Politics Politics Politics

Justin Robert Young

Unbiased political analysis the way you wish still existed. Justin Robert Young isn't here to tell you what to think, he's here to tell you who is going to win and why. www.politicspoliticspolitics.com

  1. 2d ago

    Wisconsin's Democratic UPSET. Exploring the Disney's America That Never Was (with Andrew Heaton)

    Wisconsin Democrats narrowly chose Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley over Democratic Socialist state representative Francesca Hong in the gubernatorial primary, 39.8 percent to 39.4 percent. It’s close enough that this might be headed to a recount, but it doesn’t appear that Hong won. Crowley, who was endorsed by Governor Tony Evers, will face Trump-endorsed Republican representative Tom Tiffany. The result halted the progressive left’s recent primary momentum, but it still showed its strength in a battleground state. What you’re probably going to hear about is the polling. After the polls wildly overestimated Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, the final State Navigate poll had Hong at 44 percent and Crowley at 22 percent — a 22-point Hong lead. Instead, Crowley won by 0.4 percent. That’s a 22.4-point miss on the margin. Jeez Louise. Hong’s vote share wasn’t wildly off; the poll totally underestimated Crowley. The question is why these polls keep overrepresenting progressive-leaning voters. One theory is that more polls are using online surveys. The old problem with landline calls was that they overrepresented boomers because nobody under 60 had a landline. Nobody answers an unfamiliar number on a cellphone, so that leaves online responses, which might overrepresent progressives. It’s also worth noting that the DSA endorsed Hong, but Bernie Sanders and AOC didn’t. Pure DSA play isn’t good enough to get you over the hump, even in a Democratic primary. Bernie and AOC provide some wiggle room away from the DSA’s baggage. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Next door, Minnesota Democrats delivered a decisive progressive victory as Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan defeated Representative Angie Craig by 20 points for the open Senate nomination. Flanagan overcame a major spending disadvantage after attacking Craig’s immigration record, particularly her 2025 vote expanding ICE authority. Republicans nominated former NFL reporter Michele Tafoya, but barring huge changes in the race, Flanagan is going to be Minnesota’s next senator. In the governor’s race, Amy Klobuchar easily secured the Democratic nomination, while state House speaker Lisa Demuth defeated Trump-backed My Pillow founder Mike Lindell. Please raise your combs in celebration. South Carolina’s emergency election to replace Lindsey Graham is headed to an August 25 runoff between interim senator Darlene Graham and Representative Ralph Norman. Graham, Lindsey’s sister and Trump’s endorsed candidate, finished first with 32.7 percent. Norman took the second spot with 24.6 percent, narrowly eliminating Representative Russell Fry. The vote was pretty split, and I don’t know whether Darlene has the juice to keep Norman off. A lot of Republicans were already angry that she decided to seek the seat permanently instead of serving as a placeholder. Ralph Norman has a real shot. The kiss of death for Darlene would be the double endorsement — a double Trump endorsement. Former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin also defeated 14-term Democratic representative John Larson, 54 percent to 33 percent. Larson, 78, became the seventh House Democrat defeated in a primary this cycle, while Governor Ned Lamont won renomination. In Alabama, Trump-endorsed Republican Rhett Marques advanced to face Democratic representative Shomari Figures in the redrawn Second District, where the Black voting-age population was reduced from 48 percent to 40 percent. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:05:42 - Tuesday Primary Results 00:16:18 - Exploring Disney’s America with Andrew Heaton 01:19:36 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  2. Aug 5

    Progressives Scrape By in Michigan. Crowning a Way-Too-Early 2028 Champ (with Evan Scrimshaw)

    Abdul El-Sayed is going to be the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, but the victory was much closer than it looked when I initially planned to call it. With 23 percent of the vote counted, Haley Stevens was barely leading in Oakland County, which she represents in Congress, and the outstanding votes appeared to favor El-Sayed. I thought he was heading toward an eight-to-ten-point win. Instead, the margin narrowed to about 1.4 percent. Barring some miraculous vote drop out of Detroit, El-Sayed wins, but this wasn’t an overwhelming progressive victory. The polling miss is the polling miss. Congressional polling is never the most reliable. What’s strategically telling is that much of the expectation for a blowout came from El-Sayed’s own campaign, which released internal polling showing him ahead by 15 points. That obviously didn’t happen. Can you question the wisdom of releasing those numbers? You can. You can question that wisdom. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I still got my prediction wrong. I picked Stevens by five, so allow me to eat the mistakes. My prediction was closer to the final result than El-Sayed’s internal polls, but a loss is still a loss. I believed Mallory McMorrow’s female voting bloc would break more heavily for Stevens. I said from the beginning that McMorrow would decide this race; I just didn’t realize it would be her ghost bridging the gap between the other two candidates. El-Sayed started this three-way dance as the owner of the progressive lane, and he owned the issues that mattered in Michigan. It didn’t matter how folksy the Stevens campaign tried to make her. El-Sayed won, the establishment lost, and progressives deserve to celebrate. Raise a PBR and let your tears stain your unused college degree. Progressive listeners can dance on my shame because they’ve earned it. But the lesson for progressives is the opposite of what it was on The Real World: They need to stop getting real and start getting polite. Their movement isn’t overwhelming. I don’t care how fired up Michigan is about Israel, Medicare for All, or any other progressive policy. El-Sayed needs Haley Stevens voters if he’s going to defeat Mike Rogers. He needs to reach out and say, “Let’s stick it to ‘em… together,” because progressives aren’t going to get there by doing it exactly their way forever. This is still a big day for progressives, but the final margin changes what it means. It wasn’t proof that they can squash the establishment on their own. It was proof that they can win a close primary and then immediately need the people they just beat. Celebrate the victory, take the lesson from the margin, and rerack for the general election. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro and Updated Michigan Thoughts 00:03:10 - Progressives and the Establishment 00:12:37 - Evan Scrimshaw on 2028 Democratic Primaries 01:18:44 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  3. Jul 28

    Thoughts on Michigan's Final Debate! The Impossible Midterms Archive Test (with Howard Mortman)

    Haley Stevens has found her groove. She’s made herself into a plucky underdog, which is hard because she’d been typecast as the spoiled golden girl — Chuck Schumer’s special little lady who was handed everything and had all the money. Mallory McMorrow was fresh, Abdul El-Sayed was exciting, and Stevens looked like she was getting run over. Now her message is: I don’t care what they make fun of me for. I’m like you, and I’m looking out for you. It’s solid. It’s good. El-Sayed has run a very good campaign, but he’s had trouble restabilizing since Stevens found her footing. His problem is explaining his progressive message to people who don’t automatically buy into it. You need to describe the what before the why. Start with the person who counted on a government check that didn’t come, then explain why it happened and where the money went. El-Sayed keeps starting with AIPAC and the quid pro quo because he’s still talking to progressives. Progressives understand that language, but everybody else might not. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Stevens campaign wants to make El-Sayed the bully. She keeps pointing out that he makes fun of the way she talks, and she brought up his comment about putting an ogre’s head on a spike. That matters because El-Sayed needs the McMorrow women — voters who weren’t into Stevens but could be talked into a more progressive way of thinking. He’s going to ride and die on being a fighter, including his support for abolishing ICE. That’s authentic, but he’s more of a blunt instrument than Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Stevens looked confident under the lights. El-Sayed didn’t look in command. My prediction: Stevens by five. Trump, meanwhile, has asked the Supreme Court to revive parts of his executive order restricting mail voting before the November midterms. A federal judge blocked provisions directing agencies to build state citizenship lists and requiring the Postal Service to send mail ballots only to currently listed voters. I’m not personally for asking states to assemble these lists so close to an election, for the same reason I wasn’t for expanding mail voting during COVID. Anytime you’re expanding or restricting voting and changing the electorate, you’ve got to do it with some tender loving care. Trump also met with Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time since the United States and Israel launched their joint air campaign against Iran. Iran was expected to dominate the meeting as Trump decides whether to resume large-scale strikes or give diplomacy more time. There’s visible friction: Trump doesn’t like Netanyahu publicly raising concerns about activity at Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain to pressure him, while Netanyahu wants to preserve military pressure. Their decision could determine whether this pause becomes a negotiating window or merely an intermission. Nobody knows what’s happening in Iran. There are only so many ways I can say it. Michigan’s attorney general is also reviewing how a false allegation against Pete Buttigieg led authorities to separate him from his four-year-old twins. Officials acted on a vague tip before confirming the caller’s identity or credibility, and Michigan State Police later declared the allegation unfounded. Investigators found a Facebook post in which the apparent caller urged people not to vote for Buttigieg and referenced the accusation before contacting authorities. Emergency responses involving children need a hair trigger, but unsupported accusations can also become political intimidation. It’s ugly — really, really, really ugly. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:49 - Michigan 00:21:31 - Israel, Iran, and Ukraine 00:30:40 - Mayor Pete Swatted 00:34:22 - Interview with Howard Mortman 01:06:28 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  4. Jul 23

    Something Big is Happening in Iran. The Dumbest Right-Wing Media Outrage Ever (with Josh Jennings)

    Donald Trump says he’s close to deciding whether to launch a massive attack on Iran as the U.S. military expands its campaign aimed at stopping attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The Pentagon used a B-1 bomber against Revolutionary Guard targets for the first time since the fighting resumed, while Iran continues attacking U.S. bases and shipping. Trump says Tehran wants negotiations, but the White House hasn’t accepted any of the Iranian proposals. The House voted 214 to 208 to demand an end to hostilities, while the Senate rejected a similar measure 47 to 49. There are a lot of signs that something is about to happen. Air traffic is moving, Israel is opening bomb shelters, hospitals are getting specific instructions, and skirmishes on the Iran-Iraq border might suggest American special forces will get involved. Trump has said Israel would quickly rejoin the fight if asked, but claims the United States could act alone. The B-1 launched from Britain can carry two dozen 2,000-pound bombs or dozens of cruise missiles. Its targets included Iranian military operations centers, maritime capabilities, aircraft hangars, drone storage, and logistics infrastructure. Iran still has some ability to threaten shipping despite officials saying its military capability around Hormuz has been sharply degraded. On the other side of Saudi Arabia, the Houthis have attacked a Saudi shipping line and threatened a second critical energy route through the Red Sea at the Bab el-Mandeb. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I think this is on and poppin’. Either there’s some kind of détente that lets Trump kick the can past the midterms, or you’ve got to extract a pound of flesh from Iran. You’ve got to call their bluff and say: Look, whatever you think you can do, go ahead and do it. I don’t think there are any coincidences in the Middle East. It’s a very transactional region, and I don’t think Saudi Arabia getting a nuclear deal is disconnected from what’s happening. My 360-degree view of Iran has always been predicated on the idea that both the region and the United States are looking to reshape the Middle East around Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel as the new powers, while the United States pivots to China. But if you’re going to do that, you’ve got to really degrade Iran. I don’t know how you do it or what you can do. It certainly seems that the Trump administration believes bridges and power plants are what the IRGC really, really, really doesn’t want to lose. The more audacious military plans include storming an area where we believe Iran has nuclear material and taking it by force, seizing the coastline from which Iran is firing drones and missiles to ensure the Strait of Hormuz stays open, or seizing Kharg Island, where Iran exports its oil. I don’t know that Iran can function without the kind of money it gets from oil. It’s very hard to follow this because you don’t really know what’s happening. I didn’t know why oil stayed as low as it did before, why it fell before the memorandum of understanding, or why it’s shooting up now. If it goes way up, how fast can it fall? I don’t know. I have no idea. But it looks like something is about to pop. In fact, it might already be happening by the time this podcast hits your feed. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:52 - Campaign Undertaker 00:13:42 - Iran Heats up 00:20:20 - Stock Trading Bill 00:21:57 - Midterm Polling 00:25:33 - Interview with Josh Jennings 01:22:51 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  5. Jul 21

    Somehow, Trump 1.0 Returned... The Ever-Shifting Midterm Winds (with Michael Cohen)

    To date, Trump 2.0 has been defined by everybody appearing to be on the same page and by a sense that the administration kept moving its priorities forward. You might not have liked what those priorities were, but the priorities did get done. The one big beautiful bill was described as an administration’s worth of priorities getting done too soon, and it seems like that might have been prophetic. Trump 1.0 returns when internal fights spill into public view, aides leak against one another, major spectacles vanish with nothing much changing, and the president treats factional drama as fuel rather than a problem to solve. Go back to the beginning of 2025, when Trump 2.0 very much was aligned. The coalition was locked in. The administration had momentum. USAID dismantled in a split second. The one big beautiful bill pushed over the finish line in record time. Again, the point isn’t that these were good things that happened. It’s that they kept happening. But no momentum is made to last forever. Maybe the coalition was always doomed to splinter. The cracks began to show as people were fired, as Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi went down for various different ICE shootings and Epstein, accelerating distrust and leaving Dan Bongino back on the radio airwaves. Either way, the drama that Trump 2.0 kept outside the tent has now fully moved back within it. How do we know? Because they’re telling us. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Take the address that happened last Thursday night. We knew officials were fighting over how much information the president should share when he was speaking to America. Acting DNI Bill Pulte pushed for a more aggressive version, but senior White House aides intervened. Separate reports said the speech might have claimed that Georgia’s two Democratic senators were elected illegitimately because they both came in during the 2020 runoff. The final address didn’t go that far, meaning somebody pulled something back — or at least that’s what the reports would lead us to believe, which means somebody inside the administration is telling a reporter. The 24-minute speech eventually focused more on election interference and intelligence findings as a way to get to the idea that the Save America Act should be passed. But even that’s telling, because the speech was quickly swallowed by the news cycle. That’s another hallmark of Trump 1.0: a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, or at least nothing that’s remembered more than 48 hours later. The biggest Trump 1.0 tell is Iran. From the very beginning, the administration has said the Iran strategy has two hands. Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth are the closed fist, the violence that will come down on the regime, while J.D. Vance, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff are the open hand of diplomacy. If you want to make a deal on our terms, we’re always welcome. In the meantime, we’ll punch you in the face. Trump has actively encouraged a rivalry between Vance and Rubio, asking people all the time who they think should be the next president. And now the proxies of both men are in out-and-out war online. Alex Bruesewitz is on the J.D. Vance side, making it a priority to talk about how much foreign influence, including Israel, is affecting the discourse. Meanwhile, Israel hawks, including Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, are attacking Vance, saying he’s surrendering to Qatar and he’s mostly a socialist. The damage is falling most heavily on Vance because he’s become the face of diplomacy. If the memorandum of understanding had worked, he would’ve gotten the credit. Since there’s now a lot of violence happening in that region again, he gets the blame. Instead of all of this being part of one big rolling ball that is the Trump administration, we now have winners and losers, which means people inside that sphere are playing the game. Very Trump 1.0. The reason this happens in both instances is, well, Big Chungus. Trump 2.0’s advantage was that the drama stayed outside the tent and the team inside was united. Now we’re getting a clearer view of exactly what the war behind closed doors looks like, and in my opinion, it goes hand in hand with priorities not being enacted. You hear a lot about the Save America Act, but it’s stalled and doesn’t have the votes to become law. Iran is different because the consequences are immediate. Trump has to show that either pressure or diplomacy can produce a successful end state. If neither path works, he’ll have made a very big bet without a clear conclusion, and he’ll have to define a win for himself even if it’s not very clear to the American people. We might already be in the lame-duck phase for Donald Trump, which may make all of these problems worse. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:44 - Trump 1.0 00:11:36 - Darlene Graham 00:16:05 - Reconciliation, Again, Again 00:19:38 - Andy Burnham 00:25:03 - Interview with Michael Cohen 01:13:55 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  6. Jul 16

    Donald Trump's Primetime Election Fraud Gambit. The Rise of Gray Money (with Dave Levinthal)

    Donald Trump is going before the nation Thursday night to make a case about election integrity. We don’t know exactly where or how many places he’s going to be shown, but we do know what the case is supposed to be. And the difference between what he says and how he says it is literally the difference between 80% of America agreeing with him and 20% of America agreeing with him. What Trump really wants to do is demonstrate that now that he’s in control of the federal government, all the things he said about the federal government are indeed true. He wants to reveal elements of the secret workings of the deep state that he was previously unable or unwilling to reveal in his first term. According to Politico, Trump is expected to declassify previously unseen intelligence during the address, and White House aides are reportedly debating exactly how far they should go. Senior staffers have prepared a version they believe is supported by the available intelligence, while others want Trump to make broader claims. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Trump also wants to pass the SAVE America Act. The current House-passed version has two major requirements: documentary proof of citizenship when somebody registers to vote in a federal election, and photo identification when that person casts a federal ballot. The Senate doesn’t currently have the votes to pass it under normal rules unless Republicans suspend the filibuster or find another way to attach it to legislation that can pass. Whether an election law provision could survive the Senate’s reconciliation rules is a different story for a different day. The biggest, juiciest kernel inside the legislation is voter ID. That’s a huge political opportunity for Republicans and a problem for elected Democrats. If Trump were to get on television and say we need voter ID, we’re going to include it in the SAVE America package going to the Senate, and the reason is simple — only citizens should be able to vote — that’s overwhelmingly popular. Democrats will say it’s voter suppression. They’ll say women who change their names could be disenfranchised because their current identification doesn’t match what’s on their birth certificates. Well, Trump could answer that by putting money in the bill to expedite any new identification and documentation necessary to comply with the SAVE America Act, especially for women who’ve taken their husband’s names. That’s the layup. Pew found in August 2025 that 83% of Americans supported requiring government-issued photo IDs to vote, including 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. Pew measured the issue again in January 2026: 80% supported voter ID, with 58% strongly favoring it and another 22% somewhat favoring it. Gallup found essentially the same thing, with 84% of Americans supporting photo identification at the polls. In politics, that’s called a no-brainer layup. Put the screws to him if you’re the GOP. But guess what? He ain’t gonna. Because Trump also wants to expose what he considers the nefarious deep state, and with that comes the greatest bugaboo of his political life: the 2020 election. If Trump goes on television and says the 2020 election was manipulated by China, Democrats, Brad Raffensperger, or anybody else, he’s no longer operating within the overwhelming support of the American public. Talking about 2020 and manipulated vote counts is, at best, red meat for the base. At worst, it’s exactly what Democrats want to be talking about, because it takes Trump further away from the current moment. Sometimes you get the 80-20 layup, and sometimes you get the long, meandering “Democrats plus China plus Brad Raffensperger ruined my life.” Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:38 - Trump’s Primetime Speech 00:12:02 - Iran 00:15:59 - Israel and Democrats 00:20:20 - NYS Data Centers 00:29:23 - Interview with Dave Levinthal 01:03:47 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  7. Jul 14

    Michigan Democratic Primary Preview! The State of the Democrats Post-Platner (with Bill Scher)

    Circle August 4th on your calendar: Michigan is now the number one marquee primary matchup I’m watching. Mallory McMorrow is out of the race as of a couple of weeks ago, and what’s left is a head-to-head contest between the Democratic establishment — or at least what’s left of it — and the insurgent progressive movement. Yes, friends, it’s Haley Stevens versus Abdul El-Sayed, and it’s set to be a knockout fight. This really represents the first live test for the current Democratic Party. Can the progressive movement, with a more charismatic candidate and a high-energy, extraordinarily competent campaign, expand its coalition enough to win statewide? Or will it do what it’s done in the past — hit a ceiling when the opposition consolidates? There’s only one new clean head-to-head test: a Tavern Research survey from July 6th through July 7th of 2,211 likely Democratic primary voters. It found Haley Stevens at 42%, El-Sayed at 41%, with 17 to 18% undecided. That’s a margin-of-error race, but it’s the first time in a very long time that we’ve seen Haley Stevens up over Abdul. The same poll tested the old three-person field and found El-Sayed at 41%, Stevens at 38%, and the flagging McMorrow at five. In other words, when McMorrow disappears, the voters are forced into a binary choice, and they’re making it more on the Stevens side than the El-Sayed side. But still: tight, tight, tight, tight, tight. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Because we live in reboot culture, this is essentially — coalitionally, at least — Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton for a new generation. The Stevens coalition is exactly like Hill-dogs: older voters, Black voters, traditional self-identified Democrats, non-college voters, and on the Michigan side, Metro Detroit — particularly Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties. What’s powering Stevens is Black voters. She’s led El-Sayed consistently in almost every poll. Meanwhile, Abdul’s coalition is younger voters, very liberal and progressive voters, college-educated voters, voters outside Metro Detroit, Democratic Socialists, Arab Americans, and Muslim organizing networks. He also has significant labor support, including the UAW endorsement, despite most UAW members being non-college educated, which would normally fall outside his coalition. A very strange world we live in. The one demographic that’s going to decide this race is women. They’re the biggest disputed demo in every poll we’ve seen. An April Glenn Gariff poll showed Stevens leading among women 29% to 17%. But in a June Mitchell poll, the exact opposite was demonstrated: El-Sayed led with women 51% to Stevens’s 35%. So as we look at the rest of the polls from now until Election Day, keep an eye on the ladies. They’re the majority of the likely Democratic primary electorate. If Stevens can consolidate older and Black women while also inheriting McMorrow’s suburban women, she can win. But if El-Sayed’s progressive and younger female support holds, his coalition may be large enough to break through. Which brings me to the latest front of this war. I don’t know if it’s being done to court women, I don’t know if it’s being done specifically on purpose, but the results are undeniable: El-Sayed and Stevens are in an out-and-out shooting match to be more cringe. For Haley Stevens, this isn’t something she has to worry about. She’s naturally gifted in this regard. She’s awkward, she has a thick Great Lakes accent, and she speaks in this clipped, emphatic manner. On one hand, she is herself. She feels less like a polished Washington candidate and more like somebody who wandered out of a Detroiters sketch. Abdul El-Sayed has the opposite problem. He’s clearly a charismatic, compassionate candidate, a strong communicator, and an aggressive counterpuncher. But if you’re running against him, your job is to make El-Sayed scare the hos. I think his campaign has found a solution: make himself toe-cringingly embarrassing. My read — and this is analysis, not something the campaign has admitted — is that cringe is a form of inoculation against being defined as scary. If you’re embarrassing, you can’t be terrifying. So who’s going to win? I’m an old-school guy. I tend to bet chalk unless I’m convinced otherwise. And while I very much believe El-Sayed has the better campaign, and I think he’s the better candidate if we’re just looking at raw talent, I’d still bet the Michigan coalition that usually wins. Haley Stevens is a suboptimal candidate, and I’ve counted her out at every step of this race. I thought McMorrow was going to win. That obviously didn’t happen. So don’t take my prediction for a whole lot. But Stevens doesn’t really have to do anything but be her cringy self to get over the line. Meanwhile, waiting on the other side, smiling like the butcher’s dog, is Mike Rogers. He nearly beat Elissa Slotkin in 2024, losing by only 18 to 20,000 votes, about 0.3%. This is supposed to be more of a blue-wave year, but Rogers is going to benefit from a fractured leftward coalition. After Stevens and El-Sayed spend weeks beating the hell out of each other, the question is whether the losing half comes home. If they don’t, Rogers benefits. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:01 - Michigan Preview 00:14:58 - Update 00:22:04 - Trump’s Upcoming Address 00:25:40 - Reconciliation 00:29:36 - Inflation 00:32:37 - Interview with Bill Scher 01:20:01 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

  8. Jul 9

    Is Platner REALLY Out? The Arizona Congressman Story You Won't Believe (with Juliegrace Brufke)

    Graham Platner is out… but is he? Last night in Maine, he released an 11-minute video that savaged the Democratic establishment and the progressive establishment. He blamed everybody but himself for why he’s suspending his campaign, saying all of his resources were taken away from him. The people who didn’t fight for him — Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders, Hasan Piker — all wound up in the blast radius. Everybody wanted Platner to be a lot more conciliatory. He was not. He was forceful. He took what he wanted. But here’s the big question: you can’t declare bankruptcy like Michael Scott. You can’t just walk into the office and yell, “Bankruptcy.” You need to file paperwork. So even though Graham Platner suspended his campaign on Twitter, that doesn’t mean his campaign is suspended in real life. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. He’s telling people he’ll suspend his campaign on Monday. By the way, Monday is when he needs to file by. If Graham Platner gets a little sleepy on Monday and forgets to file, then there’s no replacement. He’s the nominee. That’s something to keep an eye on. Now, full transparency: I don’t believe he’s going to do that. I do believe he’s going to file either then or sooner, and this will eventually blow over. But, still, with this guy, you really never know. So the question becomes: who’s running against Susan Collins? A handful of names are now in the mix, and they’ll essentially be decided at a hastily thrown together state convention sometime in the next few weeks, because Democrats need an answer by July 27th. Troy Jackson tends to be more of the favorite of the progressives. Nirav Shah, the former Maine CDC director, is in the conversation. Dan Kleban, who had initially been running against Platner before dropping out when Janet Mills got involved, is back in a big way. Jordan Wood, Paige Loud, and Shenna Bellows bring up the rear. I don’t know exactly what happens at that convention. Are they all going to debate on one stage? Are they just going to make their pitches and then have a back and forth? I do know this: if you leave it up to the supporters of those people, they’re going to start knifing each other. And if you’re a Democrat trying to take down Susan Collins, that’s the last thing you want. You don’t want this to get fractious. There’s some polling from a pro-Nirav Shah outside group showing Shah up on Collins 47-46, Collins up on Troy Jackson 48-47, and Collins tied with Shenna Bellows 47-47. I don’t know whether that’s a reputable outfit or whether those are reputable polls. What I’ll say is this: if you’re tied with Susan Collins, you’re losing. Platner, before the disaster, was running about eight to ten points ahead of Susan Collins. Now Democrats are looking at people who are tied, and Susan Collins regularly outperforms her polls by six to eight points. So if you’re tied with Susan Collins, you’re losing. Have we seen the last of Graham Platner? Man, I really don’t know. Chapters 00:00 - Intro 03:52 - Graham Platner 09:47 - Trump’s Plane Switch 12:40 - Mexico, ICE, and Dems Polling 18:55 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke 52:36 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

4.6
out of 5
879 Ratings

About

Unbiased political analysis the way you wish still existed. Justin Robert Young isn't here to tell you what to think, he's here to tell you who is going to win and why. www.politicspoliticspolitics.com

You Might Also Like