President Donald Trump has long been associated with lust. The 2016 election prominently featured "the Access Hollywood tape" in which he can be heard boasting about grabbing women "by the pussy." But recently, his affections have turned to men.
"I examined his ass," Trump said of Sen. Jon Husted (R–Ohio) at an October 17 rally. "I examined his ass. And then I looked at his shoulders; I looked at his feet; I looked at his hand; I looked at his jawline." He liked what he saw.
There is one candidate, however, whose ass appears to be safe from the president's admiration. "He may not dress right. He may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I've ever seen," Trump told the crowd on the first night of the GOP midterm convention in Dallas, Texas. Even still, "he deserves to be your next senator."
Such was the pitch for Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general asking voters to promote him to the U.S. Senate. It has been a tough sell, much more so than is typical for a Republican fighting to represent Texas on the national stage. His opponent, state Rep. James Talarico of Austin, has often led in the polls in a place where a Democratic Senate victory would usually be relegated to liberal fever dreams. As A.G., Paxton has been dogged by an impeachment and by longstanding accusations, including from within his party, that his ethics compass is all but demagnetized.
There is another potential obstacle in his way, something Trump hinted at repeatedly in his Trumpian way over the course of that two-day convention. The main characters in the MAGA movement often have a kind of crass charisma—not necessarily a literal beauty, but certainly a talent for performance and presentation. This is a theme in populist movements for a reason: It's the people versus the elite, the outsiders versus the establishment, us versus them. So too can it serve as a helpful distraction when policies' practical results fail to match the promises made, as well as when allegations of corruption surface.
Paxton has the baggage with fewer obvious tools to combat it. And yet if one word best describes him, it may be survivor.
Paxton had been Texas' top law enforcement officer for about six months when he became a defendant.
In July 2015, a grand jury indicted him on three felonies. The charges—two counts of first-degree securities fraud and one count of third-degree failure to register as an investment adviser—concerned work he had done while in the Texas House of Representatives. As state representative for part of Collin County, he convinced investors to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Servergy, a tech startup, while allegedly failing to disclose that he was paid to attract those very investments.
A state attorney general showing up for a mug shot reverses the typical arrangement. Still, there were signs that this was on the way. In 2014, while Paxton was a state senator, the Texas State Securities Board disciplined him and fined him $1,000 for not completing the required registration to solicit investors. But while the criminal investigation delving into the full scope of alleged misconduct had been announced to the public, it was put on hold until after the election so as not to potentially sway the outcome.
It did not sway the next one either. Paxton was reelected in 2018. But that run-in with the law turned out to be just the beginning.
In 2020, the scandal that would come to define his career began to take shape. Several senior officials from Paxton's office went to the FBI to report him for what they said was an inappropriate and illegal relationship with his friend Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer who was already under federal investigation.
Paxton, the officials said, had leveraged his office to help Paul in various legal disputes, such as foreclosure proceedings. They also alleged that the attorney general had deployed a special prosecutor to go after Paul's enemies. Paxton denied the accusations. He was reelected in 2022.
"These were upstanding people that Ken Paxton himself had hired because of their conservative bona fides. And yet they all left stating, 'I don't want to have anything to do with this guy,'" says one Republican official who worked alongside Paxton in the Texas government. "It's basically the story of Ken Paxton in my mind. If he doesn't cross the line and literally break the law, he constantly skirts it. And therein lies the problem.
"Now, that's not me saying that he doesn't break the law," the official continues. "I'm just saying that is kind of his MO."
The following year, the Republican-led Texas House of Representatives impeached Paxton for conduct related to the same scandal. The information aired during his trial, particularly as it related to his love life, arguably made the biggest impression on the public consciousness. Paul, it seemed, had set up a fake Uber account under the name "Dave P." It had a mysterious habit of summoning cars to pick up a passenger a block from Paxton's house so it could travel to the apartment of Laura Olson, Paxton's girlfriend.
This was complicated, because Paxton also has a wife, Angela Paxton, herself a member of the Texas state Senate. That body would go on to acquit Paxton of impeachment in September 2023. Angela announced two years later that she was filing for divorce "on biblical grounds."
As for that 2015 criminal indictment, the attorney general was set to go to trial in April 2024, after a series of protracted delays, when he cut a deal at the 11th hour. He would pay restitution and do community service, and in exchange, the prosecutors ultimately dismissed the charges. Had he been convicted, he faced decades in prison, and, per his own guidance, he would likely have been precluded from running for public office in Texas again as a felon.
Paxton declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate the next year.
Paxton's knack for survival has long baffled onlookers. "The guy's ability to take shots and just keep moving on and stay in elected office is unlike anything I've ever seen in my career in 25 years of running campaigns," Ash Wright—previously a senior adviser to George P. Bush, who invoked the incumbent's mug shot in a 2022 bid to be attorney general—told the Associated Press in July.
How he does that is a matter of some mystery, given he does not possess the showmanship the president favors. One answer might provide a window into how the Republican Party has evolved in recent years. What Paxton may lack in stage presence, he makes up for in a willingness to use his office as a performative blunt instrument.
The attorney general's lengthy tenure has been consumed almost entirely by two categories: high-profile scandals and high-profile lawsuits. During the 2026 Senate primary, as he made his case that he should replace Republican John Cornyn, Paxton advertised his conservative credentials with a statistic: He had "sued [President Joe] Biden over 100 times."
His lawsuits covered quite a bit of ground. There was his attempt in 2020 to overturn the election results, which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected. But he did not always fare poorly. Within days of Biden taking office in 2021, Paxton sued to stop the then-president's 100-day pause on certain deportations, which a federal court granted. He also secured enormous settlements against Meta and Google—$1.4 billion and $1.375 billion, respectively—for alleged privacy violations, although neither company admitted wrongdoing.
Paxton has not lost steam. In 2025, he filed a lawsuit against former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat, and his advocacy organization, Powered by People, over donations that supported Democratic lawmakers who left the state to block new Republican-drawn congressional maps. "Our Texan founding fathers—like our American founding fathers—took prior restraints on political speech out of the tool kit," a Texas appeals court later wrote, "when they enshrined the right to free speech in our Constitution." The year prior, Paxton filed suit against Annunciation House, a Catholic charity that shelters migrants in El Paso; one judge called his office's conduct in that case "outrageous and intolerable." Yet Paxton has succeeded in drawing out both cases with lengthy litigation. Even when he may lose the final battle, he often hamstrings his opponents for long periods, a different kind of victory.
Has that helped make Paxton nearly bulletproof? Maybe. But it is also a snapshot of the power of branding in this political moment and how he has leveraged it offstage. "How hard is it for anybody, any Republican, to go into the A.G.'s office and sue the president of the opposing party?" says the Republican former official. "It's just typical stuff, you know. It's nothing of this great political fighter that they think he is."
When it comes to the other category—those high-profile scandals—Paxton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, casting his legal tribulations as politically motivated witch hunts. He is, he always insists, the victim, not the perpetrator. It may be another sign of how the political landscape has changed, particularly in the GOP, in that transgressions can become capital when marketed savvily.
In the May runoff with Cornyn, who has represented Texas in the Senate since 2002, Paxton won by 28 points.
Party conventions usually exist to formally nominate a president and vice president. Those trappings were still there in the GOP's midterm convention, though no one was being nominated. There were state delegations, their role entirely symbolic. There were balloons and sequins and Lee Greenwood, who introduced the president both nights by singing "God Bless the USA." Trump, of course, loves a good production.
You couldn't help but get the feeling sometimes that the event was largely mounted for Paxton. It took place in Dallas, after all, and his race was a constant part of the discussion.
"He is a weird-looking dude," Trump said. That time, he was referring to Talarico, whom he called "Talafreako." That comment didn't come with an endorsement. "I mean, I don't like talking about looks, but there's something missing there."
Talarico's general presentation has been a subject of fascination on the right throughout the race: his appearance, whether he likes football, accusations he's a vegan (he isn't). An ad run by Paxton deems Talarico "too low-T for Texas"—not macho enough.
How this mudslinging resonates may vary. "Policy is all that matters," Kyle Biedermann, a Republican who served with Talarico in the Texas House of Representatives, told me on the sidelines during the second night of the convention. "I don't care if he's a vegan. I don't care what he does. But his policies are horrible, terrible for our state." Those policies, he said, "are so socialist, so far, far left" that anything else is beside the point.
The night prior, when the president offered $5,000 to every American adult if Republicans won the midterms, a victory in Texas may have been at the top of Trump's mind. On closing night, during the president's second speech, Paxton was featured heavily again. Trump described how he had rehearsed for the moment with his circle. "I'll tell you what I was thinking about saying. I said, 'I don't like the way Ken dresses,'" he recounted to the audience. "And then I said, 'I don't really like the way Ken talks.' And then I said something that they really hated….I said, 'I don't really like the way he looks.'"
In the VIP section, Paxton smiled awkwardly. He is, after all, a survivor.
The post Ken Paxton Survived Indictment, Impeachment, and Scandal. Can He Survive a Senate Race? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Texas might finally turn blue, and the man poised to do it is a mask-wearing, trans rights–supporting, Gnostic Gospel–quoting liberal from Austin. In an already tough year for Republicans, voter dissatisfaction at the state's data center boom is giving the Democrat an edge.
A few weeks out from the 2026 midterm elections, the polls have been giving state Rep. James Talarico (D–Austin) a small, steady edge over Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in the race to fill the Senate seat currently occupied by Republican Sen. John Cornyn.
Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994. The chattering class's constantly misfiring prediction that the latest liberal challenger will beat the favored Republican has made "Texas turning blue" a mockable meme—the political equivalent of Charlie Brown winding up to kick the football.
But this year may be different. The national environment is very bad for Republicans. President Donald Trump's unpopular tariffs and unpopular war have made him, well, unpopular and given GOP candidates little to run on. Texas Republicans are also saddled with Paxton, who won a hotly contested primary despite having little natural charisma and a lot of scandals (both personal and political) to explain away.
Republicans' political headwinds have made Talarico, a 37-year-old legislator with a history that puts him solidly to the left of the median Texas voter, a surprisingly competitive candidate. Some of Talarico's edge can no doubt be chalked up to the candidate's own political skill and fundraising advantage. But he is also benefiting from a late-breaking development that few saw coming: the Lone Star's data center revolt.
For as long as Republicans have run Texas, they've been able to claim credit for the state's decades-long economic growth streak. But the grassroots groundswell of opposition to Texas' data center boom has helped to neutralize that traditional GOP advantage. In solidly red rural areas, large majorities are telling pollsters that they are opposed to the hundreds of data centers proposed in their backyard.
When Republicans thus talk about their economic stewardship today, it conjures up not positive feelings of persistent prosperity but dissatisfaction at all the ways the party has allowed an unpopular data center to be built next door. In a tight race, that might just be enough to give Talarico the last little push he needs to finally turn Texas blue.
All the Texas Senate races of the past couple of decades have taken place within a growth machine. From 1998 through 2024, the Lone Star state posted the fourth-highest GDP growth rate, a period that roughly matches the GOP's unbroken record of statewide election wins. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a major corporation announcing a Texas megaproject or a billionaire relocating to booming Austin.
The state's frenetic growth rate has given the Texas GOP a good story to tell voters about why they should continue Republican rule: Under their low-tax, low-regulation regime, Texas has prospered. The jobs and businesses flooding into the state tend to be coming from states ruled by the Democrats trying to unseat them.
Those Texas Democrats whose bids for statewide office have managed to electrify liberals, meanwhile, have been ill-suited to convince voters that they'll keep the "Texas Miracle" going. There's an old joke that "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." In Texas, this hopeless romanticism has led to repeated heartbreak. In 2014, Wendy Davis inspired a national media buzz with her pro-abortion messaging while running for governor against Greg Abbott. Beto O'Rourke's style-over-substance challenge to Ted Cruz in 2018 produced a similar mania. Both lost.
You might expect Talarico to meet a similar fate. The fresh-faced lawmaker seems almost grown in a lab to leave liberals giddy while making swing voters stick with the GOP. A former teacher, he first won elected office in 2018, when he flipped an open Texas House seat in the Austin suburbs from red to blue. At 29 years old, he was then the youngest member of the Texas Legislature.
Analyses of lawmakers' voting record put Talarico squarely in the ideological middle of his fellow Democrats, and well to the left of the state's political center. His national star began to rise among Democrats when he used religious arguments to challenge Texas Republicans' culture-war battles over education.
In 2021, Texas Republicans proposed a bill requiring K-12 athletes to play on girls' or boys' sports teams according to the sex listed on their birth certificates. Two years later, they introduced a measure that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms. Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, cited his liberal brand of Protestantism to oppose both bills. "Trans children are God's children, made in God's own image. There's nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all. They are perfect. They are beautiful, and they are sacred," he said in a floor speech opposing the sports bill. In a debate on the Ten Commandments bill, he declared the legislation "deeply un-Christian," citing Christ's instructions in the Gospel of Matthew to pray privately. (The sports bill eventually passed. The 2023 Ten Commandments bill failed, but a near-identical bill would pass in 2025.)
Conservative Christians would quibble with Talarico's progressive readings of the Bible. For national Democrats and liberal-leaning magazine writers, however, his penchant for reframing the Annunciation as a pro-abortion parable and his citations of the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas to support trans rights all served as proof that this "deeply religious" Democrat could effectively speak to Christian swing voters in their own terms.
Talarico has also taken many secular positions that might be hard sells in Texas. In May 2020, a couple of months into the COVID-19 pandemic and weeks before George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, Talarico declared that racism was the real virus. At a 2022 animal welfare fundraiser, a mask-wearing Talarico said he was running a vegan campaign. The same year, he said in a public hearing, again wearing a mask, that "fossil fuels are destroying the planet."
In a state where oil, gas, and beef are champion industries, swing voters to not swoon ordinarily for race-critical, carbon-neutral veganism. Talarico himself seems to have conceded that point. He's dispelled rumors of his veganism by eating barbecue on camera and waved away his past wokisms as "cringey" and "miss[ing] the mark." Even so, Talarico's campaign platform remains stridently progressive. He wants to tax billionaires and raise the minimum wage. If it were up to him, he'd open up Medicare to everyone, regardless of age, and would codify abortion protections into law. He's pro–marijuana legalization and fanatically anti–school choice.
So why are polls showing Talarico maintaining a consistent two- to six-point edge over Paxton?
In one sense, his continued leftward lean is an electoral boon. In a race with a clear enthusiasm gap, some 91 percent of Democrats say they'll be supporting Talarico in the general election. Only 79 percent of Republicans say the same about their candidate. Talarico has also been blessed with a national environment that's shaping up to be a bloodbath for Republicans, who have to answer for the rising prices driven by Trump's tariffs and the Iran war.
But there is one final factor putting Talarico over the edge: a statewide data center revolt that's souring Texas voters on their state's growth machine and neutralizing the pro-growth message that has carried the GOP through so many other tough election cycles.
In November 2025, on the heels of Google's decision to invest $40 billion in data center development in the state, Gov. Greg Abbott proudly declared, "Texas is the epicenter of AI development, where companies can pair innovation with expanding energy." Just a few months later, the governor was vowing to impose new regulations on data centers to "protect" Texans from the consequences of their rampant development.
The U.S. has experienced a rapid revolt against data centers this year, and in few places has that backlash been more sudden or more pronounced than in Texas. According to a 2025 poll by the University of Texas at Austin, nearly 60 percent of Texans were either supportive or neutral about a data center being built in their neighborhood. In August 2026, 57 percent said they would oppose a local data center project.
This backlash against data centers couldn't have come at a worse time for Texas Republicans, or, consequently, at a better time for Talarico. The policies the Texas GOP have long touted as the key to the state's economic success—loose land use and environmental regulations, no state income tax, and the cheap commercial energy prices created by its deregulated energy sector—are the same policies attracting data centers. When the most visible recent consequence of those pro-growth policies is a data center boom most Texans hate, the state's Republicans are having to run away from what were once their prime selling points.
The sudden negative turn in public opinion on data centers has "proven a catalyst for people raising questions about governance and the economy in the state," says James Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. Making matters worse, says Henson, is the geography of the data center backlash. Opposition to these projects is concentrated in rural areas that have long been Republican strongholds and in suburban areas where the party needs to stay competitive to win statewide elections.
As Abbott's pivot demonstrates, Texas Republicans feel acutely vulnerable on this issue and are scrambling to adopt policies that ensure these developments do not lead to higher electricity prices for residential consumers. Paxton himself has called for a raft of new regulations on these facilities' water and power use and for ending a sales tax exemption on data centers, as well as some more off-the-wall conservative-coded policies, such as holding data centers criminally liable for facilitating AI chatbots that "endanger" children.
Talarico's data center proposal isn't all that different. He too would require data centers to pay for the full costs of their power and would end the sales tax exemption they can currently claim on equipment purchases. He'd also give local communities veto power over data center projects. That makes him more moderate on data centers than fellow Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who is running for governor against Abbott. She's called for a moratorium on data center construction until the state Legislature can convene to discuss "protections" for Texans.
Talarico's moderation could be partly explained by the fact that data centers are more popular, relatively speaking, in heavily Democratic urban areas. He also represents a slice of Austin, which has become a booming tech town. Why risk upsetting one's base when long-ruling Republicans already have to own the data center boom they were so recently bragging about?
The 2026 midterm environment seems almost tailor-made to neutralize Republicans' long-time advantages in Texas. Nationally, they have to own higher prices. Locally, they have to own an unpopular data center boom. Waning voter concerns about illegal immigration have caused their favored red-meat issue to turn a dull brown.
The Texas GOP's only weapon left is personal attacks on the man they call "Talafreako"—some weirdo liberal who calls trans kids "perfect" and thinks racism is the real virus. Talarico's persistent lead in the polls and on the prediction markets (which, in late October, put the chances of him winning at nearly 70 percent) suggest that these attacks are not working.
One could sense Republicans' desperation when right-wing influencers spun up a rumor that Talarico was absent from the campaign trail in early October because he was in a mental health facility in Ohio. (The hospital publicly denied ever treating Talarico. The candidate himself said he'd been recovering from the flu and said he'd never even visited Ohio.)
When Republicans call Talarico a freak, they mean to cast him as abnormal and off-putting: a "freak of nature." But freak has multiple usages. The word can also mean an unpredicted or unusual event: a "freak occurrence." Talarico succeeding in ending Republicans' three-decade run of statewide victories in Texas would fit the latter definition.
Rather than run from the Talafreako barb, Talarico's campaign has emblazoned merch with the intended insult. They at least seem to appreciate the irony of it all.
If Talarico is a freak, that will make his likely victory all the more freaky.
The post Will a Data Center Backlash Help James Talarico Turn Texas Blue? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Le elezioni di metà mandato non sono mai favorevoli al presidente in carica, ma nessun presidente si è mai speso quanto lui per fare campagna elettorale in quell’occasione. E’ questa in sostanza la tesi del comizio di Donald Trump a Corinth, in Mississippi, a sostegno della senatrice repubblicana Cindy Hyde-Smith, impegnata in una sfida elettorale contro il candidato democratico Scott Colom. Trump sottolinea che “abbiamo fatto il giro, abbiamo girato in lungo e in largo”, evidenziando il suo impegno personale nella fase conclusiva della campagna repubblicana per le elezioni di midterm del 3 novembre prossimo. Il presidente ha aggiunto poi come in questo appuntamento il partito al governo incontra spesso significative difficoltà e “non ottiene buoni risultati”. “Per qualche motivo, i presidenti non ottengono buoni risultati alle elezioni di metà mandato, a prescindere da quanto siano bravi – ribadisce – anche se sono eccezionali, come noi. Ma devo dire che nessuno ha mai fatto campagna elettorale come ho fatto io“. Gli ultimi sondaggi: repubblicani sotto di dieci punti rispetto ai democratici.
Trump, nel suo comizio nello Stato del Mississippi ha promesso di non ribattezzare il fiume Mississippi, diversamente da quanto ha detto per il Messico e il lago Ontario. “Sto pensando all’Oceano Atlantico. Lo chiamiamo Oceano Americano. Credo che all’Europa piacerà moltissimo. E sapete una cosa? Non lo farò. Lo prometto. Il fiume Mississippi: non gli cambierò il nome. Riuscite a immaginarlo, signore e signori? ‘Sono lieto di annunciare che cambieremo il nome del… Oh, in quale Stato ci troviamo? Oh, siamo nel Mississippi. Sono in un bel guaio'”, ha scherzato il tycoon. Trump, che si è impegnato a fondo nelle elezioni legislativedi midterm, aveva già detto in altri eventi della campagna elettorale che non intendeva cambiare il nome del fiume più imponente degli Stati Uniti.
Il vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti JD Vance ha insultato un contestatore che in Kansas aveva interrotto il suo comizio elettorale. “Ecco un altro che dice str…”, ha reagito Vance scatenando la base Maga che ha risposto intonando il coro “Usa Usa”.
Un giudice federale, Ana Reyes, ha prorogato l’ordinanza che blocca i piani dell’amministrazione di Donald Trump per la ristrutturazione del campo da golf pubblico, costruito un secolo fa, nella capitale americana. Emessa, nell’ordinanza di 70 pagine firmata da Reyes, anche un’ingiunzione preliminare per bloccare l’abbattimento di 500 alberi e altri lavori presso l’East Potomac Golf Course. Il 18 ottobre, Trump ha annunciato sui social media l’intenzione di chiudere il campo da golf per 15 mesi e di riqualificarlo, a dispetto degli stop legali e del contenzioso in corso. In precedenza, lo stesso giudice aveva ordinato all’amministrazione di sospendere i lavori del progetto fino al 26 ottobre. Trump veva fatto un post sulla sua piattaforma social Truth Social dicendo che la ristrutturazione sarebbe iniziata a novembre.
L'articolo Elezioni di midterm, Trump mette le mani avanti: “Nessun presidente le vince”. E Vance (molto nervoso) passa agli insulti proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
Ogni volta che leggo qualcuno spiegare, con una certa sicumera, che le elezioni di metà mandato, quelle che si svolgeranno tra una settimana negli Stati Uniti d’America, saranno un trionfo per i Democratici, perché gli elettori hanno capito, perché Trump è finito epperciò terrorizzato sta tentando di andare contro la volontà popolare, perché alla fine arrivano i nostri come quando esisteva il cinema, ogni volta io penso che martedì prossimo mancheranno ancora nove giorni al decennale della mia analisi politica di riferimento.
La mia analisi politica di riferimento andò in onda il 12 novembre del 2016, sulla Nbc, all’interno del “Saturday Night Live”, il programma comico del sabato notte. La mia analisi politica di riferimento è uno sketch di meno di sei minuti intitolato “Election night”. C’è una parte del cast fisso del programma, c’è Dave Chappelle, che conduceva quella puntata, e c’è Chris Rock, che arriva a sorpresa.
La scenetta è ambientata in un salotto qualunque di una casa di americani di sinistra cinque sere prima, la sera dello spoglio elettorale. Le ragazze dibattono di quanti punti vincerà Hillary – lo so che vi sembrano passati trecento anni, ma quelle del 2016 sono le elezioni in cui Hillary Clinton è candidata contro Donald Trump: devo ricordarvi come va a finire? – e continuano a ripetere che è una serata storica, avranno la prima presidente donna. «Certo, lei vincerà il collegio elettorale, ma c’è uno scenario da incubo in cui il voto popolare lo vince lui». Dave Chappelle fa una faccia alla Dave Chappelle: ah, è quello lo scenario da incubo?
Potrebbe, giura uno di quelli pieni di sicumera, non esserci mai più un presidente repubblicano in questo paese: la demografia sta cambiando. Chappelle continua a fare facce: ma tu hai mai dato un’occhiata a questo paese? (Quelli con la sicumera sono tutti bianchi, e man mano che lo spoglio procede dicono che evidentemente è un paese razzista, e Rock e Chappelle ridono fortissimo).
Quest’estate, quando l’algoritmo ripescava qualunque intervista di Matt Damon perché “L’Odissea” era il gusto del momento, ne ho vista una del 2008: Damon si diceva terrorizzato dalla possibile vittoria di McCain e di Sarah Palin, candidata come vicepresidente nelle elezioni che poi vinse Barack Obama.
Non ho mai più smesso di pensarci, perché io le interviste di diciott’anni fa non me le ricordo, ma mi ricordo quelle del 2016, mi ricordo che nel 2016 era davvero come in “Election night”: erano tutti convinti che avrebbe vinto Hillary, così come due anni fa erano convinti che avrebbe vinto Kamala. Che secondo alcune brillanti analiste politiche hanno poi perso perché io le chiamo senza cognome delegittimandole, ma ora non divaghiamo e restiamo a: com’è possibile che la capiscano sempre al contrario? È perché quando hai un candidato evidentemente forte – Barack Obama – diventi scaramantico?
È perché quando hai una candidata evidentemente debole devi tirarti su convincendoti che ce la farai di sicuro?
E l’altra domanda che mi faccio è: è stato Obama un caso irripetibile non di vittoria di uno di sinistra, non di vittoria di un nero, ma di vittoria di un figo? Nel weekend Obama ha fatto alcuni comizi di sostegno a candidati delle elezioni di metà mandato, e sappiamo tutti che è un oratore formidabile, ma leggendo le reazioni a quel suo discorso mi si è consolidato un sospetto: la forza di Trump sta nella sua orrendezza. Obama sarebbe stato un’ambizione, un secolo fa: quando i ricchi si prendevano degli istitutori per imparare ciò che non sapevano e non fare figuracce in pubblico. Adesso che i ricchi si instagrammano con voluttà con cinquantamila euro di vestiti addosso e quindici errori di ortografia a didascalia, Obama è una rottura di coglioni: l’insopportabile promemoria che c’è qualcuno fotogenico e anche con la parlantina.
A un certo punto del discorso di Obama c’era una battuta sulla quale vale la pena soffermarsi. Partiva dallo stesso rimprovero che fanno tutti a Trump: pensa più alla ristrutturazione della Casa Bianca che al paese. E poi diceva una cosa che pensiamo tutti da sempre, io la pensai entrando per la prima volta nella Trump Tower nel 1988: ma cos’è tutto quell’oro?
L’oro è una fissa di Trump, avrete visto le foto di prima della presidenza, quando si faceva scattare nell’appartamento appunto della Trump Tower, oro ovunque e soffitti tragicamente bassi. Non ha esattamente un gusto minimalista, che è un altro modo in cui piace alle masse. Se fossero ricche, anche le masse di elettori si farebbero fare un cesso d’oro, anche loro si farebbero portare cartocci di McDonald’s dal maggiordomo in livrea: cosa credevate avrebbe fatto il cittadino medio con gli eventuali profitti di un gratta e vinci, comprato il catalogo Adelphi?
Se dite – e lo state dicendo tutti, parlo a voi che scrivete sui giornali – che è normale che i ragazzi sfascino le boutique perché il desiderio della cosa costosa è bruciante e cogente e tale e quale a quello del tizio della “Locomotiva”, se dite che appropriarsi della cintura Vuitton senza pagarla è la versione 2026 di «pensava al magro giorno della sua gente attorno, pensava a un treno pieno di signori», beh, poi non potete meravigliarvi se all’elettorato piace il cesso d’oro del Donald più di quanto gli piaccia l’elenco di romanzi fighetti che il Barack condivide ogni anno.
Barack Obama prende l’osservazione sull’oro e la completa così: «Ma cos’è tutto quell’oro, sembra che Saddam Hussein abbia ristrutturato una Cheesecake Factory». Cheesecake Factory è una catena di ristoranti per famiglie assai popolare negli Stati Uniti, ci vanno quelli che se invece vogliono mangiare italiano vanno da Olive Garden (altra catena popolare), non esattamente gente sofisticata come d’altra parte non lo è la massa da nessuna parte, figuriamoci in America.
Mentre scrivo sono quarantott’ore da quando Obama ha fatto questa battuta, che non ci vuole Chris Rock per capire sia una battuta imperniata su «Saddam Hussein», non su «Cheesecake Factory», e sono quarantott’ore che leggo dibattiti lunari sul classismo di Barack Obama che secondo questi giganti del pensiero non capisce che all’americano medio la Cheesecake Factory piace.
Ho letto migliaia di commenti, e a stravolgermi non sono tanto quelli che dicono che Obama è elitario, che il suo disprezzo per il popolo è evidente, che tu a me la Cheesecake Factory non me la tocchi capitoooo, che è proprio alienandosi l’elettore medio che va alla Cheesecake Factory che i Democratici sono diventati irrilevanti. Quella potrebbe essere propaganda. Quelli potrebbero essere commentatori che travisano apposta, per poter criticare Obama. A stravolgermi sono quelli che lo difendono.
Quelli secondo i quali l’esempio era giusto, perché se vi piace la Cheesecake Factory e avete più di cinque anni avete un problema. Secondo i quali l’esempio era giusto, perché lo sappiamo tutti che la Cheesecake Factory è famosa per gli arredi kitsch, e un vero patriota americano mai vorrebbe che la Casa Bianca le somigliasse. Amici, compagni, concittadini, io non sono qui a seppellire le vostre licenze medie, ma non ci vuole un dottorato in costruzione delle battute per capire che, in quella similitudine lì, la Casa Bianca è già la Cheesecake Factory (cioè: un’istituzione americana che tutti conoscono e che a tutti va bene resti com’è), e Trump è il dittatore iracheno che la ristruttura stravolgendola, mettendoci troppo oro, facendola troppo pacchiana. Non c’è niente di più triste che spiegare le battute, e infatti in genere non si fa.
In genere, se sei un politico con una certa qual abilità oratoria, sai fare battute che non hanno bisogno di didascalie, che possono essere travisate solo per malafede e non perché si è estinto il pubblico non completamente stupido.
Un paio di settimane fa ho sentito un dibattito tra il sindaco di Torino e il presidente della regione Piemonte. Non so neanche chi dei due fosse quale, e chi dei due fosse quello di destra e chi dei due quello di sinistra, ma ne sono uscita stravolta da quanto fosse scarsa l’oratoria di entrambi. Forse è quello che vogliamo.
Forse lo stesso pubblico che vuole solo romanzi scarsi perché così non si complessa pensando che non li avrebbe saputi scrivere, e film scarsi perché così anche se si distrae gli ripetono venti volte qual è la legge di Zeus e all’uscita non deve chiedere a ChatGpt di spiegargli la trama, forse quel pubblico, che è pubblico ma anche elettorato, vuole anche politici scarsi. Non si fida di chi arreda troppo fino, né di chi parla troppo bene. Chissà chi c’è tra due sabati al “Saturday Night Live”. Chissà se torna Chris Rock a dire ma tu pensa, chi l’avrebbe mai detto che finiva così.
L'articolo Non date Trump per spacciato, all’americano medio piace la sua orrendezza proviene da Linkiesta.it.
This week, editors Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe to discuss California's proposed 5 percent wealth tax on billionaires, which a Hoover Institution study suggests could ultimately cost the state $39 billion in lost revenue. With wealthy residents already leaving California, the panel examines whether the measure will survive next week's vote, why Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, and how public sector unions have helped fuel the state's spending problems.
The panelists then look to France, where mounting unrest and economic stagnation raise questions about the long-term consequences of high taxes, expansive welfare programs, and pension obligations that increasingly burden younger generations. Next, they discuss Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado returning home after 10 months in exile. Then, with the midterm elections next week, the editors examine whether Trump's tariffs, war with Iran, and mounting allegations of corruption will deliver Democrats control of Congress. Finally, a listener asks whether today's democratic socialist movement will ultimately be remembered like the libertarian and Tea Party movements of the early 2010s.
0:00—California's wealth tax proposal
13:02—Will France protests influence America?
22:50—Corina Machado returns to Venezuela.
31:19—Listener question on the DSA
44:40—2026 Midterm elections preview
58:34—Weekly cultural recommendations
Reason Versus - Authoritarianism Is a Right-Wing Problem, November 10
"Will the Wealth Tax Fail?" by Liz Wolfe
"France Is a Warning to California's Tax-the-Rich Crowd," by Veronique de Rugy
"California's 'Wealth Tax' Could Cost the State $39 Billion," by Eric Boehm
"Report: California's Proposed 'Billionaire Tax' Is Based on Bad Research," by J.D. Tuccille
"A Wealth Tax Built on Billionaires Who Aren't Really Billionaires," by Veronique de Rugy
"New Book Says Jared Kushner Funneled Money to Middle East Mercenaries. Kushner Denies It." by Matthew Petti
"Trump's Tariffs Are Politically Toxic," by Eric Boehm
"The Democrats' Socialist Moment," by Matt Welch
"Family Separation Drama Fjord Is a Haunting Depiction of Unchecked State Power," by Peter Suderman
The post California's Wealth Tax Could Cost the State $39 Billion appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Illustration: Fatima Ruiz
“Francamente la Norvegia fa schifo, è diventata un cesso di Paese, veramente”. Così il presidente americano Donald Trump, in un comizio in Michigan per sostenere la candidatura al Senato del repubblicano Mike Rogers, si è sfogato contro il Paese europeo colpevole, come lui stesso ha affermato, di non avergli dato il premio Nobel per la Pace per la seconda volta – riconoscimento invece assegnato all’ex giudice dell’odiata Corte penale internazionale Navi Pilay.
Ha aggiunto di voler riaprire le frontiere agli immigrati di determinati Paesi, ma di non volere “nessuno della Norvegia“, nonostante nello Stato del Michigan vivano oltre 71mila norvegesi-americani secondo gli ultimi dati U.S. Census. Nel comizio in midwest ha poi coperto di insulti islamofobici il candidato democratico Abdul El Sayed per le elezioni midterm del prossimo 4 novembre.
L'articolo “La Norvegia fa schifo, è un cesso di Paese”: l’attacco di Trump al comizio in Michigan. La colpa di Oslo? Non avergli dato il Nobel per la Pace proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
Alaska's U.S. Senate race features four candidates. Two are named Dan Sullivan: the Republican incumbent, and a political neophyte.
Republicans say the presence of two Dan Sullivans on the ballot is an illegal act of election interference. The federal government is now suing to keep Alaska from certifying the election results, but only if their guy loses.
"One of the biggest election scandals in history has been the Democrats' installation of a fake Dan Sullivan (not the US Senator) to deceive voters in Alaska," White House advisor Stephen Miller wrote on X. President Donald Trump called it "a disgrace."
"Democrats pulled a dirty trick by enlisting a decoy, Daniel J. Sullivan, to run against Republican Alaska Sen. Dan S. Sullivan," The Wall Street Journal editorialized. "Please spare us the lectures about election interference."
Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the state of Alaska and its election authorities.
"Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the
ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan," the filing warns, "the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election. The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska."
Alaska uses a ranked choice ballot, in which voters are given four candidates and rank each one in order of preference. Along with the Sullivans, the candidates are Mary Peltola, a Democrat who is polling narrowly ahead, and Gerald Heikes.
The Justice Department lawsuit says Republican voters would be too confused by the presence of two Dan Sullivans to properly fill out their ballot: "Some supporters of Senator Sullivan likely will inadvertently vote for Daniel J. Sullivan. Other supporters of Senator Sullivan likely will be confused as to how to rank the three Republican candidates as to defeat Peltola."
Given this, "there is a substantial likelihood that a certification of the election will reflect an electoral process that lacked integrity," the lawsuit proclaims. "To guard against this danger, it is vital that [Alaska] not certify any election result" in which "(1) Senator Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska's rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election."
In other words, the state of Alaska should only certify the election if Sullivan wins; if Peltola wins, but it's close, then that could suggest it "lacked integrity," and the state must instead conduct "an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan."
The lawsuit has a number of problems. First and foremost, it's completely inappropriate to treat an election as fair only if your candidate wins, even if it is what Trump believes.
It's also too late to bring an action of this kind: The state elections division decided in June to bar Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot, but a state superior court reversed and the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the reversal before the end of that month.
And yet the feds waited until less than two weeks before Election Day—when ballots have been printed and tens of thousands of Alaskans have already voted—to bring this suit.
If the Justice Department was truly concerned about voter confusion, it should have brought a lawsuit months ago. But even then, it's not clear what it could have done: "DOJ has no power to decide which candidates can appear on the ballot," writes UCLA School of Law professor Richard L. Hasen.
Besides, it's not illegal to mislead or even outright lie to voters. "If 'voter confusion' were a legitimate reason to overturn election results, that would imperil a great many election winners, as voter ignorance—and exploitation thereof by candidates—is a widespread and longstanding problem," writes George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin.
It does seem more likely than not that Daniel J. Sullivan is indeed running just to pull votes from the senator with the same name.
But as I pointed out earlier this month, the ranked-choice ballot itself can take care of this problem: Republican voters who wish to reelect Sullivan can simply rank both Dan Sullivans first and second; if and when Daniel J. Sullivan fails to capture more than 50 percent of all votes, he will be eliminated, and his votes will transfer to all their second choices.
The ballot itself makes it clear which Sullivan is which: The sitting senator is labeled as both Registered Republican and incumbent.
Despite Miller's claim that letting two Dan Sullivans on the ballot "reveals pure contempt for voters," it's the objecting Republicans who appear to lack faith in their voters.
"People are totally confused," Trump told reporters. "A lot of people don't know what 'incumbent' means."
When CNN's Dana Bash asked Attorney General Todd Blanche what crime is being alleged, he replied that "it depends." He elaborated: "There could be a crime, but the real wrong here is that Alaskans are going to be confused and will not have their vote heard."
This isn't even Alaska's most complicated election in recent memory. In 2010, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller, she announced that she would still run as a write-in candidate—requiring voters to not just know about her ahead of time but to add her name by hand.
Improbably, Murkowski prevailed, defeating Miller by more than 10,000 votes.
If Trump, Blanche, Miller, and others are truly concerned that the ballot will be too confusing for Alaska Republicans, they could expend some energy showing them how to use the ranked choice ballot.
In fact, Sullivan has done just that, posting a video on X explaining how to rank all candidates except Peltola.
What they can't do is force a state to reject the results if their guy loses.
"Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the State of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year's ballot," Murkowski wrote on X. "The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit."
"I believe that this lawsuit is abusive in its intentions and borders on frivolous in its arguments, and that it is destined for defeat in the courts should it reach the merits," Cato Institute senior fellow Walter Olson noted in a statement. "This lawsuit is an assault on the constitutional design by which states, not the federal government, run elections. The issue in question is one for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide under Alaska law, and the Alaska court did just that."
The post Justice Department Targets Alaska Senate Election appeared first on Reason Magazine.
California's experiment: Will California's proposed wealth tax, Prop 40, pass next week? And if it gets passed, will it end up actually costing the state money instead of generating revenue?
The basics: The proposal features a one-time 5 percent tax on people with net worths over $1 billion who lived in the state on January 1, 2026 (with the net worth amount calculated as of December 31, 2026). The idea for the snapshot date is presumably to prevent capital flight once the tax passes. The tax's supporters say the tax's revenues will amount to $100 billion and will fund California's health care system, which need to make up for federal Medicaid cuts.
Seven billionaires, representing 30 percent of the total billionaire wealth in the state, left California before January 1, 2026, when news of the possible tax broke. Peter Thiel, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin are among the deserters. The French economist Gabriel Zucman—an intense defender of the wealth tax—seems committed to the idea that this flight won't matter too much. He argues that while removing those seven brings down revenue estimates to $89 billion, adding in less-prominent small-time billionaires raises revenue to $115 billion.
This is silly. As The Washington Post's Megan McArdle points out, there's no reason to believe those less-famous billionaires would stay put. We have a hard time estimating what the total preemptive flight looks like, and how many billionaires have successfully taken up residency elsewhere.
"Either the tax is annual—and in that case it generates revenue annually, and some billionaires leave," claims Zucman. "Or the tax is one-time—in that case it generates revenue in just one year, and there is no incentive to leave. It can't be both at the same time." Zucman doesn't seem to consider that billionaires have already left, as soon as the idea was seriously floated, thus taking early steps to shield their wealth from the state.
Will it pass? "Likely voters are essentially where they were a month ago," reports Politico, based on recent polling data, "with 46% in favor of Proposition 40 and 43% opposed—despite a recent push by backers of the measure, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, to rally support." Interestingly, "a strikingly high share of registered voters (84%) said they'd been exposed to advertisements or messages about the tax, but a 45% plurality said the communications had not swayed them, and those whose views had shifted were just as likely to be more opposed as more supportive."
There's another complication: On that very same ballot, voters will decide on Propositions 41 and 42, competing measures that could keep Prop 40 from taking effect. Prop 40 will be nullified if either one gets more votes; but Prop 40 will nullify both of them if it gets more votes. Prop 42 would bar new taxes on personal property such as businesses, investments, retirement accounts, trusts, and art collections—things Prop 40 targets. It also bans retroactive taxes, thus making Prop 40 impossible to pull off.
Back in January, Pirate Wires' Mike Solana spoke with a bunch of billionaires who were worried about the tax and making plans to flee, partially out of distrust that the tax would be one-and-done. "Three men I spoke with in the largest billionaire Signal chat said they ran an informal poll, and seventy percent of the chat (around sixty people, not all of whom were billionaires) indicated they would leave the state if the ballot proposition passes," reports Solana. "According to that same poll, around 15% have already left the state."
"There is now real danger in appearing successful in the state of California," writes Solana, "as the far left, imbued with a great deal of power, and benefiting now from several years of wealth scapegoating throughout the mainstream press, attempts to liquidate its perceived enemies in business."
Scenes from New York: I'm fully aboard this train these days, though open to being convinced why I'm wrong:
If you truly *love* American cities, you MUST support strict enforcement of laws against anti-social behavior. Paying bus fares, red light cameras, camping on sidewalks, smoking on trains, off-leash dogs, etc etc
If people want to do whatever they want, that's FINE in the… https://t.co/XU0WQR30yz
— Bobby Fijan (@bobbyfijan) October 26, 2026
Striking detail in the big NYT piece on Taiwanese families adjusting to working at the huge new TSMC chip plant in Arizona: their surprise at the lack of rigor in US schools. pic.twitter.com/YkSPzbHCuE
— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) October 26, 2026
The post Will the Wealth Tax Fail? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
I repubblicani investono fondi in Stati un tempo dati sicuri, mentre i sondaggi li danno in svantaggio alla Camera e in una battaglia fino all’ultimo voto al Senato. A poco più di una settimana dalle elezioni di midterm, la speranza e l’entusiasmo dei democratici per la possibilità di conquistare il Congresso continuano a salire. Come è noto, ogni due anni il Senato rinnova un terzo dei suoi seggi, e quest’anno si vota per 35 seggi, molti in Stati dove Donald Trump ha vinto con uno scarto a due cifre nel 2024. Un vantaggio di partenza per i repubblicani che difendono la loro maggioranza di 53 seggi contri i 47 attuali dei dem, che devono strappare quindi almeno 4 seggi, senza perderne nessuno, per conquistare la maggioranza. Si tratta di una sfida non facile, ma con il crescere del vantaggio nazionale dei dem che alla Camera – ora di 10 punti – e il continuo precipitare della popolarità di Trump – scesa al 33% – si è delineata una possibile via per la vittoria dem fino a pochi mesi impensabile, una via che attraversa stati come il Texas, roccaforte Gop dove un democratico non viene eletto ad una carica elettiva nazionale da oltre 30 anni. Negli ultimi giorni è entrato nella lista degli stati “toss up” un altro Stato solidamente repubblicano come il Kansas, portando a dieci il numero degli Stati che decideranno le sorti del Senato il prossimo 3 novembre. “Anche stati rossi non sono sicuri con presidenti con numeri così bassi come quelli di Trump“, spiegava nelle scorse settimane Jessica Taylor, del sito di analisi politica Cook Political Report.
NORTH CAROLINA – Questa viene considerata la migliore opportunità per i democratici, dal momento che l’attuale senatore repubblicano, Thom Tills, noto per le sue posizioni critiche su Trump ha scelto di non ricandidarsi nello stato che ha scelto il tycoon nelle ultime tre elezioni, ma ha anche eletto democratici a cariche statali. Tra questi, l’ex governatore Roy Cooper ora candidato dem avanti di 13 punti sul repubblicano Michael Whatley, poco conosciuto dagli elettori che in più lo considerano troppo vicino a Trump. In caso di vittoria, Cooper sarebbe il primo dem a rappresentare la North Carolina al Senato in quasi due decenni.
OHIO – In gioco è il seggio che JD Vance ha lasciato per diventare il vice presidente di Trump e l’attuale senatore repubblicano nominato al suo posto, Jon Husted, è molto meno noto del democratico Sherrod Brown, l’ex senatore avanti di 5 punti secondo una media Cnn. Il repubblicano paga la sua vicinanza a Trump che, pur avendo vinto due anni fa con un vantaggio a due cifre, ora ha una popolarità scesa al 36% nello stato agricolo che soffre per l’impennata dei prezzi dei fertilizzanti, provocata dalla guerra con l’Iran, e non ha visto i vantaggi nel settore agricolo promessi dalla politica dei dazi. A riprova dell’importanza di questo duello per gli equilibri del Senato, si prevede che nelle ultime settimane di campagna i due partiti spenderanno un totale di 75 miliardi di dollari.
ALASKA – È una delle sfide che i dem non possono perdere: gli ultimi sondaggi danno Mary Peltola, ex deputa dem, avanti 7 punti rispetto a Dan Sullivan, il senatore Gop che si candida a un terzo mandato nel remoto stato artico dove non viene eletto un democratico al Senato dal 2008. Nell’ultimo dibattito, il repubblicano ha cercato di mettere in difficoltà l’avversaria con le accuse di maltrattamenti che le hanno rivolto ex collaboratori, mentre la democratica lo ha accusato di disonestà e collegato alle politiche di Trump, in particolare la guerra in Iran, e le sue conseguenze economiche, che, è stato costretto ad ammettere Sullivan, “deve finire presto”. Il repubblicano teme infine di perdere voti per il fatto che sulla scheda elettorale comparirà un secondo Dan Sullivan, un indipendente che il dipartimento di Giustizia accusa di correre come repubblicano “con l’intenzione di ingannare” i sostenitori del senatore in un ricorso già depositato presso la corte distrettuale dell’Alaska per chiedere di bloccare la certificazione dei risultati elettorali in caso di vittoria di Peltola.
MAINE – È la battaglia nello stesso tempo più facile, almeno sulla carta, e più difficile per i democratici. Più facile perché i democratici controllano tutte le cariche elettive dello stato dove vincono regolarmente le presidenziali. Più difficile perché Susan Collins, da 30 anni al Senato, finora è riuscita sempre a difendere anche in questo nuovo panorama politico locale il seggio, grazie alle sue posizioni moderate, spesso indipendenti che l’hanno messa spesso in opposizione con Trump. Ma questa rielezione si è mostrata molto difficile per la navigata repubblicana, anche se di fronte non ha il candidato dem scelto con le primarie, Graham Platner, un allevatore di ostriche socialista dem che aveva entusiasmato la base, ma il molto meno carismatico Troy Jackson, nominato in corsa a luglio, quando uno scandalo sessuale ha fatto implodere la candidatura di Platner. Ora i sondaggi danno il dem avanti di un soffio in quello che rimarrà fino alla fine un testa a testa, con i repubblicani che spenderanno 17 milioni nelle ultime due settimane contro i 14 dei dem.
TEXAS – I democratici non vincono un’elezione nazionale nel Lone Star da 32 anni, ma ora sognano l’impensabile in uno dei duelli per il Senato più seguiti a livello nazionale, con i sondaggi che descrivono un testa a testa, con il democratico James Talarico però due punti avanti rispetto a Ken Paxton, il discusso attorney general del Texas che, con il sostegno di Trump, ha battuto nelle primarie il senatore repubblicano di lungo corso John Cornyn accusato di “slealtà” dal tycoon. Il 37enne ex seminarista presbiteriano, ex insegnante di scuola media, ora deputato statale, sta riuscendo a unire e galvanizzare le varie anime dei democratici, attirando, con il messaggio religioso e la promessa di combattere per interessi e valori texani, elettori di Trump delusi. Paxton, al contrario, è una delle figure politiche più controverse del Texas, coinvolto in scandali di corruzione che in passato spinsero il suo stesso partito a metterlo sotto accusa. Sono diverse le figure dell’establishment repubblicano texano che in questi giorni stanno dichiarando che non voteranno per lui, o addirittura che voteranno per Talarico, come ha fatto Neil Bush, figlio e fratello degli ex presidenti. Paxton ha dalla sua i finanziamenti milionari che sono arrivati in questi ultimi giorni alla sua campagna da Elon Musk, che gli permettono di spendere tre volte di più del dem, arrivando, si prevede, alla cifra totale, tra primarie e elezioni, di 380 milioni, astronomica in uno stato roccaforte Gop.
MICHIGAN – È forse la migliore opportunità dei repubblicani strappare un seggio ai dem – che dovrebbero così quindi strappare così cinque seggi per conquistare così la maggioranza – perché il senatore dem Gary Peters si è ritirato, lasciando aperto il suo seggio a quello che è diventato il più accanito duello, senza riserve di colpi, tra il repubblicano Mike Rogers, ex agente Fbi, ex deputato che due anni fa è stato sconfitto di misura nell’elezione per l’altro seggio del Michigan, e il democratico Abdul El Sayed. L’epidemiologo nato a Detroit da una famiglia di origine egiziana ha vinto le primarie con un programma vicino a quello dei democratici socialisti, anche se non vi fa parte, sconfiggendo un’avversaria sostenuto dall’establishment dem statale e nazionale. L’ultima media dei sondaggi Cnn dà El Sayed avanti di due punti in quello che rimane un testa a testa, con Donald Trump che continua ad accusare pubblicamente il dem, che se eletto diventerà il primo senatore musulmano, di essere ‘un jihadistà con legami con i Fratelli musulmani. El Sayed da parte sua punta all’impopolarità di Trump in Michigan, dove il 44% degli elettori ammette che considera il midterm un referendum contro Trump, ma deve fare i conti con la difficoltà di ottenere il sostegno di due componenti cruciali della base dem, la comunità ebraica, allarmata per le sue posizioni su Israele e Gaza, e quella afroamericana. A sottolineare l’importanza del duello, nel weekend in Michigan è arrivato sia Barack Obama, per un comizio ieri a Detroit che potrà aiutare El Sayed con il voto afroamericano, che Trump per un comizio stanotte a Port Huron.
IOWA – ll fatto che uno stato in cui Trump nel 2024 ha vinto con 13 punti di vantaggio sia considerato teatro di un duello ‘toss up’ per il Senato è un segnale di grande preoccupazione per il Gop. Nello stato del Midwest le politiche commerciali di Trump stanno danneggiando gli agricoltori, in particolare i produttori di soia, insieme all’aumento dei prezzi di benzina, diesel e fertilizzanti provocati dalla guerra in Iran. Non aiuta il fatto che la senatrice in carica Joni Ernest abbia deciso di non ricandidarsi lasciando quindi il seggio aperto. Per i repubblicani è in campo un’altra donna, Ashley Hinson, che recentemente ha chiesto a Trump di mettere fine subito alla guerra nel tentativo di guadagnare terreno sul democratico Josh Turek, ex campione paralimpico, che ora rappresenta all’Assemblea locale un distretto dove ha vinto Trump e si dice pronto a lavorare con tutti per aggiustare “il sistema dell’immigrazione, anche il presidente Trump”. L’ultima media dei sondaggi danno il democratico avanti di appena un punto in quello che rimane quindi un testa a testa.
KANSAS – Lo stato che non elegge un senatore democratico da 94 anni è entrato a sorpresa negli ultimi giorni nella lista dei duelli a rischio per i repubblicani, con i sondaggi che danno il senatore Roger Marshall in una situazione di parità con Adam Hamilton, un pastore metodista che si descrive come “un democratico indipendente” sapendo di aver bisogno dei voti di repubblicani per vincere nello stato in cui Trump ha vinto con un vantaggio di 16 punti nel 2024. Tanto che il tycoon nei giorni scorsi è volato in Kansas per accusare il democratico di essere in realtà “un estremista che si fa gioco di Gesù”. Da parte sua Marshall, che è un medico, è stato investito dalle accuse, riportate dal New York Times, di pazienti a cui ha fatto causa per parcelle mediche non pagate.
NEW HAMPSHIRE – Anche in questo stato del North East un seggio aperto, con la democratica Jeanne Shaheen che si ritira, potrebbe aiutare i repubblicani a difendere la maggioranza, aiutati dal fatto che hanno candidato John Sununu, ex senatore ma soprattutto fratello di ex governatore così popolare che molti elettori credono che sia lui a candidarsi al Senato. Per i democratici è candidato Chris Pappas, che si presenta come moderato e viene dato comunque negli ultimi sondaggi appare in una posizione più solida, aiutato anche dal fatto che nello stato la popolarità per Trump è al 38%. Tanto che Sununu in uno spot elettorale diffuso la scorsa settimana per prendere le distanze dal presidente afferma: “non ho mai incontrato quest’uomo”. Se eletto, il 46enne Pappas diventerà il primo senatore gay dichiarato.
GEORGIA – Il seggio di Jon Ossoff, senatore dem eletto nel 2020 sulla scia della cruciale vittoria di Joe Biden in Georgia, lo stato dove maggiormente si concentrarono le manovre di Trump per tentare di rovesciare i risultati elettorali, era stato individuato come uno dei principali obiettivi dei repubblicani in queste elezioni di midterm. Ma la sua campagna fondata suo social ha creato una grande rete di donatori di base, non solo gli sta assicurando un solido vantaggio – di otto punti secondo un poll dell’University of Georgia – ma sta anche alimentando voci di una possibile candidatura alla Casa Bianca nel 2028 del democratico che con i suoi 39 anni è il più giovane senatore in carica. Ad aiutare Ossoff il fatto che i repubblicani abbiano candidato il controverso deputato Mike Collins, accusato di aver legami con gruppi suprematisti bianchi e di aver fatto commenti razzisti e antisemiti.
L'articolo Dall’Alaska al Kansas: tutti gli Stati che non sono più “sicuri” per i repubblicani. Le sfide cruciali al Senato per le elezioni di Midterm proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, is the latest politician to suggest that the Second Amendment might shield the right to bear arms, but only those that existed at the time that it was adopted: namely, flintlock muskets. It's a not-so-clever way of trimming back the Constitution's protections. The argument's flaws should be clear: the U.S. Supreme Court has already dismissed that line of reasoning, and a world in which the Bill of Rights applies only to 18th century technology would be one where freedom exists only in museum exhibits.
"I'm gonna swear an oath to the Constitution. The Constitution has a Second Amendment in it, but the Second Amendment, just so we all are clear, even the most conservative folks, they hew to this idea called originalism, and originalism is the idea that you should interpret the Constitution in the context in which the Constitution was written," El-Sayed insisted at a campaign rally. "When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket."
So clever. The Bill of Rights passed in the 1780s, so it must only apply to 1780s things. Except that the courts have thoroughly dismissed that ridiculous line of reasoning.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). "We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
The reason for this should be obvious. The founders were not unaware of progress. Many of them were scholars and innovators. They were certainly aware of (and enthusiastic about) continuing advancements in technology. During the then-recent revolution, American troops had faced off against a small unit of redcoats armed with Ferguson breech-loading rifles. A decade before the Bill of Rights was adopted, the 22-shot Girandoni repeating air rifle was introduced, one of which was later sent along on the Lewis and Clark expedition. And Kalthoff and Lorenzoni repeating flintlock firearms had existed for well over a century.
Not to mention, the founders made extensive use of printing presses to distribute pamphlets and official government documents, including the new Constitution, rather than having them hand-copied as they would have been a few centuries earlier. Technology marches on.
That last point illustrates the foolishness of the only-1780s-tech argument, as Scalia pointed out. What use is a First Amendment that applies only to hand-cranked printing presses and unamplified voices? That would leave the internet, television, radio, telephones, and all post-revolutionary means of communications unprotected from government censorship.
By the same token, a Fourth Amendment stuck in the 18th century might shield us from government agents kicking in the door and rifling through our papers. But it would have nothing to say about wiretaps, computer searches, surveillance cameras, thermal imaging, and the like.
Founders who were well aware of innovation and often contributed to it themselves (think Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) knew that science and technology constantly advance—because they helped it do exactly that—as would the government's intrusive capabilities. And they believed they were creating protections for broad natural rights against limited government, not small carve-outs from the authority of an all-powerful state.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others," Jefferson wrote in 1819. "I do not add 'within the limits of the law'; because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
The Bill of Rights isn't an ancient artifact to be applied only to a snapshot of life as it existed around 1789. Its amendments are intended to protect timeless individual rights, however those rights might be expressed in an always-evolving world.
El-Sayed went on, in his increasingly incoherent monologue, to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights was intended "to protect people from government tyranny," and "the idea was that you had the right to bear arms against your government should they become tyrannous." He floated the idea, for some reason, that "the Coast Guard, and state militias" are how this idea was implemented. I don't want to delve too deeply into whatever argument is being presented here, because I've sacrificed enough brain cells by listening to him speak.
But kudos to El Sayed for admitting the Bill of Rights is intended to protect us from government. The only way that can possibly work is if, as government's capabilities become increasingly sophisticated, the protections of the Constitution's first 10 amendments extend to safeguarding our rights from ever more advanced potential intrusions.
The Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights don't preserve a snapshot of life in the 1780s. They were written to protect eternal principles of individual liberty. And they're certainly not limited to muskets.
The post Abdul El-Sayed Would Freeze the Bill of Rights in the 18th Century appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Today's guest is Ted Brown, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas. Brown is facing off against Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico in a closely contested race. Brown received more than 267,000 votes in his 2024 Senate campaign and is now challenging both major parties on their commitment to individual liberty. He argues that Republicans have abandoned limited government while Democrats increasingly embrace economic policies that undermine the free market.
Nick Gillespie talks with Brown about Paxton's corruption scandals, Talarico's hostility toward billionaires, and why Texas ranks poorly on personal freedom despite its business-friendly reputation. Brown makes the case for returning to an Ellis Island–style immigration system, cutting federal spending to confront the $40 trillion national debt, and ending America's military involvement in the Middle East. They also discuss abortion rights, government surveillance, online age-verification laws, and how regulations drive up the cost of healthcare. Brown explains what it will take to rebuild the Libertarian Party and why he believes a senator could accomplish more by stopping bad legislation than by passing new laws.
0:00—Freedom in Texas
4:01—Paxton's corruption
6:21—Talarico's platform
8:53—Texas governance
10:33—Ellis Island–style immigration
13:58—Abolishing the federal income tax
15:29—Entitlement reforms and defense spending
18:19—Abortion
21:21—Transgender healthcare
22:24—Age-verification laws
25:05—Healthcare and property insurance
31:22—Who is Brown appealing to?
33:27—The Libertarian Party
36:08—Brown's pitch to undecided voters
39:06—Threats to individual liberty
The post Could a Libertarian Swing the Texas Senate Race? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Illustration: Fatima Ruiz
Quando perfino il tecno-oligarca della Silicon Valley più reazionaria, l’inventore del capitalismo della sorveglianza, comincia a tirarsi indietro, significa che il Titanic repubblicano ha già imbarcato troppa acqua.
Peter Thiel, che nel 2016 ruppe il fronte compatto delle Big Tech per incoronare Donald Trump (“l’ariete per scardinare il sistema” disse), l’uomo che con quindici milioni di dollari ha fabbricato a tavolino e spedito alla Casa Bianca JD Vance come vicepresidente, il fondatore di Palantir che ha trasformato la sorveglianza di massa e il controllo militare in un gigantesco affare quotato a Wall Street, ecco, lui ha scaricato l’insulsa guerra contro l’Iran prendendo le distanze dal fallimento militare americano.
Lo ha fatto a porte chiuse, davanti a una platea di fedelissimi a Nashville: “Guardo con scetticismo a questa guerra, credo che non avremmo dovuto farla. Sono stati commessi troppi errori. Forse non abbiamo la forza militare sul campo, o forse stiamo per perdere la battaglia dell’influenza geopolitica”.
Una clamorosa sconfessione di Trump, svelata dagli audio (la conferenza era a porte chiuse) ottenuti da Politico, che arriva a meno di due settimane dal voto di metà mandato, con la Casa Bianca nel panico per il crollo dei consensi, l’inflazione alle stelle per il rialzo del petrolio e il rischio fondato di perdere il controllo del Congresso. Parole, queste di Thiel, che rivelano quanto profonda sia la frattura interna al mondo Maga. Da una parte ci sono i falchi neoconservatori e l’ossessione bellicista dell’ex giornalista e ora Ministro della Guerra, il “crociato” Pete Hegseth, trascinato da Benjamin Netanyahu in una dissennata avventura militare contro Teheran; dall’altra c’è la base isolazionista dell’America First, quella che prometteva di chiudere per sempre le infinite guerre all’estero e che vede nello stesso JD Vance il proprio portabandiera. A Washington si sapeva che Vance era scettico sui raid contro l’Iran prima ancora che partissero i missili. Ora la spaccatura è conclamata.
Il paradosso, semmai, è l’ipocrisia di fondo. Thiel critica la guerra, ma con la guerra è diventato plurimiliardario. La sua creatura, Palantir, è ormai l’ossatura informatica del Pentagono. Il sistema Maven Smart System, imposto a tutte le forze armate dal vicesegretario Steve Feinberg, scandaglia dati, guida i droni e seleziona i bersagli strategici e umani con l’algoritmo. E’ lo stesso apparato responsabile della carneficina della scuola elementare femminile di Minab in Iran, nell’attacco del 28 febbraio 2026 in cui morirono 168 bambine.
Così mentre il Ceo di Palantir, Alex Karp, si vanta in pubblico di essere al servizio dell’Occidente per “uccidere i nemici” e il cofondatore Joe Lonsdale sognava di investire a Teheran dopo un regime change che non è mai avvenuto, oggi Thiel si riscopre prudente. Improvvisa sete di pacifismo? Figurarsi, per mero calcolo geopolitico: la consapevolezza che l’avventura mediorientale sta dissanguando gli Stati Uniti, isolandoli sul piano internazionale ed esponendo i vertici della Casa Bianca all’incubo dei mandati d’arresto della Corte Penale Internazionale, che Thiel definisce la vera “spada di Damocle” sul collo di Trump nel dopo elezioni di midterm.
Ma sarà davvero una sonora sconfitta dei repubblicani, il voto del 3 novembre? Sondaggi affidabili o meno (quanti sbagli nel passato nel sottovalutare la base repubblicana), se “l’anima nera della Silicon Valley” volta le spalle alla guerra, a Mar-a-Lago tira decisamente una brutta aria. Era ora.
L'articolo Peter Thiel contro la guerra in Iran: così il mondo Maga si spacca prima del voto di Midterm proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
A metà di un mandato presidenziale, negli Stati Uniti si svolgono le elezioni di Midterm. Sono forse meno note le dinamiche e le strategie che possono emergere in questa fase, ma in questa puntata cercheremo di capire due punti fondamentali: il ridisegno dei distretti e l'instaurazione di un governo diviso.
L'articolo L’anatomia delle Midterm americane proviene da Lavoce.info.
In my role as a political commentator, I enjoy making predictions. I possess no special talent for this and am often hilariously wrong: Unlike most other pundits, I famously clung to my stupid belief that former President Joe Biden would never step down as the Democrats' 2024 candidate, for instance. I called the 2020 presidential election correctly (and got most states right, only flipping Georgia and Florida), but I messed up in 2024. (Nevertheless, I still demolished my co-host, who didn't appear to take this challenge very seriously.)
The hardest part about making predictions is separating what you want to happen from what is actually likely to happen. Commentators often feel inclined to rally for their preferred outcome, as if shouting about it on television is going to make it come true. In some ways, this is an easier temptation for us libertarians to avoid, since all outcomes generally seem suboptimal. Once again, that is the case: See, for example, the upcoming 2026 midterms.
It seems inarguable that President Donald Trump has squandered much of his political capital by failing to focus narrowly on the economy and instead launching another unpopular war in the Middle East. It also seems obvious that the Democratic Party, once returned in power, will do everything it can to thwart the administration's shrewdest policies—on tech and AI in particular.
But that is my prediction: Democrats will retake the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I don't have any specific map in mind for the House (it's too complicated), but here are my Senate predictions:
Here is my REVISED prediction for the Senate. For the last several weeks, everything has moved in Dems' direction, and I now expect them to take it.
I still say Collins holds on. Michigan and Ohio seem lost for GOP, though. And I'm not super confident in the Iowa call. https://t.co/oph3Swtgzw pic.twitter.com/FtsrGxmukJ
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 20, 2026
When I looked at the map back in August, I still thought Ohio was a long shot for the Democrats and that Michigan was in play for the GOP due to Abdul El-Sayed being so far left. Now it looks to me like Republicans will lose both seats, along with Texas and Alaska. I'm still betting that the formidable incumbent in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R), will hold on—the polls have misjudged her in the past—and that Iowa is a bridge too far for Dems. If Republicans manage to keep those two seats, then it's a 51–49 map in Democrats' favor.
But wait…all is not lost for Trump.
In the event of a 51–49 Dem advantage, it seems somewhat likely to me that Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) could switch parties, which would restore Republican control because of Vice President J.D. Vance's tiebreaking vote. With his conservative rhetoric on Israel and other issues, Fetterman has no future as an elected Democrat in his state—he could never ever ever win a Democratic primary—and will have to strike some sort deal with Trump before his reelection in 2028. Fetterman should agree to become an independent who caucuses with Republicans in exchange for Trump ensuring that no Republican dares run against him in the future. Absent such a deal, Fetterman is virtually guaranteed to be a one-term senator, so if he harbors any desire to keep his job—perhaps that's an open question—he will need to make a move. A 51–49 Senate will give him the exact leverage he needs.
So those are my predictions! What are yours?
I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss the riots in France, Vivek Ramaswamy's terrible campaign ad, and more.
Here's another shameless plug for my upcoming debate with Katherine Mangu-Ward, Mehdi Hasan, and Jason Stanley! (Katherine is on my side.) If you are in Washington, D.C., please get tickets here.
The post I Predict the GOP Will Lose Its Senate Majority (and Magically Regain It) appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Can Republicans just spend their way to success in Ohio? "Republicans have bombarded Ohioans with ads with $19 million spent on competitive races through Oct. 12, intended to sell voters on the tax law that had been called the One Big Beautiful Bill," reports The Washington Post. "But the message is struggling to connect with voters amid anxiety over tariffs and the war with Iran, which have pushed up prices for everyday products. The ad blitz, the most spent on the topic in any state with competitive races, is aimed at bolstering vulnerable GOP candidates in a state that was considered safely Republican for the better part of the last decade."
Republicans in states across the Midwest (and the country) have experimented with distancing themselves from the Trump administration and its agenda; it's hard to know if this strategy will prove successful, or if it's just too little, too late. In Ohio, though, Republican candidates are mostly staying close to Dear Leader.
Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is running for U.S. Senate against Democrat Sherrod Brown in what looks to be an extremely tight race; ads claim Husted has "supported ending taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, plus a $200 million investment in rural hospitals," trying to tie him closely to President Donald Trump's agenda. But it's really not clear whether this type of pitch will be enough to make voters forget about tariffs and inflation, the war in the Middle East and gas prices. A New York Times/Siena poll found that 79 percent of likely Ohio voters disapproved of Trump's handling of gas prices. It's hard to sell people on a tax cut when they're paying a different tax, in the form of tariffs, every time they go to the store; Ohio voters might not be so easily swindled.
Gun laws in Oregon: In the aftermath of the tragic shooting at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, where a 16-year-old killed three little kids and one teacher, some parents of elementary schoolers there are asking what laws can be changed.
But "Oregon earns high marks from gun safety advocates for its firearms laws," notes The New York Times. "Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the nation's largest gun violence prevention organizations, ranks Oregon 12th in the country for the strength of its laws, citing recent legislation tightening storage requirements, banning untraceable 'ghost guns' and prohibiting devices that can convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns." Gifting laws are pretty lax, though, and that might be what happened here: The 16-year-old's mother seems to have been the one who purchased the Maverick 88 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, so it's possible she either gifted the gun to her son or that he stole it from her. "Decades ago, Oregon lawmakers made an exception to gun laws that allow parents to give rifles and shotguns to minors. In many areas of the state, as in other parts of the American West and South, it's a rite of passage for a young person to receive a weapon for hunting or target practice."
There's no law that can really prevent theft of weapons, especially when the thief is a teenager living inside the home where the gun is stored, and there's no law that can prevent parents from foolishly gifting guns to teenagers or young adults whom they've misjudged as capable of handling the responsibility. These are terribly unsatisfying realities.
Prosecutors could, of course, attempt to try the parent for the crimes of their teenager. They "could consider charges ranging from reckless endangerment to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison," continues the Times. "But that would require evidence of more than just a parent's awareness that a child was troubled. Prosecutors would have to establish that the mother disregarded—or, in the case of criminal negligence, failed to recognize—a substantial and unjustifiable risk."
Scenes from New York: "Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced on Monday that New York City will expand free child care for 2-year-olds to Staten Island and across the Bronx as the city moves to add 10,000 seats next school year," reports The New York Times. Here's why that won't work:
The post Will Ohio Voters Buy Republicans' Pitch? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login