now, let’s get into the poll. The most important crosstab would be the vote choice of those who have already voted. According to the poll, of those who indicated that they have already voted, 55.7% indicated that they have already voted for Behn, with only 42.3% voting for Van Epps. The poll also seems to indicate that 42% of those who are very likely to vote have already voted. Early voting ends today.

The poll doesn’t indicate the geographical distribution of the vote. But if we look at who has turned out so far (thanks to VoteHub for the data), we can see that the county with the most number of votes cast is Davidson County, which includes parts of Nashville in the district. But not far behind is Montgomery County, which includes all of Clarksville. In previous elections, Davidson was a significantly larger percentage of the early voting, which would make the early vote significantly more Democratic, with Republicans making up the difference on Election Day. But if Behn is ahead with those who have already voted, and Davidson County is less of a percentage of the electoral composition, then that is really good news for the Democrats. As with the elections a few weeks ago, this means that the Republicans would have to make up more ground on Election Day than in the past.

But looking at the elections in New Jersey and Virginia, we saw that the Election Day vote wasn’t as strongly Republican as it had been in the past. On Election Night, I was expecting the Democrats to have a huge lead with early votes counted, and that total dwindle away when Election Day votes were counted. That didn’t happen. And if Democrats start voting more on Election Day than in previous elections, the Republicans can’t rely on that Election Day bump.

Another thing to keep in mind is that all of the polls before the elections a few weeks ago had Democrats significantly lower than they ended up performing. The RealClear average had Mikie Sherrill up by only 3.3%, but she ended up winning by 13.8%. Abigail Spanberger’s RC average was 10.2%, but she ended up winning by 15.2%. While the RC average did have Zohran Mamdani winning by a wider margin than he did, the average never had Mamdani over 50%, which he eclipsed on Election Night. The only reason the margin went down was because Andrew Cuomo took votes away from Curtis Sliwa, not because of Democratic underperformance.

As of now, I have no idea what to think. Right now, it looks like a more Republican turnout. But if this election starts shifting Democratic, this will be huge. This will not just be a story of voter turnout, but of voters actually changing their partisan voting preference. We might see a number of voters who voted for Trump/Blackburn/Green just one year ago now voting for Behn. We won’t know until six days from now. But if that is the case, we are seeing a major electoral shift. A realignment? Well, not yet. But could we be on the verge of one? Possibly.

The most impressive win on election night had to be the domination by the Democrats in the two Georgia Public Service Commission seats. It’s been over two decades since a Democrat has been on that commission. But now, Democrats Alicia Johnson and Peter Hubbard find themselves on the commission with impressive wins over two Republican incumbents.

And when I talk about impressive, I mean IMPRESSIVE. Both candidates won by over 25%. This wasn’t just a win, but a blowout. Oh, and did I mention that both of the Democrats beat incumbent Republicans? Tim Echols, who is ethically-challenged to say the least, was appointed to the commission in 2011 and Fitz Johnson was appointed in 2021.

But for some, including myself, I was wondering if this was a true indication of a change in Georgia, or if it was just a special election fluke. Unlike Virginia, New Jersey and New York, which have regularly-scheduled elections in odd years, this was the first special election in an odd year for a statewide office in Georgia since 1883.

Still, many of us remember when Democrat Doug Jones won the special election for US Senate in 2017 to replace Jeff Sessions, who had just been appointed as Trump’s Attorney General. And while Jones won that election, he would eventually lose to Tommy Gooberville, easily the dumbest Senator that we have seen to date.

So, which one was it? Was it an indicator or a fluke.

Read more

I remember entering the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office in May of 1991. That night was a meeting of the Orange County Democratic Executive Committee, which is basically the county’s Democratic Party. I had never been to any political event whatsoever, but was told by one of my professors at Valencia Community College about the meeting, and that if I wanted to be involved with politics that I should attend. I was only 17-years old, so I didn’t know how it would go. I went in, sat there, met a number of people, told them I was interested in helping the Orange County Democrats, and then left.

Within a year, I was a member of that organization being the precinct captain or Precinct 103, became the Vice President for the Central Florida Young Democrats and ran unopposed for the position, helped with Tom Harkin’s presidential campaign in Orange County, and would eventually work for a candidate for state senate named Buddy Dyer, who is currently the longest-serving mayor of Orlando.

At that time, I was, what I would consider, highly involved with Democratic politics. Still, I was able to have my own life. I played hockey regularly, went rollerblading down some of the newly created bike paths in Winter Garden, was able to meet up with my non-political friends (which was an overwhelming majority of my friends), and do things that one does when they have a normal life.

On top of that, I was able to keep on top of the news with minimal effort. In the early 1990s, CNN was basically the only 24-hour news channel with a few hours of commentary at the end of the day, with shows like Crossfire. Honestly, I never watched Crossfire, and just wanted to see what was going on in the news in general. I got most of my news from the Orlando Sentinel, since I was focused more on what was happening locally than federally. I would also pop into C-SPAN every now and then to see what other things were going on on Capitol Hill. YouTube and podcasts were not even words in the English language yet.

Fast forward to 2025. Oh how times have changed.

Now, before I get into the changes, I do want to present a few unpopular positions about politics in the past. Back in the 1990s, one had to actually be active to be involved, particularly influential. You didn’t simply need a camera or keyboard. You needed to get off the couch, go to an event, sit through many boring meetings, and help out by physically doing something. But today we are in the keyboard warrior era where people doom scroll through their 10-second snippets of Tik-Tok political news.

Another thing back then was that we had gatekeepers, but to the betterment of the political party. If there was someone who was on the fringe, then they probably wouldn’t last long because they wouldn’t find the echo chamber within party circles. These two things, I think, benefited political parties and discourse back in the day. Not to say that I didn’t disagree with the party. But the fringe and, in the case of Donald Trump, mentally insane people would not be involved.

Okay, now back to 2025. Where to start?

First, let’s talk about the lifestyle. Politics have become a lifestyle more than anything else. People are glued to political commentary on both sides, whether it is MSNBC, YouTube channels, or political podcasts. People in political circles live and breath politics to such a point that I truly wonder if they know anything about any other subject. It’s just politics 24/7 for these people.

And this is what makes it hard to do a YouTube channel on politics. You need to eat, breath, shit politics 24/7. Your mind has to constantly be in political mode, and has no room for anything else. If you aren’t that way, then you will be run over by all the other political zombies on YouTube that spend every waking hour thinking about politics.

There is one thing that I want to make perfectly clear, and that this is not a Trump issue. This obsessive compulsive disorder for political consumption has been happening since September 11th, 2001. I’d say that’s when politics became a lifestyle instead of a cause. And as the political engagement and involvement has moved away from the meeting rooms and onto our computer monitors, it’s becoming more of a lifestyle.

But the other thing is that political discourse has just become, for the lack of a better word, stupid. First it was the conservatives wanting to “own the Libs”. Now liberals just show up to Trump events and shows how MAGA is. Instead of being a forum about issues facing our country, it’s just become one group trying to “outdo” the other group as far as “owning” the other side. Granted, I feel that the left actually does talk about issues and and there are still a lot of forums for political discussion. But instead, the online space is filled with people like Dean Withers who just wants to “own” the other side. Yeah, that kid might make you feel good because he “took down a MAGA guy”, but how did that actually contribute to anything? It didn’t.

If I got back into politics, I know that I would have to concentrate on it 24/7. I don’t want to do that. I want to enjoy life and not be in a constant state of being pissed off. I find that people who are involved with politics nowadays are absolutely insufferable to be around, because every….single….breath is about politics. I just can’t do that.

Now, I will say that I think that this political lifestyle is a purely American thing, though Canada is coming dangerously close to this insanity. When I was in France last year, it was totally different. I was there when Michel Barnier was selected as Prime Minister, which led to massive protests in the streets. But once the protests were over, people were back to their normal lives. They gave their political opinions, but then went to the cafes and boulangeries. Normal life went on and they didn’t stare at BFM TV constantly. Seriously, look at how many people walking around Paris are staring at their cellphones, and then do the same in any American city.

In fact, when I move to Europe, I might actually become involved with politics there. I’m in the process of getting Slovak citizenship and might actually approach a political party to help them out. But I know that it isn’t something that I will need to be glued to 24/7 in order to be involved.

Seriously, the political lifestyle in America is insane, and not healthy.

Over the last few hours, since the shooting of Charlie Kirk, I’ve gone down a rabbit hole of responses to his death, mostly from those who are supporters of the deceased political commentator. As of now, I’ve probably watched over 150 short videos on YouTube and Facebook. And with almost each and every one of these videos, I’ve noticed two common themes which tie together: Christianity and martyrdom.

These themes keep coming up again and again. Yes, I did see many blaming the left and Democrats, though (as of the time of this article) we have no idea who actually committed the crime. But the ones who have been demanding revenge have been those who have strong so-called Christian beliefs. They also talk about taking things into their own hands, possibly making themselves martyrs to a so-called cause.

But why is this a threat? Personally, I’ve always thought that religion is the biggest threat to progress. But it goes beyond that. The dogmatic nature of religion, and particularly Christianity, has created a cult that might lead to the Christian version of Al-Qaeda.

But why is this the case?

First: Dogma vs. Critical Thinking

Pure and simple, religion requires someone to blindly believe in a dogma that defies logic, like someone being born of a virgin, that three days after Jesus died that he rose from the dead and floated into the sky, that he turned water into wine and walked on water, that Moses parted a body of water that is 56,000 cubic miles, and that Noah took two of each species onto a boat during a flood that a voice told him was coming.

Now, if you are offended by what I just said and yet are a Charlie Kirk supporter, well, the hypocrisy is on you. But still, the fact remains, that in order to believe in any religion, you must blindly believe. You cannot question, you cannot challenge, and you must be obedient to your God.

With that, the biggest threat to Christianity, or any religion, is critical thinking. Once someone starts critically thinking and questioning the dogma that is presented by their religious institution, then people usually move away from said religion. The interesting thing is that they usually don’t move to another faith, but to either being an Atheist (like myself) or agnostic.

This is the main reason why Christian conservatives have problems with universities. Yes, they try to argue that university professors are “indoctrinating” their students, which is highly ironic since that’s exactly what religion does with baseless claims. But what professors do is provide a different point of view, one that challenges the dogma that they have been forced to believe in the past. And this dogma doesn’t necessarily have to be religious, but political, cultural, or other beliefs that one simply passes off as irrefutable facts. And the more that universities fire professors due to right-wing, Christian protests, then the more critical thinking is extinguished from American society.

But over the years, Christians have tried to change the concept of dogma, by trying to redefine it as “truth”. Previously, the narrative was that one had religious faith, which meant that one couldn’t prove that it was true, but that feel that it is true. But over the last few decades, Christians have been calling their beliefs “truth”, treating them like scientific facts. Once many of the Christians, who lack critical thinking skills, think that their dogma is truth, then they have no need to critically think, since they believe that they, and only they, know the truth.

With all that, many of Charlie Kirk’s supporters blindly believe dogmas. This also means that they are easily manipulated as long as that manipulation comes from an authority figure, or a figure that the dogmatic community accepts, like the extremely irreligious Donald Trump. Essentially, there is no critical thinking.

Second: Creating a Culture

The Charlie Kirk-style conservative movement in this countries consist of a number of choices. First, one has to be a Christian, which is a choice. Second, one has to be conservative, which is a choice. Third, one has to be a patriotic American, which is a choice. And over the years, the conservative movement has turned this collection of choices into a culture.

Why is this important? Well, when something is looked as at a collection of choices, then it is allowed to be critiqued. Let’s look at the most mundane of choices, Coke versus Pepsi. If someone prefers one or the other, that’s fine. Yes, there might be a disagreement, but it’s a person’s choice, not their culture.

Once something falls into the realm of culture, then any critique is taken personally. And this is what Kirk’s movement has done, taken what are choices and converged them into one cultural identity. And when someone attacks someone’s culture, then it is a personal attack against them.

Prior to his killing, I thought that the driving force behind the Christian Nationalist Conservative cult was the conservative part, that they didn’t like people who were liberals. But as the Kirk shooting has shown, at least if you look at the responses, is that it is way more driven by religious identity.

Third: Blindly listening to the “Dear Leaders”

So now we have established that we have a group of people who blindly follow a dogma and feel that their culture is being “attacked”. You basically have a group of rabid dogs who feel that they are in a mythical corner. All you need is the leader to spark the kindling.

This is when Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, and others come into the picture. Remember the dogma thing? These Christians follow their leaders without any critical thinking whatsoever. Whatever the Dear Leader tells them to do, they will blindly follow. No, there isn’t any questioning to what is done. There are no Christine Millers. Everybody drinks the Kool-Aid and does what the Dear Leader says.

This is why thought leaders within dogmatic movements are dangerous. And let’s be real, it’s at this point that we can call this movement (and Christianity, in reality) a cult. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” That’s where we are with the modern Christian Nationalist Conservative movement in this country.

Fourth: White Christian Nationalist Martyrdom

The scariest part of this is that many are considering Charlie Kirk a “martyr”. Again, referring to the Oxford Dictionary, “a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.” They are specifically using the term “martyr” to implicate an attack on their religion.

As a reaction, many Kirk supporters are talking about “fighting back” and “revenge”.

Now, we’ve already established that these people blindly follow, don’t have critical thinking skills, follow what their leaders tell them, and look at any act of violence against their Dear Leaders as an attack on culture.

When we come to this point, we’ve come to the point of radicalization. And when we have reached this point, the followers of the Kirk movement might not just take things into their own hands, but also might not fear losing their lives as they will see themselves as martyrs as well. This is especially the case when they think that the “Kingdom of Heaven” is awaiting them, similar to the idea of entering the “Kingdom of Paradise” that the 9/11 attackers had in mind.

I’m writing this on September 11th, which obviously wasn’t planned because the Charlie Kirk killing was just yesterday. But we’ve already seen what damage can be done when a group of people are driven by dogmatic martyrdom motives. I’m afraid that yesterday’s shooting has activated the Christian form of Al-Qaeda. Hopefully I’m wrong, but the fear is there.

I wanted to make a quick post. and I have started a new Substack called The 11th Province, which of course is a jab at Trump’s 51st State nonsense. It’s a Substack entirely focused on Canadian politics from the perspective of two Americans.

Join The 11th Province

As many of you know, I received my MA from McGill University in Political Science, focusing on Canadian politics. That’s really where my heart is. As for Kartik, he and I have been talking about Canadian politics for decades. Kartik even met Gilles Duceppe when attending the University of Florida during the 1995 sovereignty referendum.

So, if you are someone who is interested in Canadian politics, both policy and electoral, please join our new Substack by clicking the button below.

The 11th Province

Subscribe now

A month ago, I made an ominous yet obvious warning here on Substack. Or at least I thought it was obvious. I stated:

If the courts make a decision at the federal level, WHO ENFORCES THOSE DECISIONS? The DOJ and FBI. Who controls the DOJ and FBI? Pam Bondi. Who controls Pam Bondi? Donald Trump!

That mostly fell on deaf ears. Of course, once Donald Trump nominated Matt Gaetz as the Attorney General, it should have been blatantly obvious as to how Trump was going to use the Justice Department. But it wasn’t to most liberals, Democrats, and anti-Trumpers. They continued to say “the courts…the courts…the courts…”, as if this was going to be some saving grace from Trumpism.

Then came Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The “the courts…the courts” people are finally starting to get it. They are finally starting to ask “is due process dead in the country?” They are finally reading the writing on the wall, and waking up to the reality that court decisions might not necessarily apply.

Still, a simple understanding of our government as well as Trump’s authoritarian tendencies should have made this extremely obvious months ago. Right?

But this is the problem with the anti-Trump forces, and a curse that Democrats have had for years, which is that they cannot think beyond the moment. Is it possibly a coping mechanism so that they don’t have to deal with the reality of the moment we are in? Possibly. But Democrats have always been horrible at asking the “what is their endgame” question.

Subscribe now

Take Elon Musk for example. He and a bunch of kids went into the computers of the IRS, Department of Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs and now the Department of Labor and collected the personal information of everyday Americans who have bank accounts connected those departments. Musk has said that this is part of DOGE’s plan to reduce the size of government.

But why does Musk need MY private information and bank account to shut down a department? My checking account and routing numbers have nothing to do with whether the Department of Education is shut down or not. So, again, WHY does Musk, or anyone for that matter, need my information?

Anti-Trump forces quickly pointed out that this was “bad”. And yes, hacking into our personal information is bad. But the anti-Trump forces continue to fail when asking WHY is Musk doing this? What is the endgame? They are so focused on the hacking, and seem to be oblivious to what Musk’s intentions are.

Let’s just say I’ve been slowly taking money out of the bank since February.

But let’s continue with Musk. As I’m sure you know, Musk’s DOGE program is tasked with slashing the size of government, and reducing government costs. But all of this “slashing” has happened this year, with thousands of workers losing their jobs. The money for these government employees had already been allocated in previous budgets.

Yes, the cuts are bad, but is Musk simply just cutting people and pocketing the money? If Michelle, who was an accountant at the Department of Agriculture, was fired on February 1st, but the fiscal year ends on September 30th, where did the rest of her income go, since it had already been allocated? Democrats and anti-Trump forces are so focused on the actual cuts themselves, they are not asking themselves “what is Elon Musk doing with the excess money?”

Subscribe now

Then we get to birthright citizenship, and this is a BIG ONE!

The Democrats are so focused on what is in front of them, which is the citizenship of naturalized citizens. But they aren’t looking at the big picture. They aren’t looking at what the endgame could be.

Birthright citizenship is determined by the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Let’s look at what that says specifically:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where is the “birthright citizenship only applies to naturalized citizens” part? If it’s in there, it must have been written in invisible ink!

Birthright citizenship affects ALL American citizens! It affects the newly-minted citizen who just took their loyalty oath yesterday, as well as someone whose 8th-great grandfather was born in Delaware in 1684, which is me.

But, again, the Democrats are only focused on the “naturalization” part. If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump on this, it affects ALL of our citizenship statuses! Every…single…person! Again, Democrats aren’t looking at the endgame, but just the here and now.

To end this article, last week on Bill Maher’s show, Steve Bannon said that he was absolutely confident that Donald Trump was going to win a third term. The confidence that he had when making this statement was chilling, as if they had the “plan” ready.

Of course, Bill Maher did the old “well, the law says he can’t do that” line. You know, the one that we’ve heard Democrats use time and time again to no avail during King Trump’s regime. Again, totally clueless.

Democrats need to wake up to the fact that we are no longer in a traditional norms society, where better men and women follow the law guided by a moral compass. Those days are over. The authoritarians are here, and using the ambiguity of our laws to run roughshod over everything, including tearing down the laws and institutions of this country.

Again, I don’t know if Democrats are looking at the “brighter side” of things or are just absolutely oblivious to what the future holds. Either way, they need to start asking the “what is the endgame” questions. That’s the only way to prepare for Trump’s authoritarian destruction.

It’s been a difficult last few weeks for Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Since the resignation of Justin Trudeau as prime minister, the swearing in of Mark Carney as the new prime minister, and Donald Trump declaring tariff wars against Canada as well as constantly flirting with the “51 State” nonsense, Pierre Poilievre’s chances of being the next prime minister of Canada is slipping through his fingers.

On the other side of the world, Australian Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton is going through something somewhat similar. Poised to be the next Australian prime minister just a few weeks ago, Trump’s tariff war against the world (which includes Australia), has made a Dutton government less likely.

Trump’s attacks, as well as his uncertainty, has led to a “rally behind the flag” effect in both Canada and Australia. The benefactors of these rallies have been the center-left governments of Mark Carney and Anthony Albanese, which has allowed these two to use their bully pulpits to drive home a patriotic, as well as anti-Trump, message.

Subscribe now

For the Liberals in Canada and Labor in Australia, the task is easy; they stand up against Trump, wave their country’s flag, and claim to be protecting the sovereignty of their country. That’s their campaign message in a nutshell.

But for the center-right parties the task is much more difficult, thanks to Donald Trump.

Let’s first start with Poilievre’s Conservatives in Canada. The conservative movement has a small, vocal but not necessarily insignificant, pro-Trump minority, led by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. In order for the Conservatives to form government, they will need the support die-hard, nearly (if not totally) MAGA-style conservatives in Western Canada. However, they also need the support in the Toronto suburbs and neighboring cities, commonly known as “The 905”, who have typically rejected Western Canadian conservatism before the Conservative Party merger in 2003.

This leaves Poilievre in a tight spot. He can’t criticize Donald Trump too harshly, because he would lose his Western ridings, possibly by not voting or jumping over to the People’s Party. But every moment that he fails to land any blows against Trump, he loses support in other provinces. It’s a pure Catch-22.

This has played out in the polls as well. If we look at Alberta, the Conservative Party has maintained a strong lead, looking as if they might surpass their 2021 totals in the province. But in Ontario, the Conservatives went from being a few percentage points up, to now being significantly down in the province. It seems as if a Red Tory revival is happening. Conservatives who felt comfortable with Stephen Harper, Andrew Scheer, and Erin O’Toole just don’t seem to be as comfortable with Pierre Poilievre. They also seem to be quite comfortable with Mark Carney.

Subscribe now

The longer that Poilievre remains timid when talking about Trump, the more it hurts him where it matters. The same holds true for Peter Dutton. Like Poilievre, Dutton has held back harsh criticism against Trump, knowing that any attacks against Trump could see defections on his right.

Unlike the Canadian Conservatives, who really can only run to the People’s Party, right-wing Trump supporters in Australia would run over to two parties. First is Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party. And no, that isn’t a coincidence, it’s truly a MAGA-style party in Australia. They could also find their way over to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, especially if we are talking about immigration hardliners.

Of course, Albanese attacking Trump and rallying around the flag might just be enough for Labor to retain their close seats, which are geographically all over the place. The only issue for Labor is the two party preferred vote. Recent polls haven’t shown too much of a shift in the primary vote (first round vote). However, Labor is now starting to take a lead, though slightly, in the two-party preferred vote.

From polling, which isn’t really the most detailed in Australia, it seems like a lot of those who would vote for an independent as their primary vote are more likely to support Labor in the two-party preferred vote. The reason for this could be that 2022 Teal independents primary voters (fiscally conservative-leaning independents who are environmentally and socially to the left) are sending their two-party preferred vote to Labor instead of the Liberals. There is little indication that these voters have shifted over to Labor for their primary vote.

When all is said and done, Donald Trump is pushing the center-right parties further to the right, leaving the center-left party to capture that vast number of pure centrist voters. Dutton has a little more room to criticize because of the two-party preferred, but Poilievre is purely stuck.

The 11th Province - Subscribe

For years I’ve been banging on about how bad American politics has become. And when it comes to the world of polling, and particularly polling aggregates, it’s become even worse.

During the last election cycle, the top polling aggregators (Nate Silver, RealClear, and FiveThirtyEight) allowed polls that weren’t just dubious, but outright absurd. The would have no polling history, hid who their staff were, didn’t provide any crosstabs, or were proven to have just made up data when looking at the unweighted crosstabs specifically.

Here are some examples:

Patriot Polling - started by two high school students with no experience in public opinion or survey research. They recently released a poll saying that most Greenlanders wanted to join the United States.

Trafalgar Group - uses a “Social Desirability Bias” method, which totally takes out random sampling, and instead inserts their own opinion into what should be a random, scientific method.

SoCal Strategies - started by someone who STILL hasn’t revealed their identity, and basically popped up during the election, usually to push a Republican narrative.

AtlasIntel - a Brazilian polling firm that has been deemed “accurate” according to Nate Silver and the old FiveThirtyEight website, but have extremely inaccurate crosstabs, showing that Trump was going to win 47% of black voters in Pennsylvania, and that Harris was performing better with male voters while female voters supported Trump.

AtlasIntel is the perfect example of what is wrong with American politics. I did a video about AtlasIntel on my YouTube channel (click here for the video) talking about the discrepancies in their crosstabs. However, both Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight have deemed them “accurate” because they were the closest to the horserace number (Trump vs. Harris).

Of course, there are many problems with this. The first and obvious problem is that the crosstabs show that their overall horserace number wasn’t based on a high-quality sample. Essentially, they got it so wrong on so many levels that it ended up being correct somehow. The second problem is that the aggregators purely look at the final numbers instead of what the underlying data says. This creates a fallacy of thinking that these polls are good, when they simple were lucky enough to hit the bullseye twice. They are the polling equivalent to Timothy Dexter.

Subscribe now

Essentially, most of the polls that are presented on the “aggregator” websites are garbage, and the underlying data purely shows this to be the case.

Now, let’s go over to Canada.

A few days ago, a new poll popped up from someone called “Kolosowski Strategies”, started by a guy who is a trustee on the school board in York. This poll, which was the only poll that showed the Conservative Party ahead in Canada, was initially included in the Wikipedia list of polls (but has since been removed).

Furthermore, the website for this so-called polling firm was just created a few weeks ago, and the phone number on this site connects to a pest control website, which seems to be owned by Robert Kolosowski, the namesake of this “polling firm”.

I reached out to him to ask him about his firm, and to get some clarity about the relatively short history of his company. He responded, saying that he had just started it, but had experience in survey research.

But there were a lot of problems with his poll. First, he was weighing the poll based on 2021 votes. As many who observe Canadian politics know, the Conservatives won the plurality of the popular vote in 2021, though the Liberals won the most seats. The poll being “weighed” in this ways would lead to the Conservatives being ahead almost every time.

Another problem was with his sample in general. According to the report he published (which you can see here), he sampled 1,448 respondents. Of those, 870 indicated that they voted for the Conservative Party in the last election. That would mean that 60% of his respondents voted for the Tories, when only 34% of the popular vote in 2021 was for the Conservatives. In addition, oversampling of a certain group is usually done to get a better understanding of a smaller subgroup that you want to include in your overall sample. The fact that the Conservatives had the most votes in the last election means that they should have been the least likely group to be oversampled.

The second issue that only 22 respondents in his poll said they voted for the Bloc Quebecois in the 2021 election, and 28 for the NDP. This means only 3.5% of his sample were Bloc/NDP voters, yet they consisted of 25.5% of the overall 2021 electorate!

Furthermore on the NDP, he said that his poll was able to show “one third of NDP voters in 2021 were moving over to the Liberals in 2025”. However, having only 28 respondents would not nearly be enough to glean anything regarding NDP voters in this election, as that small of a sample size would absolutely be statistically insignificant (p-value more than .05).

In addition to that, he had more people sampled who votes for the People’s Party than the NDP and Bloc Quebecois COMBINED!

So, I decided to email him again asking about some of these issues. Kolosowski responded to my first email in 30 minutes. It’s now been two days and he hasn’t responded to my second email (though I know he opened my email because I have an email opening tracker). You can see my response email below (please forgive the typos).

If this poll had been conducted in the United States, I’m almost certain that it would have been included in the aggregates conducted by Nate Silver, RealClear Politics, and the former FiveThirtyEight, because of the low bar that have set. Basically, anyone is admitted.

But in Canada, that is not the case.

This is where our protagonists Éric Grenier and Philippe Fournier come in. These two men are the top polling aggregators in Canada. They could have easily included the Kolosowski Strategies poll if they wanted to, but they have refused. I contacted Mr. Fournier about why he hasn’t included them, and he stated that he didn’t know who this was and that Kolosowski hadn’t reached out to him. I assume it’s the same reason Grenier hasn’t included them in the CBC Poll Tracker.

And this is the reason why I have almost exclusively written about Canadian politics lately, and have become absolutely repulsed by American politics. In Canada, there are people who want to know the truth, and to provide the best academic and journalistic quality when it comes to political number crunching. Only polls that are deemed are credible are considered seriously. Both Grenier and Fournier have shown us what quality looks like, even though I’ve been critical of Grenier’s methods in the past.

In the United States, subpar polls conducted by dubious “companies” (if they can even be called that) are allowed. Hopefully, this frivolous cancer will not spread to the Great White North.