HEY NANCY MACE, THE SUPERVILLAIN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MIGHT BE A WHITE GUY IN A SUIT

Nancy Mace began expressing interest in South Carolina's now-vacant U.S. Senate seat before Lindsey Graham's body was even cold. She -- or, rather, the unnamed surrogate who spoke to The Hill on her behalf -- revealed her plans in the most graceless manner imaginable:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is considering a run to replace the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the Senate.

Asked about interest in replacing Graham, a person familiar with Mace’s thinking told The Hill Sunday morning: “YOLO” — the saying, “You Only Live Once.”

I didn't even like Lindsey Graham and that offends me. (I assume that the "person familiar with Mace’s thinking" was Mace herself.)

Mace finished fifth in the recent gubernatorial primary in her state, so I don't expect her to win the upcoming Senate primary. But I expect her to work quite a bit of Islamophobia into her campaign (and into her likely future career as a podcaster).

Before Graham died, Mace was posting this at her congressional Twitter account:

We approve this message. https://t.co/Haozigy68F

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) July 11, 2026

And this at her personal account:

pic.twitter.com/TbO0hGnH3C

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) July 11, 2026

(That's a Robert Crumb drawing meant to accompany a Charles Bukowski short story. I suspect Mace doesn't know that.)

Mace also retweeted this:

When I first saw this tweet, I wasn't sure who was being blamed here. But the answer is clear from the responses to the original tweet.

I know the cause pic.twitter.com/HkAxqGnG41

— TruthOverTreason (@WarriorMark8) July 11, 2026

These abhorrent vermin do this in every nation they infest. They are even doing this in Japan. Why in the holy fuck does anyone allow these sub human cretins into first world nations!? They are uncivilized savages that follow a pedophile prophet and want to dominate the world. pic.twitter.com/7iQoI5rTAS

— Maximus Timaeus (@TimaeusMaximus) July 12, 2026

Yep we know why and who done it pic.twitter.com/TpBwgJXti7

— Wild Rose (@truthplusfacts) July 12, 2026

Rational Wiki tells us:

Knights Templar International is a far-right 'news' organization.... As hinted by their name, they claim to be defenders of Christianity against the Muslim invaders and haven't quite realised that the Third Crusade ended a while ago. This hate group is not to be confused with the benign Knights Templar, a Masonic organization which completely disavows Knights Templar International.

The burned church is in Bushwick, Brooklyn, a formerly Black neighborhood that's been aggressively gentrified over the past couple of decades. Islamicist arson seems highly unlikely in this case -- Black Christians and Muslims have generally coexisted peacefully in New York for a long time.

Mace, Roy, and Knights Templar International think Muslims are the culprits here, but even the New York Post doesn't believe that. The Post says the fire might have been deliberately set, as do other local reports. Brownstoner tells us:

A video shows a person walking back and forth in an area outside the South Bushwick Reformed Church not generally accessible to the public shortly before a fire ravaged the historic structure on Friday, June 19.

Security video from a property neighboring the church shows a person making repeat trips to a side of the wood frame building that is rarely accessed by the public just before the fire started.

But as New Yorkers know, the arsonist (if there was one) could be a mentally ill person, or someone with a non-ideological vendetta against the church -- or the fire could be related, as so many things are in New York, to the real estate market.

And, in fact, the pastor of the church, which has landmark status, has been resisting offers from real estate developers. The neighborhood news site Grime Square reports:

... local developers had been closely watching one of the last parts of the area that has yet to be redeveloped.

“I understand the building is landmarked. Are you still interested in selling the property? I currently represent a buyer who would be interested in purchasing and is familiar with landmarked properties,” Gregory Bartlett, principal at RBM Brokerage, had written to [Pastor James E.] Steward just last month. What the broker had in mind is unclear, as de-designating a landmarked building is exceedingly rare.

An empty plot is precious in Bushwick, where asking prices for homes are reaching seven figures. On Friday, Steward said he was receiving “At least 10 [calls] per day.” He advised he had not returned any developer’s call.

“Very sorry to hear about the fire over the weekend,” wrote Anthony Gagliano, a broker with Strategic Realty Partners. “The idea is for the development team to take on the cost and responsibility of reconstructing the church’s superstructure and exterior envelope... In exchange, they would seek to acquire certain development rights associated with the property.” Gagliano sent the email two days after the fire.

So maybe this is just about money, prime real estate, and development rights -- which makes a lot more sense in New York than arson as a tool of jihad.

Here's another Mace tweet from just before Lindsey Graham's death:

At what point do we call it what it is? The Democrat Party has become the new Communist Party.

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) July 11, 2026

This isn't true. But if Mace wants to know why Democrats are increasingly open to voting for candidates who are skeptical of capitalism, she might want to consider the possibility that capitalists brought this anger on themselves.

GRAHAM, McCONNELL, ALITO AND THE REPUBLICAN AUTOMAT

Lindsey Graham is dead. He was a bad person and a weak person. Steve Schmidt wrote his obituary in 2020:

People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now. The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea.

I don't mourn him, but I don't celebrate his death.

Mitch McConnell is a bad person who may or may not be dead. I won't mourn him, but I won't celebrate his death either.

What political difference will their deaths make?

I know that most of you see the Republican Party as nothing more than a Donald Trump personality cult, but it's really more of a hive mind. Wherever the dominant figures in the party stand on a particular issue, that's where just about everyone else in the party stands. When Graham's replacement glides to victory in November in South Carolina, and McConnell's replacement does the same in Kentucky, you'll barely notice the difference in how Republicans do business.

Graham's replacement will be less of a foreign policy neocon than Graham was -- though Graham's interventionism has never been an impediment to the allegedly isolationist Trump (who's become a Graham-like interventionist in his second term). Mark Lynch, the candidate Graham beat in the Republican primary earlier this year, claimed to be very different from Graham on foreign policy:

Lindsey Graham has been one of the strongest voices in Washington for foreign intervention, backing prolonged military engagements and continued overseas involvement without clear endpoints. From supporting open-ended commitments to approving billions in foreign aid, his approach has too often put America in conflicts without defined objectives or accountability.

Mark Lynch believes America’s military exists to defend the United States, not to fight endless wars abroad. He will push for a strong, focused national defense that protects our homeland, respects the Constitution, and ensures that every deployment serves a clear and necessary purpose.

But if Lynch were to become South Carolina's next senator, he'd back whatever "prolonged military engagements" Trump dreams up, and he'll never fight to ensure that a president of his own party identify "a clear and necessary purpose" for those engagements. He'll vote for budgets with "billions in foreign aid" because the party's leaders in Congress will insist.

McConnell? Congressman Andy Barr is the Republican candidate who'll replace him. From his campaign website:

He's more loyal to Trump than McConnell has been, though McConnell was never disloyal when it might make a significant difference.

McConnell is the guy who rammed Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court appointment through the Senate just before the 2020 election. McConnell is no longer the Senate majority leader -- but do you think John Thune will have any trouble ramming through Samuel Alito's replacement this fall if, as many assume, he steps down in the next month or two? It's not the individual leader who matters.

I won't really cheer Alito's departure. Who'll get his job? Federal judge James Ho, perhaps?

On September 29, 2022, Ho delivered a speech at a Federalist Society conference in Kentucky and said he would no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School, which he said was plagued by "cancel culture" and students disrupting conservative speakers. Ho said Yale "not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it", and he urged other judges to likewise boycott the school....

On May 6, 2024, Ho cosigned a letter alongside twelve federal judges, which he shared with CNN, vowing not to hire Columbia University law students or undergraduates for concerns that the university is not doing enough to counter students protesting the war in Gaza....

Ho was for many years a prominent defender of birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, but shifted his views on the topic after Donald Trump was elected in 2024.

A Fox News grandpa on the Court is almost certain to be replaced by a younger Fox News grandpa.

When I think of the GOP, I think of the old Automat -- you take a piece of apple pie and it's replaced in the slot by a nearly identical piece of apple pie.

Occasionally it matters when one particular Republican is gone, but not very often. This is why I think it's important to attack the GOP as a party, in the hopes of winning over soft supporters who choose the party in elections primarily because it's the default choice where they live. They're the ones keeping the party going, ensuring that zealots replace zealots in perpetuity even though they're not zealots themselves. Only constant attacks on the GOP as a whole can possibly threaten its ongoing dominance of American politics.

PLATNER WITHOUT GUILT

I had some positive things to say about Graham Platner while he was a Senate candidate. I'm not going to engage in self-flagellation now that he's out. The early critics were right about his character, but it's understandable that many people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Commentators who've compared him to Donald Trump overlook a basic difference: Platner wasn't an unsocialized, amoral hatemonger on the campaign trail. Except when he was talking about people in power, his rhetoric was idealistic and positive. He punched up, not down. He claimed to be a better person than he'd been in the past, whereas Trump wanted everyone to understand that he was the same slimy bastard he'd always been. (His promise was that he'd be a slimy bastard on his voters' behalf.)

The consultants who saw him as a candidate who could win over working-class white men were wrong, just as Kamala Harris was wrong to think that Tim Walz would have similar appeal. But Republicans do this too: they run candidates of color and imagine that they'll make their electorate more diverse. It never really works: last year, the GOP's Black gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Winsome Earle-Sears, won just 7% of the Black vote. In Florida and Ohio, Republican gubernatorial candidates of color, Byron Donalds and Vivek Ramaswamy, are facing backlash from racist GOP-base voters. Yet no one berates the GOP for trying to diversify.

Platner wasn't winning over men or the working class: according to a New York Times/Portland Press Herald poll that was released on July 1, Platner was trailing Susan Collins 52%-45% among men, while leading 52%-44% among women; among non-college whites, he trailed 59%-36%.

Women stuck with him even after a Times story accused him of physical violence in his relationships with women. As a Times story noted after he'd been accused of rape and had withdrawn from the race,

Several women said they recognized Mr. Platner’s swaggering style from men in their lives who had hurt them.

They supported him anyway, at least until this week, because he cared about their medical bills, had ideas to make housing more affordable and seemed to be a normal guy who meant what he said and took responsibility for past mistakes.

I think straight women expect all men to be flawed, sometimes badly, and they're probably right to feel that way. They set the bar low because they don't have a choice. Redeemable is the best they can hope for.

(I think Black people feel this way about whites -- polls showed that 60% of Black Virginians didn't want Governor Ralph Northam to resign in 2019 after he was seen in an old photo that featured blackface. On balance, they felt he'd been an ally, just as they felt Joe Biden was an ally despite some racially dubious remarks. It seems impossible to find a white politician who's an unflawed ally.)

What the women interviewed by the Times were feeling about Platner's agenda is what a lot of people felt nationwide: he had the right ideas, and he expressed them at a time when it appeared that most Democrats running for high-level positions would be Schumeresque mediocrities. I think many voters weren't romanticizing him as a swaggering, two-fisted blue-collar hero -- he was an eloquent, charismatic progressive, different in style from Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but with similar appeal. Why shouldn't voters have hoped that every scandal was the last one? He was saying what many voters wanted to hear.

I know a lot of you got off the bus when news about the Totenkopf tattoo broke. As for me, I grew up watching Hogan's Heroes and later discovered The Producers. A few years later, we had the Ramones, whose first album started with "Blitzkrieg Bop" and ended with "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World" ("I'm a Nazi shatze, you know I fight for the Fatherland"). So flippancy about Nazis was commonplace in my youth. Sometimes Jews were the creators of these flippant works -- Mel Brooks was Jewish, as were two of the Ramones, and Robert Clary, one of the stars of Hogan's Heroes, was a survivor of the camps. And when a David Bowie flirted with fascism early in his career, it seemed like a callow attempt at transgression, which is what I think Platner's tattoo was. (Bowie grew up and denounced racism in the music business.)

I assume Platner knew what his tattoo meant, despite his denials, but I also assume he meant it as a generalized adolescent-male fuck-you gesture rather a statement of political philosophy. (I think the military allows you to be a teenage boy well into adulthood.) The racist and sexist Reddits posts seemed more serious. I think he's genuinely anti-racist now, but I don't know if he's ever gotten past his misogyny. I hope so. But it's understandable that voters want to believe he has.

The narrative that's emerging is this: a consultant named Daniel Moraff -- who himself has been accused of sexual misconduct -- discovered Platner, vetted him poorly, and persuaded other progressives to back him, thus preventing other progressives from running for the Senate seat. That's unforgivable. I hope Moraff never finds work in Democratic politics again.

All this is a shitshow, but I don't accept the premise that Democrats are now doomed in Maine. The party's numbers actually improved in the betting markets after Platner withdrew -- with good reason. Do you remember the Canadian Liberal Party's rise in the polls after Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as prime minister in January 2025?

The Liberals under Mark Carney won the election in April.

Kamala Harris didn't win, but she gave Democrats a fighting chance in 2024, improving on Joe Biden's weak poll numbers:

And with Keir Starmer's resignation as Britain's prime minister, Labour's fortunes are improving:

Labour has slashed Reform's poll lead as a "Burnham bounce" means the party's popularity has surged by 6 per cent.

The poll by Find Out Now put Reform at 24 per cent, down three percentage points from last week, with Labour now hot on Nigel Farage's party's heels at 21 per cent....

It is the first poll to suggest the Labour Party could enjoy a popularity boost following Andy Burnham's succession....

This could easily happen once Maine Democrats have a new candidate, if the party emerges ready to fight, with self-respect rather than self-abasement. Please note that on the rare occasions when a Republican succumbs to scandal -- George Santos, Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn -- there's no party-wide breast-beating, no publicly aired recriminations. Republicans just put their heads down and keep fighting. That's what Democrats should do now.

OFF FOR A WEEK

I have travel plans for this week, so I won't be posting. I hope there'll be some guests posts while I'm away, but I'll be back on Sunday. See you then....

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A TOXIC PARTISANSHIP MACHINE

Mainstream journalists and pundits decry "toxic partisanship" in America without ever recognizing the fact that the Republican Party and its agents treat the generation of toxic partisanship as a primary goal. They wake up every morning, sip their coffee, open their laptops, and think, How can I make my audience hate Democrats and liberals today? Every news story must be recast so that their politcal enemies are the villains, while they are either victims or heroes.

So we had the neo-fascist Patriot Front marching through Washington yesterday, their faces covered by gaiters. Some of them carried Confederate flags. This was embarrassing to Republican commentators, so they agreed on the message that these marchers couldn't possibly be people from their side. Their only disagreement was over which hated group was responsible.

I call fake. Looks more like Antifa in costume. No one should be allowed to cover their faces pic.twitter.com/2NoBWHpkKT

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) July 4, 2026

Feds https://t.co/sOwAPseYPg

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) July 4, 2026

Ingraham, of course, is a long-time Fox News host. Kremer is the executive director of Women for America First, a group co-founded by her mother, Amy Kremer, the former chair of Tea Party Express. On behalf of Women for America First, the Kremers organized the January 6, 2021, "Stop the Steal" rally that preceded the Trumpist invasion of the Capitol.

Kremer also has some thoughts about the recent bad weather in D.C.:

I’m telling y’all that someone with an extreme case of TDS geoengineered this weather in DC.

Same way they geoengineered Trump’s inauguration to be one of the coldest in U.S. history.

People with TDS hate Trump more than they love America. https://t.co/5zcC9i7exN

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) July 3, 2026

Ordinary Republicans might not believe this literally, but Kremeresque conspiratorialism combined with the daily Democrat- and liberal-bashing from Republican politicians and the right-wing media leads the rank-and-file to believe that someone they hate is to blame for everything that doesn't go their way:

Democratic Establishment politicans and mainstream journalists have no idea that the primary daily goal of Republicans and Republican propagandists is to sow hatred and division, to send the message that Democrats and liberals do nothing but commit evil acts, while Republicans in good standing are never in error and are always heroic, or at least innocent and virtuous.

It's easy to blame Donald Trump for this, but Republican conspiracy theories long predate Trump's entry into politics. Kitty Dukakis burned an American flag! Bill Clinton had dozens of people killed and ran drugs out of Mena Airport! John Kerry lied about his service record in Vietnam!

Partisan smears aren't just a feature of Republican rhetoric -- they're the party's central message. Republicans have learned that they can't sell their agenda (more tax breaks for billionaires, fewer services for ordinary Americans, second-class status if you're not straight, white, and male), so this is what they lead with, every damn day. If we have a crisis of toxic partisanship in America, it's because Republicans are leading the way.

TRUMP'S BASE DOESN'T THINK HE WANTS TO CHEAT, AND TRUMP MIGHT BE SIMILARLY DELUSIONAL

In his speech at Mount Rushmore last night, President Trump said:

We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms, if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise. But if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the SAVE America Act, then we will not lose an election for 100 years.

You probably hear that as a Trump promise that Republicans will rig elections in their favor for a century. Trump's base hears it differently. Trump's base hears it as a Trump promise to un-rig elections for a century.

Trump's base lives in an information bubble, and a large percentage of Trump voters live in geographic bubbles, surrounded by people who look like them and think like them (and vote like them). They can see that America is full of people who aren't like them, but they believe these people either aren't Americans or shouldn't be Americans -- if you're not a Republican voter, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or they believe that there are large numbers of non-Republican voters, but not enough to win elections without fake ballots, rigged vote-counting processes, and the votes of non-citizens.

I don't know of anyone on our side who thinks this way. I know there are many people who believe Elon Musk rigged the 2024 election (I don't believe it was rigged), or who believe that Trump would have lost if non-voters had been persuaded to vote -- but I don't know anyone who believes that Democrats should be victorious nationwide in every fair election for the foreseeable future. This is what Republicans believe about their party. We know better. We know that Republicans are real, and that they vote legitimately. We know they win some elections legitimately. Republicans can't accept the same fact about Democrats.

Trump is a cynic and a crook, but I think, on some level, he believes that the SAVE America Act would merely rid the country of illegitimate votes, and that America has an overwhelming GOP majority that would legitimately give every subsequent election victory to the Republicans. Trump needs to believe this because of the gaping wound his soul suffered when he lost in 2020, not to mention the lesser but still painful wound he suffered in 2016 when he won the presidency but lost the popular vote.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Maybe he knows better. Maybe he merely believes that he needs to con the world into thinking that he scored resounding victories in three straight elections, so that no one will ever again claim that he was a loser at any moment of his life. It's certain that he wants to rig future elections less out of loyalty to the GOP than because he wants to set up an electoral system that he can claim would have given him a victory if it had been in place in 2020 (and 2016).

I suspect that Trump doesn't believe that there's any such thing as objective truth -- truth is whatever people can be persuaded to believe, and he can make something true by first persuading himself that it's true and then persuading the country. So maybe he doesn't even have an opinion on whether the SAVE America Act produced clean elections or rigged elections -- he thinks it will produce elections won by Republicans, which is what he wants, and therefore the results must be legitimate. And his base has a different delusion -- that Democratic voters aren't real -- so they want what he wants.

"WE WANT CANDIDATES WHO AREN'T WOKE! ... NO, NOT LIKE THAT"

According to two new polls, Graham Platner is struggling in his race against Senate Susan Collins. Greg Sargent writes:

Two major polls of the Maine Senate race dropped this week, and they told the same story: The race is incredibly close, and Democrat Graham Platner has real work to do among the working class....

The [New York] Times survey has Platner up two among likely voters overall, 49–47, and the Fox poll has Collins up three, 50–47. It’s a dead heat—it’s winnable, but he should probably be leading by more given the state’s Democratic lean, which is being outweighed by the brutal press he’s sustained over his Nazi-like tattoo and alleged violence against women.

You might think the Fox poll has an anti-Democratic bias, but as I've said many times over the ycears, Fox surveys are surprisingly unskewed. A survey released the same day shows Democrat Jon Ossoff leading the Georgia Senate race by double digits.

Sargent focuses on Platner's apparent failure so far to win blue-collar Mainers over with economic populism:

But note this: In the Times poll, Platner trails among voters without a college degree, a proxy for the working class, by 37–58. In the Fox poll, that’s 41–56.

... [Platner] speaks in a left-populist idiom that seeks to connect with working people’s struggles. So his numbers among them are concerning.

But Sargent also notes this:

The Times poll has working-class voters saying Platner has “good character” by 37–57 and “the right kind of moral values” by 36–57.

Many Democrats thought that the way to appeal to voters who work with their hands is to run a candidate who works with his hands. That's not working in Maine. But we were also told that rough-hewn voters with dirt under their fingernails are turned off by the prissy moral scolding of ordinary Democrats, and that in 2024 they responded well to Donald Trump's frequent appearances on podcasts hosted by bros who aren't feminist and use a lot of slurs.

At one time, I thought the unsavory stories about Platner's past might actually be helping him. In early June, I wrote:

Do you remember the moment, about a year ago, when Democrats were talking about the need to find a "liberal Joe Rogan"? Many Democrats felt that the party lost the 2024 election because Donald Trump and other Republicans were eager to sit down with podcast bros who aren't "woke" and don't self-censor.... Personally, I never wanted Democrats to cozy up to podcasters who demean women or gleefully use slurs, but many very smart people thought the party should embrace them....

Well, now there's a candidate who, in the past, demeaned women, Blacks, and others on Reddit, and who thought it was badass to get (and keep) a Nazi symbol tattooed on his body -- and polls say the voters of his state are embracing him....

Platner has not been well behaved for much of his life -- but not being well behaved is what a lot of Democrats seemed to like about the podcast bros, or at least what they thought their fans liked about them. Now there's a badly behaved candidate in a statewide race, and he's leading in the polls.

But now he's struggling, and making no inroads with blue-collar voters -- which tells me that these mostly right-leaning voters decide whether to forgive politicians' transgressions by first looking at the transgressors' party affiliation.

We knew that, obviously. For years, blue-collar whites eagerly recited the latest Fox talking points on the mid-level corruption of Hunter Biden -- but now Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are engaged in corrupt activities on a massive scale, and they don't care. We knew that Trump voters were upset about the Epstein files when they thought only their political enemies were implicated, and now that that's clearly not true, they're a lot less interested.

So they think Platner has bad moral character, but apparently they don't believe that people they like who have spoken or behaved the way Platner has, and have expressed much less remorse for it, have bad moral character. Many of them will reject Platner while casting a House vote for Paul LePage, the Trump-like former governor with a long history of offensive and racist remarks, because they like his politics. They'll condemn Platner's reported rough treatment of former girlfriends while shrugging off Donald Trump's sexual assaults; they'll believe Trump's denials, but not Platner's.

So economic populism doesn't appeal to the people who'd most benefit from it if the economic populist is a lefty, and having poor values (now or in the past) is only relatable to right-leaning voters if the current or former bad boy is right-coded. Which we probably should have guessed.

THE NEXT TRUMP MIGHT JUST BE A COLLECTION OF GRIEVANCES

Quick -- who was the leader of the Tea Party?

You probably don't remember any particular person being a leader of the movement that effectively took over and rebranded the Republican Party in the years after George W. Bush left office. Maybe you remember Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder and president of the Tea Party Patriots, but she never became a household name, and the group she led was just one of many Tea Party organizations.

In fact, there was no well-known, charismatic leader of the Tea Party. There was no single Republican in Congress who was regarded as the movement's leader, the way Newt Gingrich was clearly the leader of the Republicans who seized Congress in the 1994 midterms.

The Tea Party -- and the Republican Party -- didn't have an obvious leader in the Obama years. Yet that didn't prevent Republicans from having a fairly successful eight years. Sure, Barack Obama won two presidential elections. But Republicans did just fine downballot, as this report noted during Obama's last few weeks in office:

... the Democratic Party has lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats since President Obama entered office, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower....

President Obama entered the White House with his party touting a 60 seat majority in the Senate and 257 seat majority in the House. Democrats now hold a 48 seat minority in the Senate and 194 seat minority in the House — a net loss of 12 and 64 seats respectively....

The midterm elections delivered significant blows to Congressional Democrats. In 2010, Democrats lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House, costing them the chamber. In 2014, Democrats lost another 13 seats in the House and a staggering 9 seats in the Senate; this time losing them the Senate and completing a Republican takeover of Congress.

We're told that Republicans will be adrift once Donald Trump leaves office or dies, because the GOP is nothing more than a personality cult focused on a charismatic leader. The Obama years tell me that Republicans don't necessarily need a charismatic leader. Without such a leader, they can reorganize themselves around a collection of grievances.

(What were their grievances in the Obama years? Um ... they didn't like Obamacare? And ... um ... the president was Black? Also ... oh, yeah! Benghazi! ACORN! The Ground Zero mosque!)

As Donald Trump's first term was ending, you could see the GOP attempting to reorganize around a collection of grievances. Notice when Chris Rufo first appeared on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show to talk about DEI: September 2, 2020. At that time, Joe Biden had been leading Trump in the polls all year, and led by 7.2 points in the Real Clear Politics average. The election looked like a blowout -- time to get the Fox audience worked up about something other than the issues being discussed on the camapign trail!

The Fox war on Drag Queen Story Hours started in 2019; over the next few years, this evolved into a war on trans youth that, along with the war on DEI, helped elect a Republican governor in seemingly blue Virginia a year after Biden defeated Trump.

At a time when it appeared that Trump was a spent force in American politics, GOP propagandists made sure that the party (and the conservative movement) still seemed to be on offense. That's what they'll do when Trump is gone.

They're already hard at work ginning up anger. I told you yesterday about the campaign to make the continued existence of birthright citizenship into a major right-wing grievance. Right-wing cartoonists and memers are really working this angle:

And, of course, it's all part of the Elon Musk-driven global campaign to purge America and Europe of non-white people:

Pretty much. It’s not promoted in any other countries …

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2026

The right is working all kinds of angles these days. The New York Times has recently reported on campaigns to make same-sex marriage illegal again and prosecute women who have abortions. Those will probably alienate swing voters, but Republicans might get a more positive response to their renewed Muslim-bashing -- Texas Republicans in particular seem to believe that the most important issue in their state is a nonexistent push for "sharia law" -- and to denunciations of "communism" in the Democratic Party, which will probably resonate with some of the Hispanic voters Trump has alienated with his anti-immigrant extremism. And there's always sexism, which I suspect wins over more swing voters than you'd think:

The worst Supreme Court Justices of all time have all been women. That’s just a fact. Republican presidents should take the hint. https://t.co/hMHwMBVx5J

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 30, 2026

None of this is a substitute for a real party leader, but it will all sustain GOP solidarity in the post-Trump era until that leader comes along.

RIGHT-WINGERS HAVEN'T BUILT A POPULAR MOVEMENT TO ELIMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE WORKING ON THAT NOW

Three Supreme Court justices have concluded that birthright citizenship isn't a right granted by the 14th Amendment. A fourth justice is on the fence. It's clear now that the Court could take birthright citizenship away in the not-too-distant future. The pseudonymous Bluesky poster who uses the name Richard M. Nixon is right:

Barring changes to the Court you will see another go at birthright citizenship within 10 years.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dicknixon.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 10:41 AM

Dave Weigel responds:

If Rs win in 2028 and replace Sotomayor, it's gone.

In a video essay, Jamelle Bouie agrees, saying, "A 5-4 decision means that this isn't over, that this is only the beginning." But in the following posts, he questions whether the right has laid all the necessary groundwork to make this happen:

i will say that although this is the beginning of the right’s assault on birthright citizenship, one difference with roe v. wade is that the latter was fueled by a mass movement with a broad, institutionalized base in the nation’s evangelical and catholic churches. the question, i think…

[image or embed]

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) June 30, 2026 at 6:34 PM

…is if there is a similar mass base to organize and sustain a campaign against birthright citizenship and, on the other side, is there a mass base to organize and sustain a campaign in its defense?

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) June 30, 2026 at 6:34 PM

I'm not sure the right needs a popular movement analogous to the anti-abortion movement in order to win on this issue. The current Supreme Court does a lot of radical-right things for which there's no popular groundswell.

But it appears that right-wing propagandists are trying to inspire the formation of an anti-birthright citizenship mass movement right now. Here's Matt Walsh (original tweet here):

"Use whatever force is necessary."

[image or embed]

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 12:29 PM

And here's Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist (original tweet here):

Quite the meltdown on the postliberal right today....

[image or embed]

— Paul Graf (@paulginva.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 3:56 PM

These people are telling their followers that drastic action is needed, immediately, to effectively reverse this decision.

And please note they're talking about the ruling as if the Court changed citizenship law in America yesterday, rather than merely preserving the status quo. Here's Matt Walsh again:

I at least got to live for 40 years in a country that looks and functions something like America. The fact that my children are having that opportunity stolen from them fills me with rage so deep I can’t describe it. I truly hate the people who have done this to us.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 30, 2026

But Matt, you didn't get to "live for 40 years" in a country without birthright citizenship. You got to live in a country with the same birthright citizenship provisions we have now.

I think Walsh and Davis know this, but they know that most of their followers don't. They know that Look what they took from you is one of the most potent messages on the right. So Walsh pretends that he "got to live for 40 years in a country that looks and functions something like America," and Davis pretends that John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined with the Court's liberals "to nullify the 14th Amendment and extra-constitutionally replace it with their own language."

A cynic would say that this is all part of the long game for the Court's Republicans, and for Republicans in general:

* Trump issues an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.

* The Supreme Court preserves it but points the way to its elimination.

* The entire process puts the subject on the national agenda and turns it into an issue that drives Republican voters to the polls.

* Until the Court finally overturns birthright citizenship, support for it is now painted as one of those weird, elitist ideas they have in the Democrat Party, rather than the law of the land since the nineteenth century.

Even if Democrats score a trifecta in 2028 and expand the Supreme Court so it's no longer an unelected far-right legislature, this can be a lingering grievance for Republican and right-centrist voters. Abolishing birthright citizenship will now be down-the-middle mainstream Republicanism, a demand that will be a huge applause line in the convention acceptance speech of the party's 2028 presidential nominee.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SAM ALITO ISN'T RETIRING?

Okay, this is weird:

NPR on Tuesday retracted an article that said that Samuel Alito, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, had retired.

The article, written by the veteran Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg, said that Justice Alito had announced his retirement. He has made no such announcement about his role, and a Supreme Court spokesman on Tuesday called NPR’s article “inaccurate.”

By midmorning Tuesday, the article had been replaced with a taciturn editor’s note: “Earlier today we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. He has not announced his retirement and we have retracted the story.”

The retraction is here. The original story is here.

In February, Elie Mystal concluded that Alito is planning to retire, based on the fact that the publication date of Alito's forthcoming book would place his publicity tour in the opening week's of the Supreme Court's upcoming term. Alito probably won't want to delay publication of the book and he'll certainly want to publicize it, so I assume the retirement is going ahead, and he simply didn't want the news to break just yet. He knows that we might have a Democratic Senate next year, which means that a replacement as ideologically extreme as he is might not be confirmable for two years. And he knows that a Democrat might win the White House in 2028.

But is it possible he's not retiring after all?

Maybe he's not certain that President Trump will appoint an ideologically compatible replacement. Trump denounced the Federalist Society last month, after the Supreme Court ruled against his tariffs. The FedSoc is an ideological-conformity clearinghouse for right-wing judicial appointees, and Alito might be afraid that Trump will bypass it when he chooses the next High Court justice.

On the other hand, as The Hill has noted, "All but one of Trump’s confirmed circuit court nominees have appeared at a Federalist Society event.... The only exception is Emil Bove, one of Trump’s former personal lawyers whom he nominated to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit." Does Alito fear that Trump will pick one of his own mob lawyers for the Court?

Or does Alito fear that the increasingly erratic Trump might mismanage the process of getting a successor approved this year? Republicans presumably want the successor confirmed with the brutal efficiency they displayed when they rammed through Amy Coney Barrett's nomination in 2020. Or maybe they want to allow a little more time, in the hope that the pick will be controversial, and Democrats will overreact. Some Republicans think they benefited electorally from the Democratic reaction to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Here's a NBC story from October of that year:

Republicans got everything they wanted from Brett Kavanaugh's hotly contested confirmation — a fired-up GOP base and a conservative Supreme Court justice for life....

Republicans celebrated the reaction to Kavanaugh's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee after limited polling suggested their voters had closed the enthusiasm gap with Democrats.

Republicans were trounced in House races that year, but they picked up two Senate seats. I've seen it argued that angry demonstrations against Kavanaugh in the halls of the Senate and allegations of sexual misconduct led to a backlash that helped GOP Senate candidates. I'm not sure it's true, but Republicans might think it is.

Maybe Alito doesn't trust that second-term Trump can manage a nomination fight well, or keep the Senate calendar clear for a confirmation process.

More likely, Alito and his fellow Republicans wants to keep non-Republicans guessing for as long as possible while the GOP gets its ducks lined up in a row. I assume we'll get the official announcement later this summer, unless the people running the GOP judicial machine conclude that Trump is too erratic and really can't be trusted.

PUNDIT SUDDENLY REALIZES THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY DIDN'T CHANGE WHEN TRUMP WON BY 1½ POINTS

David Wallace-Wells of The New York Times just noticed something:

... between the July 2024 assassination attempt on [Donald] Trump in Butler, Pa., and the ignominious end of Elon Musk’s run at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency in May 2025, it certainly looked as if ... Mr. Trump had managed a generational political realignment, pulling the country’s plutocratic elite in Silicon Valley into a new ideological alliance with his legacy base of the left behind in postindustrial states and drawing an eye-opening number of Black and brown and young male voters into the fold, as well....

Eighteen months later, we can say that if that first vibe shift was real, it’s been followed by another, in the opposite direction, with the bottom falling out of Mr. Trump’s second term and his administration looking again like the same old destructive kakistocracy. But another way of looking at the disarray of the second MAGA era is to consider the possibility that it was always at least partly an illusion, jointly conjured up by self-aggrandizing Republicans and self-lacerating liberals.

Really, David? Ya think? You think maybe a Trump popular-vote victory by one and a half points might not have been a genuine sign that the entire country was now MAGA?

Some of us understood this in real time. Three days after the polls closed, I wrote:

And always remember: Kamala Harris got 48% of the vote. This was not a blowout. It was not a landslide. Harris's voters were close to half the country. If Trump had lost with 48% of the vote, pundits would be urging Democrats to be conciliatory to Trump voters.

Franklin Roosevelt won 57% of the vote in 1932 and more than 60% in 1936, after Republican Calvin Coolidge won a landslide of his own in 1928. That was a vibe shift. Ronald Reagan's two blowouts in 1980 and 1984 were vibe shifts, a few years after the downfall of Republican Richard Nixon and the 1976 victory of Jimmy Carter.

Trump eked out a win in 2024. Pundits thought it was zeitgeisty because they grade Republicans on a curve.

The "self-lacerating liberals" Wallace-Wells refers to include much of the punditocracy, who have learned to self-lacerate after decades of ref-working by Republicans. Republicans have persuaded most liberal pundits that Democrats are elitist outlier weirdos and Republicans are the only "real" Americans. There's one problem with that: Democrats somehow managed to win the popular vote in seven of the eight presidential elections that preceded 2024. The bar is so low for Republicans that when a Republican wins by an eyelash, it's seen as resounding confirmation of the GOP's status as America's normative party.

So even though Trump's popular-vote victory margin in 2024 was one-third the size of Biden's victory margin in 2020, and even though Trump's victory margin in 2024 was smaller than Hillary Clinton's victory margin in her 2016 loss, Trump's win was seen as a sign of a massive cultural shift.

Pundits thought this was a cultural shift because they wanted to believe it was a cultural shift. When "an eye-opening number of Black and brown and young male voters" moved right for one election, pundits were thrilled at the prospect that these groups might now be joining "the left behind in postindustrial states" -- noble blue-collar white Republicans -- in abandoning the icky weirdo elitist Democrats.

It's been obvious for quite a while that the vibe shift wasn't real -- Trump's job disapproval rating began exceeding his job approval rating in March 2025, and the gap has just grown wider ever since. If it took pundits this long to realize that the vibe shift was illusory, it's because they wanted it to be real.

ACTUALLY, DEMOCRATS COULD USE A J.D. VANCE RIGHT NOW

Variety's Marlow Stern thinks Bill Maher got "played" by J.D. Vance on Maher's HBO talk show. What actually happened was that Maher had some genuine criticisms of the Trump/Vance administration, but -- like most American political interviewers -- he gave his interview subject endless time to respond to criticism, and when he did follow-up, it wasn't very pointed.

I know you all think J.D. Vance is a joke, but he's better at this than you realize. It's not just that he has a Yale law degree -- he approaches interviews like a courtroom lawyer. He knows that his job is to present an extremely one-sided case and make it sound reasonable. Repeatedly with Maher, he defended the indefensible in a way that wouldn't be at all convincing to anyone who understood the issue, but really might be convincing to a fence-sitter who wasn't particularly well informed. Or if he couldn't win over the fence-sitters, he at least persuaded some of them that his side isn't completely deranged.

So here's Vance on the Iran negotiations:

“You’re negotiating for America. I’m rooting for America... Why is this different? Why isn’t it bullshit this time?” asked Maher.

According to Vance, his negotiations have been successful because oil is “down to 73 dollars a barrel” and their “nuclear program is destroyed,” adding, “If they’re willing to change, we’re willing to change too; if they’re not willing to change, we still fundamentally have all the cards and I think that’s a good place to be.”

“But their nuclear program isn’t destroyed,” Maher replied.

“What part of it is not destroyed?” questioned Vance. “The thing that you have to destroy is their ability to enrich uranium, which has been destroyed.”

“How do we know that?” shot back Maher. “All the time it was, we gotta get in there and we gotta get the dust. And we didn’t get in there, so how do we get the dust?”

The vice president reiterated that the program was “functionally destroyed” ...

On ICE:

“ICE, all that shit. Too rough. Too mean. Too unnecessary,” offered Maher. “I’m not asking you to apologize... I’m just saying, you’d go a long way toward getting people who [have] just completely shut the door to you and your administration if you guys would just own that — that you guys went too far. You went too far, and you should own that like you owned ‘childless cat ladies.’”

Vance obfuscated, saying, “You can’t do a law enforcement operation like that without having some situations that are recorded like that... I don’t think there was an easy way to do this.”

And on Trump's claim that the 2020 election was rigged:

[Maher said,] “It’s either going to be you or Rubio. Here’s my dealbreaker for your side: Under Trump, you guys have two outcomes that an election can be, either we win or they cheated. That shit has to stop. And that means the person who has to stop it will be you, or Marco. Can you tell me you will do that?” ...

“OK, Bill, so this is where I’m probably going to lose ya here,” offered Vance. “I don’t think we should not concede elections, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on... The biggest criticism I had of the 2020 election is that you had technology companies that were quite literally censoring negative information about the left and promoting negative information about the right.”

Vance knows he's not going to win these arguments with Maher, but his job isn't to win -- it's to persuade at least a few viewers that he and Trump and the rest of their party have a point. His job is to suggest that these issues are gray, not black-and-white.

Maher -- who says he usually votes Democratic, and who's given large amounts of money to Democrats in the past -- told Vance that his presidential "vote is in play" in 2028. The apparent reason is Maher's contempt for one Democrat, Darializa Avila Chevalier, who won a House primary in New York's 13th District on Tuesday and who's almost certain to win the general election in the very blue district. Avila Chevalier has expressed some offputting views, which Maher returned to repeatedly throughout the show, ascribing them not only to her but to the two other progessives who won New York primaries the same day, and to all her voters (and the Democratic Party in general).

In his opening monologue, Maher said:

This is big news in this country. I don't know if you saw what happened in New York. There were three candidates for -- these are the primaries, they are going to win the election, so they're going to be three Democrats in Congress. These are Mandami's [sic] people. These are democratic socialists, I think very different than the Democratic Party. What happened is, you know, for years we're asking young people to vote. Well, now young people are voting, and they're voting to abolish the police, abolish prisons, unlimited immigration, so no cops, no prisons, no borders -- proving for sure that eating Tide pods does cause brain damage.

These are the views of Avila Chevalier, not Mayor Mamdani's other two endorsees, Claire Valdez and Brad Lander. She's expressed these views in now-deleted tweets; she recently repeated her opposition to the police and to deportations in an interview with a group of journalists known as the New York Editorial Board.

But she primarily ran on other issues. Here's the "Day 1 Agenda" she posted on her campaign site:

This is all standard-issue progressivism. Some of it -- a path to citizenship for DREAMers, a $15 minimum wage -- is supported even by moderate Democrats.

Without mentioning Avila Chevalier by name, Maher brought her up again in his Vance interview:

“If this is where the Democratic Party is going... this obsession with Israel, with the Jew-hating, with they don’t believe in capitalism, no prisons, if this is where they’re going, my vote is in play,” Maher told Vance.

Maher changed the subject before Vance could reply.

Obviously, there was no opportunity for a Democrat to rebut Maher during his monologue or the Vance interview. But he returned to the subject in a follow-up panel with Larry Willmore, formerly of The Daily Show, and Senator Raphael Warnock. This is where Democrats needed an advocate -- a lawyer for the defense, someone who'd make the best possible case for them, someone who'd do for them what Vance did for Trump.

Maher said to Warnock:

Some of these people who've just got elected as democratic socialists -- and I assume you are not a democratic socialist, that you're more of a Democrat ... they want to abolish prisons. I mean, they say it outright: abolish the police, abolish prisons. I don't know how society could run that way.

Warnock repeated the message of his new book: that we need police and prisons, but that we over-incarcerate in America. But neither he not Willmore told Maher that this is the worldview of only one of the candidates. I don't expect Willmore, who's a comedian, to know this, but if Democrats are in a panic about the wins by the Mamdani candidates, why don't they all have a ready response to questions about them?

Here's what that response should be:

These are the view of one candidate only. She will be one of 435 members of Congress if she wins the general election. Her views on these issues are not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole, and if a bill to abolish the police or prisons or the border came before Congress, Democrats in Congress would oppose it overwhelmingly.

But why does every Democrat have to answer for intemperate statements made by one Democrat? We just had a Republican who posted on Twitter that gay people have "no place in America." We have a Republican candidate for statewide office in Texas who wants to deport 100 million people, which means literally all the immigrant and descendants of immigrants who have come to this country or were even born in this country in the past sixty years -- all of them, including the immigrants who came here legally and followed every rule. There was a Republican gubernatorial candidate a couple of years ago who called himself a "Black Nazi" on a porn site; after we learned about that, he still got more than two million votes on the Republican Party line. If you're going to ask me about Darializa Avila Chevalier, you should ask every Republican who comes on this show about those people.

Avila Chevalier's views will still be offputting to most people, but at least defend the party and call out our politcal double standard. Take your own party's side in the argument.

IF THE CRIMES OF WATERGATE OCCURRED TODAY, WOULD THEY EVEN BE ILLEGAL?

J.D. Vance is trolling us again:

Vance described his admiration for Nixon during a conversation Thursday at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California....

“If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy,” Vance said.

Some observers see this as a comment on modern attention spans. In The New York Times, Matthew Purdy writes:

... Mr. Vance ... speaks from experience about the current life cycle of scandals, which age like fruit flies.

Questions of impropriety — or worse — buzz around, then flutter off. Presidential stock trades are replaced by pardons to contributors, which are replaced by new presidential branding schemes, which are replaced by contracts to the connected, which are replaced by elective surgery to national landmarks.

Well, actually, we've been talking about a particular act of "elective surgery to national landmarks" -- the failed restoration of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall -- for nearly two weeks. Scandals don't always have a twelve-hour lifespan.

But a modern Watergate might fail to break through as a scandal for a simple reason: most or all of it would probably be legal, or at least "presumptively" legal.

The event that set off the Watergate scandal was a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex. Operatives associated with President Nixon's reelection campaign were caught burglarizing the office and planting listening devices. Another notorious act was a break-in at the office of a psychiatrist treating Daniel Ellsberg, a government analyst who'd become a folk hero for leaking the Pentagon Papers.

When Trump ran for reelection in 2020, some people in his inner circle warned him against outrageous acts, or refused to execute such acts. Also, he didn't have the cover of the 2024 Trump v. United States decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that, as Oyez puts it, "A former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, [and] at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

Trump isn't permitted to run for reelection in 2028, and he (probably!) won't try to defy the Constitution by trying to run, so we don't know how far he'd go if he were running again, under what appears to be blanket immunity for official acts, and with a staff that never defies him. He's trying to win the midterms for congressional Republicans through acts of dubious legality -- seizing ballots from past elections, demanding voter rolls from states -- but he might reach Nixon levels of depravity if he were planning to run again himself.

But he wouldn't do it all surreptitiously, under the aegis of his camapign -- he'd do it as president. He'd claim he had to do what he did in the interests of national security.

I don't know how long the story would remain in the news. I don't know whether the targets of his acts would be able to find relief in the courts. But most of Nixon's crimes wouldn't even be treated as crimes if Trump ordered them now.

YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DO A BIG ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY TO UNDERSTAND REPUBLICAN VOTERS

I agree with Philip Bump that you'll never understand why Donald Trump still retains the loyalty of nearly 40% of the country from the mainstream media's reporting.

Perhaps the hoariest trope in modern political reporting is the Diner Sitdown with a Trump Supporter. Between the ubiquity of them during President Donald Trump's first bid for his current position and the necessary superficiality of it — it is hard to take the measure of a person over the course of eating one slice of pie — such conversations became a source of derision or parody. Readers were often left with little to no insight, and the insights they were offered were often trivial and repetitive.

Bump correctly notes that most of these safaris come to no conclusion more edifying than "Trump voters like Trump." So what's the alternative? Bump recommends an academic study:

But what if you left the diner with those voters? What if you went to their homes, spent days with them? What if you tracked the media consumption and interviewed their friends and neighbors? What if it wasn't superficial? ...

In February, a team of researchers from ReD Associates, in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, visited counties in three states — Michigan, South Carolina and Wyoming — to conduct the sort of in-depth research described above. Teams spent time with conservative Americans, getting to know them, getting to know their communities, getting to know their habits. They spoke with dozens of people in largely rural parts of the state, with the specific goal of understanding how Donald Trump supporters viewed the democratic institutions of the United States. What resulted was a thorough, if constrained, understanding of the set of beliefs and assumptions that correlates with support for the president.

The study appears to have some interesting insights, one of which is that these people are wary of democracy because they think it produces outcomes that conflict with their values. Here's an example:

They chafe at proscriptions that emanate from a federal government that is designed to service all 340 million Americans, often seeing conflicts between national and local priorities as examples of corruption....

One Wyoming resident dismissed the value of democracy through this lens: "Every single small town would be outvoted by every single city. We wouldn't be able to feed people cows. We'd all be eating seaweed."

We're told that they're not getting these ideas from the obvious sources. They don't have "a relentless dedication to watching Fox News." Instead,

The researchers found that the people with whom they spoke relied heavily on bespoke sources of information and ad hoc solutions for health problems. Diaries detailing their media diets include a range of YouTube channels, influencers and Facebook groups, few of which could be called media outlets in any real sense. They "do their own research," though that often means outsourcing their research to trusted, non-institutional voices....

This is worth knowing, but I think the message it sends is that it's really hard to find the source of these people's ideas, unless you're able to put together a team of researchers and conduct an ethnographic study like this.

I disagree. While I recognize that Fox is not the main source of news for younger right-wingers -- which is a consequence of the decline of print, television, and cable in the age of TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts -- Fox News is still part of the right-wing media ecosystem in which these "bespoke sources of information" operate. (They sources are not really "bespoke," i.e., custon-tailored for an individual. They're just more obscure than Fox.)

For as long as I've been blogging, I've been angry at the mainstream media for not paying attention to the narratives spread at Fox and elsewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem. For reporters (and Democratic politicians and consultants) who want to know why GOP voters hate Democrats as much as they do, Fox is in plain sight, just as, in the past, talk radio was in plain sight, and podcasters and video and Twitter influencers are in plain sight today. If you want to know what these people are thinking, you can still learn a lot just by looking at the top-rated right-wing oultlets in various media. Individuals voters might not get particular ideas from the top-rated outlets, but those ideas are circulating in and out of those outlets, and can be spotted in those places.

The guy who's afraid city slickers will ban meat and force him to eat seaweed? I'm not sure precisely where he got that notion, but you can easily find the idea, or variations of it, at Fox. Here a just some of the Fox headlines I found when I Googled "world economic forum ban meat foxnews.com":

* Davos speaker calls for one billion people to 'stop eating meat' for 'innovation' and the environment

* GOP rep introduces resolution condemning UN for calling on Americans to stop eating meat

* UN wants Americans to cut back on eating meat. And that's only the beginning

* UN climate summit serving gourmet burgers, BBQ as it calls for Americans to stop eating meat

It doesn't have to be Fox. It could be Twitter, or (in the past) Infowars. It could be any number of prominent podcasters. I'd even recommend Reddit communities like Forwards from Grandma, where you can find a wide range of right-wing memes, including memes reflecting the right-wing view that liberals are unalterably opposed to meat:

This one isn't even particularly obscure -- you may have seen it in a parking lot.

What reporters and other interested parties need to know is that the right-wing media diet, from all sources, is chock-full of paranoid, alarmist ragebait, and that the alarmist talking points are fairly easy to discover if you put a little effort into looking for them. Even just a daily glance at Fox's red-meat headlines will tell you more about the mindset of right-wing voters than a series of questions about grocery prices in an Ohio diner.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE MESSAGING THAT'S STRONG ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND SOME QUESTIONABLE CANDIDATES

Progressives aligned with Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America won three primaries in New York City on Tuesday, and James Carville is flipping out about one candidate in particular.

Democratic strategist James Carville called for a “schism” in the Democratic Party, stating that he wants nothing to do with the likes of three candidates who won their Democratic primaries in New York....

On Wednesday’s Politicon podcast, Carville ... noted that [Darializa] Avila Chevalier, who was born to Dominican immigrants, once said white people should not be in interracial marriages.

“Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you,” Carville said. “I’m sorry. I’m just not. And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the ‘s’ word: schism. I really do. Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no. We’re a coalition. We’re a big tent. And there’s just some sh*t I can’t be in the same tent with.”

Carville then insisted that despite winning their Democratic primaries, “these people are not Democrats.” ...

“But I’m done,” he continued. “I’m not in that f*cking political party. I am totally comfortable in a political party that spends time questioning the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, I’m enthusiastic about that. I don’t want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist. That’s just not– I just can’t do that.”

Avila Chevalier did disparage some interracial relationship -- she

slammed men of color for engaging in interracial relationships in a Feb. 2019 post on Twitter, now X.

“Black men [handshake emoji] Arab men fetishizing ugly colonizer women,” the post stated.

And on Israel:

In August 2020, Avila Chevalier reposted a tweet responding to a social media prompt that asked, “Israel suddenly disappears, your third emoji is your reaction.” The reposted tweet replied, “Trick question – Israel doesn’t exist!”

She's called for abolition of the police, prisons, and the U.S. border, in now-deleted tweets.

I'm to Carville's left, but I understand why he's not pleased. Still, he's helping Republicans when he denounces Avila Chevalier. He's worried that Republicans will try to make her the face of the party, but right now he's doing that for them.

Maybe her views haven't moderated at all and she'll continue to come off as a crackpot. So what? The Democratic Party should be strong enough to withstand that. Other Democratic candidates' messages should be strong enough that they're defined by what they say, not by what she says.

Republicans always manage to avoid being defined as the party of their congressional crackpots, whether it's Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert or George Santos. Bizarrely, congressional Republicans seem to be only partly defined by the Crackpot in Chief, Donald Trump -- their polling isn't great, but it's much better than his.

How do Republicans who aren't Trump avoid being defined by the party's crackpots? In a few ways: (1) by putting out a lot of messaging on other subjects, (2) by demonizing Democrats much more than Democrats demonize them, and (3) by not constantly drawing attention to party members they find embarrassing, which is exactly what Democrats are doing now.

This was true even in the pre-Trump era. Remember 2010? Republicans ran quite a few candidates who seemed beyond the pale, candidates such as Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell, and Carl Paladino, who had a long history of posting and forwarding racist emails. Republicans distanced themselves from some of these candidates, but then they went right back on message, criticizing Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress, and they shellacked the Democrats in the midterms.

Make your case for yourself and your party. Attack the GOP incessantly. And for crissakes, stop drawing attention to people you think are embarrassing the party.