Politics Politics Politics

Justin Robert Young
  • 4.6 (879)
  • 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. 2d ago

    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

  2. 4d ago

    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

  3. 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. Jul 7

    Europe's Ridiculous Divorce from America. It's Curtains for Graham Platner (with Kirk Bado)

    European leaders are talking about a rupture with America — a de-Americanization of the continent driven by Donald Trump’s demands that NATO members spend more on defense, his transactional view of alliances, and even his threats to annex Greenland. I don’t blame them for being frustrated. Their citizens hate the guy, and they still have to deal with him. Trump is never going to be a weepy internationalist reminiscing about the transatlantic bond forged in blood and mud from World War II through the Cold War. He looks at every relationship as a business deal: What are you doing for me, and what am I doing for you in return? He doesn’t mind doing something for Europe if Europe does something for America, and he views this as one of our more one-sided relationships. European governments are now removing American technology from their systems, adopting European open-source software, and investing hundreds of billions of dollars in their own space firms, artificial intelligence companies, and data centers. Good luck. If Europe were capable of developing that economy under its current system, it wouldn’t be in this situation. The talent exists, but investment is too hard, regulation is too burdensome, and companies must navigate a collection of fiefdoms with their own tax bases and regulatory structures. Europe has a gigantic social safety net, and it can’t grow its way out of it. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The numbers tell the story. From the fourth quarter of 2019 through the first quarter of 2026, real GDP grew 15.2 percent in the United States and 6.4 percent in the euro area. In the first quarter of 2026, American GDP was up 2.7 percent year over year, while the euro area managed 0.3 percent. Europe has made more promises to its citizens, created a larger regulatory burden, and left itself more vulnerable to inflationary spikes. If it wants to decouple from America, it will need to start paying its own bills — including the enormous cost of providing for its own defense. Quite simply, Europe is not a serious place. Many of the leaders complaining about Trump might not even be around in 2028. By then, a President Vance could meet a NATO shaped by Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, and an elder stateswoman Giorgia Meloni. The political order Europe imagines itself preserving may be disappearing faster than its relationship with Washington. For lack of a better phrase, Europe needs a sugar daddy, and its binary choice is either America or China. Only one of those countries has a shared history with Europe, and it’s us. I understand that Trump is frustrating and isn’t the American president European leaders came to know and love. But he’s the best they’ve got, and the alternative is either unrealistic or worse. There is no great substitute for America, so Europe will ultimately have to take the deal we give it. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:44 - Graham Platner 00:07:29 - Kirk Bado on Graham Platner and More 00:35:20 - Andrew Gillum’s Arrest 00:45:49 - Trump’s F-35 Push for Turkey 00:48:08 - Iran Attacks 00:50:08 - Europe’s Divorce from America 00:59:56 - 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 2

    Happy Birthday America, You Absolute Classic. The Fate of the Democratic Party (with Jeff Maurer)

    We talk all the time about how America is a very young country, and that’s true when you compare us to Europe, Africa, and Asia, where countries are built around lineages, ethnic majorities, and religions. But not America. We’re a melting pot. We’re risk takers. It’s woven into the fabric of the United States that no matter where you are right now, tomorrow can be better than today was, and your life can be better here than it can be anywhere else in the world. You can gain here. You can lose here, too, so you’ve got to be careful and you’ve got to be vigilant. But that lesson is what moves us forward. I keep telling people that, with America, we’ve got a classic. But what does that mean? In the same way your favorite song is a classic, something you can play over and over again and it never gets old. Your favorite movie that you quote with your friends. Something that lives in your head and every time you think about it, you find a new way to think about it. Two hundred and fifty years ago, we declared independence with the idea that we could make one. We could invent our own set of rules that would not only endure, but allow humans to prosper. What we got from it was the United States Constitution. It continues to endure to this day. We argue about it, we amend it, we challenge it, and we defend it because we know it’s worth defending. It’s a classic. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. While we are a young country, we are old in one regard: we are the longest continuous form of government on the planet. Everybody else comes and goes. You don’t have to when you’re sitting on a classic. I love America. I love talking about our great moments. I love talking about our bad moments. I love learning lessons from the missteps we’ve made, and I love reveling in our success. Ronald Reagan once said that you could live a hundred years in Japan and not be Japanese, or in Germany and not be German, but if you come to the United States, you can be an American. It is a spirit that beats deep within those of us who are lucky enough to have been born here and lucky enough to live at the bleeding edge of technology, culture, and finance. We have our problems, but there is no better country on the planet to identify them and fix them. So this weekend, raise a glass with your loved ones. Grill whatever you want on that grill. Look around in that humid, hot weather, whether you’re by the lake, in your backyard, sitting at your desk, or doing whatever the hell you want. I hope that either physically or in spirit, you’re with your friends and family when you say, “Happy Birthday, America.” You absolute classic. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:10:17 - America at 250 00:17:05 - Interview with Jeff Maurer 00:42:55 - AOC Endorses El-Sayed 00:48:54 - SAVE America Dead? 00:51:18 - OpenAI’s 5% Plan 00:54:37 - Interview with Jeff Maurer, con’t 01:21:47 - 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

  6. Jun 30

    Birthright Citizenship Survives! How America's 250th Birthday Celebration is Going (with Kevin Ryan)

    The Supreme Court wrapped up its term with three major decisions, and one surprise that turned out not to be a surprise after all. NPR briefly published a report that suggested Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, which would have handed Donald Trump another Supreme Court appointment, but that story was pulled, leaving us to wonder when that announcement might finally land. The actual rulings were significant enough on their own, though. The Court rejected Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, effectively settling a legal argument that immigration hawks have wanted decided for decades. They’ve argued for years that the phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment leaves room to limit birthright citizenship. Trump finally brought that argument to the Supreme Court, and the Court disagreed. At least for now, this feels like settled law, and I’m curious to see where immigration activists go from here. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Court also upheld Idaho and West Virginia laws banning transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports. The ruling says Title IX permits sex-separated teams based on biological sex, and while the liberal justices wanted a narrower constitutional review, they agreed on the Title IX question. It feels like this issue has reached a legal endpoint. It’s remarkable that Title IX has become the vehicle for defending these policies, but I don’t see much room left for this fight in the courts. The final decision struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, ruling that the caps violate the First Amendment. Republicans are understandably celebrating because the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case, while Democrats are warning about billionaire influence and corruption. I tend to think the real victim here is the political middleman. Most of this money was getting where it wanted to go anyway. People donate to party committees because they want those organizations directing resources into competitive races. If you’re worried about billionaire influence, I think the darker corners of campaign finance remain a much bigger issue than the official party committees. Meanwhile, the national media has finally caught up to something I’ve been talking about for weeks: gas prices keep falling even though every expert expected the opposite after the war with Iran began. I first noticed it at my local gas station in Austin, and it didn’t line up with the conventional wisdom that prices shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather. Now that same question is being asked everywhere. National gas prices have fallen for five straight weeks, crude oil has drifted back into what I’d consider a normal range, and we’re steadily moving away from the price spike that followed the conflict. Trump is even publicly pressuring retailers to get prices down to $2.50 a gallon, although it’s pretty obvious he’d be thrilled just to get them back near $3. The diplomacy behind all of this is getting more interesting. Iran launched drones at supertankers over the weekend, the United States responded with strikes on missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, and shipping resumed. At the same time, the Trump administration appears to be running a good cop, bad cop strategy. JD Vance has focused on keeping negotiations alive, while Marco Rubio’s trip through the Gulf helped produce an Israel-Lebanon agreement tied to a broader deal with Iran and expanded shipping options through Oman. If crude oil keeps falling despite all of that, then the question I can’t shake is the same one I’ve been asking for weeks: what exactly is Iran’s leverage? If they’re negotiating denuclearization and they can’t keep energy prices elevated, then I need somebody who understands the Iranian system better than I do to explain where the leverage actually is. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:21 - Tom Kean 00:06:41 - Supreme Court Decisions 00:12:17 - Iran and Gas Prices 00:24:28 - Interview with Kevin Ryan 00:46:57 - Colorado Primaries 00:54:29 - House of Representatives 00:57:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t 01:36:37 - 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. Jun 26

    A Tale of Two Blockades! What the Hell is Going On in the UK? (with Tom Merritt)

    What should have been a bipartisan housing bill touting affordability has instead become a fight over the Save America Act. Representative Anna Paulina Luna is leading a House conservative blockade, freezing routine procedural votes until the Senate takes up the Trump-backed elections bill. The problem is that the Senate has no path forward. The bill doesn’t have the votes, and the Senate isn’t about to let the House dictate its agenda. In the meantime, House Republicans are unable to move other priorities, including appropriations and next week’s defense policy bill. Luna’s leverage comes from one place: Donald Trump. The president canceled the planned signing of the bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not move forward until the Save America Act passes. House Republicans believe Luna’s close relationship with Trump is what’s keeping the blockade alive. Mike Lee has also pushed Trump to hold the line, arguing that Republican voters need something to get excited about before the midterms and that the Save America Act is that issue. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The divide inside the Republican Party is becoming clearer. Luna, Lee, and the hardliners argue that if voters gave Republicans the White House and both chambers of Congress, they expect them to fight for election legislation, not immediately explain why it can’t pass. The Senate’s answer is that the bill doesn’t have sixty votes. Their view is that Republicans can either spend weeks arguing over a bill that cannot pass or move on to things they can actually accomplish. I think this has been mishandled by both Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune. Whether or not the entire Save America Act could ever get sixty votes, there are pieces of it that are broadly popular with the American public, particularly voter ID provisions. Those could have been broken out and forced into separate fights. Instead, Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where the House is frozen, the Senate has no incentive to move, and everyone is arguing over tactics instead of making progress. My expectation is that Trump ultimately signs the housing bill. This feels like walking away from the table before signing in the hope of getting something else. He wants movement on the Save America Act. I just don’t think he’s going to get it. Meanwhile, Iran's Revolutionary Guard reportedly struck the Singapore-flagged cargo ship Ever Lovely as it transited the Strait of Hormuz, raising new doubts about the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding and the security of commercial shipping through the waterway. No casualties were reported, but the ship was damaged and the International Maritime Organization paused evacuation efforts while reassessing security. My biggest question isn't whether the memorandum itself is good or bad. It's whether any agreement can actually be enforced if there isn't one clear center of leadership in Iran. I honestly don't know who's making the calls, and I’m not sure if anyone else really has a good idea either. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:57 - SAVE America Blockade 00:11:54 - Iran 00:14:16 - Asylum Ruling 00:16:29 - James vs. Mamdani 00:19:52 - Interview with Tom Merritt 01:06:40 - 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

  8. Jun 23

    JEFFRIES vs. MAMDANI! NY-12 Heats Up the House! Digging Into the Anthropic Debacle (with Andrew Mayne)

    All eyes are on New York. The congressional primaries happen tonight, and in a city this Democratic, many of these races will effectively decide who heads to Congress. What I’m watching is a battle between Hakeem Jeffries and Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani is flexing. We’re going to see exactly how much of a kingmaker he is in New York City. Jeffries is backing incumbents like Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Mamdani is backing candidates including Brad Lander and Darlisa Avila Chevalier. The big question is whether Mamdani’s endorsements can translate into wins, especially against somebody as entrenched as Espaillat. The race that really has my attention, though, is New York’s 12th Congressional District. Jerry Nadler is retiring, and what has followed is an absolute clown car of a race. Micah Lasher would be my favorite to win, but he’s the least interesting candidate in the field. George Conway, once one of the chief architects of turning the Monica Lewinsky scandal into the political force that it became and later one of the most notable Never Trump Republicans in America, is running as a Democrat. Jack Schlossberg, John F. Kennedy’s grandson, is also in the race. And then there’s Alex Bores, a New York Assembly member who has become the main character of this contest thanks to his relationship with AI. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The polling has been all over the place. Early on, Schlossberg led thanks to the Kennedy name. More recent polling has Lasher ahead, with Bores close behind and a huge chunk of the electorate still undecided. That’s important because Bores has become the center of one of the strangest political fights I’ve ever seen. Roughly $26 million has poured into this House race because of his support for the RAISE Act, a proposal to regulate artificial intelligence at the state level. The two major companies in artificial intelligence, OpenAI and Anthropic, have very different views on how to regulate AI. A super PAC supported by OpenAI leadership in a personal capacity spent money attacking Bores, arguing that splintered state regulations would hurt the industry. Anthropic-aligned groups responded by spending even more money. Do they support the RAISE Act? Who knows. They want OpenAI’s effort to fail, and that’s what makes fight this so unusual. All of this is far less about Alex Bores and more about two AI companies using a congressional primary as a venue for a much larger argument. I know politics, and I understand the influence of super PACs. I’ve never seen a personal beef quite like this one. Anthropic hates OpenAI, and it’s not a secret. Their CEO, Dario Amodei, does not believe OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman is trustworthy. Anthropic’s view is that it needs to out-innovate OpenAI and become the market leader. At the same time, I think the anti-Bores effort made strategic mistakes. The ads were so ham-fisted that they gave him life he otherwise would not have had. The spending has even become controversial inside OpenAI. And tonight’s the night we find out whether any of it even mattered. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:05:34 - Jeffries vs. Mamdani 00:10:04 - NY-12 00:20:50 - Update 00:22:00 - Keir Starmer 00:26:50 - Israel 00:31:35 - Congress 00:34:29 - Intro to Attention Mechanism 00:38:16 - Attention Mechanism with Andrew Mayne 01:43:58 - 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

See All (404)

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

Information

  • Creator
    Justin Robert Young
  • Years Active
    2015 - 2026
  • Episodes
    404
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Justin Robert Young
  • Show Website
    Politics Politics Politics

You Might Also Like