Politics Politics Politics

Justin Robert Young
  • 4.7 (875)
  • NEWS
  • UPDATED SEMIWEEKLY

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. 1D AGO

    Is This Shutdown Guaranteed? Attending Charlie Kirk's Memorial (with Claire Meynial)

    The government is shutting down. I guess I don’t know for sure, because it hasn’t happened yet, but… it’s happening. The clearest sign came early: Trump said he’s not meeting with the Democrats. That officially pulls the plug on the last off-ramp. And while I can’t say it’s definite until it’s on the books, every indicator points in that direction. Leadership on the Democratic side isn’t exactly riding high right now. Hakeem Jeffries is under pressure from both his left and his center — the progressives want more progressive action, and the moderates are feeling the heat from MAGA-friendlier districts. It’s not a great time for him to be vulnerable, especially with redistricting battles looming. Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, still has the earliest months of this Trump administration burned into his memory, failing to shut the government down back then that got him absolutely roasted by his own side. He knows what time it is. If he doesn’t want to lose his job, he needs to be seen doing something. That something is this shutdown. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Democrats usually enjoy the shutdown game — when Republicans are the ones pulling the trigger. It lets them run the “they hate government” narrative. But now they’re the ones doing it, and that’s unfamiliar ground. It’s not their comfort zone — and it comes with a risk. They tried every angle. They talked to Johnson. They talked to Thune. And then, in what was probably more performance than real strategy, they tried Trump. Trump publicly laughed it off. So now, what are they left with? The clean CR that already passed the House is still sitting there. That’s funding at Biden levels — not exactly a win for Republicans. But because the Democrats need to do something, they’ve started trying to wrap ACA subsidy extensions and Medicaid cut reversals into the mix. The strategy is a little muddled: are they playing offense or just avoiding looking weak? Either way, without Trump at the table, they’ve got no play left except one. And that’s how we get to where we’re at. Here’s the question that’s not being asked enough — how does it end? Democrats aren’t built for long-term shutdowns. Their base doesn’t rally around it the same way. The longer it goes, the more Trump gets to talk, and he will talk. If it drags out past a month, Democrats lose. So that means the shutdown won’t last past a month. And if they’re going to vote for the clean CR in the end anyway, what’s the point of all of this? We’ll see. But from where I’m sitting, there’s no chance the government doesn’t shut down. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:07:13 - Gov Shutdown 00:16:47 - Update 00:18:00 - Kimmel 00:26:26 - Tylenol 00:34:25 - TPUSA 00:38:22 - Interview with Claire Meynial 01:23:40 - 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

    1h 28m

  2. 6D AGO

    Jimmy Kimmel Pulled Off the Air. Digging Into NYC Mayoral Polls, Midterms, and More (with Michael Cohen)

    Jimmy Kimmel is currently on indefinite leave from his late-night show after a string of events involving remarks he made about Charlie Kirk, a response from the FCC, and a decisive call from Disney leadership. This all unfolded quickly and, frankly, explosively. Brendan Carr of the FCC went on Benny Johnson’s podcast and said Kimmel’s comments were some of the “sickest stuff” he’s heard — and strongly implied that the FCC could take action against affiliate stations airing the show. That’s not subtle, and even if Carr didn’t spell out a punishment, the intent was clear enough to light a fire. What wasn’t initially emphasized — but I think is even more relevant — is what Carr said at the end of that podcast appearance. He laid the pressure squarely on affiliate stations, reminding them that it’s their licenses that are under the FCC’s purview. And it wasn’t long before two affiliate groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, pulled Kimmel from their airwaves. That’s a big move. Deadline later reported that Disney’s Dana Walden personally told Kimmel his show would be preempted. Sources say Kimmel refused to apologize, and Disney feared that letting him go further might make the controversy even worse. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Disney’s version, delivered through Deadline, painted it as a measured decision — that they were protecting Kimmel from himself. But the reality is, affiliate pressure likely had more to do with this than the FCC ever did. Nexstar, for example, owns affiliates in places like Hartford, Augusta, Rockford, and Sioux City. These aren’t New York or LA. These are markets where a majority of the viewership is conservative. Nexstar and Sinclair didn’t just blink. They jumped — and demanded an apology and even donations to Turning Point USA before they'd consider letting Kimmel back on air. That’s not just a request. That’s an ultimatum. Capitol Hill responded almost immediately. Eric Swalwell wore a Jimmy Kimmel hat on CNN. Jasmine Crockett called for his return. The concern from Democrats is clear — they see this as a chilling of speech, a federal agency leaning on a private company to silence a critical voice. And Kimmel has long been one of the most visible anti-Trump figures in mainstream media. This isn’t out of nowhere. It’s part of a longer arc — one that started when his monologues became Claptor-heavy political salvos, and even his own writers started peeling off. Here’s what I think. Carr’s comments went too far. I’ve listened to that podcast more than once. Maybe he meant to be more cautious, but it didn’t land that way. When you hold a job like FCC commissioner, your words carry weight — and in this case, they were taken very seriously. That said, I also don’t think this was a one-man takedown. Kimmel has probably been a thorn in the side of these affiliate stations for years. This may have just been the opportunity they were waiting for. These affiliate networks serve a lot of red-leaning districts. That’s just reality. And when Kimmel’s show becomes a lightning rod, they have every incentive to bail — especially when broadcast TV isn’t the financial powerhouse it used to be. ABC and Disney might be saying they want Kimmel back on air, but I think they’re daring him to quit. This could easily end with a quiet settlement and a new direction for the network. Twenty-two years is a long time. Maybe too long for a show that’s increasingly out of step with its audience — or at least the parts of it that keep the lights on in places advertisers care about. If this had happened in 2017, I think Disney would have fought. They would have leaned into the resistance branding, defended Kimmel publicly, and gone head-to-head with the FCC. But the landscape has shifted. Those same resistance-aligned outlets that thrived post-2016 have been struggling for attention ever since 2024. Maybe this isn’t a cave to authoritarian pressure. Maybe it’s just chasing a different audience — one that wants less fire and more quiet. Either way, the message is clear. Kimmel’s position isn’t as solid as it used to be. And neither is the appetite for that kind of voice on network television. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:04:17 - Jimmy Kimmel 00:31:57 - Update 00:32:50 - Eleanor Norton 00:34:01 - Tariffs Head to Supreme Court 00:35:33 - Erika Kirk 00:38:06 - Interview with Michael Cohen 01:42:11 - 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

    1h 47m

  3. SEP 17

    Charlie Kirk's Shooter Charged. IDF's Ground Incursion into Gaza (with Karol Markowicz and Ryan McBeth)

    Utah prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The charges include obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and multiple firearm offenses. According to the affidavit, Robinson confessed to both his roommate — with whom he was in a romantic relationship — and his father. Investigators say Robinson admitted that the motive was political. He told his roommate that “some hate cannot be negotiated” and accused Kirk of “spreading hatred.” Prosecutors allege that Robinson carved antifascist slogans into the bullet casings used in the shooting. They say he left behind clothes and a backpack at the scene, both of which tested positive for his DNA. A bolt-action rifle was found nearby. Surveillance footage and Discord messages allegedly link Robinson to planning the attack, though he has not spoken directly to police. His roommate, someone transitioning from male to female who has not been publicly identified, is cooperating with investigators. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Also at the scene was a second man, George Zinn, who approached police with a knife and told them to shoot him. Zinn allegedly said he had been trying to help Robinson escape. He has not been charged in the shooting, but prosecutors say he was found with child pornography. The two men were not known to each other before that day. This case does not follow the familiar patterns of mental instability or mass shooting chaos. Prosecutors have outlined what they describe as a deliberate, targeted act with ideological motivation. Robinson allegedly stated that he believed the shooting would be “the only way” to stop Kirk. The firearm used was a bolt-action rifle, which indicates planning rather than impulsivity. Governor Spencer Cox, in his television appearances, struck a more composed tone than in his initial press conference. That earlier moment felt like a political speech. Over the weekend, however, he appeared more focused on unity and de-escalation. That stands in contrast to Trump, whose responses were angrier and more inflammatory. The White House has not issued a formal statement, but administration officials have been briefed. One of the major talking points emerging in political media is whether this attack fits into a broader pattern. Names like Paul Pelosi and Ashli Babbitt have been floated — but what happened here is categorically different. The suspect allegedly had a motive, a plan, and a clear ideological framework. This was not senseless. According to prosecutors, it was intentional and politically driven. It's still early, and these are only allegations. But the details laid out so far paint a clear picture: a targeted political killing, carried out in public, with motive stated directly. That’s rare. And it’s something we’ll be forced to grapple with as the trial unfolds. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:15 - Charlie Kirk Suspect Arrested 00:09:53 - Interview with Karol Markowicz 00:53:28 - Update 00:54:01 - Pam Bondi Hate Speech 00:57:39 - Epstein 01:00:15 - Hakeem Jeffries and Zohran Mamdani 01:02:53 - Interview with Ryan McBeth 01:52:45 - 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

    2h 1m

  4. SEP 11

    Let's Talk About Political Violence in America.

    In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I needed to sit down and talk with you — just you and me. This isn’t a guest-heavy episode, there is no news roundup. This is something different. This is something more personal, more direct, and honestly, more painful. I want to talk about what this moment means, why it matters, and what we do next. Because we’re at a crossroads, and that road cuts directly through our online and offline realities in ways we can’t ignore anymore. Charlie Kirk was shot with a rifle while on stage at Utah Valley University. The shooter is still unidentified, and the motives are still unclear. But there’s no denying what that moment was meant to signal: if you talk like this, we’ll kill you. And while that “we” remains unknown, the message it sends is loud and clear. This wasn’t a private act of violence. This was political. This was a statement. And the target wasn’t just Kirk — it was anyone who might stand where he stood or say what he said. Kirk wasn’t someone I always agreed with, but I did see what he built. Turning Point USA grew into a major player, replacing many of the institutions that shaped college conservatism before him. He blended the Buckley model of organizing with the showmanship of Limbaugh and became influential not just in youth politics but in the Trump movement itself. His voice mattered. His platforms mattered. And whether or not you liked what he said, it’s impossible to ignore that many young conservatives saw themselves in him. So much of what’s happened since his death has disturbed me. The edgelords on the internet doing their worst, cracking jokes about the bullet that hit him, pretending he wasn’t a person with a wife and children — that’s not just tasteless, it’s dehumanizing. And when you dehumanize someone in death, you’re justifying violence against the living. It’s not a good look. It’s not principled. It’s cruelty dressed up as politics. We’ve seen attempts to paint political violence as something that only comes from one side, but that’s not how any of this works. Whether it’s a left-wing shooter or a right-wing pipe bomber, we’ve got to stop turning every horrific act into a team sport. Every time someone uses violence as a form of political speech, it pushes the line further, normalizes the unacceptable, and opens the door for more of it. And that’s the real danger — the escalation, the dehumanization, the cheapening of life itself. Now look, I understand that people hated Charlie Kirk, and saw him as a cartoon villain solely taking up space on the internet. But if your first instinct when someone is murdered is to dig up their worst take, maybe it’s time to reevaluate what you stand for. Did Kirk say provocative things? Sure. But we’re either going to live in a country where bad takes are met with debate or one where they’re met with bullets. And if it’s the latter, none of us — not me, not you — are safe. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Among those edgelords and the calls for retaliatory violence, though, I saw hope. A YouGov poll found that 78% of Americans think it’s unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure, even one they dislike, and only 9% answered in the affirmative. That’s good. That’s a big majority, especially in today’s political climate, and it points to a baseline of decency in this country that hasn’t been completely eroded by the internet’s worst tendencies. And then there was Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks and someone who battled Kirk publicly. He posted something beautiful, something real. He talked about sharing a beer with Kirk, about choosing unity over hate. That matters. Because it shows that humanity still exists across the aisle. That you can disagree without celebrating someone’s death. That maybe — just maybe — we can start tending our own gardens before trying to burn someone else’s to the ground. So, what do we do now? We lead by example. We reject political violence — loudly, clearly, and without exception. We treat each other like people, not caricatures. And we remember that even in a polarized world, the line between democracy and something far darker is thinner than we think. Let’s not cross it. Not now. Not ever. Chapters 00:00 - Intro 02:42 - Who was Charlie Kirk? 07:40 - Reaction clips 13:09 - Discourse 23:08 - This is different 30:26 - The internet is not real life 37:44 - What now? 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

    40 min

  5. SEP 11

    Charlie Kirk Shot In Utah. Dead.

    UPDATE: President Trump posts that Kirk is dead. UPDATE: Initial suspect not the shooter. Suspected shooter fired from 200 yards away. Still at large. This was originally filmed Wednesday afternoon on September 10th, 2025. TRANSCRIPT: Charlie Kirk, shot, condition unknown. Hello and welcome to the Politics, Politics, Politics Extra for what would be September 11th, 2025. Justin Robert Young joining you here. This one is going to be an abbreviated edition that we’re going to get early and we’re going to put out publicly because among all the news that is happening in the world of politics, there is one that is breaking right now, and that is Turning Point USA’s founder, Charlie Kirk, shot at a public event at Utah Valley University in what appears in video online to be an extraordinarily serious, if not likely fatal, assassination attempt. Assassination being specifically defined as a premeditated murder with political motives. And first and foremost, let me just say that all thoughts and prayers to Charlie Kirk and his family. He had a wife and two kids. Obviously, the details on his health will be forthcoming. I will keep an eye on social media as I record this to get you the latest information before I put this out. The reason why I wanted to do this right now is because oftentimes, when this happens, and you have a murderer who commits an act of unspeakable violence, it’s usually hard to map their motivations onto mainstream politics. And I make sure that those points are made because what I don’t want is for aberrant violence to cloud what is otherwise a public dialogue about advocacy, rights, faith, belief, and ultimately the American dream—the desire to live a life that is better than those that came before you and to create a pathway for somebody after you to lead an even better one. And while we don’t know what the motives are of this shooter (who looks to be at least the man who was detained in an extraordinarily public setting was an older white man) what we don’t know is his exact motives. It is hard, at least at this stage, and this is again breaking news, it would seem likely that Charlie Kirk was attempted to be executed, if not successfully executed, as a public sign that he is somebody who was too dangerous to live for political purposes. This was not an act of violence that was taken out in secret. This was done to cow, to show as a demonstration that this is what happens when you stick your head up. You should live and be afraid. Now, we don’t know that for sure. Maybe this guy was just deranged and, you know, he did have whatever bizarre motivations that are beyond the world of mainstream politics. Maybe. Maybe. And if that is indeed the case, the next time that I do a show, I will bring that to you. I will bring that context to you. But in this moment, right now, it sure doesn’t look like it. We’ll take a moment right now to understand Charlie Kirk’s significance on the political landscape. He is somebody that has a very important role in the conservative ecosystem. Not only has Turning Point USA been a tremendous organizer for conferences, for student activism, but also in this cycle wound up taking on a more traditional vendor role for voter registration and door knocking, something that many people didn’t really believe they had the experience to do. And yet it did seem to be at least successful, as much as you can credit a vendor for the success of something like the Trump campaign. He is an unabashed political conservative. He is somebody that comes from the Rush Limbaugh mold. He has been important in the world of Arizona politics, where he lived. And while I have certainly had my commentary on the Arizona Republican Party, there’s no doubt that he plays a large role in that. It’s hard to imagine where this goes beyond Charlie Kirk being a martyr, alive or dead, that will be held up as somebody who was slain by left-wing violence. That will be a large talking point in the media. Okay. There is no doubt that we are living in a world of heightened tension. And so all I will say to you, anyone who listens to my voice or watches this video, is my goal has always been to make you understand and comprehend how politics—the mechanism by which we enact democracy—can work for you. My goal is to highlight campaigns and strategies that are working and ones that are not working. Now, obviously, there’s a swashbuckling element for me that likes being right and likes being able to comprehend the system. But the utility for you that I’ve always wanted to offer when I call myself the scoreboard and not the pep rally is to give you an understanding so you can interact with this system the way that you want and get what you want out of it. I do not believe that political violence has any place in our world. To be totally honest, I would go even further than that. I don’t believe that you should be cutting people off out of your life that you politically disagree with. I believe that there needs to be healing. There needs to be dialogue with people that care about you. Not every random stranger on the internet needs a friend, but I’m talking about friends, family, people that enrich our lives. Because when we are cut off from them, we only wither. We become less than. And as somebody who spends an inordinate amount of time following politics and politicians, trust me when I tell you from the inside, it is not worth it to trade them for the people that you know and love. Not to be all Marianne Williamson here, but the only way that we climb our way out of a world that has weaponized hate to the point where something like this can happen is through caring for our fellow man. Nobody should get that mad at a podcast. Charlie Kirk did not elect Donald Trump. The people of America elected Donald Trump. Everybody had a small piece of it, but it is the people that willed in the person, and then everybody else takes credit for it afterward. Charlie Kirk might have been successful in speaking to an audience about issues that they cared about, but he did not invent the issues. Dare I say, nor did he necessarily shape them. He talked about them in a way that his audience wanted to hear it. Sometimes when you’re as influential as he is, you can introduce new ideas, but there’s no guarantee that they’re going to take. You’re offering them to a populace, and they decide whether or not they care. Anybody who’s been in this game for any amount of time knows that to be the truth. Silencing Charlie Kirk through murderous violence does not stop the ideas. In fact, it likely emboldens those that are looking to change the country in the way that Charlie Kirk is looking to change the country to do so. I wish I had a regular episode for you. Obviously, any plans that I had for Friday’s episode are kind of out of the window. We’ll figure out what we’re going to do for that. But until next time, just know this: for anybody who is listening or watching me, I very much treasure and appreciate your time. And I would just say, love each other. Thank you very much. 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

    12 min

  6. SEP 8

    What's The Pre-Shutdown Vibe in DC? Breaking Down the Latest NYC Mayoral Fights (with Kirk Bado and Evan Scrimshaw)

    A Trumpian Collision Over the weekend, Donald Trump addressed a pretty strange situation involving a Hyundai plant in Georgia. ICE conducted a raid there, detaining over 475 people allegedly working illegally — including over 200 South Korean nationals. The site’s still under construction, which makes the whole thing even weirder. There’s now an ongoing diplomatic mess as South Korea tries to repatriate those detained. Trump’s response hit both of his usual notes: yes to foreign investment, but also yes to enforcing immigration law. A rare moment where his priorities clash in real time. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Signs from Buenos Aires In Argentina, President Javier Milei took a hit in the provincial elections in Buenos Aires. That’s often seen as a signal of what’s coming in the congressional races. While there’s been some economic improvement under his government, it’s clear he still has to fight off the Peronists. I don’t have enough background here to give you more than the headlines — I’ll need to bring on someone who actually follows Argentine politics. But if you’re tracking libertarian movements worldwide, this is one to watch. An Attempted Assassin Faces Court On Monday, the trial began for Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump on a golf course last summer. He’s facing charges including attempted murder of a presidential candidate. Based on his online behavior — including attempts to recruit people to fight in Ukraine — he’s definitely a character. I don’t know how much of the trial will be public, but if past is prologue, he’s probably going to try and make a spectacle of it. Whether or not his lawyers let him is another question entirely. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:49 - Interview with Kirk Bado 00:48:00 - Update 00:48:19 - Immigration 00:50:23 - Argentina 00:51:21 - Trump Trial 00:52:39 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw 01:48:28 - 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

    1h 52m

  7. SEP 5

    Trump's Crime Ratings. RFK Gets Roasted. A Roadmap for Congress Through 2025 (with Jen Briney)

    There’s a growing expectation that the National Guard will soon be deployed to Chicago. It hasn’t happened yet, but signs are pointing to it. Several weeks ago, the Guard was sent into Washington, D.C., and now there’s enough time and distance to measure the results — carjackings down 80 percent, violent crime down over 30 percent. That’s not just coming from the White House. Muriel Bowser, the Democratic mayor of D.C., is also saying it. She doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of public sentiment. She’s even making overtures to the White House about keeping some form of Guard presence to avoid a crime snapback. But Washington is a special case. It’s a federal district, and its autonomy is only delegated by the government. Chicago is not. In a federal system, cities like Chicago are under the control of their state governments — in this case, the governor and mayor, neither of whom want the National Guard there. That’s what makes this next move, if it happens, such a flashpoint. If Trump sends in the Guard — and I do believe it’s a when, not an if — the legal and political battle will hinge on the how, the how many, and the where. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. And then there’s the question of when they leave. Lawsuits will be filed. Injunctions will be issued. But I’m convinced this is going to happen because it’s good politics for Trump. He sees the Nixon playbook from 1968 — using force to control urban unrest — and believes it worked then. He believes it’ll work now. And if you look at the RealClearPolitics numbers, there’s a logic to it. Trump is underwater by 9.3 points on foreign policy. On the economy, he’s down 11.5. On inflation, it’s nearly minus 20. The country doesn’t think he’s doing a good job on the issues that normally shape campaigns. Foreign policy numbers can shift — if hostages are released or a ceasefire happens in Ukraine, those could bounce. But economic sentiment is more stubborn. And the danger is that Trump falls into the same trap Biden did: saying the economy’s fine while people feel like it’s not. That disconnect isn’t abstract. It’s felt at the gas pump, at the grocery store. It’s the pain of realizing you don’t have the money to cover the tab, of pulling items from your cart while your kids ask why you’re crying. It’s a humiliating, personal experience, and telling people it’s not real only makes it worse. Trump’s not winning that argument. But he is closer on immigration. It’s loud, it’s polarizing, but he’s only down 1.3 points in aggregate. Polls in August were a split: tied in Harvard Harris and YouGov, down eight in Reuters, up ten in Morning Consult. Two ties, two outliers. For an issue that gets as much airtime as immigration, that kind of polling tells you Trump’s message still resonates. And then there’s crime. The only issue where Trump is in the black — plus one. That’s after the Guard was deployed to D.C. He sees this as the cornerstone of his pitch: what if government actually worked for you? What if America came first? He wants to frame Democrats as soft, as willing to defend criminals while waving spreadsheets that say crime is technically down. And he wants to pit that against your lived experience — that you don’t feel safe, that your neighbor’s car got broken into, that you hesitate before getting on the subway late at night. It’s federally illegal. I believe the courts will eventually force a pullback. But not before Trump gets the message out. Because on this issue, unlike all the others, the American people are with him. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:04:40 - Trump Crime Ratings 00:13:31 - Update 00:16:23 - RFK Jr. 00:23:21 - Eric Adams 00:26:42 - Free Press Deal 00:31:11 - Interview with Jen Briney 01:04:29 - 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

    1h 8m

  8. SEP 3

    Breaking Down Prop 50 Ads! Jumping Into the Democratic Primary Machine (with Dillon Fleharty)

    The Prop 50 Messaging Blitz Proposition 50 is one of the most nakedly strategic plays in this cycle. It exists for one purpose: to eliminate California’s independent redistricting board so Democrats can gerrymander five seats back — a direct response to Republicans doing the same in red states. That’s the whole game. Strip away the messaging, and it’s a power move. The ads hitting the airwaves now make it clear how the campaign is going to run: targeted, segmented, and intensely focused on turnout. Gavin Newsom’s out front, naturally. The first ad is just him — classic ego-forward strategy. The second ad is aimed squarely at the Bay Area and Los Angeles liberal base, the same model they used to win his recall election. It’s all about maximizing favorable turnout in deep blue pockets. They’ve run this play before, and they know it works — but back then, they had a longer runway. This time, they’re racing the clock. Then there’s the third ad. That one’s for the independents, and its existence tells you everything. The campaign knows that gutting an independent redistricting board is a tough sell outside the bubble. They say it’s temporary. I don’t buy that. Nobody gives up control once they get it — not in politics. The only way this doesn’t work is if moderates see through the language and call it what it is. That last ad shows they’re worried that might happen. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Jerry Nadler’s Long Exit Jerry Nadler is stepping down after more than 30 years in Congress and 50 years in public office. He’s one of those figures who’s always just sort of been there — a Manhattan political mainstay who most recently made headlines during Trump’s first impeachment. That might end up being his most lasting national footprint. He barely held onto his seat after being redistricted into a brutal primary with Carolyn Maloney. He survived that one, but it felt like the end of something. Now he’s officially retiring. He says it’s time to pass the torch, and he’s backing his former aide, Michael Lasher, to take over. That makes sense. It’s a controlled handoff. The district will stay blue. The torch will stay in the family. Nadler might not have been the flashiest member of Congress, but he was consequential — particularly in the Judiciary Committee, where he held the gavel through some of the most heated partisan fights of the Trump era. He stepped aside from that leadership role after Jamie Raskin challenged him, and that felt like the start of the wind-down. There wasn’t really a lane left for him in this current version of the Democratic Party. He’s not the TikTok-friendly progressive, and he’s not the compromise-seeking centrist. He’s just an old-school liberal from New York. And now, like a lot of others in his generation, he’s finally closing the book. Virginia Foxx and the Epstein Files Representative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, announced she won’t use her panel to block Thomas Massie’s discharge petition demanding the release of the Epstein files. That’s a big move — maybe even a signal. The Republican leadership has been slow-rolling this whole thing, not wanting to get too close to whatever comes out of those documents. But Foxx just let it breathe. Massie’s move has bipartisan cover — he’s working with Democrat Ro Khanna — and it’s gaining momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports “maximum disclosure,” but that there need to be protections for victims. That’s the dodge. That’s how they’re all trying to walk this line — publicly in favor of transparency, privately praying it doesn’t land on their doorstep. The buzz on the Hill is that DOJ will release just enough of the Epstein files to make the issue go away. Maybe that works. Maybe not. But one thing’s clear: the discharge petition isn’t just symbolic anymore. It’s a real threat. And the fact that leadership isn’t moving to squash it says a lot about how much weaker those levers of control have gotten. Foxx’s choice here wasn’t just about process — it was a quiet acknowledgment that the old rules don’t apply. Not with this. Not anymore. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:25 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty 00:45:49 - Update 00:48:02 - Prop 50 ads 00:53:05 - Jerry Nadler 00:55:08 - Virginia Foxx 00:56:47 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty, con’t 01:35:24 - 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

    1h 39m
See All (373)

4.7
out of 5
875 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

Information

  • Creator
    Justin Robert Young
  • Years Active
    2015 - 2025
  • Episodes
    373
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Justin Robert Young
  • Show Website
    Politics Politics Politics

You Might Also Like